Archetypal Characters in Dramatica

by Dena
(Arizona)

Question: Regarding the eight Archetypal Characters in dramatica and their functions... Can you clarify how I could make all of these function in a different way?

Answer: To clarify, Dramatica identifies 16 character functions. Each function has its polar opposite, making the following pairs:

pursue vs. avoid
consider vs. reconsider
faith vs. doubt
support vs. oppose
help vs. hinder
conscience vs. temptation
feeling vs. logic
control vs. uncontrolled

The 8 archetypal characters are simply traditional ways of dividing up the 16 functions. Each of the archetypal characters possesses two functions:

Protagonist: pursue, consider
Antagonist: avoid, reconsider
Sidekick: faith, support
Skeptic: doubt, oppose
Guardian: help, conscience
Contagonist: hinder, temptation
Reason: control, logic
Emotion: uncontrolled, feeling

However, you don't have to use these archetypal groupings. You can give a character whatever function or functions you want, as long as you don't give any character functions that oppose each other. For instance, it would make no sense for a character to have both the faith and the doubt functions.

Let's say you have two characters, Bob and Doug who are the bad guys in your story. But instead of the archetypal antagonist and contagonist roles, you assign their functions this way:

Bob: avoid, hinder
Doug reconsider, temptation

Now these guys are a little different. One perhaps works more physically, the other psychologically.

Or you could mix it up even more:

Bob: avoid, logic
Doug: reconsider, feeling

Now Doug may come across as a wimpy character whose emotions hamper the other characters, while Bob becomes calculating in his effort to thwart the hero.

You don't have to give each character two functions: a character can theoretically have anywhere from zero to eight. However, between one and three would be typical for major characters.

The important thing is to make sure all the functions are represented to give balance to your cast.

Finding Plot Roles For Archetypes

by Michael Barnaby
(North Fort Myers, Florida)

Question: My story idea is this: Protagonist has lived entire life passively through to retirement (shown by examples) and then has something stolen - rosary beads carved of olivewood that's been in the family for generations. Obviously only sentimental value to rosary. Theft finally moves him to action. {I have antagonist and contagonist and reason for theft covered}. Would like Protagonist to travel (to Florida from NY and meet other characters) in order to solve. Problem: I've tried, but can't imagine 1.Having other characters with interest/need to be involved throughout the story and 2. at the same time, fit archetypes. Any advice will be appreciated.
Thank You.

Answer: In order to properly help you with this question, I would need to know what the Story Goal is.

Is the Protagonist trying to recover the rosary? Catch the thief? Reconnect with his family or his past? Recover a memory?

A clear Story Goal can act as an organizing principle for the characters as well as the plot.

For instance, the Sidekick could be anyone who speaks in favour of the Protagonist's quest, while the Skeptic would be someone who is against it. (Keep in mind, the Antagonist could be the person who keeps company with the Sidekick or Skeptic.) These characters don't need to be intimately involved with the rosary to have an opinion.

You could also have a character who helps the Protagonist on his quest - a Guardian - who balances the Contagonist. This could be a policeman, social worker, family member, friend taxi driver, or anyone in fact who takes an interest in the Protagonist.

Finally, since it obviously takes a big push to get this Protagonist to embark on the quest (since he is by nature a Be-er), perhaps the Emotion character could be the person who gets him moving with an emotional appeal - reminding him why it is so important to recover the rosary. It could even be someone in a memory or dream.

The possibilities are really endless. The idea is that all the possible motivations related to the Story Goal are represented, so that the story feels complete.

What you might do is make a list of all the possible people the Protagonist could encounter or needs to encounter in his quest for the Story Goal and then see which ones it might be interesting to assign an archetypal role.

Follow-Up - Finding Plot Roles For Archetypes

by Michael Barnaby
(North Fort Myers, Florida)

