I hate being pigeonholed as a woman, and I’m sure men hate it too. It’s amazing to me how utterly sexist this viewpoint is. Humans are humans. Passivity is not inherently female. That may have been a social construct enforced on women at various times, but it’s certainly not a given. I myself don’t fit into that construct but I don’t view myself as masculine just because I’m not a pushover, or I’m driven. I mean look at all the women throughout history! Look at the women around you! I’m all for trying something new. Writing a passive character and making the story interesting seems like a fun challenge. But making this some man/woman patriarch battle? I hate that take.
This was a great analysis. I can't imagine setting out to create a passive protagonist, but I'm sure I would be told that's because I'm a part of the problematic patriarchy and I ooze a desire for intentional growth and purpose. God forbid.
Every second someone chooses to read our stories, they are making a conscious choice not to do something else. If the very nature of reading requires a self-directed act, that should tell us everything we need to know about what people expect of the protagonist on the page.
The original article not only strikes me as ridiculous, but also inadvertently sexist. There's a strange notion that only strong female characters are the only female characters with agency, and that's simply untrue. A character's actions may be curtailed by their personality and circumstances, but even quiet or timid characters can have goals they work towards.
“I want to read about all the inmates who punched their way out of that pretty little prison. I’ll take a double order of patriarchy over whatever the hell they’re peddling.”--YES!!!
Nick Carraway, the narrator of THE GREAT GATSBY, is a passive protagonist. He contributes to the story and is a catalyst and enabler in getting Jay and Daisy together. Yet, no one cares about Nick. The Action Protagonist gets all the attention.
I think people who champion passive protagonists also embrace the status quo. Deep down, they hate change. Active protagonists bother these folks because those types of characters drive change - for better or for worse.
I think you could have stopped at "crock of shit" and it would still have been a great read and right on point. The only logical or at least legitimate reason for associating action with masculinity would be if the writer was implicitly referring to Yin and Yang. But I have to say that whenever I read articles or pronouncements by such people -- which I try to do as seldom as possible as I value keeping my blood pressure under control -- I have the impression that they're the least enlightened people on the planet, and in no way convincing as role models, whether intellectual or otherwise.
Great observations, as usual. Passive protagonist? Blech! The article you site makes me wonder if the author wrote a story at some point that no one wanted to read and had to come up with an excuse... oh, yes, “the patriarchy “! That’s it. 🙄 Lol.
Do you think that a character is passive if, although they very much WANT to actively go after their goal, they're largely UNABLE to be active?
(My MC in my WIP is trapped in an asylum and, although she desperately wants to get out, she spends a big chunk of the novel keeping her head down and NOT doing things that might upset the doctor in charge. I didn't think of her as a passive person — her character is very bold! — but I'm beginning to worry that she counts as a passive character. And the problem with that is that it's easy for a passive character to be a boring one 😭)
I hate being pigeonholed as a woman, and I’m sure men hate it too. It’s amazing to me how utterly sexist this viewpoint is. Humans are humans. Passivity is not inherently female. That may have been a social construct enforced on women at various times, but it’s certainly not a given. I myself don’t fit into that construct but I don’t view myself as masculine just because I’m not a pushover, or I’m driven. I mean look at all the women throughout history! Look at the women around you! I’m all for trying something new. Writing a passive character and making the story interesting seems like a fun challenge. But making this some man/woman patriarch battle? I hate that take.
This was a great analysis. I can't imagine setting out to create a passive protagonist, but I'm sure I would be told that's because I'm a part of the problematic patriarchy and I ooze a desire for intentional growth and purpose. God forbid.
Every second someone chooses to read our stories, they are making a conscious choice not to do something else. If the very nature of reading requires a self-directed act, that should tell us everything we need to know about what people expect of the protagonist on the page.
Oops, hit send too soon.
The original article not only strikes me as ridiculous, but also inadvertently sexist. There's a strange notion that only strong female characters are the only female characters with agency, and that's simply untrue. A character's actions may be curtailed by their personality and circumstances, but even quiet or timid characters can have goals they work towards.
Pitch perfect as ever, Jacquie. I mean, agon - it’s sewn into the very word!!
“I want to read about all the inmates who punched their way out of that pretty little prison. I’ll take a double order of patriarchy over whatever the hell they’re peddling.”--YES!!!
I've learned so much from this post - it's one I'll be returning to again and again! Thank you for another tremendously thought-provoking read. 😊
Nick Carraway, the narrator of THE GREAT GATSBY, is a passive protagonist. He contributes to the story and is a catalyst and enabler in getting Jay and Daisy together. Yet, no one cares about Nick. The Action Protagonist gets all the attention.
Excellent analysis.
I think people who champion passive protagonists also embrace the status quo. Deep down, they hate change. Active protagonists bother these folks because those types of characters drive change - for better or for worse.
I think you could have stopped at "crock of shit" and it would still have been a great read and right on point. The only logical or at least legitimate reason for associating action with masculinity would be if the writer was implicitly referring to Yin and Yang. But I have to say that whenever I read articles or pronouncements by such people -- which I try to do as seldom as possible as I value keeping my blood pressure under control -- I have the impression that they're the least enlightened people on the planet, and in no way convincing as role models, whether intellectual or otherwise.
Great observations, as usual. Passive protagonist? Blech! The article you site makes me wonder if the author wrote a story at some point that no one wanted to read and had to come up with an excuse... oh, yes, “the patriarchy “! That’s it. 🙄 Lol.
Do you think that a character is passive if, although they very much WANT to actively go after their goal, they're largely UNABLE to be active?
(My MC in my WIP is trapped in an asylum and, although she desperately wants to get out, she spends a big chunk of the novel keeping her head down and NOT doing things that might upset the doctor in charge. I didn't think of her as a passive person — her character is very bold! — but I'm beginning to worry that she counts as a passive character. And the problem with that is that it's easy for a passive character to be a boring one 😭)