# Passive Hero/Characters



## Nonono (Jul 26, 2012)

I am thinking the Nick Carraway's of literature(Great Gatsby). The characters who stand back and watch the events pass around them, and are usually minor parts in the plot, but major characters in the narrative/story. Usually they are the active storyteller, but not the active hero. 

Do you enjoy them? Or do you want your main character more active and involved in the action?

I think passive characters work best when the authors voice is enough to drive the story, PLUS, having a compelling hero/friend character who's relationship with the narrator is central to the story. 

Other examples, 

Ryu from Almost Transparent Blue by Ryu Murakami
Jake from The Sun Also Rises by Hemingway

What are your thoughts?


----------



## charlesatan (May 8, 2012)

Really depends on how they're written.

They can be reactive but if exciting things are happening all around them and they're extremely observant for example, that's fine.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

Fred in _Breakfast at Tiffany's_ largely sits back and lets things happen around him.

Billy Bathgate -- from the novel of the same name -- doesn't do very much really but observe. What else can he do? He's just a kid who finds himself surrounded by gangsters like Dutch Schultz.

But the best passive observers of all have to be 'Chris' and 'William Bradshaw' from Isherwood's Berlin novels, _Goodbye to Berlin_ and _Mr. Norris Changes Trains_. Okay, they're largely autobiographical, but Isherwood reworks real life into fascinating stories. "I Am a Camera" indeed.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

I think there are a lot of "it depends" for me. Almost anything can work well in just the right situation when executed well by the author. As a very broad generalization, I probably prefer a hero who tries to make things happen rather than constantly reacting, but it does not have to be an all-or-nothing proposition. (Many times the hero is reactive initially, but finally wins out by taking the bull by the horns and solving the problem at hand.)

A passive narrator is a different matter to me, and can often work well. For instance, if the narrator is the sort of person who would be introspective, well-spoken, and so forth, it can give a rationale for the author to use clever metaphors, thought-provoking inner monologues, and so forth. But again, it's all in the execution and selecting the right technique for the right story.


----------



## jacobchastain (Jul 26, 2012)

It is definitely an interesting take on story. You can cause a lot of tension and wonder to have the story told or "seen" through a passive character's eyes. Obviously, Gatsby is a great example of this. 

But with that said, my favorite books have extremely interesting, strong characters telling the story. For instance, I love Ayn Rand's books because of this. Archetypes have been around for thousands of years for a reason, they connect with us.


----------



## Robert A Michael (Apr 30, 2012)

Gore Vidal used this in BURR.  The narrator was Aaron Burr's scribe.  Very passive.  Burr was the central figure, but seen through the eyes of a sycophant.

I also remember Kenneth Roberts using this technique for historical figures:  Benedict Arnold and Major Robert Rogers (ARUNDEL/RABBLE IN ARMS & NORTHWEST PASSAGE, respectively). 

The idea of a passive narrator or hero is for that person to serve as the reader's eyes, ears, nose, and sometimes, conscience.  It is a literary device that can cause some readers to rebel or to feel bored.  Often, we need to have our hero DOING something, BEING something, and in the middle of the ACTION. It has its place, but I think most readers prefer an active hero.


----------



## Steverino (Jan 5, 2011)

A passive narrator can bear witness to an active hero in the third person.  Such a narrator is called a "Watson."


----------



## raychensmith (Jul 11, 2012)

The protagonist of Stephen King's Under the Dome was pretty passive (the soldier character).  He gets himself arrested and spends half the story in jail!  I hated him, and this was one of the reasons the novel sort of sucked.


----------



## SuzieHunt (Sep 12, 2011)

The whole 'passive witness to crazy events' thing works well in my opinion. I suppose it's better in first person books, or more 'literary' works.

For straight third person genre novels, I'd prefer an active hero.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

I think you're confusing the narrator with the hero. Just because someone is the narrator doesn't make them either the hero or the main character.


----------



## Twofishes (May 30, 2012)

SuzieHunt said:


> The whole 'passive witness to crazy events' thing works well in my opinion. I suppose it's better in first person books, or more 'literary' works.


Maybe I missing the OP's point all together. 
I have always thought that an apathetic hero is like a literary tool to kind of go with our times. Art reflecting reality, if you will. In the sense of like American society just wanting problems to fix themselves. Or rather and more to the point of the other comments in this thread, we want to be at the center of things (we as in everyone) but we want to delegate responsibility.


jacobchastain said:


> Archetypes have been around for thousands of years for a reason, they connect with us.


