Luke Skywalker, the next-to-last hope of the Galaxy.
Archetypes tell us what role a character plays in a story. Many of these roles are critical for storytelling, but some are just the opposite. Troublesome roles allow storytellers to cut corners, reducing the overall quality of the tale. Take these five archetypes:
1. The Chosen One
To see why the chosen one should be left behind, look no further than Anakin Skywalker from the Star Wars prequels. In the Phantom Menace, plot holes are hand-waved by mentioning his immaculate conception and high midi-chlorian count. Why do we spend so much time watching him in a pod race? He’s the chosen one; everything he does is important! Why does Qui-Gon Jinn bet an entire ship on him while abandoning his mother? He’s the chosen one; he must be the center of attention. Ignore that he’s a boring little kid with no plot relevance.
Characters of the chosen one archetype are hailed as the most important person in their setting for reasons that are entirely outside their control. The archetype is used to prop up bland characters who have done nothing to earn praise. Because these characters were born better than everyone else, they don’t have to practice or work hard to make a difference. In the Harry Potter series, Harry is worshiped because of what his mother did, while his hard-working friend Hermione sits in his shadow.
Because the chosen one is destined to change the course of history all on their own, the efforts of a larger community are quickly sidelined or forgotten. In A New Hope, the Rebel Alliance looks incompetent after Luke Skywalker swoops in and takes out an entire deathstar. And unlike many other chosen ones, he actually had some outside experience. By leaving the world-saving to one person, you’ll get a setting that is shallow and simplistic. No one makes history in a vacuum.
Heroes can still stand out in a crowd, but they should earn their titles with hard work and the right choices, not because it was preordained by the cosmos.
2. The Prize
In Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010), Scott goes through seven trials in order to date Ramona. If you’ve ever wondered why the two lovebirds at the center of this movie have zero chemistry, it’s because it’s not a love story. It’s about how Scott climbs the social ladder by defeating seven people with increasing levels of “cool factor.” Ramona is just an indicator of whether he’s made it into the cool club. They only exchange a few words before he falls for her, but she’s clearly more hip than him, and that’s all he needs to know.
She’s the prize. Characters of this archetype don’t exist for themselves; they are simply there to bestow glory on whoever “owns” them. The owner at the beginning of the story is usually a father, husband, or lover. Not just any father or lover, but a really powerful one. In most cases, it’s this powerful owner that makes the prize worthy of attention. In Ramona’s case, she has seven owners – ex-boyfriends (and one ex-girlfriend) that are cool, tough, and claim the right to decide whether she dates. When Scott succeeds in taking ownership of her away from them, he’s completed his social climb. He becomes an alpha male, and his prize is there to prove it.
I probably don’t need to explain why reducing a person to a shiny new corvette isn’t a good practice. But it also uses a character as a weak intermediary between the two people the story is really about – the hero and the owner. To fix the prize archetype, just combine the prize character with their owner. Let the scrappy hero woo the chieftain herself instead of the chieftain’s daughter. Once the prize controls their own sexuality, you’ll be forced to give your romance some genuine conflict.
3. The Hero-Hater
Snape from Harry Potter has many strong points, but the way he treats Harry is cartoonish. Snape hates him because of a few arrogant mannerisms no other character notices that were supposedly inherited from a father Harry never knew. The message from Rowling is clear: there is no logical* reason behind his feelings, just irrational prejudice.
What would happen if Snape had a decent justification for his antagonism? Harry would need significant flaws for him to dislike. They would have a serious disagreement that was the result of a legitimate difference in opinion. Hell, Snape and Harry might even learn something from each other, and eventually bridge their differences. But we can’t have that, because Harry must be a paragon of virtue.
So that’s where the hero-hater comes in. Every hero needs an antagonist to struggle against. When the storyteller wants the hero to be flawless in the eyes of every decent person, they create indecent people to torment them. These characters are usually motivated by jealousy of the hero’s perfection, but they can have any motivation that’s a character flaw on the part of the hater and is never – absolutely never – the fault of the hero.
