The Problem with Passive Main Characters

"Writing is the painting of the voice!" -Voltaire

Since this forthcoming weekend is going to be jam-packed, I am posting today. Enjoy!

Recently, I read two YA novels:  The Bunker Diary by Kevin Brooks and Ship Breaker by Paulo Bacigalupi. While I recommend both of these novels, one is, in my opinion better, because of one simple fact:  their main characters.

As the title states, I will be discussing the problem with passive main characters.  Never heard this term before?  Well, I think it's a real problem in a portion of today's literature. An active main character, well we probably can all think of examples, since they are so common. But an active main character is one who takes action when something happens. They don't just react, they act.  They are the main driver of the plot and the story, because they are the main character. For example, my characters have to react to the circumstances around them, but most of the time, this also causes them to act. To do something.  And we all want to see our main character do something, whether they are male or female, young or old,  a dog or an alien, we all want to see them be brave and take action and be involved. Why else would we read it if we didn't like the main character, and didn't want them to succeed. Linus from The Bunker Diary is a good example of this. Him and six other people have been kidnapped and are now trapped in this completely white bunker.  They are then being manipulated with their freedom and basic needs by an unnamed man called Him.  And, of course, they spend the story trying to survive and get out of this bunker. Linus willingly forms relationships with these people, reaches out to help them despite themselves. He always takes action.  Especially when he first arrives, he is the only captive, but is always active in the way that he handles himself.  Instead of spending his time sulking and letting things happen, he seeks out answers, sometimes ending up with unfortunate results.  But even though he fails over and over again, it is still entertaining and inspiring to the readers. While he had his emotional moments, those didn't distract from moving the plot along with the secondary characters, and him working with everyone else to get them out.  Even though they were stuck in a plain bunker with nothing to do, Linus is always thoughtful and active, a basic need of every good character.

On the other hand, a passive main character is one who, essentially, does nothing. This doesn't mean this character is a doormat, or reluctant or unenthusiastic.  These are character traits.  Passive, however, refers to a characters actions.  Or, lack thereof. Passive characters normally react, instead of act.  An example of this would be when Terra first sees her deceased father.  What she does in this instance would be a reaction. However, when Wyatt extends his hand to her, she decides to take it. Even though both of these are small actions, they both show that it is just as important for a character to act as it is for them to react.  However, you cannot have one without the other.

Also, passive characters as main characters in stories take backseats, almost as if they are watching the plot unfold, and they are just bystanders. A good example of a passive character that I have read of late is Nailer from Ship Breaker.

First, I liked the book Ship Breaker - there are some things it does very well.  The writing is exquisite and stylish,  the setting is descriptive, enthralling, and immersive, however, Nailer, the main character, leans to be very passive. Despite his mostly timid, reluctant, and quiet personality, he is still very passive in the things that he does in and for the story.  This is shown in many scenes, where his friend Pima makes most of the decisions, and he is only there to help.  His primary involvement is just because his father hates him, and abuses him. The problem is, is that Nailer doesn't seem to have much of a mind of his own. He's very smart and calculated, and is an expert at playing the game of life, except he never takes action based on this.  We never see him personally succeed or fail, because he is not the driver of the story.  He mostly reacts and is forced by the plot to do things.  Like I said, there needs to be a balance of a character acting and reacting, and in this novel, there isn't a whole lot of that, unfortunately.  And since timidity and reluctance are negative personality traits, one of the points of the story is to get him to overcome these parts of him, which he never does.

And now to what I'm really getting at:  The Problem With Passive Main Characters.  The problem with passive main characters is that their inaction shows us that they don't care. That they are utterly apathetic, and that they'd rather be gouging their eyes out with spoons instead of being there.  And, at times, this is understandable, but there needs to come a point where this passive main character realizes their situation, and decides to take action because there is no other option but for them to do so. The main problem is that these passive characters don't care.  They don't care much about anything or anyone or even themselves.  And this is all we want to see them do, is to care about something. We want to see them give a shit, because when someone does, they do something about it once said thing is in peril, ultimately setting a good, hearty plot in motion.

Over all, The Bunker Diary was a great novel with an odd ending (I won't spoil it for you.  You need to go read it yourself because it's amazing), and Ship Breaker was a good book with some annoying imperfections.

Happy reading,

~The WordShaker

Why I Don't Like Tony Stark

"Characters do not change.  Opinions alter, but characters are only developed," -Benjamin Disraeli

Tony Stark, brilliant mastermind.  Playboy turned superhero. While the character was created for the specific purpose of making an unlikable person a likable character, I do not find him very likable past tolerance and the occasional chuckle at his wit. And there's one key reason why. 

