narrativefirst

Narrative Science & the Movies

By Jim Hull

A series of articles entitled "archetypal characters"

Archetypes and the Hero's

Journey
November 26th, 2009

By far, the most useless aspect of the Heros Journey mono-myth lies
with the concept of the character archetype. The Shapeshifter, the
Trickster, the Threshold Guardianwhile romantically named, prove
ultimately worthless to the working writer.
On the other hand, Archetypal Characters as defined by the Dramatica theory of
story prove extremely beneficial. Here, characters are seen as functions, completely
devoid of their relationship to the hero of a story. Protagonists pursue goals and
Antagonists prevent them. Guardians help while Contagonists get in the way.
The Hero is nowhere to be found.
While there are some similarities between the two ways of looking at story, the
mono-myth approach falls well short of defining all the archetypes present in a
complete story. The following is a comparison of the two paradigms and the relative
usefulness of each. It assumes you have a working knowledge of the Dramatica
Archetypes.
First, lets start with the Campbell archetypes that are actually helpful:

The Hero
Campbell: The Heros function is to serve and sacrifice.
Dramatica equivalent: Protagonist - the Protagonists function is to pursue the

goal of the story. There are no moral implications associated with this function; the goal
could be noble, it could be despicable. All that matters is that this character is the one
pushing the effort towards the goal. Restore order could be interpreted as solving the
storys problem, but again order implies some sort of assumed preference to things
being orderly (sometimes chaos is the thing that can solve a storys problem). The
concept of Hero is identified as the character who is both Protagonist and Main
Character. The two are not automatically the same.

Mentor
Campbell: The Mentors function is to guide.
Dramatica equivalent: Guardian - the Guardians function is to teach or help, and
represents conscience. This one is pretty similar, although its important to point out
that the Campbell version assumes the Mentor is guiding the Hero of the story. The
Guardian could be helping or teaching anyone. All that matters is that they objectively
represent that function.

Shadow
Campbell: The Shadows function is to destroy.
Dramatica equivalent: Antagonist - the Antagonists function is to prevent the
goal of the story from being met. This too is pretty similar, but the idea that they have
to destroy can be limiting to some writers.

Ally
Campbell: The Allys function is to assist.
Dramatica equivalent: Sidekick - the Sidekicks function is to show faithful
support. Again, the same.

Shapeshifter
Campbell: The Shapeshifters function is to question and deceive.
Dramatica equivalent: While the deceiving part sounds closer to Contagonist, the
idea that this character is supposed to supply doubt in a story implies that this
character is the Skeptic - the Skeptics function is to be the disbeliever - the cynical
one who opposes efforts towards the goal.

Trickster
Campbell: The Tricksters function is to disrupt.
Dramatica equivalent: The closest thing would be the Contagonist - the
Contagonists function is to deflect or hinder the efforts towards the goal. In addition
and in opposition to the Guardians function, the Contagonist represents temptation.
But this is where the similarities cease and Campbells archetypes begin to break

down in terms of their objective usefulness.

Threshold Guardian and Herald

Campbell: The Threshold Guardians function is to test. The Heralds function is to
warn and challenge.
Dramatica equivalent: There is no equivalent. Campbell sees both the Threshold
Guardian and the Herald as characters responsible for driving the story forward. In the
case of the TG, the hero must meet and overcome him in order to commit himself to
his quest. In other words he turns Act 1 to Act 2. Thats a lot of responsibility for one
character. Its also extremely limiting creatively.
The concept of the Herald is even more egregious. This poor character has the
major responsibility of issuing the challenge to the Main Character to embark on the
journey in the first place. Proponents of Campbells theory are quick to point out that
this character can be a newspaper or a storm, but you really shouldnt have to bend a
theory in order to make it work.
Act turns should not be tied to any one character. Not only is it limiting in terms of
a writers creativity, it doesnt even make sense. The development of a storys
problem progresses along the competing throughlines (the main plot, the Main
Characters throughline, etc.) based on the kind of drivers established at the beginning
of a storys problems.