If that’s what you want, make your hero part of an underprivileged group and your hater motivated by bigotry. As long as you fully integrate this injustice into your setting, your bigoted hero-haters will add rather than detract from your story. That’s because you aren’t just using them to shower your hero with candy. You’ll be conveying a meaningful message and offering motivation that is compelling. Rowling already had prejudice against muggle-borns in her setting, all she had to do was make Harry one of them. Or again, switch him out for Hermione.
4. The Damsel
In season five of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, some magical monks decide to take this mystic key they have and give it to Buffy as a sister named Dawn. Buffy soon learns that the key was given to her so she would guard it from an evil goddess who wants to destroy the world. And Dawn? She has no memory of what she was. She can’t harness any of her powers, and so she has no way to defend herself against the evil goddess. It makes you wonder why the monks didn’t turn Dawn into a set of actual keys; they would have been easier to hide and a lot less trouble.
The damsel is distinguished by their interchangeability with a paperweight that has sentimental value. Their personal attributes are irrelevant; what matters is the hero’s emotional attachment to them. They are prevented from doing anything that matters or even defending themselves, just so the hero can do it on their behalf. The villain kidnaps them; the hero frees them. The villain endangers them; the hero saves them.
It begs the question: why bother with the damsel at all? The hero is usually attached to their own life; let them get kidnapped and free themselves. If you want you hero to selflessly save others, you still don’t need a major character to scream and kick their legs helplessly. Instead, your villain can threaten a busload of adorable kittens that are being broadcast over the internet. Don’t fashion a character just to use them as a prop.
5. The Puppeteer
Despite being far away, Man in the Moon decides the fates of all the magical beings in Rise of the Guardians (2012). He brings Jack Frost to life, names him, and then abandons him to cluelessly wander the world. Hurt by the Moon’s silence and the cruelties of his new life, Jack makes trouble for several hundred years. Then the Man in the Moon upgrades his status to “guardian” without even telling him.
The puppeteer is a powerful character that knows what’s best for everyone else. In most cases, they aren’t heavily involved in the events of the story, or they would dispel all mysteries and resolve all conflicts. So instead they act in a completely irrational manner, leaving the hero to struggle without their help or guidance, even when they desperately need it.
Design kind and knowing gods to your heart’s content, but reconsider before putting them in your story. First, because they disempower other characters by making decisions for them. This not only removes character agency but also reduces character conflict that would enrich your story. What if the guardians had to choose Jack to join their team, even though they dislike him after all the trouble he’s caused? What if Jack didn’t have the Man in the Moon to verify he was worthy of being a guardian? The story would be more meaningful without hand-waving everything the Man in the Moon decides.
Second, having a character that’s always right makes the storyteller look dumb. Whenever the puppeteer behaves irrationally, the storyteller can’t use character flaws as an explanation. That means if the puppeteer is wrong, the story is wrong. And since puppeteers are almost always too powerful, they behave irrationally on a regular basis.
Every character worth developing shapes their own destiny through the choices they make, even though they won’t always make the right ones. If you take choice away from them or make their choices easy or meaningless, you might as well cut them out of the story.
P.S. Our bills are paid by our wonderful patrons. Could you chip in?
> Heroes can still stand out in a crowd, but they should earn their titles
> with hard work and the right choices, not because it was preordained
> by the cosmos.
Hm, very Protestant work ethic. Rule out The Chosen One as an origin trope and you kill Green Lantern (all of them), Thor, Harry Potter, Captain Marvel (Billy Batson version), Buffy, and probably about half of Greek mythology.
God also disagrees with you:
“And when Jesus had been baptized, just as he came up from the water, suddenly the heavens were opened to him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” (Matt. 3:16-17)
No hard work and right choices there, he was just chosen.
Storytellers use The Chosen One because it works, it continues to work, and movies that use this origin trope well make money.