Tony's only redeeming qualities are his wit, his ability to make someone laugh.  His sense of humor is enjoyable, 'only-funny-because-it's-true' kind of thing, while being self-deprecating. His quick, deadpan responses make him an enthralling watch, my own mind racing to catch up to the challenge. But the reason that he's not a deep, beautiful, and complex character is because he shows no vulnerability. 

We attach to the characters we do because of a deep human need to be understood, to empathize and overcome. Steve Rogers is a relatable character because we see the greatness in him, and realize that we have the potential to be just as great.  And despite all of the amazing things Steve can do, he is irrevocably and humbly human. His reaction to Bucky's 'death' is much like anyone else's grief of a death.  And the horror and shock of Bucky's return is felt on a deep level, resounding with every once of betrayal we've felt. Natasha Romanoff is strong and resillient, yet is ultimately taking a path well tread of redemption.  Because that is all we aspire to be.  Natasha is relatable because her journey of hard-earned redemption, turning from bad to good, is one we all can relate to on some level. 

But again, almost nothing about Stark is relatable.  He's a billionare, which 99 percent of the population can only dream of that kind of money. He's a genius, which on some level is an appointed title, but, really, how many geniuses do you know?  Sure, an awful part of us wishes we had all that money and alcohol and girls, but is that gluttony and lust something to aspire to?  Characters are supposed to relate to us and lift us up at the same time.  Tony Stark does none of this. 

Tony Stark seems the least human out of all of the Avengers.  Even Thor, a god, whose human side was displayed beautifully in his first movie, has tapped into his human potential more than the actual homosapien Stark has. The reason Stark has nothing of value to offer as a character is because we never become personal with him.  We never sympathize with him because he just seems to perfect and sassy all of the time.  We never cheer for him because the stakes never seem high enough. We never can develop a personal character to receiver relationship (yes, that's a thing) because he is never emotionally or physically vulnerable, making him not a strong or likable in terms of any definition of the word 'character'. 

#SorryNotSorry

~The WordShaker

More

"The scariest moment is always just before you start," -Stephen King

I was meant for more.  I was meant for more than just a 9 to 5 office job.  I was meant for more than to be bound by the alarm clock and my evening drink. I was made for more.  I was built and crafted by the hands of God for more than just this measly, bottom line life where I work just to live nicely and save up for retirement. 

I was meant to live dangerously.  Extremely.  Exuberantly.  Joyfully and thoughtfully and richly. Knowing my purpose and future has given me so much to live for.  Knowing that I have a husband and children and career and ministry of my dreams waiting for me is the voltage that keeps me surviving on the hardest, coldest days. Knowing God's plan for your life is so crucial, because once you know that, everything else will fall into place.  

I was meant for more.  I was destined for greatness only God can bestow upon his children.  And when I get distracted by the fuss of live and discouraged by everything everyone else is doing, I have to keep in mind that this is my story, this is my life and no one else's except for God's. 

We all were meant for more. We are all meant for God's greatness and beauty and love, but we must tap into these riches by following the path he has laid in front of us.  It might not always be pretty or nice or easy on the feet or eyes. 

But hope.  Hope for the future, that things will always end up right because God is leading us stray sheep along. 

I was meant for so much more than this.  And so were you. 

Much love,

~The WordShaker

4 Reasons Why Storytelling is Superior to Poetry

"The telling of stories creates the real world," -Alberto Manguel 

Remember, that this is all my opinion.  But also remember, if you disagree: 

;)

Stories are essential to human life and survival.  Sure, people might think that it's natural selection, survival of the fittest stuff that keeps us around, but really, it's stories that enrich our lives and allow us to keep moving on as a species. 

Aside from the melodrama, stories still are a crucial part of our history and culture - less specifically, writing is - but stories, they are far superior to poetry.  So, if you don't get anything else out of this post, remember this:  

stories > poetry

And here are four reasons why. 

1. Storytelling is more elusive and drawn out
Something powerful about stories that poetry doesn't have is that we are able to push across subtle themes by utilizing the vehicle we all know - through people, through emotions, through events. Poetry, however, most times has to be stated or hinted at, which isn't always as effective.  Sure, we've read a lot of poems - ones we like or love, surely, but what do we ask most people when getting to know them?  (Hint: the answer is "What's your favorite book?")  Because the ultimate power in stories is limitless.  Stories stay with us forever.  They are imprinted into our minds and hearts with the gritty characters and perfect delivery. Stories teach us, they guide us.  

2. It takes more loyalty and perseverance to write a novel
I hate to break it to you, but it doesn't take you years to write poems. I'm not saying that writing poetry is easy, but people have no idea how much time and grueling effort that goes into creating something from nothing. 

