I read recently that characters should change a world. Sure, I’ve read tons of time that, yes, characters should be proactive. They should take action. They should make decisions and do things. But for some reason the description of them changing the world really left an impact with me. As if they are solely responsible for making a difference in the world. Because of them, the world is a different place.
(See, I’m just saying it over and over is various ways to continue with the impact).
All this said, not all main characters are active. Some let things happen to them. Some only react. And yet these novels are fine and even good. And do get published.
If we look at the world at the beginning and look at the world at the end, can we say the characters must be responsible for the changes that occur there? Sometimes external conflict comes in and the characters react. Does this still equate to them changing the world? Or should we view it as how would the world be different at the end if the characters did not step in and take action at all.
So here is my question:
Must characters take action or is reaction alone fine?
And while you’re at it, any book examples you’d like to give, I’d love to hear.
PJ Hoover wants to change the world…all for the better, of course.
Parker Peevyhouse
P. J. Hoover
Jo Whittemore
lindajoysingleton
Joni Sensel
kaholt
10 Comments
October 8, 2009 at 10:46 am
Hmm. I’d like a vote for some realism. Change THEIR world? Sure. THE world? In some stories, yes. But there are plenty of valid stories and great books in which “the” world does not really change — and in fact, for any book with a darker theme, that might be the point. Does the MC in District 9 change the world by the end of the film? Hardly.
There can be a fine line between the definitions of action and reaction. I think it’s possible, but very difficult, to have a good book where the MC only reacts, but plot and empathy are both a LOT easier when the character is proactive. Example: One could argue that Kat mostly reacts in The Hunger Games. But what really keeps the reader gripped is when she acts more independently — when she takes Prim’s place, shoots the arrow at the pig, raises the berries to eat them, etc. Because action is more likely to spin the story in a new direction than mere reaction is, I think.
October 8, 2009 at 8:26 pm
It really makes me think about what “world” encompasses, Joni. Does the physical world need to change? No. Do people’s thoughts within the world? Katniss certainly did that.
)
(and now I see whereas Harry Potter used to be the standard “example” used, it will now be Hunger Games
I also like your new direction thing. It provides a nice visual.
October 8, 2009 at 10:54 am
My gut is to say that characters need to take action. They need to make something happen – to propel the story. However, I think that as long as there’s character evolution it doesn’t always matter whether there’s only action or reaction. (Does that make sense? It makes sense in my head!)
That said, a lot of character growth comes from reacting to what friends are saying and doing, what parents and teachers are saying and doing, what’s happening in the environment, etc. But I think there comes a time when your character realizes, “Hey! I need to do something to change/fix/alter what’s happening here!” and that’s when the action comes in.
My son and I are reading the first book in the H.I.V.E. series by Mark Walden, and as the story kicks into gear, the main character spends a lot of time in reaction mode. He’s sizing up his surroundings while he figures out what plan he needs to hatch. Yet, by *consciously* being reactive, does this mean he’s actually being active?
Have I muddled things more?
You’re welcome.
October 8, 2009 at 8:27 pm
I realize I’m going to have to start analyzing action vs. reaction in what I read from now on.
And yes, I feel muddled, but I don’t think it was your doing
October 8, 2009 at 4:30 pm
I think it depends on the world and on the type of story being written. I would say in fantasy it is largely true that the mc needs to be proactive. There is usually an imbalance in the world (i.e. in Harry Potter, Voldemort is threatening to take over with dark magic, Ender’s game the buggers are threatening to take over the planets, etc.) and so the MC is the one who will change all that, who will put everything back into balance. They have to DO stuff to get that done.
But what if the world is such that it does not need to be changed? What if it’s the character that needs to change? In character driven stories, the world probably won’t change, instead the world will change the character and so in these cases I think it is okay that the mc is not proactive. We may not see them take much action but we will see their thoughts and worldview change. I’m thinking of “Olive’s Ocean” by Kevin Henkes. Martha Boyle really doesn’t do that much. Instead a whole lot happens to her. But throughout we get a beautiful sense of her growth and change in worldview. It’s one of my favorite books.
October 8, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Ah, love the singling out fantasy thing. Yes, so much of the time in these novels, the battle of good and evil is so easy to pinpoint and see. And if evil dies, and the character is responsible, then they have changed the world.
And you are right on about what if the world doesn’t need changed. This would be much more in reality fiction I think. Great points!
October 8, 2009 at 8:59 pm
On changing the world: that’s how it goes pretty often in sf/f, but a world can also be a microcosm–a school, a family, a set of friends.
On the reactive vs. proactive topic: as long as your character changes from reactive to proactive by Act 3, then I think you’ve done your job.
October 10, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Very true, Parker. World can mean many things of many scopes. And I think you are saying what Shannon is saying below also.
October 10, 2009 at 8:18 pm
I prefer a character to take action, eventually, because the moment a character who’s been a reactor chooses to act is a powerful point in any story. In most cases, I think their decision will change their future and so change their world.
Writing-wise, I’m writing a character now who in early drafts was mostly reactive. I found the key to making him active was to strengthen his goal and the stakes behind it.
Interesting question!
October 10, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Shannon, I love how you point out that the point of change to active from reactive is such a powerful point in the story. I will keep this in mind for my current WIP! Thanks!