Shower Thoughts on Character Archetypes

[Parallel Pain]

I was in the shower after finishing Steins;Gate 12

 

And I thought about the phenomenon of writing characters by archetypes. You've all seen it.

Whether in design, personality, or back story, it's all there. Certainly this is not a phenomenon limited to VN. It's in all genres of fiction, even if the archetype is different.

 

The supporting comic relief. The good samaritan. The empty. The confident. The shy. The rebel. The smart guy. The dumb guy. The charismatic leader.

The tsundere, kuudere, tomboy, yamato nadeshiko, bookworm, cutsie-moe

Big breasts, loli, ojou, longhair, shorthair, twintail, cutsie-moe, cat, dog

Abusive family, child mistakes, promises, lost stuff, bully, owe the protagonist one

 

Now personally, I don't like how they are used. It feels very unrealistic and unrelatable.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that all type of people exist in the world. And there are probably a heck of a lot of people who know not only people with such archetype traits but are as if they're carbon copy of a fictional character. And there's nothing wrong with that, or the archetypes themselves inherently. I actually feel I have a far higher tolerance for characters. I've read a lot of people go "I don't like this or that character". But for me, as long as s/he's not a selfish narcissist asshole, I'll accept whatever quirk s/he has.

 

What make me feel it's unrealistic/unrelatable are:

#1 People usually make friends with like-minded people, whether interest or personality or backstory. So to me an tomboy sports captain, shy bookworm, charismatic ojou, neighborhood tsundere etc, would all hang out in the same group when they share no interest or personality or backstory seems...odd. I'm not saying they can't be close friends, but they're really more likely to have their own separate group with like-minded people instead. But this point is very minor if it was only by itself.

 

#2 The archetype is too exaggerated. I'm fine with them if they are "within reason". Take tsundere for example, and I actually like tsunderes. If this happen when they're really flustered then fine. If every other interaction has a tsundere response then, that breaks my suspension of disbelief. And this really, really increase the problem of #1, so much so that #1 is not really the problem, #2 is. This is especially a problem for supporting characters, whose archetype are too played up to become distracting yet do not get enough time to develop into a well-rounded character.

 

#3 The characters become more identifiable and identified by their archetype and less by their, well, character. People have many different traits, complicated motivations, and act differently depend on the situation. People have different sides. So there's two parts to this problem: a. focusing too much on the more identifiable but shallow archetype traits (oh look, #2 again) and b. not writing enough different traits when putting together the character. When this happens, it makes it really easy to get the feeling that "I've seen all this before". It also make me feel like say "the MC argued with old-conservative commander" instead of "the MC argued with Commander Denniston", or "the old mentor type died" instead of "Obiwan died", or "I'm romancing the doggy girl" instead of "I'm romancing Mikamo". I am sure going to care a lot less about an archetype than I do an individual.

 

 

I've often read people complaining this or that work has "plain characters" and point that as a weakness.

But to me, I much prefer this weakness to carbon archetype cutouts. "Plain characters" are people who have a bit of personality, but let the situation decide what's appropriate to do, just like most people do every day at more restrictive settings. "Plain characters" might be boring and interchangable sure, but they are both acting realistically (and therefore relatably). Archetypes to me act unrealistic (when the situation calls for it), unrelatable, and only distract me from the main character spotlight and plot.

 

It's easy for me to chalk this up to lazy writing. But is it really lazy writing? I do not know. Archetypes are a useful writing tool for sure, and their traits themselves are most definitely realistic, even if the way they're played is not. But I have to say these archetypes are at least just as lazy writing than plain characters. Plain character are carbon copies of the average Joe, while archetypes are carbon copies of X different types of fictional Joes. You're still copying common knowledge.

 

And yet, if you throw enough traits together (skillfully enough), an archetype becomes a character.

 

Which is why I have hesitated for a long time from moving from NekoNekoSoft VNs (who's common route, if there's one, is incredibly short), and I have always preferred single-route VNs and I often like gaiden games better than the VN they came out of.

 

tl;dr I feel that writers are using archetype copies too much and too exaggeratedly. If they're not going to be given proper time and focus for development, being toned down and plain, or just be given one or two identifying traits, is better than being exaggerated archetypes.

 

 

What do you think about the use of Archetypes in VN (or fiction in general)

[Chronopolis]

Yup I read everything and agree with you. Moege characters feel like an amalgamation of spoken lines, situations, and reactions, and that's why I can't tolerate them: I've already seen those things played through a couple times. They were fun at first, but as someone always looking to read something with a new story to tell, now they suck.

 

Perhaps one reason why authors use the archtypes is because it makes figuring out how the character will react and writing large amounts of dialogue easier. I can't imagine it to be easy to write VN scale qualities of dialogue for more realistic characters, without major plot events for the characters to respond off of. I suppose they always have entertainment value as well.

