Archetypes, Stereotypes and Character Creation

Good fiction writing relies on the creation of believable and compelling characters. It's a challenging task, but writers can fall back on some tried-and-true models -- as long as those models are a starting point not a substitute for character development. Most characters can be traced to an "archetype," which, if properly developed, adds cultural and psychological resonance. An archetype is a model or prototype, often symbolic and thematic. Think of myths and fairy tales. Examples would be The Hero, The Sage/Mentor, The Damsel, The Fool/Jester, The Femme Fatale, etc. Within each category may be more detailed archetypes. For example, in a previous post, I discussed The Bad Boy Hero archetype (your James Dean model), along with other options such as The Lost Soul Hero (those sexy vampires) and The Best Friend Hero (read Tom Hanks). The key is to take the archetype's basic outline and fill in unique personality traits and a colorful back story to create a character with depth and originality. You will otherwise end up with an uninteresting, cookie-cutter cliché. Worse, you may lard your story with stereotypes. "Archetype" and "stereotype" are terms that are often confused. A stereotype is an oversimplified representation of a group of people based on social conventions and often biased assumptions about race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. TV series are rife with stereotypes, such as the computer geek, the dumb blonde, and the effeminate, wisecracking gay sidekick. Stereotypical characters are not only trite and overdone, they risk offending readers. As one article explained, "Although both archetype and stereotype draw from a 'type' of person to create character, the difference is that archetype will use the template as a starting place, and stereotype uses it as an end point." Here are some examples of archetypes, from the Jungian at http://www.soulcraft.co/essays/the_12_common_archetypes.html to the more contemporary at http://www.squidoo.com/11-common-character-archetypes.

The Challenge of Writing Sex Scenes

Sex sells. Would anyone read Fifty Shades of Grey without the sex? Luckily, I write mysteries rather than romance novels or erotica, so explicit sex is not the centerpiece of my stories. Still, as long as characters are not solitary beings, love and lust will come into play, and sex will have a role. I recently looked at several articles of the "10 Steps to Writing Great Sex Scenes" variety to help guide my creativity. The first step in one article was "Get drunk." I assume the point was to lose inhibitions without losing coherence. The first step in another was "Decide what you're comfortable reading and writing." Agreed: Uncomfortable writing makes uncomfortable reading. The first step in a third was "Consider the genre." Yep, romance readers demand love scenes. Those were all good pieces of advice. But I realized I needed to step back and start with more fundamental decisions. First, did I really need sex to advance my plot, flesh out characterization, or create a mood or foreshadowing? Tossing in an extraneous sex scene can bog down a novel as surely as padded dialogue and dead-end plot detours. Second, did I need to describe a love scene, a sex scene, or sexual acts? A love scene may include explicit descriptions, but it is first and foremost about emotions and the romantic relationship. In contrast, a sex scene spotlights sensual pleasures; a "What's love got to do with it?" moment can be a thrilling read. Once you talk about depicting "sexual acts," you veer into a darker place, with a focus on disappointment, conflict, and emotional and physical sadism (and I don't mean the kind with a "safe" word). Third, what style -- subtle or graphic -- fits the purpose of the scene and the characters? By the way, "subtle" doesn't mean hokey euphemisms (his rod) or hyperbole (the earth moved), and "graphic" doesn't mean crude slang or anatomical accuracy. My thanks to one writer who helpfully put together a list of words to avoid, such as turgid and purple. For one of the more detailed guides to writing love scenes, check out http://www.writing-world.com/romance/love.shtml

Why Are We Seduced by the Bad Boy Hero?

There was a time when I was a sucker for the "bad boy" hero. You know the type: the volatile, wrong-side-of-the tracks rebel who's handsome, charismatic, street-smart, and who has a sexual prowess that thrills the primmest good girl. In the movies, he's James Dean; in romance novels, he's the hero of Teresa Medeiros' Nobody's Darling; in the mystery/action genre, he's got Jack Reacher's vibe. The bad-boy allure for women is more than fantasy, however: Scientific studies have found that men with a "dark triad" of traits -- the self-obsession of the narcissist, the impulsive thrill-seeking of the psychopath, and the deceitful exploitation of Machiavelli -- really do score more sexual conquests than the average. How could such negative traits win hearts? Well, research proves that the dark-triad personalities are better than most at making themselves attractive, charming, exciting and sexually appealing. Female biology also seems to prefer these high-testosterone types; studies show ovulating women are more apt to choose "bad boys" as mates. Of course, selfish, manipulative seducers tend to have short-term relationships, by their own choice and because most women eventually reject the cad behind the sexy mask. Maybe that's why the bad-boy archetype lost his appeal for me in my reading and my writing. He's just got no staying power romantically. But that doesn't mean there aren't other sexy options! Romance Author Tami Cowden offers a fun discussion of various romantic hero archetypes. Besides The Bad Boy, her list still includes The Chief, The Charmer, The Professor, The Swashbuckler, The Best Friend, The Warrior and The Lost Soul (oh, those sexy vampires). For Cowden's article, go to http://www.likesbooks.com/eight.html

That Maligned Passive Voice Has Its Place

English teachers and writing critics warn of the evils of the passive voice. To quote William Zinsser's respected On Writing Well: "The difference between an active-verb style and a passive-verb style--in clarity and vigor--is the difference between life and death for a writer." Wow, that's aggressive about the passive! To be clear, the usual sentence structure is subject-verb-object. (The boy hit the ball.) The passive structure reverses this to make the object of an action into the subject of the sentence. (The ball was hit by the boy.) The passive voice requires use of a form of "to be" with a past participle, and while it is grammatically OK, the passive form is often clunkier, wordier, and less clear. That said, convincing writers that the passive is totally taboo does them a disservice. There are times when the passive voice is the right choice. You may opt for the passive when the object of the action is much more important than the performer of the action, for example. This is especially true in news writing: The shorter headline "Spree Killer Convicted" grabs attention before "Jury Convicts Spree Killer." The passive structure can work fine when the performer of an action is unknown. (Five dogs were adopted last week.)  When the subject/actor is unimportant to the reader, the passive may be preferred. (Our new TV was delivered today.) In dialogue, use of the passive voice also can create an intentional nuance of feeling and motive. For example, a character who speaks in the passive voice may be expressing emotional distance. (A new home has been found for the children.) The passive can imply evasion and avoidance of responsibility. (Mistakes were made.) And when the passive form is frequently in the first person, it shows the self-focus of the constant subject. (I was envied/chosen/injured/angered by...) For more discussion and usage examples, see http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/passive-voice/