  Drama
This week: Edited by: Turkey DrumStik  
More Newsletters By This Editor 
1. About this Newsletter
2. A Word from our Sponsor
3. Letter from the Editor
4. Editor's Picks
5. A Word from Writing.Com
6. Ask & Answer
7. Removal instructions
archetype ('är-ki-"tIp)- the original pattern or model of which all things of the same type are representations or copies : PROTOTYPE; also : a perfect example
(from Merriam-Webster Online http://www.m-w.com ) |
| ASIN: B07P4NVL51 |
Product Type: Toys & Games
|
Amazon's Price: Price N/A
|
|
What do the following characters have in common?
 Edmund from King Lear
Nora from A Doll's House
Boxer the horse from Animal Farm
Moira Davidson from On the Beach
Theodore Faron from Children of Men
All of these characters are prime examples of character archetypes in dramatic works. Though psychologist Carl Jeung originally defined archetypes as subconscious symbols, literary characters can be categorized by archetypes as well. The categorization relies mostly on the character's motivation, emphasizing the why over the how. That doesn't mean that the how doesn't play into the character's development. In fact, many archetype definitions state some of the ways the character's archetype manifests itself in a piece. There are some characters that could spark debates over the most appropriate category for that character, such as Mersault in The Stranger. However, the most recognizable characters in literature can be defined by an archetype.
The most comprehensive site I've found for character archetypes lists 32 different archetypes for characters (16 each for male and female characters, respectively). However, when I read over the descriptions, I noticed that many of the descriptions overlapped among the genders. I also found that the archetypes were split into one of two somewhat misleading categories: heroes/heroines and villians. I decided to retool this list a bit to accomodate even the most ambiguous distinctions between protagonists and antagonists.
From heroics to sympathetics
To me, heroes/heroines makes these archetypes rather cut and dry. Though modern media exploits these archetypes in their most basic form on a regular basis, the definitions of these archetypes suggest less heroism and more of an ability to relate to each type. Hence, I've renamed this category the Sympathizers, as these are the types of everyday people we would know and generally like. Here are the categories in no particular order.
 the chief/boss: This character enjoys taking charge and aspires to be at the top of his or her group, be it at work or on a sports team. Chiefs and bosses require a fair amount of attention on the writer's part so they do not become written as villians. The key with this archetype is respect; that's what characters of this archetype want.
the charmer/seductress: This character is known for using his or her charms to achieve his or her goals. Characters of this archetype have a striking ability to read people, which can make them unsympathetic if not handled correctly. With this type, a benevolent goal must be set for the character; otherwise, he or she could turn villanious right under your nose.
the best friend/nurturer: This character is seen as safe and dependable. Of all the sympathetic archetypes, these characters can be one of the more difficult types to make into a dramatic protagonist due to the aura of safety they're intended to provide. On the other hand, his or her desire to not hurt anyone's feelings can result in serious moral quandries, which provide excellent drama conflict fodder. 
the professor/librarian: With this character type, there are some major differences between the male and female versions. However, both possess a controlled exterior and generally pursue more intellectually motivating activities. The fun with this character type is exploring their inner emotions, which, while not flaunted nearly as much as in other archetypes, are complex and potent. This exploration is a great way to heighten suspense in dramatic pieces involving these characters.
the waif/lost soul: This character, while arguably a big player in the genre of drama, does suffer from the misconception of being weak. Though this character is not inclined to fight antagonistic forces, he or she have enough strength of the will to survive whatever transpires. Waifs and lost souls tend to be more overtly emotional; to prevent them from becoming melodramatic figures, slow down the pacing of their emotional development when possible.
the adventurer: This character loves to go out and do new things. Thus, travel to remote lands and zany stunts make this archetype a favorite for action writers. That doesn't mean that the adventurer doesn't have a place in drama. In fact, many "brainier" action/adventure movies (a la Children of Men) have a bold dramatic streak, drawing the audience into contemplating more weighty themes and conflicts that face the characters. That said, the adventurer is perhaps the most underexplored archetype in dramatic situations. Isn't that ironic? 
the free spirit: This character lives life on a whim and always has an upbeat attitude. I have not seen too many of these characters in drama. The way I see it, many dramatic conflicts would result in the personality of a free spirit being warped into a waif-like character by the end of a piece. Free spirits are better able to change without switching archetypes in other dramas, especially romance and comedy.
the bad boy: This character comes across as a seedy individual. Like the waif, bad boys tend to be thought of in regards to their exterior image, with a lot of rough edges and a delinquent streak. The truth is bad boys are just as capable of being multi-dimensional as anyone else. Oftentimes, their lifestyles lead to a jaded attitude toward life, and in some cases they crave stability more than anything else. Transformation is a favorite theme authors like to use with bad boy characters. As a side note, you don't seem this kind of personality that much with bad girls, but I think some of that stems from bad girls being written primarily as antagonists. However, if you know of a piece with a protagonist being a girl from the projects whose body is still intact yet her soul is in pieces (or something along those lines), drop me a line. I'd like to see females written with similar characteristics to bad boys. I think it would be intriguing drama.
