In your opinion: Is there actually a problem with timid/passive female leads?

Chronomel 2024-04-03 22:24:16 UTC #21

I don't mind passive leads at all. I don't even really mind when they don't have agency really, as long as the story is still interesting. And imo there's just so many ways for a story to be interesting that missing agency is just a small detail to me, which definitely seems like an unpopular opinion. Sometimes a character being able to make choices isn't really a quality of the character, anyway. It has alot to do with their environment. It seems more realistic to me for characters without agency and a passive personality to be included in a story.

Leyelle 2024-04-03 22:41:11 UTC #22

i agree with this, but if the main character is just being moved forward by the plot rather than moving themselves I think it runs the risk of them being a character who could be replaced too easily by anyone else.

Leyelle 2024-05-02 04:01:47 UTC #23

Are there any examples of stories you like with passive leads? (I.e. leads that don't really effect the course of the plot, the plot moves them.)

I note, that I feel like in a good portion of Dickens' stories, which I really like, the leads make many of their decisions simply because they are pulled into them, and not because they really choose to or even think a whole lot about the decisions. But as much as I love them, I do wonder how much more dynamic the plot could have been if say, Oliver, had more to him. The characters around him were quite vibrant, but he himself appeared a bit more like a plot device.

If this could be done effectively, how do you think it would have to be executed? I think in contexts maybe, where the character has a lot of personality, but simply no control over their lives, you could still enjoy the story and appreciate the character sympathetically.

cherrystark 2024-05-02 14:26:01 UTC #24

I think if you're going to bring older novels into the conversation, you have to acknowledge the writing styles at the time. It wasn't "required" to write indepth stories from first person POV to develop the character. A lot of writers, especially the 19th century female writers, were revoluntionary for their time. Their work changed the literary game, that's why we still read them.

I am not sure if you understand... the characters in the classic novels ARE dynamic. You have female characters taking an active lead in their romantic lives and insist on marrying for love, instead of convenience or familial duty. You have characters who pay the price when their snap judgments hurt others. You have female characters who choose to leave their love interests because they have pride and self-esteem. They might not have the ability to change the circumstances of the plot but they're active participants in their own life. And by the definition of a dynamic character, even the most passive female character can still be dynamic if she has a growth arc.

This is in comparison to stories where the girl gets bullied for simply existing, is clumsy to show how weak she is in comparison to her lover, and has zero sense of self-preservation so she either willingly runs into dangerous situations or always has to be rescued. This type of character either needs magic or an entire ensemble of "stronger" characters to make sure she gets to the finale of the story whereas a passive, but fully realized person brings herself to the finale.

Leyelle 2024-05-02 18:58:55 UTC #25

I wasn't actually even talking about just female characters in this context. But it's a matter of opinion what one person considers dynamic and one doesn't. I don't consider Oliver a dynamic character, but it has nothing to do with "understanding." It's simply a matter of opinion. Writing styles do change over time, but artistry has never been about what was required or even the trends. What era you wrote in isn't the standard by which I form my opinion of how well I think a character or story was written.

MK_Wizard 2024-05-02 19:28:45 UTC #26

The only problem I can think of is that their timidness is treated like a flaw rather than just part of who they are. I am all for them becoming more proactive and finding joy in life, but not at the cost of changing them into someone they're not. It's ok to be timid and gentle. I would even argue that we need more gentle female leads.

Leyelle 2024-05-02 19:31:42 UTC #27

I agree with this. Gentleness can feel underappreciated. The definition of timidity however, is lacking confidence and courage, and I don't think we want anyone to lack confidence.

Leyelle 2024-05-26 23:47:21 UTC #28

My female lead in "Rigamarole" is sort of an unusual balance of the two, as she pretends to be rather meek for her own safety (and her little brother's safety) when around her parents, but around virtually all other people, she is her usual rather belligerent self. Does that mean that being around her parents legitimately scares her enough to be meek or that she's just "smart enough" to lie?

This is one of many dichotomies of her character and mindset that's a bit tricky to sort out, but I think it's a complexity indictive of real people and their attitudes. I won't say that no one is exactly the same around all people, some people have very different ways they behave around different people and aren't ALWAYS tough, or ALWAYS meek

Leyelle 2024-06-14 00:30:27 UTC #29

Essence from my novel "A Dozen Morning Glories" is another one of my unusual cases because she tries very hard to be passive so as not to rub anyone the wrong way because her natural 'unnaturalness' as she's always been called, makes other people uncomfortable, but her attempts at passivity usually don't manage to show themselves in a way that allows anyone to realize that's what she's trying to do. She just seems unresponsive and uncomfortably quiet.