Glen:
Thanks you for the detailed and quick response to my questions. Greatly, greatly appreciated. Hopefully I absorbed some of what you wrote. Here is where I stand now - my thoughts - not really a formal synopsis: Protagonist Mark Higgins, among others, has been victimized by the "Snowbird Burglar" who struck in the late fall three years running in Mark's small town. Burglar takes jewelry, gold and religious items. No religious items, but all other items, found through sales to flea market vendor; thief caught. Turns out he is a “snowbird”, wintering in Florida in a small, modest condo community. That and all other info, including name/address, becomes public knowledge when he's arrested. Turns out thief is dying of cancer (unknown to public), pays restitution, gets probation and let go.
Mark has been passively drifting through life for forty years and been consciously aware of and disgusted by it. Recently forced into early retirement due to economy; wife died of cancer ten years prior. His story goals are in reality multiple - first, to recover the rosary, with its personal and family-memory value, second, plain old-fashioned anger over robbery (“almost felt like I was raped”) third, to consciously change his attitude/lifestyle to one which more actively engages life, and lastly to prove to himself that can accomplish, start and follow through on something on his own, without family or employer obligation.
As a result of the above, Mark “snaps” - he wants back an antique olivewood rosary that’s been in family for many years. Brought back from the formation of Israeli state ceremony in 1940’s by an aunt, a nun). Also feels shame that his aunt went through so much, and feels obligated to retrieve - this must be about reason #10! Throughout story, Mark will be dramatically, passionately focused on recovery.
By phone, Mark rents a furnished condo unit for a month where antagonist lives. Contaganist and traveling partner is friend Dottie, his opposite, who has two weeks vacation (she has time-option limit). Contaganist is atheist, Mark isn’t, and this can play into story and tension, though story definitely isn’t overtly religious. Some past history can come during drive.
Mark meets colorful next-door neighbor Luella (obese 60’s throwback), who becomes Guardian. Through her meets Brother John (minister) and Octavia (social worker), young Black couple in community. She becomes Sidekick; he becomes Skeptic. These two may also double at times as Reason and Emotion. Also have another character in mind for Emotion - a retired female business manager, who is surprisingly vocal and very passionate regarding religion. Hopefully will make recruitment events interesting and story-progressive. Not all characters will be inclined to help - antagonist, it turns out, is highly regarded by many.
I now picture the story beginning in Luella's apartment, who he's just met, and giving backstory in pieces through dialogue.
Climax: Mark visits Philly Starnes, antagonist, homebound, who’s semi-conscious, drifting in and out. Looks pitiful. Starnes has rosary wrapped in hands, fingering them prayerfully.

Now I just need to figure out the part where you say, "The possibilities are really endless". I think that part's called "Imagination and Scene Creation"!

##

"Goal must involve or affect all or most characters. We will build a world around our protagonist that includes many perspectives on the problem and makes the goal important to everyone in that world."

Hopefully I'm getting closer.

Would appreciate any further help, if possible and convenient.

Thanks again,
Mike

Answer: Mike, you know I can't write your story for you, so I'll express a couple of thoughts.

One thing your outline leaves me wondering is how this story will end. In what state/condition will Mark be in at the end of the story? Will he be at peace? Will he be better off? Will the journey have been worthwhile? (This is the story Judgement.)

The climax seems a little flat, probably because I'm not sure what the big decision is that will determine the outcome. Does Mark resolve his inner struggle by taking back the rosary or by leaving it in Philly's hands? What does the decision mean to Mark? Is the message of the story about gaining or losing faith (which the rosary symbolizes)? Or is it about passing faith on?

Is there an impact character - someone who provides an example of the type of person Mark wishes he was or feels pressured to become?

I feel you should probably nail down the Story Goal. If it's "recovering the rosary," okay. If the outcome is failure, you could have the basis of a tragi-comic ending. Somehow that feels better to me than a goal of revenge. The burglary is really the initial driver that sets the story in motion (which incidentally implies that the story will end with an action). But the story seems to be about more than a simple quest for revenge. As for the third option you suggest (essentially to become a man who accomplishes things), perhaps that's Mark's inner conflict?

When I suggest that the Goal should affect or involve most characters, you are clearly on your way there. Mark and Philly both want the rosary. And if the rosary does represent faith, several of your other characters obviously have opinions about possessing faith or could be affected by the outcome of Mark's decision.

One final suggestion: have you looked at the article regarding the 8 Steps to Creating a Plot Outline (https://www.how-to-write-a-book-now.com/plot-outline.html)?

I think that might help you fill in some of the remaining plot holes.

Best of luck with this story.

Creating my reason, emotion, sidekick and Skeptic archetype

I have a hard time creating my reason, emotion, sidekick and skeptic archetypes. My protagonist is a warrior human who pursues freeing people from the goblins and he considers that humanity could live a free life from tyranny. My antagonist is the Goblin who wants to prevent the people from being free from the goblins and reconsiders saying that if they try they would eat everyone. The guardian helps the protagonist and is the voice of the conscience saying that the protagonist must become like Goblins and put aside his warrior ways in order to get to them. But my contagonist tries to hinder him and tempts him to go full bash in his warrior lifestyle and not submit to their ways. There lies the problem I cannot figure out my reason, emotion, sidekick and skeptic characters and how they contribute to the overall value of the story. Thanks.

Answer: One thing to bear in mind is that all these characters can appear on either side of the conflict. For instance, your Sidekick and Skeptic can appear in the company of the Goblin as easily as the Hero. They can also be on no one's side. Your Hero or Villain may encounter them on neutral terrain in the course of events.