Villains...or mere challengers?
These archetypes describe the types of people we would normally see as villains. I think 'villain' is not the best word to describe this group. While some of the archetypes do indeed highlight the more malicious traits of each type, these characters are far from soulless (as the word villain might tempt people to believe). To me, the word challenger shows that these characters provide obstacles for others to overcome. Likewise, challengers are not always defeated, although this notion is somewhat rare in many modern works. If you read Persian literature, you will see numerous examples of challengers defeated sympathizers.
 the traitor/backstabber: This character has a pretty self-explanatory name. He or she betrays sympathizers or other characters to achieve an agenda. They're known to be outwardly sympathetic yet also prone to abusing information they obtain through their seemingly supportive actions. Sometimes, though, the traitor is forced into a position where either he or she betrays a trust or faces a grave consequence (such as death; no pun intended).
the illegitimate: This character, like the bad boy, lacks a solid female equivalent in the literary world. The origins of this character have a lot to do with that. In many older literary works, illegitimate sons were considered inherently evil due to their out-of-wedlock origins. As for the reason there is no significant female equivalent, females of a similar situation were outright ignored in literature due to the lengthy tradition of female subordination by the government and often by writers. Female villains did appear in Shakespearian works, but the influence of female villains did not experience much growth until the nineteenth century. In modern times, the illegitimate child does not have nearly as strong of a stigma on his or her head. The stigma nowadays lingers more with the parents of the child, and the children tend to deal more with those pressures than those placed on themselves.
the tyrant/queen bee: This character rules a group with an unyielding iron fist. His or her primary goal is to reach the top of the social ladder and will trample anyone in the way in order to achieve this goal. Tyrants and queen bees thrive on power trips, making them very formidable challengers. One type I feel more appropriately fits under this umbrella is the matriarch. Though some may classify the matriarch as a separate archetype due to her obsession with family, I feel she exhibits many of the same traits as tyrants do. Both types as very controlling and oppress anyone they feel does wrong by them.
the lunatic: For some strange reason, this archetype is mainly used to describe females. It could be because many writers prefer to justify the insanity of males while not considering taking the same measures for females. In any case, this character is generally a few donuts short of a dozen yet thinks everyone else not on the right track. He or she will lure others into their crazed way of thinking, which will drive other characters crazy trying to figure how this person thinks. This challenger is probably the most prone to exploration by the author, as the origins of the character's insanity can foster a juicy subplot.
evil genius/schemer: This character uses his or her wits and/or intellect to trap other characters. They love to cook schemes and puzzles to compromise unsuspecting individuals. In most cases, these schemers are successful, and if they don't succeed, they excel at covering their tracks. In the event a schemer does not succeed, it can be borderline amusing, as seen in Fargo. Sympathizers may face the greatest difficulty in overcoming these challengers, as they possess enough savvy to outwit many characters in the piece. You sympathizer would be well advised to don a thinking cap.
the devil/black widow: Like the evil genius, this character uses his or her personality to obtain something. Unlike the evil genius, however, devil types tend to utilize charisma more than intelligence. This type tricks characters into wanting to be deceived. Such a trait cannot be realistically depicted without the character being well developed in the author's mind. A black widow without substantial characterization can come across as mere caricature, thus sapping the drama from any confrontation between this challenger and a sympathizer.
the outcast: A favorite of modern writers, this character is an outsider who wants nothing more than to belong. His or her quest in achieving this goal usually results in sacrificing others' goals or even lives. By doing so, the audience can see why he or she was excluded in the first place. Of all the challenger, this one is the most prone to some sympathy from the audience, as the need to belong is a very core human need we all feel at one point or another. Likewise, anyone who currently feels excluded from society in some way will feel drawn to the outcast. On top of that, exclusion has become a more prevalent theme in modern society, a tad ironic given the advent of technology intended to connect many types of people.
the terrorist/fanatic: Of all the challengers, this one is the most universally frightening in the 21st century. This type grabs many headlines in the media, feeding our innate fears of instability catalyzed by radical movements. This character tends to posses an inflexible code of honor which dictates his or her actions. These characters believe that their mission will be beneficial to society even if violence and other malevolent methods are used to achieve said mission. Their intentions tend to have radical roots, which can make them fall prey to not being characters with depth. Even if it does not appear in the text of the piece, backstory on these challengers will prevent them from being one sided.
the sadist/parasite: This character thrives on other people's pain. Sadists and parasites utilize any for of brutality against other people, including violence and psychological warfare. While they sometimes feel victimized, many of these characters carry out their actions simply for the sake of being cruel. Among the challengers, the sadists are the most outwardly vicious and most easily prone to physical violence.