Logic and Emotion

The most interesting aspect of this whole study is the fact that Campbell is leaving out
two very important archetypes - the Reason archetype and the Emotion archetype.
Interestingly enough, most stories that follow the monomyth paradigm find a way to
blend the elements of Reason and Emotion into the Hero or any one of the Allies
attached to him or her.

The Usefulness of Any Archetype

Regardless of which paradigm is followed, stories that use Archetypal Characters
often fall flat in the character department. Star Wars and Contact are not textbook
examples of masterful character development. What you see is what you get. But what
they can do is give an author a starting point or shorthand to get them rolling towards
whatever it was that excited them about writing in the first place. I suspect George
Lucas was more interested in battling light swords than he was the subtle intricacies of
character motivation.
Clearly though, one approach is superior and far more succinct in its examination
of what constitutes a complete story. Archetypal Characters, as defined by Dramatica,
are seen as a collection of complimentary elements that work in tandem to provide an
example of one way of solving the storys central problem. They are defined not by
their relation to the Hero, but by their function within the story and thus, are not

confined by one narrow view of what stands for a great story.

Concepts covered: archetypes, story driver.

Archetypes That Make Sense

November 28th, 2009
Wouldnt it be nice if you had a set of eight basic characters from which to draw upon
while writing a story? And wouldnt it be nicer if they operated completely
independent of the hero?
As previously explained, the character archetypes found in the Heros Journey
mono-myth are a complete waste of time for anyone interested in writing a story. They
define a vision of character that is so narrow, that they become useless to anyone
trying to write a story that isnt about a heros transformational journey. And there
are a lot of writers who arent.
The Dramatica Archetypes on the other hand are, by design, objective and
therefore can be used in any story regardless of purpose.

Light Swords and Explosions in Space

It should be obvious that the impetus for writing Star Wars had little to do with the
intricacies of refined character development. As such, the characters in that film come
off flat and to a point, obvious. Yet, they still work. Why is that?
In my classes, I present a collection of slides describing each and every
Archetype. Definitions of each are provided, along with their corresponding character
within Star Wars. Examples from the Robert Zemeckis film Contact are also
provided.
Contaga-wha?

Archetypes and Balance

There is balance within the archetypes. Protagonists have their Antagonists, Sidekicks
have their Skeptics, and Reason has Emotion. Without that balance, a story will feel
one-sided and the audience will feel cheated. You cant have one side of an argument
without supplying the other. To that end, it is important to bring up the concept of the
Contagonist.
The Contagonist is solely a Dramatica innovation and one that becomes
demonstrably necessary when considered within the context of balance. The Guardian
character, perhaps one of the most widely used character archetypes in all of narrative
fiction, cannot exist in a vacuum. That character needs their counterpart in order for

their function within a story to seem genuine.

Useful Tools for Writings

So there you have the eight basic character archetypes, defined clearly and objectively
without the use of masks. Each has a function within the story: the Protagonist
pursues the goal while the Antagonist tries to prevent that from happening. The
Sidekick cheers them on while the Skeptic cynically disapproves. Reason gives levelheaded advice while Emotion provides the right side of the brain with comfort. And
finally, the Guardian chips in and actually helps out while the Contagonist just gets in
the way.
But what makes these far superior to Tricksters or Shapeshifters is that they are
defined NOT by their relation to the hero, but rather by their function towards or
away from the story goal. Sidekicks dont have to be attached to the Protagonist
and Contagonists dont have to act as servants to the Antagonist. All that matters is
that they perform their functions in regards to the story goal. Regardless of what kind
of story you are trying to write, and as long as you buy into the idea that stories are
about solving problems (which I think everyone can universally agree on), it then
becomes clear that archetypes based on the goal of a story actually serve as useful
tools for a writer. Any kind of writer.
The only problem with these guys is that theyre kind of boring if used as is.
Coming up next, well dive into these characters in more detail, see what makes them
tick, and show ways of actually making them interesting.
Concepts covered: archetypes.

Character Motivation Defined

December 3rd, 2009
Characters are more than the labels they are so easily defined with.
As explained in the previous article introducing the Dramatica Archetypes, each
character is defined by their function within the main story line. Protagonists pursue
goals while Guardians aid the effort towards that goal. While these quick definitions
make it easy to understand their purpose in a story, they fall short of actually providing
an author with the means to use these characters in a story.
To find those tools within the archetypes, they first must be broken down into a
finer resolution.

