Ireth
Myth Weaver
On "Proactive" versus "Reactive" Protagonists
I've gotten a fair bit of flak around the interwebs concerning the heroine of my novel Winter's Queen. People say I should make her more proactive, that she is too reactive to the actions of the villain. All because she does not seek adventure (i.e. the plot) out for herself, and is instead drawn into it by the villain.
To which I say, what's wrong with that? Isn't every action a reaction to something else, all the way back to the first Action that began everything (i.e. Creation, whether by divine will or the Big Bang, etc.)?
The inciting incident of my story, in which the villain kidnaps the heroine with the intent of marrying her, is not a proactive decision on the part of the villain, but a reaction to three thousand years of abuse and neglect culminating in a revenge plot against his father. And everything the heroine does throughout the story is a reaction to what the villain does, which creates further reactions from him, and so on. Can characters ever be completely proactive?
Take LOTR for example. Yes, Frodo does decide to take on the burden of the Ring in hopes of destroying it, but only after spending the first half of the book being hunted by Ringwraiths and trying to get to a safe place (Rivendell). This is all in reaction to Sauron starting to regain his power and seeking out the Ring, and Bilbo leaving the Ring with Frodo in the first place. And a good chunk of THAT is a reaction to a certain chapter in The Hobbit. And so on, and so forth, all the way back to the Music of the Ainur that created the World.
Harry Potter is another example of this. Harry doesn't one day suddenly decide to be a wizard all on his own; he's introduced to the idea that he is one by Hagrid, who also tells him where to go to get to Hogwarts. I've heard that the creation of Dumbledore's Army in book 5 is a "proactive" moment on Harry's part, but honestly it just strikes me as another reaction to Umbridge -- albeit one that moves in a different direction and with more magnitude than others before.
I'm not sure if I'm overthinking or underthinking this. Are so-called "reactive" protagonists really that bad?
I've gotten a fair bit of flak around the interwebs concerning the heroine of my novel Winter's Queen. People say I should make her more proactive, that she is too reactive to the actions of the villain. All because she does not seek adventure (i.e. the plot) out for herself, and is instead drawn into it by the villain.
To which I say, what's wrong with that? Isn't every action a reaction to something else, all the way back to the first Action that began everything (i.e. Creation, whether by divine will or the Big Bang, etc.)?
The inciting incident of my story, in which the villain kidnaps the heroine with the intent of marrying her, is not a proactive decision on the part of the villain, but a reaction to three thousand years of abuse and neglect culminating in a revenge plot against his father. And everything the heroine does throughout the story is a reaction to what the villain does, which creates further reactions from him, and so on. Can characters ever be completely proactive?
Take LOTR for example. Yes, Frodo does decide to take on the burden of the Ring in hopes of destroying it, but only after spending the first half of the book being hunted by Ringwraiths and trying to get to a safe place (Rivendell). This is all in reaction to Sauron starting to regain his power and seeking out the Ring, and Bilbo leaving the Ring with Frodo in the first place. And a good chunk of THAT is a reaction to a certain chapter in The Hobbit. And so on, and so forth, all the way back to the Music of the Ainur that created the World.
Harry Potter is another example of this. Harry doesn't one day suddenly decide to be a wizard all on his own; he's introduced to the idea that he is one by Hagrid, who also tells him where to go to get to Hogwarts. I've heard that the creation of Dumbledore's Army in book 5 is a "proactive" moment on Harry's part, but honestly it just strikes me as another reaction to Umbridge -- albeit one that moves in a different direction and with more magnitude than others before.
I'm not sure if I'm overthinking or underthinking this. Are so-called "reactive" protagonists really that bad?
Last edited: