What makes for a naive character?

[Escape Artist]

And why do readers seem to despise them so?

I'm no sage by any means, but in my line of thinking there is, at no point, a time in one's life where they know everything there is to know about life. There just isn't. Everyone's experience of life tells them something different about the human condition - what it tells me might not be what it tells you. And yet, criticism abounds in the arena of naivety.

Do naive characters annoy you as a reader?

What, to you, defines a character as naive?

*I think one expects a certain amount of naivety on the part of a YA character, so I'm talking more strictly about adult characters.

Thanks!

 

[Sonsofthepharaohs]

My female MC is naive, and I don't see that as a bad thing. Having a character who is ignorant/naive, or a fish out of water, allows you to worldbuild as they explore their environment, and provides much more scope for character development.

Where do you get the impression that readers view naive characters in a negative light?

 

[Mr Flibble]

I think the problem is there is a line between naive and stupid. It can be quite a fine line, and where it falls will be different for every reader.

So naive doesn't bother me. Stupid often does.

 

[Sydneyd]

I'm not one of those that hates naive characters in fiction, so I can't comment on that. In real life I find that because of my age (later 20's) whenever I choose to disagree with someone, or be optimistic about a situation I am accused of being naive. I would guess that line of thought crosses over. If the reader expects a different outcome, they could see the MC as being naive.

 

[ArachnePhobia]

Some of my favorite characters are naïve, so IMO, it's only annoying if it's done badly. Milo from The Phantom Tollbooth springs instantly to mind. His naïvete got him into trouble at least once per chapter, but in the end, it actually helped him solve his problems and save the day, because, SPOILER alert,

His quest was impossible, and it turned out, he was able to complete it because he didn't understand that.

I also agree that any character pulled out of their everyday world and thrust into an unfamiliar one is going to be naïve about something, because they don't know much about their new environment. Learning along with them is half the fun of those kinds of stories.

But also, what Mr. Flibble said. I've seen stories that try to sell me a character as naïve when they're really unrealistically dumb.

 

[lbender]

I think the problem is there is a line between naive and stupid. It can be quite a fine line, and where it falls will be different for every reader.

So naive doesn't bother me. Stupid often does.

This.

 

[Escape Artist]

My female MC is naive, and I don't see that as a bad thing. Having a character who is ignorant/naive, or a fish out of water, allows you to worldbuild as they explore their environment, and provides much more scope for character development.

Where do you get the impression that readers view naive characters in a negative light?

Oftentimes, if someone is perceived as naive or less knowledgeable than those around them (in any area) they are singled out and brought to the forefront of everyone's attention. That's a negative, in my view. Of course, that's a real-world application. In my own writing, the brashest of my characters often find the naive ones quite endearing.

I guess by naive I'm talking about naivety in terms of:

Love - not knowing what real love is (if anyone can really and truly define that).

Trust - as in, a character who sees people as "innocent until proven guilty" and who, until they're given a reason not to, will trust in another implicitly. Or in other words, someone who trusts in another without that other person having earned it. For example, to me, people deserve trust simply because they are human. They have to prove to me (often over and over again) that they are not worthy of trust, rather than the other way around.

Those are just some examples, and I may be pulling too much from real life in this, but I do know I've read some reviews (of what, I can't for the life of me remember) where naivety seemed to be frowned upon in general. But this is a sensitive area for me, so I might have been reading into that.

ETA: one of you mentioned optimism and that's another biggie. Express optimism in any area (especially love) and people will say you're naive.

 

[Escape Artist]

I'm not one of those that hates naive characters in fiction, so I can't comment on that. In real life I find that because of my age (later 20's) whenever I choose to disagree with someone, or be optimistic about a situation I am accused of being naive. I would guess that line of thought crosses over. If the reader expects a different outcome, they could see the MC as being naive.

It may very well be an age thing as I'm also in my late 20's. And I was so certain that by 30 I'd be all grown up. Now I'm not so sure.

 

[Johncs]

What, to you, defines a character as naive?

Every character is naive -- if they weren't they would quit now as the author/narrator clearly has it in for them

A bit of naivate is heartwarming; we live in a bitter little world. Too much and you cross over into the slasher film cliche "Don't open that door you moron!" and the like.

A "good" naive character sees people at their best (vs the cynic who turns his/her back on no one). A "good" naive character reminds us not everything with fangs is a monster, and not every crook is a no-good-nick.

A "bad" naive character is just kinda boring, really.

 

[lemonhead]

It may very well be an age thing as I'm also in my late 20's. And I was so certain that by 30 I'd be all grown up. Now I'm not so sure.

By late 20s I no longer use the word naive. It's denial. Haha.

I ditto mr. Fibble, naive doesn't bother me. Stupid does. especially when the entire book hinges on stupid.

 

[Melanie Dawn]

I need to inject some more naivete into my main character. It fits her.

 

[Sonsofthepharaohs]

In my own writing, the brashest of my characters often find the naive ones quite endearing.