– Bruce
No the Chosen One is used in works of fiction because it’s a cheat by lazy authors. It’s an easy way to explain why the main character is so special without having to do anything to earn their special place. The only real people in history who you could really say were “Chosen Ones” were members of the nobility and most of the time they were either barely able or even incompetent and all of them had human flaws and failings.
I think The Chosen One also speaks to something flawed in the human psyche in general. I mean, most people seem to think one person is responsible for, well, anything. Apple making a comeback? That’s all Steve Jobs. As if no one else there at the time mattered, or were even close to as important. But there’s a reason many times people like that have some great success and then spend the rest of their lives trying (and failing) to repeat it. They got all the credit, but they were only partially responsible for the success in actuality.
I’m not saying they weren’t important, but that the importance of any single person is often overstated. And I think that’s because we want a single ‘name’ to assign the credit (or blame) for anything monumental.
I assume Steve Jobs is responsible for everything. Seattle being super rainy right now? Steve Jobs. My car running out of gas? Steve Jobs. Not getting the job I wanted? Steve JOBS, obviously.
Steve Jobs is not a Chosen One, but a Self-Made Man. His success was not ordained from on high, but a product of his skill, charisma, and drive. And of course he didn’t do it alone. In fact, his greatest abilities were recognizing talent, delegating authority, instilling passion in others, and making meaningful connections with people.
“Apple making a comeback? That’s all Steve Jobs. As if no one else there at the time mattered, or were even close to as important.”
Apple didn’t just make a comeback, it went from borderline bankruptcy to the world’s most valuable company under his leadership, and remained so until Google overtook them just this week. And while other people did matter (read up on why Jonathan Ives kept his job), indeed none of them were even close to as important.
“But there’s a reason many times people like that have some great success and then spend the rest of their lives trying (and failing) to repeat it.”
Steve’s greatest success came AFTER he formed Apple with Woz (you know, the creators of the Mac, iPod, and the model all modern mobile devices are based on), finished with NeXT (you know, the machines Doom and the first web browser were written on), and became CEO of Pixar (you know, the studio with 15 Academy Awards and 13 of the 50 highest grossing animation films of all time). At the end of his live at just 56, he was running the world’s most valuable company and the largest shareholder of Disney.
So much for failing to repeat it.
He wasn’t perfect mind. Sometimes he was downright cruel. But the point is we lose much of a character’s humanity (to say nothing of our own) when we’re driven by an agenda to apply reductive identities to them. And sometimes, one person makes all the difference.
I think its about natural selection. Those willing to unite under king; one chosen by God, gods or elders or even simple birthright, reguardless of the leaders ability (because it is his officials who really run things) would have a better chance of survival than smaller clusters of individuals or those under a more deserving “Big Man” type ruler whos power will die with him.
The Chosen One isn’t a person, its an mantle that can be bestowed upon anybody.
“The only real people in history who you could really say were “Chosen Ones” were members of the nobility and most of the time they were either barely able or even incompetent…”
That’s a rather broad assumption to make. What evidence do you have to support this assessment?
Harry was a Chosen One in the Harry Potter books and they turned out well.
But they might be better, if it were Harry’s own choice to go up against Voldemort instead of ‘it was foretold in a prophecy and that’s why your parents are dead and a guy who is extremely powerful wanted to kill you before your first birthday.’
Yet Harry Potter still faces the choices. And he is not more powerful than others. He’s only the chosen one in the sense that he survived to Voldemort. I don’t see how it deminishes the story. And chosen ones can also produce interesting conflict, it just depends how they’re dealt with.
No, the Harry Potter series did not turn out well. They _sold_ well. Which is not anything like making them great literature. 200 years from now no one but marketers will care about Harry Potter. And the marketers will only care because Harry Potter is a triumph of marketing, not literature.
This is quite an assumption. A lot of chosen one stories have stand the test of time. Even the Lord of the Rings have them.
