“Your plot should not happen to
your characters. Your characters should happen to your plot.”
Let that idea sink in for a
minute. It may sound like an unfamiliar way to approach fictional character
development, but it’s important that your main characters (actor-types) follow
this approach. Reactor-types have an important part to play as well, but sometimes
make poor central characters.
Let’s talk a little about the
importance of plot-driving main characters (actors) and plot-supporting side
characters (reactors).
Reactors: Plot-Supporting Characters
A reactor is a character who
allows the plot to “happen to them.” If the plot demands that said character
jumps, said character asks, “How high?” Essentially, a reactor type is OK with
allowing the plot and world-rules to drift them along. They go with the flow of
whatever is happening and react accordingly, usually without any desire to significantly change the unfolding of events. The patterns of the status quo is where
this character type is most comfortable.
Reactors make ideal side and
backdrop characters. Most every minor character fits this role, as do a lot of
supporting and secondary characters. They help stabilize and set the tone of
your story’s world. Reactors have no overwhelming desire to change the world
around them or be nonconforming to the established rules or whims of the plot.
In fiction, they are almost always paired with an actor-type.
As plot elements, reactors are
invaluable. Without them, a story has no “norm” or basic tool for accomplishing
its needs. Reactors may be background characters like villagers, soldiers, or
students; or they may be more important and play a secondary or supporting role
in the story.
Some examples of reactor-types in popular media:
- Gobber in How to Train Your Dragon
- Legolas,
Gimli, and Sam in The Lord of the Rings
- Suki
in Avatar: the Last Airbender
- Mikasa
Ackerman in Attack on Titan
- Pepper
Potts in Iron Man
- Mr.
Tumnus in The Chronicles of Narnia
- Soichiro
Yagami in Death Note
- Reno
in Final Fantasy
- Kristoff
in Frozen
- Cogsworth
from Beauty and the Beast
The key
to knowing whether your character is an actor or a reactor is to look at how
they respond to the plot. If the character does two or more of the following
then they are probably a reactor-type:
- Does
not usually act out or pursue ideals and actions outside the norm
- Is
content with the status quo of the story (or whatever pattern of behavior they
currently live)
- Does
whatever they are told without question or a strong feeling of divergence
- Responds
to events that the plot unfolds, as opposed to acting out in advance to change
the status quo
In other
words, if the plot “pushes your character around” then they are most likely a
reactor. This does not mean that they will never take any initiative whatsoever
during the course of the story. In fact, almost all reactor-types will take
initiative at least once in the story, but usually only when their morals or
something they hold inherently dear is immediately threatened (Mr. Tumnus goes
against the Witch by not turning in Lucy, Sam sneaks into Mordor to rescue
Frodo, and Mikasa chases down a female titan to save Eren, for example). Ultimately,
reactor-types are more likely to “let the plot happen” and respond to it only
as the situation demands. They are content with the status quo until the status
quo acts in a way that is dangerous or otherwise unpleasant to them.
In The Lord of the Rings, for example,
Legolas and Gimli are both reactors. Yes, they want to save Middle Earth and
destroy the Ring, but they are also content to respond to the plot as it
happens. Unlike Frodo, who dares to take the ring to Mordor, or Aragorn who sets
out to reclaim his throne, Legolas and Gimli are simply there to act as
supports to these greater goals. Yes, they do respond to situations, but they
only respond to them. Neither of
these characters has an enormous, over-arching initiative to change the status
quo in their own personal way. This doesn’t diminish the character development
or importance of these characters, but neither of them would probably fair too
well in the spotlight because of their personal lack of individual drive.
Those who
have read the appendices of The Return of
the King know that Legolas and Gimli go on adventures together after the
war is over, become close friends, and even travel to the Grey Haven. In this
sense, they are now playing actor-type roles because they are going against the
norm (elf and dwarf friendships are frowned upon, and no dwarf has ever been
permitted entry to the Grey Haven). However, for the purposes of The Lord of the Rings trilogy alone,
these two are reactors for the duration of the story.
Actors: Plot-Driving Characters
Actors
are characters who “happen to your plot.” In fact, you might say your plot “didn’t
see them coming.” When they arrive in your story’s world, things change simply
because these characters actively seek to change them.
