Since our novels are all supposed to have tons of conflict in them (major, minor, and in between), our protagonists need to use their problem solving skills…usually.
In real life, I think our personalities have a lot to do with the way we approach our problems.
Some people panic, some people shut down, some avoid problems as much as possible, some people deny there is a problem, some attack problems head-on.
Some people have a methodical approach to solving problems, some have a wait-and-see approach.
My books are mysteries, so my protagonists do have some organized methods for investigating the murders…or else we wouldn’t be able to get anywhere in the book.
But I’m curious about other protagonists and their approaches to conflict. Because I don’t really think that in real life most people attack problems directly.
In books, though, don’t readers lose interest if the protagonist doesn’t confront their problems? Does the story drag if the character is just having things happen to them and not working through the issues?
If you do have a reticent protagonist, how do you keep the reader interested while they either avoid the problem or deny the problem? Or while they wait to see what happens?
Or do we all have protagonists who are natural leaders? I think many of us might…
Interesting question, Elizabeth. We definitely need engaging protagonists. I’m thinking about my current WIP and my protagonist has to step up to the plate if he is going to have any chance of surviving but he fights within himself, wanting someone to step in help him even though he knows that’s impossible given the circumstances.
As far as an alternative to the methodical hero, I think Stuart Kaminsky’s books about Toby Peters were a fun example. Toby was a down and out P.I. in 1049’s Hollywood.
He is the first to admit he’s not the brightest bulb in the bunch, so his method is to grab the best lead he’s got and he follows it doggedly until somebody tries to kill him. That’s a clue he’s on the right track.
He also has more thoughtful friends, who sometimes set him in the right direction when he can’t get a lead.
My narrator in the Mick and Casey series is actually very thoughtful for a gunslinger, and now and then needs his more direct wife to push things into action.
I think in the WIP, Karla (who is the ultimate solver of the crimes, a la Miss Marple) is intuitive. She spots things that feel wrong and goes after them – though she is thoughtful in working out why in the end. George is more methodical by training, but he’s more of a run-headfirst-into-it kind of guy inside. I think once they get a rhythm in the series, she’ll be pointing, and he’ll be chasing.
My MC is in the Air Force and NASA. I think he’d be called a type A? (Not sure.) Definitely a leader. But reluctant at times. More of a quiet, slip under the radar kind of leader. He’s the one everyone turns to when they face a challenge. But he doesn’t put himself forward for leadership.
Elizabeth – That’s a very interesting question! Thanks for bringing it up. I think some protags, like M.C. Beaton’s wonderful Hamish Macbeth, start off by trying to avoid problems altogether. Their strategy is trying to “duck” the sitaution. But that’s his personality, as you say. Other protags, like Mickey Spillane’s Mike Hammer, sometimes seem to go looking for problems. I think if the author draws the character well, then the character’s approach to problem-solving is a “fit” with her or his personality. I honestly think that’s one of the things that readers only notice if it’s “off.”
You give me so much to think about, Elizabeth. I don’t know enough about my story yet to answer this question, though.
Karen
I think by definition, the protagonist has to be a leader. They don’t have to make all the right choices, but they have to do something to move things forward. (Which might be why it’s so much fun to play with secondary characters, because they have fewer “rules.”)
And we’re inching back to blog synchronicity, I think. I’m talking about how all those behaviors unfold at my blog today. :-)
Most of the conflicts in my book are on an emotional level and the characters face them in a variety of ways. I think if you can show the emotional turmoil of not tackling a problem head on, readers with identify with the character. Anxiety, confusion, and denial are things we all feel at some point in our lives.
You’ve made some very astute observations about human behaviour, Elizabeth – not everyone attacks problems or conflicts the same way. I can’t imagine having a MC who didn’t attack head on – or maybe I’m just not skilled enough to write it!
Usually when protagonists avoid their conflict it builds up and ends in tragedy (Hamlet). It would be interesting to have a protagonist blissfully unaware of all the conflict building around him.
Protagonists have to take action and cause events to happen instead of reacting to events or sitting back and doing nothing. At least that’s my view. They might successfully avoid conflict for a while, but eventually they have to face it.
Great question (I tweeted your post). In my WIP, the protagonist avoids confrontation. Of course, she can’t do that forever and things will force her to face the conflict.
Helen
Straight From Hel
In my first book much of the conflict is internal with a protagonist who is afraid of change, so she clings to what she has although she’s not happy. Ultimately she’s forced to take drastic steps that completely change her life. I think some of her insecurities and reactions are easy for readers to relate to and that’s what keeps them reading.