And, Harry Potter isn’t exactly A Chosen One. There is no higher force or god or something that says that he is the one who would defeat Voldemort.
There is a prophecy which counts as higher power, though. Yes, for all intents and purposes, Harry Potter is a Chosen One character.
I quite strongly disagree… Harry Potter has a very large fan base, and it’s a culture reference now. It’s not just that it sold well.
And I agree with Rosver, Harry Potter is only partly a Chosen One. He is through the way you described, but he still has the freedom, and even duty, to choose his path, and he is not all powerful or anything. So his state as partial Chosen One does not diminish the story.
Your comment aged _very_ well, Grendel.
Harry Potter did not do well because of “marketing”. JKR was a totally unknown author. They sold well because so many people loved reading them. And they didn’t just “sell well” they are *by far* the highest selling book series OF ALL TIME. The last 4 books were the 4 fastest selling books of all time. This wasn’t “marketing” this was because so many people were desperate to read the next book in the series. Harry Potter was a cultural phenomenon, and will be remembered that way. Millions of people (including myself) learnt to love reading because of Harry Potter, and while I read extensively and love books from all sorts of genres, I have never enjoyed any other books as much as Harry Potter.
Except, Anakin is supposed to be helpless. In Phantom Menace, he’s as much a McGuffin as he is a character. Because he’s just a kid, and kind of a badass inventor/racecar driver kid. Using the chosen one archetype was not where Phantom Menace failed.
Oh the Chosen One is really so used that I die when I heard something like that! But , like Bruce Hahne told is everywhere, even in religion and that kind of stories are terribly popular (nothing against, but I think is an unrealistic archetype)
Creating characters just to create, is better giving them at least an interesting goal (to the prize and the damsel) right? right?…. ;)
I’m being honest here, and I love Harry Potter (books and movies) but I really hated the whole “Snape is bad”.
“Snape and Harry might even learn something from each other” An interesting point!
The Hero Hater. I must disagree with this point. People do indeed hate others for nor reason that other can see. I myself have been a victim of that type of predujice, so I know it is a real trait in flawed humans and in characters.
Well, there’s a difference between ‘no reason’ and ‘stupid reason,’ right? Like, people who hate others generally have a reason, they’re just often wrong. Racists have deeply ingrained hostility against people who are different, for example.
I think the important thing is that it doesn’t feel like a contrivance of the author, in order to label a character that actually has it really good as an innocent victim. It’s true that people can be irrational in their hatred, if you can depict in your stories without making it feel weirdly convenient, power to you.
But I think in most cases, it would still be a wasted opportunity, storytelling wise. Arguments with two sides are generally more interesting than one sided ones. Bigotry against categories of people is one-sided, but it can have other benefits to stories that make up for it.
Hi, it’s interesting because in this article you criticize quite a lot of things that have been used and reused in largely successful stories (Star Wars, Harry Potter… largely 2 of the biggest, and we can name other examples of stories that use a Chosen One for example, such as Eragon or Percy Jackson, and which worked well)… so how do you explain the model’s success if it’s so bad in your view?
It seems to me that the problem is how one would deal with those character archetypes, and not the use of them in itself.
Btw, thanks for your articles, especially the ones on magic.
“Mannerisms?” Did you actually finish the HP series before writing this? I don’t want to spoil it for you…
StartRant/ Hi, I don’t mean any offense, but this will come across as angry, because, well, I am rather angry – and I know we are entitled to our own opinions and such, and I respect yours, I’m just letting you know I think your using a very bad example when you use Snape, and I think you should probably use a different character. And i’m usually a nice person, and stay in the background on posts like this, making no noise, and pretending that I don’t exist. But, dobby’s shown up, and I can’t help it, I need to make some noise. Lol. I’m probably going to overkill in my explanations, but, I’m just upset, lol. #bigharrypotterfan
It seems, from your “Strong Points” post, that you do understand Snape’s relationship with both James and Lily, so I don’t quite understand why he is the example in this list of yours.
