8 ½ Character Archetypes You Should Be Writing

Here’s the thing about character archetypes: everybody’s got his own take. Do you run with Joseph Campbell’s gazillion and one Jungian archetypes? How about Dramatica’s double quad of eight archetypes? Or maybe screenwriter Michael Hauge’s simple offering of four main players?

Nothing wrong with running with all of them. The fact that archetypes are both universally applicable and yet endlessly varying provides authors with both structure and flexibility. Character archetypes present important guidelines for creating a well-rounded cast that can provide optimum help for advancing your hero’s journey. But, depending on which approach you take, they can also be either frustratingly vague or claustrophobically limiting.

Today, we’re going to explore my take, which is primarily based on Dramatica’s eight characters. I like this approach because of its logic and comprehensiveness and also because it offers structure without boxing me in.

5 Characters Who Should Be in Your Story Infographic

(Featured in the Structuring Your Novel Workbook.)

1. Protagonist

This one doesn’t need much explanation. Your Protagonist is the most important person in your story. The story belongs to him. He is:

  • The main actor.
  • The person most greatly affected by the Antagonist.
  • The person whose reactions and actions drive the majority of the plot.
  • The person with whom the readers will identify most strongly.
  • The person whose inner journey, as influenced by the outer conflict, will be the most obvious manifestation of your story’s theme.

Examples

Ebenezer Scrooge in A Christmas Carol, Lightning McQueen in Cars, Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins, Mattie Ross in True Grit

2. Antagonist

This one’s also pretty clear. The Antagonist will probably be a character in his own right, or may be an antagonistic force (e.g., weather). The point of his existence, in whatever manifestation, is that he is:

  • The main obstacle to your character’s achievement of his main plot goal.
  • Directly opposed to your Protagonist (rather than incidentally).
  • The person who shares important similarities, whether or good bad, with your Protagonist, in order to highlight and advance areas of Protagonist growth.

Examples

The Joker in The Dark Knight, President Snow in The Hunger Games, Tai Lung in Kung-Fu Panda, Old Man Potter in It’s a Wonderful Life

3. Sidekick

Sidekicks (or, as Hauge calls them, “reflections”) come in many different forms, everything from a best friend or accomplice to an employee or family member. What’s important is that the Sidekick is:

  • Loyal to and supportive of the Protagonist.
  • Aligned with the Protagonist’s goals.
  • Someone who differs from the Protagonist in important ways, whether good or bad, in order to highlight areas of Protagonist growth.

Examples

Mater in Cars, Barney Fife in The Andy Griffith Show, Burt the Cop in It’s a Wonderful Life, Nadine Groot in Red River

4. Skeptic

Here’s where Dramatica’s pairing of characters gets interesting. According to this model, every character has his opposite, which allows the author to draw important contrasts and plumb the depths of his theme. Just like the Antagonist is the opposite of the Protagonist, the Skeptic is the opposite of the Sidekick. He is:

  • Skeptical (no, really).
  • Someone who doubts everything, particularly the Protagonist’s choices.
  • Someone who is mostly on the Protagonist’s “side,” but who is pessimistic about the Protagonist’s choices, rather than optimistic.
  • A voice of caution (sometimes to the Protagonist’s advantage), more likely to provide reasons why something won’t work than why it will.

Examples

Sarge in Cars, LaBoeuf in True Grit, Estella in Great Expectations, Hub McCann in Secondhand Lions

5. Guardian

Also popularly known as the Mentor, the Guardian is a classic archetype (think Obi-Wan, Morpheus, and the three ghosts in A Christmas Carol). He is often visualized as a grey-bearded old man, but he can take many forms, everything from a child (Piggy in Lord of the Flies) to an animal (think Pooka in the animated film Anastasia) to a seeming fool (Clarence in It’s a Wonderful Life). He is:

  • A teacher or helper.
  • Someone who guards the Protagonist during his quest.
  • Someone who guides (or sometimes just attempts to guide) the Protagonist down the right path.
  • A moral standard against which the Protagonist (and the Antagonist) will be measured.
  • Someone who alternately supports or opposes the Protagonist’s ideas, depending upon the Protagonist’s shifting alignment with the story’s moral standard.