The importance of these characters is that they represent different ways of evaluating people's efforts. The Reason character will take a rational, focused approach. The Emotion character will operate on emotions and pay attention to things outside the main focus. The Sidekick will be supportive and optimistic. The Skeptic will criticize and be pessimistic. All these different points of view help other characters and the reader see the right course of action.

Not all the characters require starring roles. But having them appear somewhere in the story gives a sense of completeness to the story. For instance, if there is no Reason point of view to balance the Emotion, something can feel missing.

I'm guessing you are planning to have more than four characters in your story, since four is not a lot. Assigning your characters different archetypal roles will also help you distinguish them from each other. Nothing is more dull than a story in which all the characters seem the same and have the same emotional drives.

Of course, you will add other distinguishing traits such as backgrounds, physical features, likes/dislikes, skills, etc. But the archetypal motivations will help you know how each character will react in a situation.

archetypal characters

by Dvora
(Jerusalem)

I created several archetypal characters: mad-genius, flighty philosopher and so on.

Is it right to make the characters completely archetypal with physical characteristics according to the archetype or not?

For instance genius bit curly hair, an aquiline nose, body tall and thin? (As Sherlock Holmes). Will it make the novel less interesting because the characters are inherently recognizable and familiar?

Will it be confusing if the characters are opposite the archetypes?

Thank you for this site. It's amazing.

Answer: I think what you are working with are what I might call stock characters rather than archetypes.

(For instance, if we consider protagonist and antagonist to be archetypal roles, then a mad genius could take on either of those roles in a story. Stock characters are about the external traits and personality types. Archetypal characters are about the dramatic roles certain characters play.)

The trouble with stock characters is that they are too recognizable. They can appear inauthentic because they are based on characters from other stories rather than people in real life. They can seem derivative and cliched.

One thing you can do with a stock character to make it seem fresh is to play against the type. As you suggest, you can give them traits that seem to work at odds with the expectations and then figure out how to reconcile any apparent contradictions in a way that makes sense.

But even if you don't play with the external traits, the best thing you can do with stock characters is to give them authenticity and depth. Give the character an inner life with believable motivations, feelings, thoughts, goals, flaws, etc. Try to base the character more on real people than on fictional characters.

For instance, you might imagine what someone you know would be like if they were put in the position of the villain. What would it take to make them behave that way? How would they approach the problems they face, given their unique personality?

If your story is more plot-driven than character-driven, you may not want to take a lot of time describing each character's inner life. But look for places where you can add telling details that hint at what might be going on under the surface. Make sure the character reacts not just to what's happening externally but also in a way that reflects their unique personality and concerns.

Best of luck.

Archetypal Characters and Balance

Question: I have long since wanted to write a series of novels but the questions I have about archetypal characters and balance have prevented me from doing so and almost taken my passion away. They are...

1) Would killing a character who pursues the goal in a story affect the balance of the story? 'Cause in one of your articles about the orphan boy it read that there must be balance.
And....
2) Since reading the article about Archetypal Characters --I think the only Major Archetypal Characters are....Emotion, Reason, Sidekick, Guardian, Protagonist, Antagonist and lastly the Contagonist which makes me wonder why the series called Heroes of Olympus doesn't make sense to me anymore.
Why it doesn't make sense to me anymore?
Well, because there are like 8 or more Major Characters when there should be only eight.
And....if there are only 8 Archetypal Characters, why don't some fit the roles of the Contagonist and so forth?
Which makes me think what roles do they fit?
To help out in this question... Some of the Major Characters I do know of are...Leo,Hazel, Annabeth, Frank, Jason, Piper, and of course we all know Percy Jackson. And... if you haven't read the Epic, long books you can go to Wikipedia and look up the Heroes of Olympus-there they give you a whole, short, detailed overview of the plots and characters. Pease help!

Answer:

1. There's nothing wrong with killing off a character. Sometimes this is done as a forewarning of what might happen to others if the goal is not achieved, or as a cost that demonstrates how important it is to achieve the goal. Sometimes it is done just to make the villain unlikable, so we know which side to root for.

2. I confess I haven't read the Heroes of Olympus series. However, not every story uses archetypal characters. The archetypes are typical ways of grouping the 16 dramatic functions, by assigning one action element and one decision element to each of the eight characters.

However, a writer can assign the elements in different combinations to make non-archetypal characters. The only rule is that you shouldn't assign two opposing elements to the same character. For example, if a character was both pursuing the story goal and trying to prevent it, it wouldn't make sense. He would be fighting with himself.

