What Does Agency Mean To You In Regards To Fiction

[Cicada 5]

I often see critics of stories in regards to agency of the characters in the stories they read or watch. Some times, I've found myself agreeing with their stances, other times not so much. Anyway, what does character agency in fiction mean to you. Please feel free to give examples.

 

[SilentPony]

Nothing. Its a bullshit term. No fictional character has agency of any kind, because they're fictional. They're entire life, personality, backstory, actions and future are determined by someone else.

Best example I can give:

Dead Or Alive Beach Volleyball is sexist because none of the women have the "agency" to say they like bikinis.
Bayonetta is not sexist because she has the "agency" to say she likes fetish outfits.
And all this means is the author or writer put a little blurb "Likes bikinis" and that covers it. Its still all what the author wants, they're in the outfits designed by other people to reveal their bodies designed by other people using sexual phases written and preformed by other people, but in Bayonetta's case its okay because the author told the real world their fictional character is okay with that they're doing to her.

 

[Hawki]

Character agency is very broad. The dynamic I've usually seen is the question as to whether the character drives the plot, or whether the character is reacting the plot. But I can't really cite specific examples. It's more a case of knowing it when I see it.

There's a saying I remember from writing courses - "give your character weaknesses, but don't make them weak." Again though, that's sort of knowing it when I see it.

 

[Breakdown]

I think of agency in terms of characters behaving in ways that make sense according to what you know of their motivations and context, rather than just doing things that advance the plot.

A good example of this is Littlefinger in Game of Thrones. From watching seasons 1 to 4 you know he's ambitious and he has feelings for Sansa. But then in season 5 he sends Sansa off to marry Ramsay Bolton. It makes no sense for him to marry Sansa off if he has feelings for her, especially to a evil psychopath like Ramsay. The marriage doesn't further Littlefinger's ambitions, and it should really put him on Cersei's shit list. From this point onwards, Littlefinger doesn't have any agency in the series.

 

[Silvanus]

A character's agency is their ability to make impactful decisions within the fictional world. As I understand it, a character doesn't necessarily need to drive the plot; if they make impactful decisions in response to the plot that happens around them, they still have agency.

So, an average Imperial Stormtrooper in Star Wars doesn't have much agency, because they just do what they're told to do and serve as obstacles for the protags. Grand Moff Tarkin & Vader have quite a bit of agency because they're giving the orders (and Emperor Palpatine has even more agency, at least in Eps 4 & 5, because Tarkin and Vader's decisions are subordinate to his strategies & intents).

& when Vader turns on Palpatine (spoilers), he gains agency, because he's fully making his own decision and overcoming subordination.

 

[Gordon_4]

Agency for me is when a character who, when faced with their obstacles, has the potential to react as you'd imagine a person would in a real life version of the situation and/or in line with characterisation thus far.

 

[Kyrian007]

Agency is odd. For a GM, you have to shape a narrative for your players... but they crave agency to do what they want within that story, which you have to give them. Much as a game designer needs to design a game but acknowledge that players will want agency to play as they like. It is different for an author, but not entirely so. They have to design a complete narrative in which characters will actually have no agency. But readers will identify with characters or aspects of characters if it feels like they have agency, if the characters actions seem to shape the story that is being told.

Its why you don't see or read certain parts of stories that are logically present. Example, the character is a doctor... a brilliant surgeon. The parts of the story you would see: a surgery that saves a life, maybe a discussion of a diagnosis, or maybe a flashback to med school learning a life-saving technique. And even more mundane parts of the story that are there to humanize a character often contain little details that serve to explain why the character is making the choices that he eventually will. Those are the parts of the story that give a character agency, within the story. The ability to be that focal point that moves the story forward. The part of the story that's there, that you don't usually see... the same day the surgeon saved a life; he woke up, scratched his balls, grabbed his smartphone, took a dump, then hopefully washed his hands before brushing his teeth. That part of the story might serve to humanize a character, but they are generally left out because they don't provide any agency... its the same motions most of us go through every day (with some variation depending on smartphone ownership or genital itchiness.) Any character that is just going through the motions, seemingly without agency... is just somehow unimportant. Not unlikeable (not necessarily anyway,) just unimportant. Before the Craig era Moneypenny was a James Bond character with seemingly little agency. Going through the same motions with each new movie. Not unlikeable, and after enough time even iconic actually, but as much scenery as supporting character. She needs to be there, stories need static characters too. But those aren't the characters the reader or viewer wants to be. You want to be Bond, or Q, or M, or even Jaws, or Goldfinger. But you don't want to be Moneypenny: much like you don't want to be henchman #17 who gets karate chopped, shot, falls over a ledge, and lands in a shark tank (why does this volcano lair have a shark tank anyway.)

