Does anyone do this?
How do you go about doing it?

I know we all like to strive for originality in our characters, but what about when you want one that's not? What about when you WANT that classic villain, or hero type, or at least when you want to show all the typical hallmarks of it?

I'm finding it pretty difficult (hero archetype). It's really not as easy as you think it is to make a cliche hero type character- or even just the look of one.

Is it actually easier not to do cliche, or am I just doing it wrong?
-----------------

This isn't a tips and tricks type thread. I'm actually interested in who deliberately uses classic archetypes and cliches and how difficult (or not) it is for them.

I've never really experimented with the hero/villain archetypes in comics - but I consciously made the main two characters of "A Bit Cheesy" the archetypical macho/wimp duo. Ryan is an obnoxious a-hole, who knows this and that about life, women, etc. Mick, on the other hand, is your typical nerd, who's probably never even talked to a girl before. And everything in their looks tries to reinforce that: clothes, colors, their names... and eyebrows. Ryan wears a red hoodie sweatshirt and baggy blue jeans. I called him Ryan for a reason, too - after Ryan Reynolds, Ryan Gossling and several others, who seemed to be exactly that kind of a laid-back, self-confident guy in their film roles. His eyebrows are basically two thick rectangles. Mick, on the other hand, wears a bleak, yellowish t-shirt, brown pants, and a sad face at all times. And he keeps his shoelaces always neatly tied - as opposed to Ryan. I made them as different as can be - even though that apart from the clothing and minor facial details, they look basically the same.

Cool, that's exactly what I mean!
But was it difficult to write and draw into the archetype? To think in those terms?

Almost every alien in my prologue was created to be an archetype.
From most of the bad one "curse you I'll get you!" to the good guys.

For a hero it is pretty easy. Simply take their attitude and make that the character.
Is he a goodie toe shoes? Then he's probably a nerd or a really pretty blond boy. Go really generic and stereotypical too. We wouldn't want these guys to really be able to think outside their zone!

Well, looking into Carl Jung's list of archetypes would be a good start to creating a few of them.

However, I think it's important to keep in mind that an archetype is as much of a visual thing as it is an abstract concept. If you want your character to come off like an archetype you have to make sure that they look the part as well.

Repetition of shapes is a common feature in archetypical characters. For example, Batman is one of the most popular incarnations of the "masked mystery man of the night". Visually, he is an assortment of triangles. (The ears, the end of his cape, patterns on his gloves & boots, the logo on his chest, etc.)

Fusion's full of archetypes, but that's because I'm homaging various hero types. Of course, as you learn more about each of the characters, they'll become fairly different from the characters they're an homage to, but at their core they'll remain similar. Brooder is very much a Batman character, but his past is very different from Bruce Wayne's (his parents weren't murdered, chief among the differences, but mentioning anything else now would be spoiler-ish.) And, since Air Raid Robertson pointed out the visual cues of triangles, Brooder is more of an assortment of circles than triangles.

I think the key is to tap into the personality of an archetype, pay attention to the visual cues (as Air Raid Robertson said), and use those two points as rules to measure your character by. But don't be afraid to break those rules. Sometimes taking an archetype and then standing it on its head (perhaps revealing another archetype) would be a fun way to play with archetypes while giving it your own spin.

I've been reading a lot of pulpy, noir comics lately (100 Bullets, Incognito, B.P.R.D., among others), and they know how to play with archetypes. Plus they have some great names--Zack Overkill, Lobster Johnson, Zoe Zeppelin--which can be a big plus when establishing archetypal characters.

Another fun thing to do (and I do with Fusion) is to put those archetypal characters in a predictable situation, then change the situation on them. I did this in the first issue of Fusion where I set up an encounter with a supervillain, then changed the situation completely a few moments later. This gives you the chance to play with an archetype in a situation that may fall outside the boundaries of what's expected for that archetype.

My comic is full of cliche' ridden archetypes, and I did it that way on purpose. Bear is the classic hero on a quest/reluctant savior/revenge driven etc. Archetype. I usually base my characters personalitys off of those I've read in books or movies. In my mind Bear is kind of like a Han Solo character, except he looks like Chewbacca. :) Obviously he's not completely like Han Solo, but I just take bits here and there.

The problem I have, is sometimes your characters be too similar. I think Duncan and Bear are very close personality wise in a lot of ways, at this point in the story anyways. Which is why they probably clash a lot.

For me, the easiest way to come up with an archetype, is take a character that you are already familiar with, and base your characters personality off of that. Obviously they won't be exactly like the character you choose, but you just use them as a base. And then your own character will grow out of them.

For creating a straight Hero Archetype, I really suggest Lord Raglan's Hero Pattern It's a point-based system that breaks down what you need to be that classical mythological/folklore hero. The maximum amount of points a hero can have is 22. Krishna (21) and Moses (20) are the highest ranked I think (do not quote me I do not have my book in front of me) and Jesus only got 16. Try reading some classic Greek myth's or some real classic mythology. Like Morte De Arthur if you want that brick of masculine heroism.