I've heard many writers - who mostly write poetry, that they've had a few story ideas, and they've even gone as far as to start writing.  Many of them express shame that they have never been able to stick with a novel because it's such a grueling project.  This shows that it takes much more dedication to write a 100,000 word novel with characters and settings and themes and everything that goes along with it.  Writing a poem and writing a novel are like writing a sentence compared to a ten page paper. Yes, I am aware that some people just aren't storytellers - and some people are natural poets, but the amount of dedication required to start and finish a story is mountainous.  Unbreakably strong ties are made between an author and their characters and even the story itself - incomparable to the cathartic ramblings of poetry. Writing a story is like childbirth, and nothing is comparable to the function that gives life to all. 

3. Stories are what defines us as a race and society

Civilizations are not remembered by the average worker bee.  They are not remembered by the man who went to school, followed the rules, got married, got a job, saved up for retirement, and died content. Civilizations are known for their art - for the stories they told.  The stories of the Bible tell us of everything from the Babylonian empire  to the reign of the Romans. Homer's Iliad and Odyssey defined Ancient Greece for us. Shakespeare is the head of the Renaissance of writers.  When all else slips away, the stories of the people remain. The written word is eternal and powerful. 

Moving on, poetry only occasionally makes it into the collection of stories, and even then, it is usually a story in poem form. Stories, everything from folklore to scripts to The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, are intensely studied and make for the building blocks for cultures and society. 

4. Storytelling is a part of human nature
If you were a human child, which, I assume you were since you're reading this, you probably played with some kind of toys.  I don't mean to be stereotypical, but if you were a girl, you probably had baby dolls or Barbies or dress-up or played house. If you were a boy, you probably had Nerf guns and action figures and race cars. Even video games are immersing oneself, creating a character for yourself and going through a mission. But what do all of these things have in common?  Why are they related to storytelling?  Because all of these mundane, childhood activities have to do with one thing: playing pretend. Pretending that you are a professional chef, pretending that you were the only fairy that could save the fairy land, pretending you were fighting evil aliens off with your best friends.  The pretending opportunities are endless. And by pretending, you are creating characters and worlds and a story from which there is none. Without realizing it, every child is a storyteller at heart, but it is the novelists who just take this task along with them into adulthood. Storytelling is innate and crucial to our survival. 

This kind of turned out to be more of a praise on storytelling but oh well.  I hope you enjoyed this and have a fresh, lovely take on the art of storytelling. 

Never stop writing,

~The WordShaker

The Cooper Kids Adventure Series by Frank Peretti: My Experience

"Better to write for yourself and have no public than to write for the public and have no self," -Cyril Connolly

Growing up in a Christian school and being an avid reader, my beloved elementary library was packed to the brim with good (and bad) Christian fiction.  From about second to fourth grade, I was obsessed with the Cooper Kids series by Frank Peretti.  If you weren't a nineties Christian kid, these books are about Jay and Lila Cooper and their dad.  The 8 books focus on their adventures and the mysteries they solve across the globe, with an appropriate dose of evangelical faith.

I remember falling in love with this series, determined to get my hands on all 8 books.  I was enthralled by the clever, descriptive writing, hooked by the intensity and action, amazed by the complexity and mystery, in awe of the characters' perseverance and faith. Little did I know, however, that these stories would shape me into the writer I am today.

The Cooper Kids series has been described as 'Indiana Jones mixed with Stephen king with a good dose of religion', which, I realize, is a good descriptor for my writing - from the mere flittings of ideas I have to my short stories to my full-length novels. Like this series, my writing is not afraid to push the envelope in terms of content.  Many Christian books don't even want to approach the invisible line between Christian fiction and secular fiction. Peretti, however, addresses the secular and the Christian, and, ultimately, has the motive to convert.  For example, my current novel is about two teenagers who get in a plane crash, and all this weird stuff starts happening.  But under that, it is a story from lost to found, of hope and redemption, of pain and strife, all via Jesus Christ.  On that note, the Coopers meet many people along their adventures, some who come to the light and some who reject it.  Realism in a realistic world - mostly.

These books tackle the paranormal in a supernatural way.  In a dark way.  The Cooper Kids Adventure Series are dark and edgy, but always contain the power and hope of Jesus Christ - which is all I aim to write about. All that I want - all that I need - to write about is the gritty realistic truth. The dark, the dirty, the hard-to-swallow, while never taking the focus off of the beaming hope of salvation.

I highly recommend the Cooper Kids series by Frank Peretti for any kid you know - or for the adventurous child inside you.

~The WordShaker