The Light Side of Character Tropes

/

Tropes: can’t live with them but can’t live without them

A “trope” is anything that commonly recurs in a piece of fiction – be it themes, literary devices or characters. Since it is anything with a common recurrence, the word has come to be viewed as a negative.

It’s not.

I can fully understand the desire for originality, but let’s be real: at this point, after centuries of written works of fiction, it would be impossible to come up with a story that is 100% original.

So, what are we talking about today? As you may have guessed: character tropes. But, I’m going to try and frame this in a different way. Picture a traffic light. You’ve got the red light (stop), the yellow light (get ready to stop) and the green light (go). Now we’re going to use these lights in terms of character tropes.

Green Light

In this case, green is going to mean “use it more.” So, the trope I am deeming underused is…drumroll please…the male supporter. What do I mean by this? I’m referring to a male side character who provides emotional support for the main character/s. Because – newsflash – men can also provide emotional support. They don’t just punch people and yell at you to rub some dirt in it.

I think this trope needs to be used more for a couple of reasons. First: it shows that characters don’t only need physical support. They can (and should) have a mentor who ensures their mental well-being as opposed to solely teaching them to fight evil. Second: this emotional support being provided by a male shows other young males that men should talk about feelings instead of relying on violence.

image courtesy of warner bros.

image courtesy of warner bros.

A prime example of a male supporter would be Rubeus Hagrid from Harry Potter. His role throughout the novels is to watch over Harry and his friends. The thing I love about Hagrid is he’s portrayed as such a sensitive man. He’s the classic “Gentle Giant” (well, half-giant). He’s always there offering moral support and genuinely expects nothing in return (cough Dumbledore cough). Hagrid is Harry’s most loyal supporter and advocates for him on every step of his journey.

Side Note: Does anyone else view it as utterly ridiculous that the man who treated Harry terribly for six years until he was “redeemed” got a Potter namesake while the man who was there for Harry with no ulterior motive didn’t? Rubeus Hagrid deserved better!

Yellow Light

I’m using yellow to indicate tropes that are used often but should either be used differently or not used for a while. Essentially, yellow is a “proceed with caution” light. This on-the-fence trope is…again, drumroll…the chosen one (arguably the most well-known character trope).

I debated making this my red light trope. But, honestly, I think it’s one that’s here to stay, which isn’t surprising given the popularity of it. With that said, yellow light seems fitting, considering the trope’s popularity but the need for writers to slow down with it.

image courtesy of new line cinema

image courtesy of new line cinema

I can understand why this trope is so common. It creates a special feeling, this idea that you yourself could be that one hero needed to save the day.

I get it.

However, is it realistic?

No, it’s not.

Even if you are the only one who can save the world, there’s no way you can do it alone. This has been proven in every story that features a “chosen one.” Frodo Baggins wasn’t doing all the work himself, you know? I could go on and on listing the various “chosen ones” there have been. There are a lot of them and none succeed in their journey without any help.

With that said, try to slow down with adding a chosen one to your work. However, that’s easier said than done. So, if you can’t avoid it, why not try subverting it?

Red Light

Finally, we’ve reached the red light – our full stop. As in, just stop using this one. A grossly overused trope is…you know the drill…the damsel in distress. I cannot stress enough how much I dislike this trope.

image courtesy of pinterest

image courtesy of pinterest

Look, I try to be open and see the appeal to most tropes. But I can’t do that with this one. It perpetuates this idea that women need saving. Furthermore, it pushes a fantasy that, if a man saves a woman from something evil, he is entitled to having her. It feels like some dumb schoolyard “finders, keepers” mentality.

It’s not right.

It’s a ridiculous notion that you should be rewarded, for doing good, with a loving and beautiful woman. Is doing good simply because it’s the right thing to do not good enough? Apparently not.

As with any trope, I guess a good subversion would change my opinion. Give me a story where the strong handsome dude saves a woman. After some butt-kicking, instead of receiving a declaration of love and a big old smooch, the dude gets a thank you and a good night. Fin. That’s a story I would enjoy.

image.jpg

Of course, there are dozens of other character tropes. Some have seen the light of day too many times, while others hide at the bottom of the pile. Here’s a list of 99 common archetypes. Use them wisely.

