Great post scott. I actually just ran into an issue with character archetypes with two stories i'm working on...

The first story I had a mental idea of how the character archetypes would play out, but wrote the 1st draft saying, "i'll come back to the character archetypes/development later." And man has it been stressful going back and fitting them I, i find I'm having to change actual plot around to get them to work.

The second story I'm on now, I have forced myself to get everything, especially the character archetypes, into the plotting and outlining first. And so far everything has come together much nicer than in the first story.


Question for pros/experienced. Do you have all your archetypes set up before you star writing, and do you stick to them?

Thank you for putting so much emphasis on character archetypes Scott.

Hey Scott,

Just stopping by to wish your loved ones a Happy Writer's Better-Half Day. Please take a moment to appreciate them for all their editing, proofreading, love and support.

K.G.

Admittedly, I started out with the character to story paradigm and have found the same thing.

I think I name them slightly differently but definitely find that it's easier to develop an archetype in an environment and map the antag and allies to that.

The story usually writes itself. I think this method helps because you don't have to have the "same" story.

I think Guy Ritchie's string of movies does this well.

I think the easist way to define an "archetype" is that it's the pinnacle of a personality type.

I also extend the paradigm to abstract dialog. Kind of like a "what's the coolest way for this archetype to respond" thing.

I also like mixing "archetypal reactions" to create contrasts in character interaction, meaning having the protag respond differently to the same action from two different archetypes.

@Peter Dwight: I've found you can use character archetypes in a number of ways. You can start from scratch - a Protagonist character - and 'build' a cast of characters and storyline. In some ways, this is probably the most effective approach as you start off uncluttered by a story's previous iteration.

If you have a draft already, but don't feel the story and characters quite work, you can use archetypes to deconstruct the story. By identifying characters per potential archetype functions, you can then reconstruct them and the story.

You can use character archetypes to analyze movies you watch and screenplays you read to enhance your understanding of the craft.

One of the best uses of archetypes - and this goes directly to deepening your understanding of your characters - is to switch Protagonists. For example, look at the story through the eyes of your Nemesis as the story's Protagonist. How do the other characters' narrative functions change as a result of the switch? This is a fantastic way to walk a mile in a character's shoe and help, even force you to connect with their humanity.

Re your specific question: My guess is most writers approach the character development process pretty much intuitively. They may identify the Protagonist, the Nemesis, some sort of potential love interest, but beyond that, they act upon what they've learned throughout their lives of reading, listening to, and watching stories. Nothing wrong with that as archetypes are archetypes for a reason: Their universality. It's just a matter of whether you want and can benefit from being intentional in working with archetypes or not.

My experience in having taught this material several times is that by and large, writers can benefit from using archetypes as tools to develop their characters and build their stories.

I'd just like to add:

The use of EVERY archetype isn't necessary. Sometimes a story not having an archetype is essential to the story.

Particularly, the use of the "mentor" character in post-modern film seems to have fallen out of use for a variety of reasons. It's become a cliche. Trite. People see through it.

But honestly, I think there is another reason --

Mentorships, apprenticeships, etc. have fallen out of favor. The path to an "enlightened individual" is to go to college and come out with the knowledge needed to enter the world. Our modern times has turned the "mentor" into an institution.

As the times change, the archetypes change. How and where they fit into a story changes. Whether they are benefit or detriment changes.

The biggest thing is that they aren't structure. And to use archetypes in place of structure is to create contrivance.

@James: Would you consider Hannibal Lecter as the Mentor to Clarice Starling's Protagonist a "cliche" in The Silence of the Lambs?

Re this comment: "And to use archetypes in place of structure is to create contrivance." Who said anything about using them "in place of structure"? What if by focusing on the characters and developing them per archetype functions you actually benefit the process of creating the story's plot / structure? You know, per the old adage, "Character = Plot."

I do agree that not every movie will have these five primary character archetypes. But as I've dug into this material, it's remarkable how many movies do - and across a wide spectrum of genres.

And at the end of the day, a writer either resonates with these ideas or they don't. As I say ad nauseum, "There's no right way to write." Every writer finds their own path. If archetypes benefit your creative process, great. If not, move on to something else.