 

Some of Kara no Shoujo's side heriones may have been based in archtypes, but because the situations they were in changed, they didn't come off as bad. KnS's cast of other characters, I think, is a great example of subdued, believable characters.

 

I do think the strong archtyping is squandering a part of the VN's potential as a medium. When characters are an unrealistically strong archtype which only branch out into some differentiation later on, they feel like an archtype with a background and traits built on, rather than a character merely falling into archetypes.

 

Honestly, the protagonists of VN's usually get to escape this trait. They have thoughts and reactions which, though not the object of attention, can paint a picture of who they are ("Oh the protag from X is a bit on the cowardly side). Though any of the protag's character is wasted if it doesn't interact or is relevant in the story.

[OriginalRen]

I agree with a lot of points from the both of you, but for me it boils down to what the buyers want. The Japanese VN market is labeled as "adult PC games" for a reason in Japan; I realize it's an otaku world. As such, story driven games are very rare these days. Now that's not to say it doesn't happen. Some companies can make some great stories, but in the end Japan will make games that cater to the Japanese audience. Sadly, the Japanese audience likes their hentai and wants their archetypes. Let's use the example of the new Akabei Soft2 game coming out, Boku no Hitori Sensou. Have you seen the artwork at Comiket for that game? It is literally being plastered with copious amounts of porn. As we know, Looseboy (Sharin no Kuni, G-Senjou no Maou) is much more than that.

 

Now I am not saying stories don't exist in the VN world, but finding "masterpieces" like Grisaia (or so a lot of people think) is not easy to come by these days. Getchu has a lot of top rankings for nukige every month by number of sales, and games like Clover Day's additional h-scenes (literally, just h-scenes) are proof of this. People want to see their archetype loli being depicted sexually, because that's what they want to buy. In the end, even games like Grisaia have archetypes.

 

The main point I want to get across is that while I agree with both of you, I think it's a matter of Japan appealing to what the Japanese audience wants. Being western readers from an "outside" perspective, we want more story driven character development and a tone down on the archetypes being so heavy. Most VNs however (again, not all) will satisfy the needs of the customer (i.e. = lolis, tsunderes, imoutos). That being said, I think archetypes are a good thing in VNs because that's why I read them; it's what I am used to being exposed to in this genre.

 

On a final note, Japanese VNs are much different than western VNs (please note I said western, and not English), and because of that I feel that so long as I expose myself to the Japanese market when it comes to VNs, I will just have to get used to archetypes always and forever.

[edwd2]

There are very few visual novels with complex characters and plot done well. Most are aimed for relaxation and enjoyment, and given the typical budget, it's naturally easier to write and recycle a script whose plot is simple and built from easy-to-define characters.

[Funyarinpa]

The robot heroine you might or might not know is a robot

[edwd2]

Take Steins;Gate, for example. It's a story about a lot of things, inevitability among them. Because the characters are so easy to read, because they are archetypical, you can anticipate what will happen to them - but there's nothing you can do about it. If they were ambiguous, complex (which they actually are, in hindsight), opaque - you as viewer and player wouldn't be able to anticipate and worry so much. They are relatable because of the archetypes, regardless of how realistic they are.

 

You're confusing something here. Characters not defined by simple types are not necessarily hard to read, and complexity does not imply ambiguity. Well developed and three dimensional characters may take more time to familiarize and understand, that's precisely why the author needs to expose them well to readers and in many cases reveal character histories, inner thoughts and such early on. This is a slight stretch but take someone you know well in real life, yes, they are unique and complex, but can you predict what they would do under certain situations? Probably yes as well, you know their associated personalities, background, and behavior pattern to a good extent. Back to Steins;Gate, having more complex characters does not necessarily result in less predictability, and it will probably boost reader anticipation if done well. The author does part of this by repeatedly defining and affirming the characters through time loops.

[Zalor]

I do not know. Archetypes are a useful writing tool for sure, and their traits themselves are most definitely realistic, even if the way they're played is not. But I have to say these archetypes are at least just as lazy writing than plain characters. Plain character are carbon copies of the average Joe, while archetypes are carbon copies of X different types of fictional Joes. You're still copying common knowledge.

 

Writing plain characters is not "just as lazy" as writing archetypes. The golden rule of creative writing (which commercial authors always forget) is Write what you know! How many VN writers actually know people like the archetypes they write, probably none. Outside of other Visual Novels they read, they probably have never seen such exaggerated personalities before. What is lazy about archetypal writing, is that it copies other works of fiction, instead of copying reality. Good art requires good observation.

