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.

When Wikipedia's Sexist Slip Showed in 2013

In case you didn't note it, Wikipedia had women trouble in 2013. It began when writer Amanda Filipacchi protested in an April New York Times op-ed piece that Wikipedia was quietly but systematically removing all women from the category "American novelists" and placing them in the subcategory of "American women novelists." Headlines and commentators decried Wikipedia's sexism, and many attributed bias to the fact that Wikipedia's cyberspace editors are 90% male. The issue also highlighted all kinds of Wikipedia ghettos, where women and racial or ethnic groups were assigned only to subcategories. Well, after the uproar, the women novelists are listed in the main American novelist category again, as well as in the American women novelist subcategory and whatever other subcategories Wikipedia pedants deem relevant, from mystery writers to lesbian writers to African-American women writers. This is a debate that many may dismiss as overly sensitive semantics about an effort to logically structure information. But I think it reflects real social challenges. When we collectively think about people by category, we can place real limits on how we treat them in education, in politics and even in personal relationships. We set different standards and expectations based on assumed generalized characteristics, and we may justify subtle or blatant discrimination based on stereotypes. Human "categories" have lead to oppression, genocide and war, and we need to be very careful of their use and implications. Wikipedia is just one mirror of how we think about each other; there are many other examples in our media, politics and private lives. We really do need to be vigilant and vocal when faced with distorted "categorizing." For more on the Wikipedia controversy, see http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2013/apr/29/wikipedia-women-problem/