The Elements of Character

If you want to know what motivates your character, you must move beyond the labels
of Protagonist and Antagonist and look at the elements that created that label in the
first place. Looking this closely at a character, we can see that there are motivations
that lead to action and motivations that lead to decision making. An archetype happens
when just the right action element is matched up with just the right decision element.
Put the two together in the same character and the labels weve grown so familiar with
will ring out as if striking the right harmonic chord.
I focus my attention on defining the elements that work well together in the second
part of my presentation on Archetypal Characters.
So a Protagonist is driven to Pursue a goal (their Action element) while at the same
time possessing the motivation to Consider (their Decision element) the pros and cons
of attempting that goal. The Antagonist is driven to Prevent that goal and to force the
characters in the story to Reconsider whether or not they should take action in the first
place. Match the right Action element with the right Decision element and you get an
Archetypal Character. While there may indeed be some cultural significance to these
characters (as witnessed by Jung/Campbell/Vogler), their real power lies in their
objective reality.
At first glance, it may be difficult to decipher the difference between Consider and
Reconsider. The former describes a character who weighs their options, makes a
decision and moves on. The latter describes a character who has already made a
decision, but now finds themselves debating whether they made the right decision or
not. Its difficult to make sense of at first, but once you see it at work, over time it will
start to become apparent (I promise).
In addition, its important to note that these elements do not necessarily have to be
within the character themselves, they can be attributed to or seen as properties of
that character by others within the story. The Antagonist represents the motivation to
Reconsider, whether they are driven to do it themselves or whether they motivate
others to Reconsider. Regardless of how it is exposed within a story, all that matters is
that they represent that part of the storys larger argument.

Character Archetypes in Star Wars

Youll find examples of each Archetype broken down by their motivation elements at
the end of this article.
You can see how the murder of Lukes aunt and uncle is really an attempt by the
Empire to get the Rebels to Reconsider their rebellious efforts. Its not so much that
Mr. Tarkin is pacing back and forth deliberating whether or not he made the right
choice as it is that he and his compatriots represent the motivation to Reconsider.
Lucky for the galaxy, Luke decided to stick with his original Consideration.

Now What?
But Archetypal Characters are boring, right? For the most part, I agree. Sure, maybe
one or two within a story is OK, but all eight? Probably not a good idea nowadays

(unless youre purposely trying to create a throwback to 20th century fiction). The
trick is to realize that you dont have to match up the right Action element with the right
Decision element. You can mix and match to your hearts desire. In other words, you
can let your creativity take over.
Woody Harrelsons character in Zombieland, Tallahassee, is a unique mix of
elements from the Guardian Archetype and the Contagonist Archetype. As Guardian
to Jesse Einsenberg and the girls, Tallahassee represents the drive to Help the group
reach the amusement park. But it would be quite a stretch to say that he also
represented the other Guardian element, Conscience, in the story. If anything, he is
motivated by Temptation. You dont have to look much further than his addiction to
Hostess Sno Balls for proof of that. This is what makes his character so unique and
interesting. The fact that he is motivated by conflicting elements creates an
interestingness factor to him that Ben Kenobi cant quite live up to.
You can even combine Archetypal Characters as they did in the original Toy
Story. Woody is both the Protagonist and Reason character of the story. As
Protagonist, he Pursues the goal of reuniting with Andy while also Considering the pros
and cons of taking Buzz back with him. As Reason, he applies Logic (as in the opening
sequence when all the other toys are freaking out during Andys birthday party) while
at the same time maintaining Control over the group and the situation.

To Creativity and Beyond

This understanding of Character Archetypes is precisely what makes the Dramatica
theory of story superior to all previous understandings of story. As opposed to the
Campbell/Heros journey paradigm, the Dramatica Archetypes are seen as stepping
stones towards more complex storytelling. While you can use them as is, their real
power lies in their ability to easily communicate a real understanding of character
motivation. In fact, once you understand the elements that make up an Archetypal
Character, the only limit to character development is your own imagination.
Concepts covered: archetypes, motivations.

0:00