“Snape hates him because of a few arrogant mannerisms no other character notices that were supposedly inherited from a father Harry never knew. The message from Rowling is clear: there is no reason behind his feelings, just irrational prejudice.”
I’m sorry to say, I feel that just about everything in this paragraph is so wrong on so many levels it makes me sad to just know that its just written out. So I have lots to say in rebuttal in hopes that you may scrub it’s existence from the internet.
First, lets address that these “arrogant mannerisms” are not the reason why Snape hates Harry. Having to qualify that: ‘inherited from a father Harry never knew.’ implies there is more to this story – that of the relationship between Harry’s father and Snape, and thus, Harry’s “arrogant mannerisms” is not enough of a reason for Snape to hate him, it’s because of James.
So, because of his classification, it means already that we understand that the root of Snape’s hatred for Harry does not begin with Harry, but with Harry’s father – as you stated.
By itself, having arrogant mannerisms is not enough to hate a person. The hate Snape has for James comes from the years James and co tormented and bullied and belittled Snape. (In fact, I do believe that James bullying towards Snape is a much better example of ‘no reason’ or ‘indecent justification’ over the way Snape treats Harry – which is your two reasons as to why you’ve cast Snape as “The Hero-Hater”)
And while this alone is a reason for him to dislike Harry, it’s still not a reason to hate him. But introduce Lily into the mix, and you got a good reason for Snape to hate Harry. First, Snape loved Lily, and James took her away from him. Second stems from his own personal hatred for himself. Had he acted differently as both a child and as adult, he could have firstly, been with Lily, or secondly, prevented her death. Harry is a constant reminder of his failures. There is your reason. Boom.
Snape had already decided way before he and Harry met, that he already hated him. And by the time the two do meet, Snape was projecting James upon Harry, and it gives him the chance to be the bully rather then the victim. It gives him the power in the James-Snape relationship, and he can justify this by taking every little thing Harry does and turning it into a James like thing. So, while ‘other characters’ may not see these mannerisms in Harry, Snape certainly does, justified or not.
On the topic on wether or not others viewed James as arrogant has nothing to do with the point, because its not about “other characters” its about how Snape feels, and asides, I do believe Remus, and possibly Serius have both had discussion with Harry about his father, and they do not deny that James was arrogant and a bully, – as they were as well, so, James really was somewhat of an arrogant person.
And, so, with all that I’ve stated – that bit tacked onto the end about J.K Rowlings ‘message’ is complete and utter bullshit, because clearly, and justifiably, Snape has a rather legitimate reason to hate Harry. Incase you missed it, which you might have because I rattled on and on with my flubber mouth, lol. The reason he hates Harry is not because he hates Harry, *shock* but because Harry is a constant reminder of his failures. 1. That he loved Lily and wasn’t able to keep her friendship. 2. That James took Lily away from him. 3.That he was bullied by James. 4. Lily and James went of and began this perfect life, with Harry, which he couldn’t obtain. And 5. He could have prevented it Lily’s death.
and eventually bridge their differences.
Well, they do bridge their differences. Snape (besides the fact that he was actually trying to help Harry survive throughout the entire series) gave him the key to kill Voldermort. And died in Harry’s arms – seeing Lily in him, rather then James, and finding comfort in that. And incase you missed it – Harry named one of his children “Albus Serverus” after “the bravest men I know.” That Gap looks pretty bridged to me – I defiantly think that If Snape made it through the war, they’d certainly have this mutual respect for one another.
If your going to use Snape as an example, your quite welcome, he is the Hero-Hater. But just get your facts straight. Snape is not the stereotypical Hero-Hater, like, for example, Draco is. If Snape wasn’t in the story, there might not even be a story, where if Draco wasn’t in it, sure, there would be some chances, but for the most part the story could get by.
Anyway. /EndRant
Sorry.
Hi Shannon,
Your criticisms are actually quite respectful, hence why I’m responding.
