Jack Brown
Writing original characters from scratch can be extremely difficult. Sure, nailing down a character’s basic appearance, personality, and abilities is a start, but finding a place for them in a manuscript’s overarching plot can be especially challenging. Thankfully, Joseph Campbell, author of The Hero with A Thousand Faces (1949), has packaged together some helpful literary devices called “archetypes” that make placing a character in a narrative significantly easier. These archetypes are often associated with a universal storytelling template Campbell dubs the “monomyth” or the “hero’s journey,” but the character patterns may be observed in stories that don’t conform to the narrative cycle (28). While he isn’t the first to notice these patterns, nor is he the one to coin the term he uses for them, his analysis of archetypal characters emphasized their prominence within literature. Using the ready-made characters Campbell describes, one may craft a perfectly viable plot that people will love, but even these patterns have limits. Although the monomyth and its archetypes have been proven to create successful stories, characters can transcend basic storytelling structure and evolve into something more complex.
Using archetypes can be a great way to slot characters into a story, especially if they fall into more traditional roles. Assigning characters an archetype grants them a distinctive narrative role, providing further opportunities to develop them through structure. For example, a lax character with a bad habit of cracking jokes in serious situations and a more simplistic backstory could align with the “Ally” archetype, who lends the hero support throughout their journey. Despite starting with a somewhat typical personality, the character type may fulfill a vital role or have the potential to transform as the narrative progresses. For instance, that same “Ally” character could lose an aspect of themselves, granting them a new perspective that changes their dynamic with the protagonist and adds a layer of nuance to their character arc. This kind of development can be performed on any archetype, from the “Threshold Guardians” acting as obstacles for the hero to the “Shadow,” otherwise known as the antagonist. To this extent, archetypes can be a springboard for writers to experiment with typical storytelling structures.
For instance, J. R. R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy adheres not only to the traditional hero’s journey model, but also employs archetypes to a considerable degree. Each character in the series can be mapped to one or multiple archetypes. Frodo, unsurprisingly, aligns with the hero, as the narrative focuses on his struggles as he journeys throughout Middle Earth. Gollum, or Smeagol, embodies the complex “Shapeshifter” archetype by guiding Frodo and Sam through treacherous areas, but betrays them in attempting to take the One Ring for himself. Every archetype Tolkien employs possesses a function within the narrative, and each character explores a different facet of their respective archetypes. For example, Aragorn begins as a mysterious and competent ally, but gradually reveals his ability to fulfill the role of secondary hero throughout the books. Though he is assigned one archetype, his transformation demonstrates the potential for a character like him to become something more. To this extent, Tolkien’s works exemplify how writers can utilize archetypes to their full effect.
Despite the options archetypes provide and the depths to which writers may explore them, they may restrict storytellers who rely on them through stark categorization. Though some archetypes, such as the “Shapeshifter” or the “Trickster,” offer the flexibility for a character’s alignment to fluctuate, most remain relatively static. Even if primary antagonists are created to be sympathetic, their archetypal designation restrains their capacity for change. If the hero’s opponent always conforms to the “Shadow” archetype—a manifestation of the hero’s flaws—the character can only grow so much (Gibson). In this regard, adhering only to archetypal roles limits creativity, reducing characters to cardboard cutouts. Many stories make the mistake of forsaking personality and depth in favor of easy character creation, especially with young adult protagonists. If a writer prioritizes following established patterns over creating idiosyncratic characters, archetypes become less of a building block for narrative development and more of a constraint. In essence, deviation from what is expected sparks innovation.
As such, it’s important to remember that the archetypes are not strict rules writers must follow. While they’re not entirely arbitrary and can help writers find their characters’ places in the story, they can be altered to suit the unique situations they encounter. Understanding the various archetypes and their pivotal roles in constructing compelling narratives is crucial to the writing journey, but applying the concepts requires a bit of ingenuity. Combining archetypes into one character, experimenting with subversions, and allowing the roles to expand throughout the writing process are great ways to build off the known patterns. A story that uses clear-cut, easy-to-discern archetypes can be perfectly viable, but expanding characters beyond their baseline functions will make a narrative truly stand out. Ultimately, the decision to utilize archetypes to build characters and the degree to which they conform relies on personal preference, but writers should be mindful of the benefits and restrictions conventional storytelling roles entail.
Works Cited
Campbell, Joseph. The Hero with a Thousand Faces. 1949. New World Library, 2008.
Gibson, Michael. “A Horde of Heroes: The Eight Character Archetypes and How to Use Them.” Presto Page, 11 Oct. 2023, https://prestopage.com/a-horde-of-heroes-the-eight-character-archetypes-and-how-to-use-them/
)