 

Plain characters are better (as you noted) because they require the writer to observe real people. "Plain" characters are more based off of reality, and less influenced by other works of pop-fiction. In other words, I'm in complete agreement with you.

 

 

 Most VNs however (again, not all) will satisfy the needs of the customer (i.e. = lolis, tsunderes, imoutos). That being said, I think archetypes are a good thing in VNs because that's why I read them; it's what I am used to being exposed to in this genre.

 

On a final note, Japanese VNs are much different than western VNs (please note I said western, and not English), and because of that I feel that so long as I expose myself to the Japanese market when it comes to VNs, I will just have to get used to archetypes always and forever.

 

 

This isn't solely a Japanese problem, this is a problem with all commercial (pop) fiction and art. Hollywood is no better, and you can't get more western than Hollywood. Just as indie movies are the saving grace for modern movies, doujin Visual Novels are where we should be looking at if you want works of quality. 

[Nosebleed]

I always thought of archtypes as ways to make characters more expressive, even if that expressiveness is usually exaggerated, but that to me has always been part of fiction (fiction ≠ reality) so I never found it weird and more often than not I find it charming. I never thought of it as something defining.

 

I guess it boils down to how you relate to the characters, in your case you prefer relating to more realistic character personalities (or just personality traits in general), and that's fine, but when I'm reading a story for example I always put myself in the prespective of a narrator of sorts, I don't try to put myself in the place of any of the characters and so I don't find it easy or difficult to emphasize with them due to their personalities, I'm just an outsider looking at the events unfold, I don't imagine myself as a friend in their group or as the protagonist or whatever, and I also don't judge how likely it would be for those characters to end up together in real life since i'm reading a fictional story (a good story would explain why they got together too). More often than not I find myself attracted by a character's actions and/or backstory rather than their personality alone and I definitely hardly ever relate to something as superficial as an archtype (personality ≠ archtype)

 

There is an issue with how certain characters end up being defined solely by their archtype, and I can't help but agree on that front, but those characters that are solely based around an archtype usually aren't exactly the most well written, the good ones have a backstory and have relevance to the plot other than being that archtype alone.

 

So I guess you could say for me archtypes exist for the sole purpose of expressing (more vividly) particular personality traits that are much more toned down in real life.

Also if you start putting things in your head like "this character is a tsundere/kuudere/etc" it'll become much harder to like characters because you'll start judging all of them based on that criteria and that to me is unfair. I just judge a character by how they progress and forget about things like archtypes and the sort, because an archtype doesn't define a character alone and if it does then that character was not written properly.

A story with perfectly realistic characters (personality wise and setting wise) sounds like it'd be pretty average and boring in my opinion, and this is coming from someone who loves slice of life.

[Clephas]

I'm going to be blunt.  The formation and use of archetypes in fiction is impossible to avoid.  Before we had the 'refined' archetypes we have today, we had other more basic archetypes, such as the tragic hero, the mentor, the damsel in distress, etc.

 

Rather than focusing on whether a character fits within an archetype, focus on how well the archetype is used.  An archetype that is used to create a more interesting story has value, an archetype that is used solely because it is a recognizable figure isn't.  It is simple as that.

 

Some of the best pieces of fiction out there, such as Star Wars for instance, use archetypes to form their characters... but create something wondrous out of them anyway.  While I frequently complain about archetypes in moege, that is because they are just slapping archetypes into the game without thinking about how to use them properly or how to make them interesting.  The same goes for anime, manga, and Western fiction.  My complaints about archetypes always refer to this issue... using them without doing so effectively.  Using archetypes out of laziness, without the competence to make them into something greater, is a crime against storytelling.

[Katatsumuri]

I'm going to agree with Clephas on this one. We will never get rid of archetypes, whether it is in VNs, or other media.

 

Take a look at any piece of media, and you will find examples of archetypes and stock characterizations being used. Any story that uses characters, will inevitably need to have the characters tailored to fit their given role in the story. And as has already been said (written...)

applying an archetype whithout given thought to the character's role in the story, is just lazy.

 

To quote a certain site when it comes to archetypes:

 

"In fiction or life, an excessively archetypal character is likely to come across as two-dimensional, if not one-dimensional."

 

Or in other terms: "The more the audience know the character, the more predictable it becomes." For many, predictability in stories is boring, therefore, predictable characters can be considered boring. To give an example: When I started reading VNs, I wasn't even aware of most of the archetypes, but now when I have encountered them many times, I know them and therefore they are predictable due to familiarity, unless a spin is given on characters role in the story. But as has also been already written, there is a certain sense in tailoring character after your audience...

[Parallel Pain]

focus on how well the archetype is used.  An archetype that is used to create a more interesting story has value, an archetype that is used solely because it is a recognizable figure isn't.  It is simple as that.

Brevity is the soul of wit