But before I move on to discussing Snape, I’d like to mention that I love Harry Potter. That’s why I talk about it so much. But Mythcreants is here to build storytelling muscles, and just praising all the things we like wouldn’t do that very well. To analyze and build better stories, storytellers have to learn not to get angry and defensive about possible imperfections in our favorite stories or characters. It’s good practice for later, when we must listen to tough criticism about the stories that are most dear to us: our own.
As for Snape, I think we are largely in agreement. Rowling does establish Snape’s emotional motivations for hating Harry. Somewhat late, but she does. However, those motivations are still an irrational prejudice, not a logical reason. Harry does not deserve to be hated because of someone’s experiences with the parents that didn’t even raise him. And that’s the key to the “hero-hater” archetype: the author is creating enemies for the hero while making sure the hero never bears any responsibility.
This reduces the level of interesting conflict in the story, and makes characters feel like caricatures (I do think Snape feels like a caricature in the early books). Situations are generally more clear cut, and that leaves less room for both sides to grow and learn from each other.
I agree that Draco should be considered a hero hater, but I think he is actually less so then Snape. If you look back to Book 1, you’ll see that Draco tries to befriend Harry. They become enemies after Harry rejects Draco in front of a bunch of other students, embarrassing him. Harry had a good reason to do that, but it was still his actions that caused the rift.
I’m not going to scrub the existence of my Snape criticisms from the internet :) , but I will add the word “logical” to the phrase “there is no reason behind his feelings,” to clarify that while there is a reason, it’s not what we would consider the right reason to hate someone.
It might have been more interesting to have Snape run hot and cold to Harry rather than simply hating him. Yes he hates him for the above reasons, but he also knows he shouldn’t, and when he tries not to he sometimes overcompensates and seems to show favouritism. That shifting attitude would have made more of a mystery of him, letting the late reveal of his actual motives be more of a payoff.
This is actually a really good idea!
Hi Chris,
Trust me, the first draft of my response wasn’t :P but I don’t like being that person, and to save on a lot more dribble then what I did post, I did cut a lot out, haha. I figured if I was polite, we’d have a better chance at an adult debate, rather then me screaming at you till I was red in the face. And I guess creating awesome characters should evoke a reaction in readers, so, what ever Rowling is doing with Snape, she’s doing it right by me.
“those motivations are still an irrational prejudice, not a logical reason.”
It matters not wether they are irrational or illogical, for they are still motivations.
Maybe this is what is irritating me about this post. – People ARE irrational and illogical – its our nature, and is one of the things that makes us undoubtedly human and realistic as complex people with thoughts and feelings. I’ve been irrational. I’m sure you’ve been irrational. Suicide bombers are irrational. Teenagers are irrational. Murdering someone is irrational. Being racist and sexist is irrational. Love and Hate can also be irrational. But they still do what they do, because in their mind, they have a fair justification.
Having now said that, I would like to point out the irony in your own irrationality of believing that Snape’s irrationality is a good enough reason to paint him as an unrealistic character in the department of hating Harry, because your both being irrational – and your a real person, and thus, being irrational can and should apply to a character in certain situations to make them more believable.
“Harry does not deserve to be hated because of someone’s experiences with the parents that didn’t even raise him.”
One hundred percent agree. Harry, nor anyone else for that matter, hero or not, made up or not, deserves to be hated because of something that they did not do – but that shit happens in real life constantly.
People hate other people for irrational prejudice’s, and illogical reasons all the time. Every single day gay guys are getting beaten up and even killed for just being gay. So, “Gay people do not deserve to be hated because of someone’s experiences with people that didn’t even KNOW the gay person, (or the gay person’s parents, or even their dog for that matter) in question.” But that doesn’t stop people from still beating up that gay person. This is a real life situation. I think I can safely establish that people can, and indeed do, hate other people for illogical reasons – wether you or I or someone else reading this, think its a “decent justification” or not.