You can have characters who do not play a dramatic role (and have no elements assigned to them), or perhaps play a dramatic role in a sub-plot but not the main plot. You might assign only one element to each character, giving you 16 characters. Or you could have as few as two characters.

And, although it is not as strong, not every story has characters to represent all the elements.

Consider that stories would become very boring if the archetypes were really obvious in every book. Part of the trick in writing is to dress up the dramatic functions in new disguises so that most readers won't even think about a character's function. They just enjoy seeing it in action.

Nonetheless, when all the elements are present, it feels as though the story problem has been explored from every angle. It makes all the characters occupy a different role, with no duplication or absences.

The Skeptic Archetype in Dramatica

Question: In your article about character archetypes, the skeptic seems to take on a negative role as a character that the others will constantly have conflicting opinions with. Is this always true? A character that comes to mind is the character Boromir in The Lord of the Rings. He is skeptical of the plans and often falls into the archetype "Tempter" but he is, truly, in no way a "bad" character and possesses many other good qualities. Can you give me other examples of the skeptic archetype in dramatica?

Answer: Skeptics are not necessarily bad. They can serve quite positively as the force that tries to stop other characters from getting carried away with a bad idea. Their skepticism can help others see through lies, find the flaws in their plans, and figure out what they really believe in.

Some examples:

Han Solo plays the role of Skeptic in the first Star Wars film (episode IV). He's constantly against every plan. He doesn't believe in the force. And sometimes he's right. For instance, when Luke tries to persuade him to help rescue the Princess, by pointing out that he wanted to be doing something, Han says, "Marching into the detention block was not what I had in mind." His concern is legitimate, and it prods Luke to refine his plan.

Starbuck, the first mate in Moby Dick, serves as a Skeptic. When he hears Captain Ahab's plan to hunt the white whale that bit off his leg, Starbuck points out, "Vengeance against a dumb brute...that simply smote thee from blindest instinct... seems blasphemous." He's right of course, and in this case he helps the reader to see Ahab's madness.

In the old Star Trek series, when Kirk wants to arm one faction on a primitive planet because he discovers the Klingon's are arming a different faction, McCoy takes on the role of Skeptic to warn him of the danger in this course of action. Even though Kirk doesn't take McCoy's advice, the exchange shows the audience that Kirk is not embarking on this plan lightly.

Does this mean Skeptics always are in conflict? Often they are. Just as there is frequently conflict between Protagonists and Antagonists, Reason and Emotion characters, Guardians and Contagonists.

Obviously, natural conflict exists between Skeptics and Sidekicks. For instance, Sam and Smeagle fight a lot as they play these roles while traveling with Frodo in Lord of the Rings. (In fact, I believe they switch roles a few times in their journey to Mordor.)

However, Skeptics are not always fighting Sidekicks. Sometimes the main character simply gets different advice or points of view from various characters and the conflict then takes place within the main character's mind. In some stories, you'll have a villain with a Sidekick and a hero keeping company with a Skeptic (or it could be the other way around) such that the Sidekick and Skeptic never meet.

Any character function or motivation can create conflict with its opposite. But there are also situations where it might compliment another motivation, or act as a catalyst. Skeptics can have friends as well as foes.

Archetypal Characters in The Hunger Games

by John Rod Lingues
(Philippines)

Question: I am a great fan of the Hunger Games and know every character. Could you tell me who among them is the impact character and what characters fulfill archetypal roles in The Hunger Games, since they'll be very easy to understand for me. Thanks :)

Answer: You might get more out of doing the analysis yourself, since you know the story so well.

The impact character is definitely Peeta. Katniss's approach is to conceal her emotions and do what she must to survive. Peeta's approach is to be true to himself even if it endangers his survival. He will give Katniss bread, even if he gets a beating for it. He saves her life, even though it means getting wounded. He will not fight her in the finale or let the games change him because being true to himself is more important than winning.

I'm not certain The Hunger Games characters are perfectly archetypal, but of the top of my head (which means a quick best-fit approach that might need some refinement later), I'd say...

Protagonist: Katniss.
Antagonist: Capital/President Snow (reconsider), Cato (avoid).
Emotion: Peeta (feeling), Effie (uncontrolled).
Guardian: Hamish, Thresh
Sidekick: Rue, Primrose
Skeptic: Clove (disbelief), Peeta (doubt)
Contagonist: Gale (temptation), Gamemaster Seneca (hinder).

That leaves Reason, which I'm tempted to assign to Cinna.

Obviously, some of the functions get handed off to different characters as the story progresses (which is common).

As I say, this is just a quick take. You (or another reader) may find an argument for a better way to assign these functions.

Popular Articles

---