My FMC's naivete is the reason the MC falls for her - she's not tainted by all the murk he wades in daily. She's not stupid, she's just been sheltered, and she looks at everything the way he wishes he could - with wonder or amazement, shock, revulsion. He feels anaesthetised to these emotions by what he has to deal with, and she reminds him that this isn't normal. Through having to explain everything to her, he realises what's important to him, and whats getting in the way of achieving it. It gives him the determination to change those things.

I think her naivete is the most positive thing about her.

But then I would, coz she's my creation

 

[victoriakmartin]

Yeah, I definitely think it's because naivete is so often taken too far for it to be believable and thus just becomes stupidity. One way this can still work though, I find, is for the character to go through an arc in which they realize how naive/sheltered they are and are forced to grow and learn more of the world.

A good recent example of this is Sansa from ASoIaF/Game of Thrones, who starts off as a character you sort of want to slap but grows to become much more interesting, at least IMO.

 

[elindsen]

Naive characters don't. Dumb is a whole different story.

 

[angeliz2k]

I'm not inherently cynical, but I'm a SOLID realist. I worry sometimes that my characters come across as too hard-nosed. I try to infuse a little joyfulness and naivete into my younger characters.

 

[Buffysquirrel]

I cringe when a character's naive because it's a painful reminder of when I was naive and was taken advantage of by people who were laughing at me behind my back, which of course I didn't realise *at the time*. It's sort of humiliation by proxy.

I think however the worst naive characters are the ones who never learn.

 

[Hydrogen]

And why do readers seem to despise them so?

I'm no sage by any means, but in my line of thinking there is, at no point, a time in one's life where they know everything there is to know about life. There just isn't. Everyone's experience of life tells them something different about the human condition - what it tells me might not be what it tells you. And yet, criticism abounds in the arena of naivety.

Do naive characters annoy you as a reader?

What, to you, defines a character as naive?

*I think one expects a certain amount of naivety on the part of a YA character, so I'm talking more strictly about adult characters.

Thanks!

Naivety doesn't bother me when it's not the only quality of the character. If you make the character's defining feature and they just fumble about because they don't know anything it becomes frustrating and unbelievable. Everyone is naive in certain aspects, but nobody is naive in all aspects of life. Just make the character believable and make sure they don't come off as a bumbling idiot.

 

[Little Anonymous Me]

I only get annoyed when experience should have taught them otherwise, and the naive character in question just goes trucking along because it just can't be that bad.

However, defining naivete does vary heavily within context, so I would say it depends on the story. No blanket stuff from me.

But other than that? I'm fine with it. I'm actually getting a bit tired of world-weary sassy types, but that's primarily because I do live with myself 24/7.

 

[rwm4768]

I don't have any problem with naive characters as long as there is something I can relate to, and considering I am a somewhat naive person myself, I can connect to these types of characters.

 

[MsLaylaCakes]

There are certain genres that have lots of very naive FMCs (category romances come to mind) so I don't think people have a problem with them.

I personally tend to get annoyed if 1) the MC is just unintellgient, not naive, 2) the naivete is not explained (i.e. the level of trustingness doesn't match the person's background), or 3) there is no growth/change as pertinent life events occur (if the FMC is kidnapped or stalked, she should slowly become less trusting, not stay the same despite all).

 

[Buffysquirrel]

I think for me the classic throw-em-against-the-wall naive character is Thorby in one of Heinlein's novels. Three times a female tries the exact same thing on him (pretending to be dumb to attract him) and he never catches on. Yet at the same time we're supposed to believe he's a wily beggar's boy who can also understand the ins and outs of high finance.

 

[quicklime]

Naivete is fine, but has to suit the character. A hardened con who just forgets who he is and works for because ooooh, he's in love, he's in LOOOOVE! doesn't cut it because it feels artificial. But a guy dragged along without a clue where that IS the character, like the father and narrator in Red Leaves, who thinks he knows his world and learns he doesn't have a clue, that's fine.

The issue is less naivete than realism. Are they naive because they are, or because I as the author needed to make then dumb for 5 minutes, and couldn't come up with any better way to get them to go into the cellar where the guy with a machete is hiding?

 

[L.C. Blackwell]

The issue is less naivete than realism. Are they naive because they are, or because I as the author needed to make then dumb for 5 minutes, and couldn't come up with any better way to get them to go into the cellar where the guy with a machete is hiding?

Which is a very awesome way to sum it up.

I've always preferred female main characters who are wise to the world and strong decision-makers, so it was a surprise to me when my present one began to take shape as an innocent. She has other qualities that endear her, and there's nothing milk-soppy. It all works so well that I haven't tried to change it.

(Now, milk-sop characters, that I can't stand.)

 

[Sunflowerrei]

I don't mind naive characters. I've read a lot of historical romance and there are many naive heroines there. That's fine. It fits the historical aspect and in many cases, it's endearing, which is what you want in a romance. But then there's Too Stupid To Live (TSTL). Naive is fine. Lack of instincts in certain situations or with certain people (clearly, he's the villain, sweetheart) is inexcusable veering into TSTL for me.

 

[dixoeileen]

It can be quite a fine line, and where it falls will be different for every reader.