 I think this comment then expresses a distinction between the modern and post-modern literary movements.


----------



## Alpha72 (May 9, 2012)

I definitely enjoy this format. The Great Gatsby is probably one of my favorite novels.


----------



## AnthonyMeindl (Jul 25, 2012)

Hemingway can do no wrong. Passive character, active character, in-between character - they were all more or less him anyway.

Good topic though!!!!!!


----------



## spencekennedy (Jul 30, 2012)

I really love the narrator in all those Damon Runyon stories - although it's obvious he's not as passive as he'd like you to think, innocently tucking in to his plate of gefilte fish at Mindy's whilst a host of unsavoury characters come through the door and bother him for advice &c. He's a fantastic go-between -  a shifty but lovable MC through the Broadway underworld. 

By contrast, Meursault in The Outsider is seen by all the other characters as a provocatively passive character - but his cool remove is more of a tough-minded, philosophical position. And of course he does use the gun on the beach!


----------



## Ben Nitschke (Jun 1, 2012)

Passive heros make me feel a cheated. I realize, as some point out, that there are cases where it works. Often this is when the story is more of a drama than action or adventure. However, if we are talking about an epic tale where someone has to take charge and get things done, the passive hero just feels like a cop out. It all comes across as too much deus ex machina if you ask me.


----------



## Carradee (Aug 21, 2010)

For me, it depends on the story and how it's handled-but that's true of everything, for me. I can buy a hero who wins by being passive _if_ he's built that way as a character _and if_ the situation is such where that passivity is what's needed to let him win.

Example: Let's say a hero is an arachnophobic, the type where he freezes up if he sees a spider. In the climax, maybe he has to stand stock still while distracting the villain, while someone else releases a particular spell that'll down the villain. So his friend (the spellcaster) _hides a spider in something_ that the hero won't see until he's chatting with the villain, like in the pouch where the hero's put his "urgent missive" for the villain.

But the arachnophobia would have to be something that was tied into the story elsewhere, too-and, since he'd actually be phobic, it couldn't be brought up when the characters are making the plan. It would have to be something he'd discover in the moment-and the spellcaster would have to be built as a character who would actually _do_ that to someone. (Maybe she's even done it to him before, so he's very careful when pulling out the missive, which is why he sees the spider in that pouch.)

Now I want to write that story&#8230;

And then there are all sorts of things I "dislike" as a reader, but I could also name authors who got me to read those things, anyway, due to how they handled it or due to other factors.

For example, there are two urban fantasy series I read specifically due to a side character in each series, when usually I wouldn't even finish reading one book. In one of them, I find the narrator annoying to the point that I'm not sure what the love interest(s) love about her. In the other, I get why the love interest(s) are interested, but I find the narrator such an illogical idiot (to the point that even her background doesn't explain it for me). Usually, either one of those problems would make me stop mid-book and avoid the author in the future.

So even a passive MC I dislike could get me to keep reading a story, if the author did something _else_ I liked more than enough to make up for what I disliked.


----------



## Iwritelotsofbooks (Nov 17, 2010)

The only time I think outwardly passive characters can work is when their inner monologue is wildly churning and highly entertaining.  That is not however the norm though.


----------



## Aaron Scott (May 27, 2012)

I wonder where Jack Burden of _All The King's Men_ would fit in. Because so many sources mention Willie Stark as the hero, the main character, etc. - the blurb on the back of my copy doesn't even mention Jack! And yet he has to be one of the most vivid narrators ever, with a colloquial/flowery narrative style all his own. And the idea of his character is that by being passive he allows some unfortunate events to transpire; the book also traces his own history and why it is that he has become so indifferent to the events around him. He has stopped caring - or believes he has. In this way, the novel comments on the passive narrator convention itself.

Another character this makes me think of is Charlie Fox in Paul Theroux's _The Mosquito Coast._ The son of the vividly drawn Allie Fox (Allie played in the underrated film version by Harrison Ford, Charlie played very well and subtly by the late River Phoenix). Charlie, because of his complex relationship with his domineering father, and simply because of being a dependent minor, is forced to go along with Allie's outrageous schemes. At least he is for most of the book, when Charlie is the classic passive narrator; but towards the end, as he observes Allie's growing insanity, his own identity begins to assert itself.

Then there's Ishmael, in _Moby Dick_, who has his own set of adventures, but of course the book is really about Ahab. Though Ish seems to be able to become invisible and omniscient on occasion...


----------



## Guest (Aug 7, 2012)

lacymarankevinmichael said:


> The only time I think outwardly passive characters can work is when their inner monologue is wildly churning and highly entertaining. That is not however the norm though.


