|
Introduction
When
we first encounter people in real life, we tend to initially classify them by
type. Sometimes their type might refer to their principal activity, such
as scientist, priest, terrorist, indigent, homemaker, secretary, and so
on. You hear it on television all the time: "And this is Janet, a
homemaker from Charlottesville," or "In other news, a Cal-Tech
Scientist predicts continuing after-shocks."
In
the case of professions, we expect certain "professional behavior," of
each individual in that group that suppresses any personal variation in favor of
a standard code. Unless we come to learn more about these people, we
never see them as anything but a marionette, dancing to the same tune as all the
other priests, terrorists, or secretaries. And, in fact, we really don't
need to know more about them, since we are unlikely to encounter these
individuals again.
In
other cases, we classify people by personality type, as when we label someone a
jerk, screw-up, comedian, studious, considerate, or martyr. Of course,
these are just generalizations, but they sum up a collection of traits that we
feel best define each individual's attitude or approach to life
We
might also define people by their affect on us or relationship to us, such as a
true friend, tag-along, role model, inspiration, protector, big-brother, boss,
drinking-buddy, or nemesis. These are also just generalizations, but even
with people we know well, we might sum them up as a particular type when we
discuss them with others, or even when we think casually about them ourselves.
Stereotypes
When
it comes to characters, both readers and audiences (and even authors!) treat
them as real people, and use all of the techniques outlined above in classifying
them. The result is to relegate characters into familiar groups called Stereotypes.
Dealing
with characters as stereotypes has both pros and cons. On the pro side,
certain stereotypes become cultural favorites, such as the bully, the screamer,
or the jaded cop. They provide an author with a means of having the
audience and reader almost instantly relate to a character they have just met.
In
addition, stereotypes carry with them a myriad of expected traits, so the author
is not obliged to take the time to fully draw the character. Rather, by
simply identifying a character as a particular stereotype, the author can rely
on the knowledge that the audience or reader will assume that all the other
traits must also be present.
So,
on the one hand, the audience hooks into the character very quickly, and on the
other hand, the author need only minimally describe the character for the
audience to supply a wealth of additional depth.
In
contrast, stereotypes can also have negative impact on a story. If a
character is introduced as being too stereotypical, the reader will reject it as
unbelievable and uninventive. Such a character will cast a pall over the
entire story before it even gets started. Even if your plot is clever, or
your storytelling style unique, your audience may have already made up its mind
against you. Once that happens, you may never be able to dig out of the
hole the overly stereotypical character has placed you.
Another
potential negative aspect of stereotypes is based on how they differ from real
people. As we get to know people in our own lives, we gradually change our
view of them as type and come to see them as individuals. We learn about
additional attributes they possess and about expected attributes that turn out
not to be part of their make up. We see this in the football player who
crochets, or the grandmother who is a crack-shot.
Variances
from stereotypical norms don't have to be that drastic, but if a character
completely toes a stereotypical line, they hold no ongoing interest for your
audience. There is nothing more to know and there is nothing that ever
changes.
To
overcome this drawback, you must allow your stereotypes to evolve as your reader
gets to know them over the course of the story. Show
where your characters differ from audience expectations, where they have
additional attributes, and where they don't contain the expected elements.
Have them alter their make up, adopting new aspects and discarding others, just
to keep them fresh.
When
you show how your characters deviate from audience assumptions, your audience
feels as if it is becoming more personally familiar with them. When you
have the character actually alter its initially stereotypical make-up, the
character will appear to grow.
This
growth is not the same as when your main character must grapple with a personal
moral dilemma and then change or hold the original course. Rather, it is
the kind of growth that happens to each of us as we develop skills, become rusty
in unused abilities, expand our interests, or learn new techniques. It
makes a character organic, rather than freezing it in place.
Archetypes
Whereas
stereotypes are defined by a particular collection of personal traits, Archetypes
are defined by their dramatic function in the story. Archetypes include
such familiar characters as Protagonist, Antagonist, and Reason, for example.
You
can easily see the difference between stereotypes and archetypes by considering
that in one story a bully might be the protagonist, while in another the
protagonist is a nerd, and a third story might have a protagonist who is a jaded
cop.
The
protagonist is the character who drives the effort to achieve the goal.
What kind of personality traits he or she exhibits is frosting on the structural
cake. So, in a story that includes a bully, a nerd, and a jaded
cop, who is the protagonist? It depends on their functions in the story.
The
jaded cop might be the protagonist, the bully could be the antagonist, and the
nerd the reason archetype. Or, the nerd could be the protagonist, the
jaded cop might be the antagonist, and the bully would be the reason archetype.
In other words, you can mix and
match personality types with archetypes to create an infinite variety of
characters.
As
mentioned in an earlier lesson, characters have two jobs:
1.
They must have completely developed personalities.
2.
They must fulfill a role in the story's structure.
Stereotypes
meet the first requirement by assigning a personality type to a character.
Archetypes
meet the second requirement by assigning a dramatic function to a character.
Still
and all, both stereotypes and archetypes are broadly drawn caricatures.
There are many other more complex and subtle variations of both personalities
and functions.
We'll
explore stereotypes, archetypes, and more varied forms extensively as this
course progresses. But for now, the point is to introduce the human
tendency to classify people and characters by type, and that the two principal
kinds of types are stereotypes which define a character's personal attributes
and archetypes which define its structural function.
Exercises: Identifying
Character Types
1.
List three well-known stereotypes you have come across in a book, movie, stage
play, or television episode.
2.
Describe why each qualifies as a stereotype, based on the material in the lesson.
3.
List three well-known archetypes you have come across in a book, movie, stage
play, or television episode.
4.
Describe why each qualifies as an archetype, based on the material in the lesson.
5.
List three stereotypes, other than the ones covered in the lesson, and describe
the traits you would expect each to possess.
6.
For each of the three stereotypes you created, describe how each might be a
protagonist.
Copyright
2003 Melanie Anne Phillips
Visit
http://storymind.com for tips, tricks,
techniques, and tools for writers
|