Examples

Alfred Pennyworth in Batman Begins, Shifu in Kung Fu Panda, Garth McCann in Secondhand Lions, Col. Ramsey in The Great Escape

6. Contagonist

This is a term unique to Dramatica’s list of archetypes. As defined by Melanie Anne Phillips and Chris Huntley, the Contagonist “hinders and deludes the Protagonist, tempting it [sic] to take the wrong course or approach.” The Contagonist is:

  • Contrasted with the Guardian because he, wittingly or unwittingly, seeks to ultimately hinder rather than help the Protagonist.
  • Different from the Antagonist because he is not directly opposed to the Protagonist’s plot goal.
  • Someone who may be on the Protagonist’s side in the overall conflict, but who gets in the Protagonist’s way and causes him to consider backing out of the battle against the Antagonist or taking the wrong path to reach his end goal.

Examples

Doc Hudson in Cars, Col. Phillips in Captain America: The First Avenger, Blanche Ingram in Jane Eyre, Jack Favell in Rebecca

7. Reason

Just as his title suggests, the Reason character is present in the story to provide a voice of logic. He is:

  • Someone who is fundamentally logical.
  • Someone who makes decisions based on logic, not emotions.
  • Someone who acts in logical ways independent of the Protagonist.
  • Someone whose logic influences the Protagonist’s choices, for better or worse.

Examples

C-3PO in Star Wars, Hamm in Toy Story, Inspector Gordon in Batman Begins, Herod in Claudius the God

8. Emotion

If you’ve guessed that the Emotion character is pretty much the opposite of the Reason character, then it’s a gold star for you. The Emotion character is:

  • Someone who is fundamentally emotional.
  • Someone who makes decisions based on emotions, not logic.
  • Someone who may be negatively emotional (e.g., angry) or positively emotional (e.g., compassionate)—or both.
  • Someone who acts in emotional ways independent of the Protagonist.
  • Someone whose emotion influences the Protagonist’s choices, for better or worse.

Examples

Mr. Ping in Kung Fu Panda, Cathy in Wuthering Heights, Amelia Sedley in Vanity Fair, Melanie in Gone With the Wind

8 ½. Love Interest

Finally, we come to an archetypal staple not explicit in Dramatica’s presentation. The Love Interest will be found in the vast majority of stories and is not mentioned in Dramatica’s list simply because it will almost always fit into one of the other archetypes as well. However, the Love Interest is worth mentioning independently of the other archetypes both because of its prominence in fiction and because of several important distinctions unique to the role. This character is:

  • Someone with whom the Protagonist falls in love—and who probably falls in love back.
  • Often a catalyst in either the Protagonist’s inner or outer journey—or both.
  • Someone who alternately supports the Protagonist and resists him, depending on which action is necessary to push the Protagonist forward in his personal growth.

Examples

Miss Sally in Cars, Rachel Dawes in Batman Begins, Rhett Butler in Gone With the Wind, Mr. Rochester in Jane Eyre

Mixing and Matching Character Archetypes

So there you have it! Eight important character archetypes that can power your story and help you create the most fulfilling plot and theme possible.

But wait! There’s more!

Let’s make this whole idea even simpler. As Christopher Vogler puts it in The Writer’s Journey:

 …another way of looking at the archetypes [is to see them] not as rigid character roles but as functions performed temporarily by characters to achieve certain effects in a story.

In other words, while you may end up with eight unique characters, you may also decide you can combine your archetypes. Your Love Interest may also be a Skeptic. Your Contagonist may be your Reason character. Your Sidekick may also be your Emotion character. The important thing isn’t that every story presents a unique character for every one of these archetypes. Rather, the important thing is that your story incorporates as many of these character aspects as possible, so you can bring full-fledged depth and resonance to both your plot and your theme.

Tell me your opinion: Can you identify all of these character archetypes in your work-in-progress?

Eight and a Half Character Archetypes You Should Be Writing

Click the “Play” button to Listen to Audio Version (or subscribe to the Helping Writers Become Authors podcast in iTunes).

Sign Up Today

hwba sidebar pic

Sign up to receive K.M. Weiland’s monthly e-letter and receive her free e-book Crafting Unforgettable Characters: A Hands-On Introduction to Bringing Your Characters to Life.

Email:
About K.M. Weiland | @KMWeiland

K.M. Weiland lives in make-believe worlds, talks to imaginary friends, and survives primarily on chocolate truffles and espresso. She is the IPPY and NIEA Award-winning and internationally published author of the Amazon bestsellers Outlining Your Novel and Structuring Your Novel. She writes historical and speculative fiction from her home in western Nebraska and mentors authors on her award-winning website.

Comments

  1. This is new for me, and somewhat disquieting. I realise my players don’t yet have that much depth to their characters. I must work on that. Thanks very much Katie.