As for myself, I always play with the "Girl Group of 3" archetype. That scholar of modern thinking Margaret Cho proposed it. She suggests that when you have a girl group of three, they fall into personality categories. "The smart one, the sweet one, and then there's the ho'." Her words not mine, but when my story gets a bit farther than it currently is these will be more evident and then probably dilute a bit.

Well the alarming ease that any of your own "innovative" chara traits and plot devices can fall into a category in TV Tropes, I don't see the need to purposefully try to construct archetypes. You'll fall into them one way or the other.

ozoneocean
Cool, that's exactly what I mean!
But was it difficult to write and draw into the archetype? To think in those terms?

No, it was pretty instinctive, actually. I drew Mick first - and when I started drawing Ryan, I knew what I had to do to make him completely different. As for their personalities, that wasn't very difficult, either. I was able to *think* like the character. Mick is basically like me a couple of years ago. Ryan's the sarcastic/pragmatic side of me. So all I had to do was try to impersonate one or the other - and the right words just came out.

Mlai made a great point. Over the several millenia of storytelling, every possible archetype has been invented, re-used a zillion times, decomposed, recombined, twisted, etc, etc. The original archetypes became predictable. You just knew what to expect. Tall, handsome men were good guys. Ugly people were bad. Et cetera. So story-tellers would play with the listeners' expectations. Like, make someone ugly and intimidating the positive character (the hunchback of Notre Dame). Modifications of archetypes become archetypes themselves, as time passes. Take Spider-Man. A superhero/everyman. Not an alien from outer space. Not a millionaire. Just your average kid. A modification of a superhero archetype. Which in itself was a modification of a modification of a modification of some other archetype. And even "your friendly neighborhood superhero" archetype got modified - in "Kick-Ass". Here you have another kid who becomes a superhero. Just like Peter Parker. Except he's got no superpowers. Nice little twist.

So today, the very basic archetypes are... boring. Like... Grima in "Lord of the Rings". When you first see him in the movie - you know he's trouble. And he is. No surprise there. No character evolution. No shades of gray. Just black. I guess that WAS Tolkien's point - since LOTR WAS supposed to be "old school" in terms of storytelling - and Jackson just HAD TO stick with it rather than make a nice little modernist experiment, but perhaps if Grima was a little bit less creepy in terms of looks, it'd work out better. Less obvious. Isn't that what modern movies/stories try to be?

Hmm, I don't think it is easy to think in terms of archetypes. You probably have to be immersed in a lot of pop-culture for that- the more basic kind. For quite a while now I've stayed away from that sort of stuff, so the whole thing seems very alien to me.

Pop culture only proves it's impossible to come up with something truly original these days - either because Frank Miller thought of it 20 years ago, or some anonymous bard did, a thousand years ago. Try as you might - there's nothing new. Think Dexter Morgan is an original character? Think again. Even with my poor knowledge about American cinematography, I can name at least a few vigilantes - starting with Charles Bronson in Death Wish. What about a criminal/good guy - someone who does something forbidden by the law, but works for the good of society, really. Robin Hood? And my very first impression of Pinky was: Haruko Haruhara? :) And FLCL wasn't the first anime with a tall, pink-haired girl I can think of, either. Pink is considered a "girly" color. It's supposed to signify something sweet. The catch is that neither Pinky nor Haruko are sweet or very girly. I think such character/looks contradictions still have the potential to entertain our brains in a way - IF we'd been exposed to the very basic archetypes earlier on. I read a whole collection of Greek myths and Grimm Brothers' tales at the age of 8 or 9. Oh and of course there was Disney's Snow White, etc, etc. Such experiences just tend to stick with you. The archetypes are ingrained in your mind - so when a modification occurs, it both pleases and upsets the mind, challenging your archetypical (and perhaps stereotypical) view of the world. Who's good and who's bad. Think Tom & Jerry. Tom's the bad guy, Jerry's the good guy. In real life, though - who do you like more: cats or mice? The cartoon tickles the brain in the same way as "Dexter" - part of you condemns the protagonist for what he does, but then again, he's up against a fearsome antagonist, so you're cheering for him.
Oh and a funny things about Dexter: he was shaped by an archetype of sorts, too. What he does is just a recreation of what he saw as a child. So you see - no way to escape archetypes :)

When I want to go for an archetype, rather than base it on pop culture, I base it either on psychology, philosophy, or myth/religion. It's a lot easier IMO to try and model an archetypal character on a set personality type or a typical religious figure (i.e., the martyr).

Ideas like "hero" and "villain" are vague and up to interpretation. It's easy to label a character one way or the other, but hard to create one based on that idea. It's kind of like that old court ruling on pornography: " But I know it when I see it."

Eh. there's an archetype for everything, sometimes if I try to make something original someone else says it's in another archetype! Anyway, I try to go original.