Actors
have a goal, but more than that, they are the “captains of their own destiny”
within the story world. Though they may rely on others, on powers, on God, or
on another support system, actor-types rarely do as the plot or world system
dictates. They are the characters who are most likely to challenge conformity,
a belief, or a situation. In simple terms: They set out to change something
about the status quo that they dislike. When the plot throws a curve-ball at
them, they don’t conform to it, but rather use the curve to gain a new angle.
Most
every protagonist in fiction is an actor-type, largely because they possess the
drive to create an engaging story. This, of course, can differ depending on the
genre, but more often than not, actor-types serve as more compelling and
exciting protagonists than reactor-types. Nearly all villains are actor-types,
and many supporting characters share this type as well.
Some
examples of actor types in popular media:
- Hiccup in How to Train Your Dragon
- Frodo
in The Lord of the Rings
- Zuko
in Avatar: the Last Airbender
- Eren
Yeager in Attack on Titan
- Tony
Stark in Ironman
- Lucy
Pevensie in The Chronicles of Narnia
- Light
Yagami in Death Note
- Sephiroth
in Final Fantasy
- Anna
in Frozen
- Belle
in Beauty and the Beast
Again,
you can determine if your character is an actor by studying their relationship
with the plot. If your character does two or more of the following, then they
are probably an actor-type:
- Challenges
the “normal” way of thinking, acting, or believing
- Seeks
to change something significant about the status quo through proactive attempts
- Questions
what they are told; does not usually act just because a person or ideal wants
them to
- Acts
in advance to change the status quo, as opposed to merely reacting to the plot
as events unfold
If the
mere existence of your character drastically changes the face of your story
because said character advocates those changes directly, then you’re dealing
with an actor-type. Frodo showcases one of his greatest “acting” moments when
he volunteers to take the Ring to Mordor. What classifies this bold move as
actor-type is that Frodo speaks up of his own accord and personally decides to
change the status quo by making a difference. If another character (like
Gandalf) had recommended Frodo for the job, and Frodo had merely accepted as a
result, then Frodo would have been acting like a reactor instead (responding to a
situation that the plot threw at him).
All
actor-types will change the face of your story. Eren Yeager speaks out against
humanity’s confinement within the walls and seeks to join the dangerous Survey
Corps in order to reclaim mankind’s birthright. By contrast, Mikasa (a
reactor-type) doesn’t want Eren to join the Corps, going so far as to warn his
mother about Eren’s plans, and sticks to Eren like a loyal shadow thereafter,
supporting his ideals but not acting outside of them otherwise.
It’s
important to realize that actor-types will not go against every-and-all
conformity. A character who rebels against every standard and norm quickly
becomes psychotic, obnoxious, or highly predictable (sometimes all three) to
your reader. Rather, actor-types will refuse to conform to at least one
significant aspect of your story's status quo. For example, Light Yagami takes the law into
his own hands when he obtains a notebook that allows him to kill criminals
simply by writing their names. The status quo of the law is the one specific
thing that he does not conform to and that he proactively sets out to change by
his own means.
A Final Note about Actors and Reactors
It’s
important to remember that, like good and evil, actors and reactors are almost
never clear-cut black-and-white. Actors will sometimes respond like reactors,
and reactors will occasionally become actors. That being said, reactors
typically transition only when something they hold invaluable is immediately
threatened, forcing them to become proactive (sometimes this is just an
elaborate reaction disguised as pro-action, however).
At the
beginning of this article, I said that reactor types do not usually make strong
central characters. While their being content with the “norm” and unwilling to
make drastic changes does indeed make them poor pro-activists, reactors can
also make emotionally-investing main characters if their reactor-type
tendencies are paramount to their growth throughout the story.
Take Marlin from
Finding Nemo for example. Marlin
hates change. He doesn’t want Nemo to go to school, doesn’t want to do anything
remotely dangerous or unstable, and seeks to maintain as much stability as
possible. When Nemo is kidnapped, Marlin is forced to go after him, but his
fixation on maintaining the status quo gives him a lot of problems. Rather than
trust a friend to go through a seemingly deadly cavern, for example, he swims
above it, nearly getting both himself and said friend killed by jellyfish.
Marlin’s gradual transition from a reactor to an actor is pivotal to his growth
throughout the story. Thus, Marlin works tremendously well as a reactor-type
protagonist turned actor-type protagonist.
There are
exceptions to every rule. Consider these mere guidelines that you can use as a
sounding board for measuring whether your characters—protagonist, antagonist,
secondary, background, and otherwise—are compelling enough to engage your
reader and keep your story moving forward.