If you do have a reticent protagonist, how do you keep the reader interested while they either avoid the problem or deny the problem?
Oh, that is a good question. My protagonist is quite reticent for a long time. I have considered changing her, and I will have to make some changes to her personality, but apart from that, I let things happen around her until she realizes that she MUST do something.
Characters who drive the plot in a proactive way are generally more interesting than those who are passive. My main character, Sophie Mae Reynolds, pushes at problems that other people don’t want to deal with.
Many characters (and people) are motivated by the desire to return to the status quo no matter what. Fighting change is so very human. We can do it by ignoring problems and hoping they go away, or by trying to solve them to make them go away. Just so long as they go away, and everything can get back to normal.
Hearth Cricket
I think the best way to deal with a protagonist who is in denial or is reticent is to make them active in their avoidance of the problem.
It isn’t a story if the character doesn’t want something bad enough to take action. If what they want is to avoid the problem, that can still work, they’ve just got to want that bad enough.
I think it can make for really INTERESTING reading when the main characters have different approaches. In particular, I like at least ONE to be actively avoiding problem solving–be in denial maybe, or at least afraid of what the solution/confrontation might bring up. Some people act impulsively, while others think it through… the former can lead to wrong decisions, the latter can lead to undue delay… I like it when the process is mismatched with what is needed as it adds a tension that isn’t necessarily anybody’s fault (or to mistrust between characters because the other is acting differently than they would)
Actually, do you think it’s *because* real people aren’t very good at getting up and attacking problems that directly that the only characters we want to read about are ones who do…?
This is such great food for thought. I really strive for consistence, so I hope that my protagonists attack their problems in a way befitting their personalities. I’ll have to think about it some more. I think I tend to make them deal with conflict in a way I wouldn’t – I’m more of an avoider than a confronter, and most of my MCs are confronters.
Interesting that you and Helen Ginger address a similar topic today. I am a problem avoider for the the most part, so I have to work at making my characters be more pro-active in resolving problems and conflicts.
> Does the story drag if the character is just having things happen to them and not working through the issues?
Yes. Most definitely, yes. I’m a book doctor, and I can’t tell you how often I see this sort of thing undermining my clients’ manuscripts. I see so many unpublished novels in which the protagonist is a passive lump. They are the idle observer of events, and the frequent victim of those events’ consequences, and yet they never (pardon my French) get off their ass to DO anything about it.
There’s little that’s so boring as a character who, more than simply not confronting his or her problems, never makes any choices or takes any actions with the intention of affecting the course of the book’s events.
They may succeed, they may fail, but for goodness sakes for me to care about the character at all, I have to at least see them _trying_ to affect what’s happening.
> If you do have a reticent protagonist, how do you keep the reader interested while they either avoid the problem or deny the problem? Or while they wait to see what happens?
Reticent can be fine. Reticent means “yeah, I can see that I’m going to have to do something about this, but it’s going to be unpleasant and I’m not looking forward to it.” That’s fine, because it offers the _promise_ that this character will, at some point, DO something.
However, in the meantime, you do need to keep things lively. Probably the best way to do it is to follow the old rule: when in doubt, make it worse. That is, punish the reticent character by relentlessly making his or her situation worse, until he or she finally takes action. That is, let there be meaningful consequences of inaction, and let the inactive protagonist suffer for them.
This works because the reader can see this steady decline. “Oh, how the mighty have fallen” and all that. We watch things getting worse and worse, like a slow-motion train wreck. And yet, if the character has been _properly reticent_ and has convinced us that he or she will eventually act, we cannot take our eyes away from the terrible goings-on because we’re nervously anticipating the pivotal and dramatic moment when that character finally does take action.
So don’t be afraid to write a properly reticent character. But please, as a favor to me, don’t write a protagonist who is simply inert.
My characters are awfully prone to avoidance. I don’t know why this is. *shifty eyes*
But yes, the confrontation has to come eventually. The trick, with an avoidant character, is to draw out the tension created by the avoidance until it’s garrotte-tight, then have the whole thing blow loose at the climax. That’s my plan, anyway.
Oh, and belated thanks for all the Twitter link-love this past week, good lady. You are, quite simply, wonderful.
Mine attack a problem, but rather than problem solving techniques it’s more dogged determination and anger. And the times the characters ignore the problem, well they usually attack it later out of anger anyway!
Stephanie–I like the idea of the reluctant leader (I think readers will too.)