    • K.M. Weiland says:

      Deepening characters is always a good thing. But I bet you have many of these archetypes already in play in your story, to one extent or another.

    • Mads Nilsson says:

      Hi. Why do everyone praise dramatica? I am writing a multi layered thriller where a mother is terrorized by her husband. This is her story. What she does not know is that her husband is threatened by others. How do I fill in the archetypes when dramatising the story from her point of view without revealing the secrets? I always get stuck in the archetypes quad as it prompts me for steadfast and changing? How do you use dramatica when the secrets are hidden?

      • When you look at Character Archetypes you need to step back and take an Objective look at your story. You need to step outside of the shoes of your characters and see who is pursuing a successful resolution (Protagonist) and who is trying to prevent or avoid that (Antagonist).

        You’re getting caught up because you’re trying to use Protagonist and Antagonist from a subjective view – from within the characters. Character are not their own Protagonists in the Dramatica sense of the word. Its important to be objective otherwise you’ll confuse yourself.

  2. I just ticked off every character in my story without realising it, except for the sidekick, because it’s the contagonist for the first half then the skeptic for the second.

    • K.M. Weiland says:

      Good for you! However, I will note that the most important feature the sidekick, as discussed here, is that he’s aligned with the protagonist’s goals and supportive of his quest – so he’s at odds with the contagonist and especially the skeptic.

  3. I like how much range is possible with character archetypes. I cringe whenever I see minor characters that are just exaggerated or bland archetypes with no depth. I liked how you mentioned the possibility of mixing archetypes together.

    • K.M. Weiland says:

      The archetypes, as presented here, really just boil down to basic aspects of human personality. The only reason we need any or all of them is to better present a rounded conflict and theme. Within that very broad constriction, we have the freedom to do pretty much anything we want.

  4. Great post! I’m curious what you think about stories that have more than one protagonist. For instance, I’ve written 1 2/3 🙂 romance novels that alternate chapters between different perspectives, so the protagonist is shifting. Do you think this is problematic from the standpoint of the reader, who is looking for a person to relate to?

    P.S. Wanted to add that I just discovered your blog and books a few months ago, but have found these posts and Structuring Your Novel incredibly interesting and helpful in my writing. I’ve been following many blogs on writing and publishing–probably too many :)–and I think yours is one of the best I’ve seen–useful, not too lengthy, fascinating.

    • K.M. Weiland says:

      Multiple protagonists come with their own set of problems, but they’re relatively common – especially in romances. Readers like being able to see into the heads of both the male and female leads.

      Thanks for grabbing a copy of Structuring Your Novel. I’m so glad you’ve enjoyed it!

  5. I was able to fit a character pretty neatly into every role! I knew some of these roles existed (the obvious ones like protagonist and antagonist), but I’ve never seen them presented in a framework this way, which will be really helpful when it comes to keeping the characters consistent with their personalities and roles. The ability to mix and match only makes it better.

    • K.M. Weiland says:

      I love how this system gives you opposing roles. It makes the purpose of each character’s function within the story – and how it informs the conflict – much easier to visualize.

  6. Cool post! I haven’t really considered character archetypes, but I see how they can be fundamental and rather necessary when crafting a plot. I have my protagonist, of course; and then I have an antagonist who has a sidekick–would that make his sidekick a contagonist? I also think roles change in my two separate books. Since my protagonist’s sidekick is absent during most of the first book, the role, it seems, is filled in by someone else.
    Thank you for this. Have a merry Christmas!

  7. Vicki Boyd says:

    Thanks so much for this information. Im mapping the characters out for my first book, and this is going to help.

    Character 8 1/2, the love interest. In your opinion can the protagonist begin loving one character and end up loving another? In other words, can the love interest shift between characters?

    • K.M. Weiland says:

      Sure! You can have more than one love interest. The only thing that distinguishes this archetype (aside from the romance) is that this character needs to be a catalyst for change in the sense that he alternately supports and opposes the protag, depending on the protag’s alignment with the story’s moral principle.

  8. Great post. I did a quick survey of my stories and found I’d covered some of the bases re: characters, but not all. I did find that one character served in two capacities. Hmmmm,

    • K.M. Weiland says:

      One character serving in two capacities is fine. It’s generally best to keep the same character from wobbling between opposing traits (e.g., sidekick and skeptic), but sometimes you will have a character evolve from one to the other.