What would your red, yellow and green lights of character tropes be?

image courtesy of allstar/disney

image courtesy of allstar/disney

Lillian

Lillian is a second year Professional Writing student who has devoted much of her life to immersing herself in different worlds through the eyes of a variety of characters. Some characters she’s loved, some she’s hated, some she’s loved to hate and some she’s hated to love. It’s all in the name of research.

Shrek: Reluctant Hero or Antihero?

/

Queue up the Smash Mouth, it’s analyzing time!

image courtesy of imgur

image courtesy of imgur

I feel like we all know about Shrek, but just in case anyone has been living under a nice boulder, Shrek is a DreamWorks animated film released in 2001. The story revolves around Shrek, an ogre who basically just wants to live his life of solitude in his beloved swamp. Okay, with the background information sorted, let’s get on with this analysis.

When I mentioned to a friend my idea for this post of writing about why Shrek is an antihero, he argued that Shrek is better described as a reluctant hero. This led to a heated debate. So, with that in mind, I figured I could spin that debate into a post.

What is a Reluctant Hero?

Straight from what we can all agree is the greatest source of information – Wikipedia:

photo courtesy of den of geek

photo courtesy of den of geek

“A reluctant hero is a tarnished or ordinary man with several faults or a troubled past, and he is pulled reluctantly into the story, or into heroic acts. During the story, he rises to the occasion, sometimes even vanquishing a mighty foe, sometimes avenging a wrong. But he questions whether he’s cut out for the hero business. His doubts, misgivings and mistakes add a satisfying layer of tension to a story.”

An example of a reluctant hero (overlooking the word “man” in the above definition) would be Hiccup (How to Train Your Dragon).

What is an Antihero?

Again, from Wikipedia:

image courtesy of medium

image courtesy of medium

“An antihero is a main character in a story who lacks conventional heroic qualities and attributes such as idealism, courage and morality. Although antiheroes may sometimes perform actions that are morally correct, it is not always for the right reasons, often acting primarily out of self-interest or in ways that defy conventional ethical codes.”

A widely agreed upon example of an antihero would be Marvel’s Deadpool.

So, Which One is Shrek?

I’m sticking to my guns here and maintaining that Shrek is an antihero. Why? I’m glad you asked.

image courtesy of empire

image courtesy of empire

Let’s look at what a hero is (this definition I’ll make up): a hero is someone who acts courageously in the face of adversity. They possess a strong moral code and aim to right any wrongs by acting selflessly for the interest of others. We’re talking about someone like Captain America.

Since “anti” means the opposite, I’m looking for the opposite of a hero. This person may have courage, but not necessarily for the right reasons. They are typically acting “heroically” purely out of self-interest. And ding, ding, ding! There it is – my major argument about why Shrek is an antihero.

Shrek isn’t saving the princess for her own good to get her out of that tower and away from the fire-breathing dragon. He’s saving Princess Fiona because it’s his ticket to evicting his new neighbours and getting his swamp back. Rescuing the princess from the highest room in the tallest tower is simply a means to an end. Shrek does it begrudgingly. Additionally, he is not about conventionalism, much to Fiona’s chagrin. He doesn’t care about doing things as tradition dictates he should. Instead of slaying the dragon, he’s quite literally dropped into the tower and just runs with his stroke of luck. He’s not the classic hero of this story.

Aside from the selfishness/selflessness debate, Shrek doesn’t have those classic good looks (the button nose or the flowing golden locks). He’s not a looker, and he knows it. In fact, he usually embraces it. He’s happy to be the big scary beast, even getting his kicks from it.

image courtesy of pinterest

image courtesy of pinterest

Now, yes, the reluctant hero is – as the name suggests – one who becomes the hero hesitantly. I’m cautious about putting Shrek into this category simply because he doesn’t spend any time doubting his heroics. He doesn’t even realize he’s acting heroically. For all his faults, Shrek is admirably self-confident. He doesn’t doubt himself regarding his actions.