Paul–I think your approach with the man against nature scenario will really help readers develop a bond with the protagonist. Because really, it would be so much NICER to be rescued than to have to do it all ourselves! (At least for me.) :)
The Daring Novelist–You’ve brought up a really good point about sidekicks. If the protagonist is reluctant or incapable, they can be paired with a helpful sidekick to minimize this issue for the reader. I like that!
Diane–And with YA, I can see that being a lot more natural since young people are dealing with a lot of powerful emotions for the first time.
Margot–I love that series! And you’re right…Hamish would rather be fishing instead of solving crimes. Although he solves them so well…
Charmaine–It would definitely be different, if well written, wouldn’t it? Blissfully unaware, but the reader knows? The writer would have to be careful not to let the reader get too frustrated, I’m thinking.
Helen–Especially if you keep throwing conflict at her! Thanks for the tweet. :)
Jane–Now that is cool, though–a character who undergoes a radical change in approach because she *has* to. And we’re along for “The Ride.” :)
Karen–It’s kind of fun to mull over…and will probably be something that comes out of the character naturally!
Terry–True–we can have our obnoxiously passive character as a secondary role!
Cricket–I think the proactive approach *definitely* works best in most mysteries. And you’re right…most of us are fans of the status quo. I don’t like my world rocked! I’m usually motivated to return things to normal as soon as possible.
Hart—You’re so right—that could really add tension between characters! On the one hand you’d have a character trying to fix the issue, on the other you’d have a character avoiding the whole thing. A good scenario for some conflict.
Elspeth–I think it would be tricky. Not the kind of thing I’d usually write. I read “Eat, Pray, Love” and felt like Gilbert was avoiding her problems at first. I enjoyed the book later on when I saw she was approaching her problems from a different angle.
Jason—Thanks for such a thoughtful answer! And you’re absolutely right—it’s all worthwhile if we’re rewarded by action from the character in the end. As a reader, I agree with you—I feel like I’m waiting for the character to jump in and save the day. If they never do anything about the problem, I’m going to be disappointed (I invested all this time and emotional energy in a character that’s completely *passive* and lets things happen TO them all the time?!)
Simon–I like a little avoidance, myself. :)
You’re very welcome about the tweeting. You have had some great posts!
Carol–I know they say that “indecision IS a decision,” but I really don’t feel like it works in books too well.
Alex–If we keep pushing them enough, they really *will* get angry!
Dorte–And I think I’d empathize with someone who is reticent…up to a point. And then, probably I’d want them to take *some* kind of action.
The Daring Novelist–Now that is VERY interesting! I hadn’t thought of it that way. So if the protagonist is working very hard–at *avoiding* the problem, they’re not passive…they’re just participating in the problem solving in a different way.
Enjoyed the whole post and questions posed, but this –
“If you do have a reticent protagonist, how do you keep the reader interested while they either avoid the problem or deny the problem? Or while they wait to see what happens?”
Very interesting. I’m trying to think of reading a book with a “reticent” protagonist. It would pose extra writing skills to keep it interesting, I think.
Hampshire Flyer–I think you make a very good point there! We’re attracted to characters who are different from ourselves.
Julie–I think it’s fun to write characters who are different from ourselves–like playing dress up!
Maryann–Helen and I are in synchronicity today! :)
I think a lot of us want to avoid problems, at least every once in a while. I know I do! And you’re right…I’m more conscious of it because that’s the way I can be.
Marvin—After thinking about it today, I thought it would be fun on the *writing* side…as a challenge. I wouldn’t do it as a mystery, but I’m thinking it would be cool–and difficult–to walk the fine line with another genre.
Marvin—After thinking about it today, I thought it would be fun on the *writing* side…as a challenge. I wouldn’t do it as a mystery, but I’m thinking it would be cool–and difficult–to walk the fine line with another genre.
Great question . . . I have a lot of problems plotting conflict because in real life, I really abhor difficult people or useless conflict. I don’t like a lot of romantic comedies–movies or books–because I am like, “Get on with it already–sleep with each other . . . that is the inevitable conclusion and this is all just bickering for the sake of false conflict.”
I tend to give my characters obstacles they tackle together, rather that a lot of other kinds of problems. I use problems to unite them in a common battle.
Erica–I like that! So the conflict draws characters together and they solve the problem as a team.
Thanks for coming by today. :)
In my coffee shop drama, the MC is spending lots of energy avoiding her problem. But, THAT’S the problem. It causes problems with her friends, her social life, her performance. This is a great question. The MC’s hair stylist, cuts right to the point, however. (couldn’t help myself)