  9. Yes, I believe I can see all of them in my WIP. Some mixed together, like Guardian and Reason. I have two protagonists, and they work as sidekicks for one another as well … hopefully that will work out in the end.

    • K.M. Weiland says:

      Guardians are often Reason characters. They’re supposed to be all wise and logical, after all. But it’s sometimes fun to mix things up and have them lean more toward the Emotion end of the spectrum.

  10. Didn’t know about the contagonist archetype. I have to play more with this. Thanks!
    http://www.andrecruz.net

  11. This is really interesting. I’ve always shied away from the whole character archetypes for the reasons you stated. I always felt it was too constrictive. I can see how having the basic personality types and building on them would be helpful though. I like the explanation of the various types. There are several, such as contagonist, that I’d heard of but never seen explained.

    Even so, I have most of them accounted for in my current WIP. Reading through this, I realized that my protagonist’s love interest is also his sidekick which is going to be interesting.

    Thanks for another great post!

    • K.M. Weiland says:

      I like structure – but I don’t like to be constricted – which is I why I really like this approach to character archetypes. It makes sense, because it presents various factors necessary to fully flesh out a story, without in any way building our characters for us.

  12. This is interesting. I don’t even know the type of character until I read your post. It make me learn a lot on deepening characters. Thank you so much 🙂

  13. K.M. This is a useful summary, useful because compressed and therefore manageable from the writer’s standpoint. One of my objectives as a writer is to play around with basic character functions, and seek alternatives. In a future mystery in my Brenda Contay series, the central character/hero (Brenda) escapes a romance that has come to seem hopeless. She goes off to Florida in February to write about real estate, while her lover (a cross between mentor/guardian and love interest) is left in frozen Milwaukee, trying to understand how to make things right. As this story unfolds, a parallel story is taking place, one that has nothing to do with Brenda or real estate, etc. In that story, the apprentice/protégé acts on lessons learned from a very worldly, cynical master/mentor. The two stories become implicated, and the two sets of characters (I hope) strengthen each other, as well as show how differently the same archetypes can function in the same story.

  14. Laurie Johannah says:

    I have been reading and applying your teaching since I first discovered you on Pinterest. I’m not, at the moment, a writer of fiction. I am writing a memoir about my 27 years married to and kept prisoner by a sociopath. Your teaching always seems to apply, though. Even your lessons on writing characters enriches how I share who I am in my writing. I’ve taken face-to-face writing classes, and will continue to do so for the invaluable feedback, but you are by far my favorite writing teacher. Thank you for all you do.

    • Vicki Boyd says:

      Laurie:

      I have met someone who is making a documentary film about abuse. Another of his subjects is writing a book. I thought you might have an interest in this project. His name is Jeff. His sister was killed by her boyfriend, so it is very personal to him as well. His email is:wyatt@wilsonindependent.com

      Hope our blog host doesnt mind my posting this here. It is an important topic for most women, myself included.

      In my WIP, my antagonist is strikingly similar to my first husbamd, who was abusive. Yes, we writers sit quietly by, taking everything around us in. Later we pour it all out on a page. Everything we see, hear, feel, taste, hate, or want is worked into our chatacters.

    • K.M. Weiland says:

      I’m sorry to hear about your experience – and glad to hear you’ve the courage to reach out and share it with others. Memoirs and novels are very similar in execution, even though one is true and the other is not. So glad you’re finding the posts useful!

  15. I confess I work better when something has been labeled. “Contagonist” is a new term to me but fits one of my characters perfectly. Now that I know what a lot of these terms are, it’s easier to play with them. Thanks for the post!

  16. Great post! And (what’s really exciting) I’ve been able to fit my characters into pretty much every role. Yay!!! I don’t usually like typical “character type” outlines (they tend to make me feel boxed-in), but this looks pretty flexible, allowing for cross-over and complexity (like a Guardian/Emotion character and so on). I think it’s really going to help pull my characters together. 🙂 Thanks!

    • K.M. Weiland says:

      That perfect marriage between a structured approach and flexibility is always what I’m looking for. This is a pretty good fit!

  17. Very useful post as always. Thanks!

  18. Lanette Kauten says:

    I’m not sure if I have a contagonist, but I was blown away when I read the skeptic archetype. I have this weird Jesus freak character who owns a non-alcoholic bar and is constantly warning my protag against her love interest (the antagonist). My WIP’s set in an underground arts community, and he tries to be the guru, but everyone has mixed emotions about him, so he’s largely marginalized. I have had so much fun developing his character and writing about him, but it never occurred to me that he was any sort of archetypal character.