With all the archetypes around, how does a writer make sense of it all? The answer is simple. Experiment with all the types! Who says you can't pair two sympathizers against each other? How about a face off between two challengers? Archetypes may have once been seen as rules, but modern audiences can see through the cookie cutter character development. You may still see easily discernable archetypes in literature today, but now many writers use archetypes as guides from which they can deviate. These types can help you find a character's motivation or maybe prompt you to rethink what a character is doing. One thing is for sure, though. Archetypes can help you get the ball rolling.
Until next time,
(sig courtesy of panthera) |
For the New Year, I present to you...archetypes! Here we have an assortment of items featuring archetypical sympathizers.
| |  | Invalid Item
This item number is not valid.
#1151153 by Not Available. |
| | | Invalid Item
This item number is not valid.
#1174596 by Not Available. |
| | | Invalid Item
This item number is not valid.
#1173019 by Not Available. |
And here are items with archetypical challengers.
| | | Invalid Item
This item number is not valid.
#1199867 by Not Available. |
| | | Invalid Item
This item number is not valid.
#1029749 by Not Available. |
|
Have an opinion on what you've read here today? Then send the Editor feedback! Find an item that you think would be perfect for showcasing here? Submit it for consideration in the newsletter!
https://www.Writing.Com/go/nl_form
Don't forget to support our sponsor!
| ASIN: B07RKLNKH7 |
Product Type: Kindle Store
|
Amazon's Price: $ 0.99
|
|
Seems many of you were stumped by the idea of two antagonists in a story and were rendered speechless. I did get one really good question-comment, though. Let's have a look.
From alissaameth: Hello Elisa!
I enjoyed your newsletter!
I have a story in which two protagonsists are on opposite sides of a struggle. They are both good people, but are villainized by each other. In a way, I am not worried about this because it should be interesting drama... But at the same time, I wonder if this would make readers "pick sides" when the two characters finally meet face to face for a battle? I don't want either character to be viewed as evil by the reader... What do you think about this? What would be the effect of making readers' loyalties conflict with each other?
Thanks!
Greetings, Alissa! I honestly think that you're perceiving this in a more extreme light than is necessary. I think it's less a matter of readers' loyalties and more about concern over reader bias. Issues such as this are often made or broken with changes to the point of view. That, however, is a newsletter in itself that I plan to cover in either late summer or early fall. When tackling this conflict, keep a couple things in mind. First, even good people have flaws. A little emphasis on the characters' flaws might keep readers from choosing sides (or torn about doing so, for that matter). Second, try putting them face to face for smaller battles before the grand finale to give readers some direction. Otherwise, the plot could stagnate. Keep in mind that whether you use first person or third person, having the story told with emphasis on one character's point of view will lead readers to sympathize more with that character.
Of course, this is all opinion. I'd love to see what others have to say on the subject. Thanks for asking such a thought provoking question!
I also received a comment on D.A.D., and in my opinion, it's never too late to comment on any topic.
From Mark  : Elisa, I have been seriously making strides in my story writing, and hope to continue along that path until I have a published novel. Sure - a long way off to say the least, but little tidbits like your D.A.D acronym stick like glue. I found this in a newsletter archive (what a fantastic resource!) while scanning for useful nuggets of wisdom. Man, you really nailed that, it's going to be in my head every time I write. Thank you again!
Stick like glue, huh? Then I say be careful where it gets stuck!  All kidding aside, I'm glad you find D.A.D. useful. In case you're wondering what I mean by D.A.D., this might help: "10/09/2006" . Revisiting this past issue might also be helpful when I tackle setting in upcoming issues. Glad you find the acronym helpful.
The next two or three issues (depending on reader response) will concern setting. Realistically, setting can be divided into two categories: time and place. Of the two, I will be tackling time first for my February issue (on cruddy happy Valentine's Day). How do you handle time and/or pacing in your drama pieces? What are your thoughts on settings in history or speculating on the future? Any specific time issues you'd like to see covered? Drop a line. I love hearing from you.
And if you happen to miss or misplace a newsletter, feel free to stop by "The Drama Box" [13+]. |
| ASIN: 0996254145 |
|
Amazon's Price: $ 12.95
|
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, click here for your newsletter subscription list. Simply uncheck the box next to any newsletter(s) you wish to cancel and then click to "Submit Changes". You can edit your subscriptions at any time.
|
Drama: January 17, 2007 Issue [#1494]
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