I agree with this, but I also think it depends on genre. One of the most memorable horror stories I read was written from the point of view of a character lying paralysed in hospital after a car accident. Passive heroes in third person stories seem to be rarer, perhaps because that internal view is missing or less immediate.


----------



## Roz Morris (Apr 12, 2012)

In Wuthering Heights, Lockwood and Nelly Dean serve as filters for the elementally forceful Heathcliff and Cathy. They're able to add a layer of emotional reaction by being our camera - fascinated, appalled, repelled, scandalised, outraged. And perhaps also addicted. An interesting device.


----------



## lvhiggins (Aug 1, 2012)

Roz Morris said:


> In Wuthering Heights, Lockwood and Nelly Dean serve as filters for the elementally forceful Heathcliff and Cathy. They're able to add a layer of emotional reaction by being our camera - fascinated, appalled, repelled, scandalised, outraged. And perhaps also addicted. An interesting device.


Roz, EXACTLY. I've always thought that Lockwood and Nelly Dean serve as narrators for the same reason Watson serves as a narrator for Sherlock Holmes: If you've got characters whose depths of feeling are considered beyond the realm of normal human experience -- or in the case of Sherlock Holmes, a character who is such an absolute genius that a normal human can't follow his thought processes without extensive explanation --then for dramatic purposes it'd be tough to tell the story directly from their POV. The narrator serves as a stand-in for the reader, who will marvel along with him/her.

But does that mean that s/he's a passive character . . ..? Hmmmmm. I think we're talking about two different ideas.


----------



## Carradee (Aug 21, 2010)

Roz Morris said:


> In Wuthering Heights, Lockwood and Nelly Dean serve as filters for the elementally forceful Heathcliff and Cathy. They're able to add a layer of emotional reaction by being our camera - fascinated, appalled, repelled, scandalised, outraged. And perhaps also addicted. An interesting device.


_Wuthering Heights_ was a framed narrative, though. That framing contributed to the balancing of the two stories told therein, but I don't think that necessarily means Nelly and Lockwood were passive characters.


----------



## psychotick (Jan 26, 2012)

Hi,

I think we've got a couple of different heroes / MC's here. One is the actual MC who sort of does something, but is largely passive. Alex from Heinlein's Job: A comedy of errors, would seem to fit the bill quite well. And for me at least the true delight of the book is the madness all around him.

The other is the more passive still observer MC. So this would be Ishmael from Moby Dick, Edward from the Island of Doctor Moreau, Ned from 20,000 Leagues Under The sea, and Mike from The Kraken Wakes. Here all they really seem to do is survive and observe. They act as the lens through which the reader observes the story and the main characters, framing the perspective.

And yes I like them, but in truth they aren't really the reason you read the story. They aren't the story. And for the most part they're actually quite bland. Purposefully so I suspect. If they had strong personalities they'd take away from the story. But painted bland, they simply give the story its human element. The moral and emotional base from which you can judge the others.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Roz Morris (Apr 12, 2012)

lvhiggins said:


> Roz, EXACTLY. I've always thought that Lockwood and Nelly Dean serve as narrators for the same reason Watson serves as a narrator for Sherlock Holmes: If you've got characters whose depths of feeling are considered beyond the realm of normal human experience -- or in the case of Sherlock Holmes, a character who is such an absolute genius that a normal human can't follow his thought processes without extensive explanation --then for dramatic purposes it'd be tough to tell the story directly from their POV. The narrator serves as a stand-in for the reader, who will marvel along with him/her.
> 
> But does that mean that s/he's a passive character . . ..? Hmmmmm. I think we're talking about two different ideas.


iv, you might well be right. Perhaps this is an extension of the passive character idea, rather than an actual passive narrator. I always look for a different angle in a storytelling question to see if there's a question that hasn't been considered! And Watson is a great example. Like (we're straying into TV now) Doctor Who, who needs a human interpreter so that we more ordinary mortals can keep pace.

It's certainly a world of difference from a passive narrator such as Bella in Twilight, who seems to wait for plot to be heaped upon her, and is obligingly put through various kinds of mill so that there is a story.


----------



## Roz Morris (Apr 12, 2012)

Carradee said:


> _Wuthering Heights_ was a framed narrative, though. That framing contributed to the balancing of the two stories told therein, but I don't think that necessarily means Nelly and Lockwood were passive characters.


Agreed, it's not the same as a passive character. Perhaps a different discussion!


----------