    • K.M. Weiland says:

      There are so many archetypes out there: you can find one to fit just about any character. But even with a more select list, like this one, you’ll find that most characters fit the bill, since the foundation permeates so much of humanity.

  19. Enjoyed this. Got me thinking about what’s what in It’s a Wonderful Life. Perhaps:

    1. Protagonist: George Bailey.
    2. Antagonist: Potter.
    3. Sidekick: Bert and Ernie.
    4. Skeptic: Sam Wainwright. “Hee-haw!”
    5. Guardian: Clarence.
    6. Contagonist: Uncle Billy.
    7. Reason: Peter Bailey, and his lasting influence on George. Clarence probably contributes to this role as well. As does Ma Bailey.
    8. Emotion: A tricky one. But I’m going with George himself. And perhaps Ma Bailey. (Interesting how Ma fills both the Reason and Emotion archetypes, depending on the context.)
    8.5. Love Interest: Mary Hatch. Of course.

    • K.M. Weiland says:

      Awesome job! I think we could slate Uncle Billy as an Emotion character as well, but otherwise this looks pretty spot on to me.

      • True enough! Maybe we should throw Mr. Gower in there while we’re at it. And Martini, for that matter. The kids as well. And Annie. All acquaintances! Bring ’em in! 🙂

        • K.M. Weiland says:

          It’s a Wonderful Life is one of my all-time favorite movies. It’s such a fabulously rich goldmine of characters.

  20. Hi K.M.,

    Just found your site whilst looking for Dramatica-related writings…nice post. If anyone is interested in learning more from where this came, the Character chapter from the Dramatica Theory Book (completely free and all online) covers them in great detail. You can find it here: http://dramatica.com/theory/book/characters

    Your last archetype–the Love Interest–is probably best covered by Dramatica’s concept of the Influence Character. Your bullet points pretty much described it right down the line.If anyone is interested in learning more about Dramatica’s take on this character you can find more info here: http://dramatica.com/questions/concept/influence-character/all
    I tried to organize most of the questions people ask according to concept, so hopefully that will clear things up.

    Alternatively you could check out what I’ve personally written about the Influence Character here: http://narrativefirst.com/concepts/influence-character

    Totally agree that there should always be a mix of structure and instinct…except, of course, until the robots take over and do everything for us 🙂

    p.s. I’ll add a link to this post on the main Dramatica site…if you have any others I’d love to know about them. Thanks!

    • K.M. Weiland says:

      As a matter of fact, I’ll be talking about the influence/impact character more in a future post. Thanks for sharing the post!

  21. Do my stories have to include all of these archetypes!!? I can’t think of a direct antagonist in mine, even though the protagonist has lots of trials and problems. Do you think that matters???

    • K.M. Weiland | @KMWeiland says:

      Every story requires an antagonist in the sense of an obstacle that is opposing the protagonist’s goals. But sometimes that obstacle can take the form of something non-human – an animal, weather, society, or even the protagonist’s inner nature. That said, it’s usually best to personify the antagonistic force, at least temporarily.

  22. I began reading your book -“Oulining your novel…” which is how I discovered your web site.

    You have convinced me that I need to write down an outline and not work with one in my head as I have done so far. I felt I needed an outline which is why I bought your book.
    Stay tuned as I will let you know how I progress.

    • K.M. Weiland | @KMWeiland says:

      Yay! Another outlining convert. 😉 I actually just started outlining a new book of my own. The fun never ends.

  23. Gil Gordon says:

    Now I understand the who and why I created the archetypes in an outline of my first novel. Your list was most helpful. I have one question to ask. Did I go wrong killing the protagonist’s sidekick?

    • K.M. Weiland | @KMWeiland says:

      Not necessarily. Depending on how late in the story you killed him off, it may not matter. However, if you killed him off early on (before the Third Act), you’ll want to make sure the protagonist has another character to show him support.

  24. I have a bit of a problem with my main character. She is flawed, damaged, and quiet. I have been trying to write her both likable and realistic but she’s seems to be coming out too whiny and pessimistic for a protagonist…

    • K.M. Weiland | @KMWeiland says:

      It can sometimes be tough to balance a protagonist’s flaws with his need to be sympathetic – or at least not off-putting – to readers. Generally speaking, I find that readers are much more likely to forgive active faults (meanness, even absolute immorality) than they are passive faults, such as whininess.