 

[Xprimentyl]

Agency in fiction depends on the intent of the work as a whole. Generally speaking, if its primary purpose is to entertain/distract the audience for a period of time, I don’t think agency matters much; the plot is the vehicle and the characters are just people in it; think big budget, action blockbusters. If the purpose is to engage the audience more intimately, then I think agency is more important, i.e.: dramas or romance. Not that the fictional characters have any real choice (obviously,) but a relatable illusion of choice/agency makes them more immersive and better serves the narrative’s purpose. When I watch John Wick, I basically expect to see a bunch of people catch a bullet with their forehead while I eat popcorn and that’s about it. When I watch Interview With The Vampire, the moment Louis betrays his fundamental self by doing something he swore he’d never do and turns Madeleine, it’s a gut punch as you know he’s changed forever from a vampire hanging on to his last vestige of humanity to one who willingly sacrificed that humanity out of love, and became a self-loathing monster.

 

[happyninja42]

I often see critics of stories in regards to agency of the characters in the stories they read or watch. Some times, I've found myself agreeing with their stances, other times not so much. Anyway, what does character agency in fiction mean to you. Please feel free to give examples.

Usually when I use it, or I hear others use it, it refers to how much direct control a character has over the course of their lives/actions. A character with little to no agency, doesn't make any choices for themselves, and just goes along with the crowd. They aren't ACTING, they are simply REACTING to events that happen to them. This is often a trait of the supporting cast of a protagonist. Protagonists, by nature of them being the driving force of the main story, are chock full of agency, because they are the ones the story shows making decisions, taking actions that have direct ramifications to the immediate situation, and to the long term story arc.

To use a few examples off the top of my head. Princess Zelda is an example of both a character with no agency, and with plenty of it, depending on which game.
In the classic Legend of Zelda game, she has zero agency, because she's just a trapped person that needs rescuing. She takes no actions at all over the course of the game. In later titles, where she's actually a character that takes part in the games, she has more agency, as she is shown to be doing things that directly move the story along.

Now this doesn't mean they can't fail, having agency isn't a guarantee that everything you attempt will be a good idea, or succeed, it just means it's something the character initiated themselves.

Princess Leia in New Hope is a good example of a character with agency. While she does spend the first half of the film as a Damsel in Distress, she's not entirely helpless, or unable to direct events. She is introduced evading the troopers, and smuggling the plans off the ship via R2D2, she then attempts to escape, killing a trooper, and then is captured. While captured, she attempts to negotiate and deceive the Imperials, by tricking them to attack an abandoned base, in order to save Alderan. It doesn't work, but it is an action she took, of her own choice. Later, when she is rescued, and they are pinned down, she is the one that snatches up a blaster, and makes the call to escape via a garbage chute. She doesn't just meekly hide behind the guys and let them come up with the escape plan. A character with low/no agency, would just be attached to the more dynamic characters, and just follow their lead.

The question of agency, as I stated above, is mostly an issue for the secondary cast of a story. It's pretty much impossible for a protagonist/main character, to have no agency, as they are the focus of the story and driving it forward. And lately, this issue of agency, is usually brought up with talking about female characters, as they are, traditionally more prone to being characters in stories that don't drive it forward, and are just there, usually as motivation for the heroes (we have to save the princess!).

To give a gender flipped example, Katniss has tons of agency in the Hunger Games, because she's the driving force of the narrative, but that drunk character/mentor guy, doesn't really do much directly in the first movie (as best as I can recall). He's mostly there to be a cautionary tale for the 2 lead characters, showing them what it looks like to be a "Victor." And to provide exposition to the audience about what to expect in the Hunger Games. The bakery guy that is in the games with Katniss (sorry I forget his name), has some agency, but not as much as Katniss, though his agency is more subtle. He tricks and deceives the gang of other kids to leave Katniss alone, giving her time to escape. He provided Katniss with extra food prior to the games, despite it being a risk to him personally. He...made himself into a rock cake (*facepalm*) to hide from other players, etc etc. So he took actions that directly effected the overall outcome of the story, but not as many, or as far reaching as Katniss.