All in all, I’m confident in saying Shrek is an antihero. He saves Fiona from a life of misery with the arrogant tyrant who is hellbent on becoming a King by any means necessary. Shrek doesn’t set out to be a hero. Like I said, he just wants to get back to his mostly peaceful life all by himself in his swamp.

image courtesy of allstar/disney

image courtesy of allstar/disney

Lillian

Lillian is a second year Professional Writing student who has devoted much of her life to immersing herself in different worlds through the eyes of a variety of characters. Some characters she’s loved, some she’s hated, some she’s loved to hate and some she’s hated to love. It’s all in the name of research.

Kids: More Than Just Cute Faces

/

The Endless Struggle with Realistically Written Child Characters

image.jpg

In writing, young characters are often cast aside in favour of the more interesting, more complex or more knowledgeable grown-up characters. This neglect of adolescents is a real shame because I would argue children could be the more complex characters. As is often the comparison made, children are sponges. They are constantly absorbing what’s happening around them. They’re effectively still learning about the world.

Often, when a story includes a child somewhere, they’re given some vague characteristics and cast aside. Usually, that child falls into one of three categories I may-or-may-not have just made up: the bratty youngster, the wise-beyond-their-years counsellor or the baby-faced-and-voiced kid solely there for the “aww, so cute” factor.

Children are multi-faceted beings. If you think back to your own childhood, you’ll realize this. Sure, maybe you were that bratty youngster, but surely there was a reason for that. You weren’t just a brat for the sake of being a brat (if you were, sorry for this generalization, and also, I hope you’ve evolved from that).

Here is a great post that discusses different age groups and how they think, speak and behave. It provides a lot of useful information and tips for effectively writing children.

A few pieces of writing (books, TV shows, movies) come to mind when I think of child characters. Some of these young characters are good, and some are bad.


Quick Disclaimer

I’m opting to ignore child characters in media created specifically for young audiences. Those characters are usually portrayed very unrealistically, but for a good reason. With children’s media typically meant to be educational, it makes sense for the characters to be well-rounded and well-behaved. I’m also choosing to ignore the glaring exception to this, Caillou, as I’d prefer to keep pretending that particular character doesn’t exist.

image courtesy of pinterest

image courtesy of pinterest

The Bad

When I think of a frustratingly written child, I think of Jamie Scott from One Tree Hill (I recently showed the…interesting 2000s teen drama to my roommate, so it’s fresh in my mind).

Jamie doesn’t show up until halfway through the series. The show’s fifth season is set four years after the finale of the fourth season. The baby born at the end of season four is now a fully-fledged person. But I digress.

Jamie Scott perfectly embodies the second category I named above: the wise-beyond-their-years counsellor. He’s four years old, yet somehow, he’s the one with the best nuggets of wisdom. I’m pretty sure every single thing he says is meant to be seen as so very smart. I’ve worked with kids of all ages, and let me tell you, four-year-olds are not all that wise. Sure, they might occasionally say something inadvertently smart and profound. For the most part, though, they’re laughing about butts and pretending they don’t know who drew on the wall.

image courtesy of indy week

image courtesy of indy week

The Good

Now, the good – or better, at least. Emma Donoghue did a terrific job of writing from the perspective of a five-year-old boy, Jack, in her novel (and its 2015 film adaptation) Room. The story is about Jack and his mother and their lives confined to a small room.

Jack encapsulates the curious child. He asks questions, but he also knows a lot. He often explains what he understands about his tiny world. It quickly becomes clear to the audience that Jack is in a bad situation. This is not clear to Jack. He’s just the innocent kid. He spends his days with only his mother, playing games as they pass the time any way they can in their limited space. He’s having fun and enjoying being a kid.

Jack also has his less pleasant moments. He has tantrums. He screams. He cries. He doesn’t listen. This is real. He’s acting like a real kid. Jack’s not just one thing: happy-go-lucky, obnoxious, scared, sad, angry or pretty much any emotion under the sun. He is all of them. Just like you. Just like me.