  25. You had me a little worried there until I read after #8 1/2. So far I have 5 characters and I know that there will be one more. I feel that my story is probably crowded enough. But then you said combining is an option. Whew.

    • K.M. Weiland | @KMWeiland says:

      Nothing wrong with a small, complex cast. In most stories, such is going be a much better option than a sprawling, simplistic cast.

  26. Mads Nilsson says:

    I haven’t ever got an answer on how dramatica would help me fit a multi level story where the obvious antagonist has secrets? What about these kind of stories or thrillers wending everything up side down? How do you fill in the quad? When the main character experiences her husband as the worst enemy, but the husband is threatened – and the secrets are not revealed until the end… What should I enter into protagonist, contagious etc? Do I have to fill it in as the status quo for the character or for the whole story, loosing inside tension? I think this is a very adequate question about going outside Dramatica s rigid forms

    • K.M. Weiland | @KMWeiland says:

      Protagonist and antagonist are important distinctions primarily in the fact that they oppose each other. The antagonist will always be the hero of his own story; he doesn’t view *himself* as the antagonist – he views the protag as *his* antagonist.

      So in that sense, there’s no issue with allowing two characters to function in both archetypes. However, most stories will feature a prominent protagonist (the wife, in your instance, from the sounds of it), which you can use as a reference point for the other archetypes.

      If the husband is opposing the wife throughout the story, it doesn’t matter who’s opposing him or whether or not his morality is aligned with hers. The opposition *during* the story is what’s important.

      And you’d on’t *have* to fill in any of these archetypes. They’re just guidelines to help you round out your story.

    • spacechampion says:

      In Dramatica there is a Subjective Story that the audience experiences from the ground view, and an Objective story that is going on in the world. Sounds to me that your Mother character is not the direct Protagonist, who is the hero of the Objective story, but is actually the Main Character, the hero of the Subjective story. Without knowing more about your story it seems the husband is the Obstacle character in the Subjective story, and may in fact be the Protagonist of the Objective story, or interacting with the Protagonist as an Antagonist, or Contagonist, or Sidekick, or Guardian, or any of the other Objective characters.

  27. Hambone says:

    Let’s have a look at my characters…

    Protagonist. Check.
    Antagonist. No check.
    Sidekick. Check.
    Skeptic. Check.
    Guardian. Check.
    Contagonist. No check.
    Reason. Check.
    Emotion. Check.
    Love interest. Check.

    I’ve heard the antagonist is crucial to the plot development and/or conflict, but I just don’t have one right now. My book is post-apocalyptic (disease), and the characters (the immune ones) are just trying to survive. I guess, in that case, the antagonist would have to be the unknown. But, they’re about to travel to a potential sanctuary. Should I add an antagonist at the sanctuary, or is the post-apocalyptic world enough to be considered as an antagonist?

    • K.M. Weiland | @KMWeiland says:

      The antagonist doesn’t necessarily have to be a person. The antagonist(ic force) is there to oppose the protagonist and create conflict. Conflict happens whenever an obstacle is placed in between the protagonist and his scene and story goals. That obstacle will *often* be caused by a specific person. But it certainly doesn’t have to be. Cormac McCarthy’s The Road is an especially brilliant example of conflict-ridden story that never employs a main human antagonist.

    • Protagonists pursue and Antagonists prevent…so if your Protagonists are pursuing a potential sanctuary, an Antagonist would be someone or a group of people standing in their way. Can’t have a Goal without a Consequence! (no motivation).

  28. Hi! While I like this idea of combining different archetypes, I wonder is it such a bad idead to have the same character filling archetpyes who are different? For example, to have a sidekick who is skeptical of main character at some situations but also willing to encourage him otherwise.

    • K.M. Weiland | @KMWeiland says:

      You definitely don’t want to be combining opposing archetypes (unless the character is bipolar). But you shouldn’t have any problem combining Emotion with the Love Interest or Logic with the Antagonist.

Trackbacks

  1. […] Character archetypes present important guidelines for creating a well-rounded cast that can provide optimum help for advancing your hero's journey.  […]

  2. […] Here’s the thing about character archetypes: everybody’s got his own take. Do you run with Joseph Campbell’s gazillion and one Jungian archetypes? How about Dramatica’s double quad of eight archetypes? Or maybe screenwriter Michael Hauge’s simple offering of four main players?  […]

  3. […] K.M. Weiland has put together a useful list of character archetypes we can refer to while crafting our stories. She’s not the first one to do this, but I find it solid. […]

  4. […] Helping Writers Become Authors – Character Archetypes […]