In Conclusion…

I could go on and on about badly written and well-written children. There are so many child characters out there waiting to be analyzed, after all. For the sake of time, I will just say: don’t write children off. They bring a lot to a story besides just being props.

image courtesy of allstar/disney

image courtesy of allstar/disney

Lillian

Lillian is a second year Professional Writing student who has devoted much of her life to immersing herself in different worlds through the eyes of a variety of characters. Some characters she’s loved, some she’s hated, some she’s loved to hate and some she’s hated to love. It’s all in the name of research.

Carl Jung and Friends

/

Even though revered psychoanalyst Carl Jung passed away a good 30-something years before the hit sitcom Friends aired in 1994, I’ve decided that – surely – he would want me to analyze the show’s six main characters through the lens of his 12 Archetypes of Personality theory. After studying various cultures, Jung developed these personality types, each defined by specific behaviour patterns. So, without further ado, let’s dive right in!



Chandler

This one felt almost too easy. The Jester, of course! Chandler is always good for a laugh and doesn’t take himself seriously. I’m a big fan of anyone that will make a joke, even if they’re the only ones laughing at it (me). He’s had a rough life, and he knows it, but he doesn’t let it define him. “Mrs. Chanandler Bong” certainly subscribes to the belief that laughter is the best medicine.

image courtesy of charactour

image courtesy of charactour

image courtesy of radio times

image courtesy of radio times

Monica

After some careful thought, I’m calling Monica the Caregiver. I mean, pretty much everyone is always at her apartment, where she’s oftentimes cooking or baking. She’s the most maternal of the group, usually being the sounding board for problems and offering advice. I may be slightly biased in seeing her as maternal, solely basing it off the fact that Monica has a smaller vacuum to clean her vacuum and I once caught my mother vacuuming her vacuum.

Joey

image courtesy of business insider

image courtesy of business insider

The Lover. I’m not just saying this because Joey is the token womanizer of the show. Yeah, he goes through a lot of relationships. But really, the dude just loves love. He also loves food (but does not share it), and you could argue that food=love. Joey is basically a teddy bear; you can’t help but love the guy.

image courtesy of lion’s roar

image courtesy of lion’s roar

Phoebe

Phoebe is the Innocent. However, I found it interesting that Phoebe also technically could be considered the Orphan. I mean, she is almost literally an orphan. Yet, she doesn’t encompass what the Orphan is all about. Therefore, the Innocent she is. She’s ever the optimist. Phoebe sees the best in everyone (for the most part). And really, she just wants happiness. It’s certainly admirable to see that she doesn’t carry her feelings of betrayal and abandonment with her everywhere.

Ross

image courtesy of charactour

image courtesy of charactour

Mr. Know-It-All is, for sure, the Sage. He’s a paleontologist first and everything else second (like a father to Ben, who just disappeared?). Ross loves to use and show off his intelligence. It’s the major facet of his personality, and he knows it.

image courtesy of digital spy

image courtesy of digital spy

Rachel

I struggled with Rachel. Looking back, I think she had the most growth of any of the six main characters by far. I had her as the Explorer, but that didn’t feel right. Then she was the Rebel, but that didn’t feel right either. I even typed up a whole spiel about her being the Orphan, but that was only true for her initially. I realized after a while that I had already acknowledged what her perfect fit was. If Rachel had the most growth, of course that would make her the Magician. She’s constantly changing throughout the series and eventually becomes the best possible version of herself. Of course, her mood is contagious as well, for better or worse.

image courtesy of human givens institute

image courtesy of human givens institute

So, there we have it. Friends, psychoanalyzed. Thank you to my mom for loving the show and watching reruns constantly, meaning I watched reruns constantly as a child and had the many sexual innuendos going over my head. And thank you, Carl Jung, for both this theory and for not making people feel weird about their relationship with their parents (looking at you, Freud).

image courtesy of allstar/disney

image courtesy of allstar/disney

Lillian

Lillian is a second year Professional Writing student who has devoted much of her life to immersing herself in different worlds through the eyes of a variety of characters. Some characters she’s loved, some she’s hated, some she’s loved to hate and some she’s hated to love. It’s all in the name of research.