“And that’s the key to the “hero-hater” archetype: the author is creating enemies for the hero while making sure the hero never bears any responsibility.”
I see this. I understand this. If this is the point your trying to make with Snape, its a great point, just executed in a very bad way. Harry does not bear any responsibility for Snape’s hatred, you are one hundred percent right. But this is a far as Snape as ‘the Hero-Hater” should go, because Snape’s hatred IS a legitimate thing. His hatred isn’t a flawed character development, like your making it out to be. Its how a real person could act because irrationality is a human trait, if it wasn’t we wouldn’t be having this discussion, because the word irrational wouldn’t exist.
To make this point we don’t need to know why Snape hates Harry, just that Harry has not been the one to cause it. And thereby proceeding to incorrectly explain why Snape hates Harry misses the point your trying to make in the first place.
(I do think Snape feels like a caricature in the early books)
Me two – but these books were written for 12 year olds. At 12, one knows that some people are bad, and some people are good, and thats all that really matters. All we care about is the journey the good guy is on – we want to know the adventure. Its not until we are older do we begin to question why someone is bad, and at this point, JK expected her books to grow more dark as Harry, and her audience grew, and so when these questions became relevant, they were answered by her.
Also, like in life, we only get one viewpoint, and that is ours. We only see Harry’s POV, and that is only his perception – no one else’s.
“I’m not going to scrub the existence of my Snape criticisms from the internet :) , but I will add the word “logical” to the phrase “there is no reason behind his feelings,” to clarify that while there is a reason”
And yet, regardless of either of our thoughts or feelings on this, saying that Snap hates Harry because of the ‘few arrogant mannerisms’ is STILL vey much incorrect, because that is NOT the reason why Snape hates Harry in the first place, wether you insert a “logical” in the paragraph or not.
“it’s not what we would consider the right reason to hate someone.”
We? I’m sorry who might be the “we” in this situation be that you speak of? You and me? What about the kind of person that beats up a gay man just because he is gay, or what about people who abuse children and animals for fun? – would they think the reason to be a just one or not? Just because something is immoral, doesn’t mean people are with or against it – take Hitler – he was a horrible person and dictator, (in my opinion, Hitlers followers would thick differently) but people still followed him even though he was an immoral person.
But – I DO agree with you – hating someone for their mannerisms isn’t a good enough reason to hate someone – BUT THATS NOT THE REASON WHY SNAPE HATES HARRY, So by beginning with this as your leading point as to why Snape is “the hero-hater” is misgrievancely wrong – and unless you can explain to me why you think that this is THE ENTIRE reason why Snape hates Harry, (which I know you don’t) and by going on to say “inherited from a father Harry never knew” already proves you don’t believe that, because you felt a further explanation was needed. I’m afraid any further points you make will have no stance with me, because they way I see it, your are lying, not only in the post to get a point across, which in my opinion has failed, but your lying to yourself.
Here, I’ll fix the first paragraph for you so it makes sense:
Snape from Harry Potter has many strong points, but the way he treats Harry comes from an illogical and irrational prejudice that stems from his past struggles with Harry’s father and mother. Harry has done nothing directly to Snape, but Snape still harbors these prejudice feelings against him. And that’s the key to the “hero-hater” archetype: the author is creating enemies for the hero while making sure the hero never bears any responsibility.
There. Simple. Easy. And Truthful.
Hi Shannon,
I started preparing a response, but in reviewing your comment, I found you are no longer being respectful.
Because you made a big effort in your last comment to check yourself, and you wanted to have a conversation with me, I wanted you to know why I’m not responding anymore.
Okay, fair enough :) No worries
What I would like to say about the whole ‘Snape has reasons’ topic is this: the reasons are actually added very late in the whole story (the enmity with James Potter for bullying is established, if I remember it right, in the fifth book with Snape’s worst memory, his contact to Lily before and during Hogwarts in the very last one).
For a very long time in the books, Snape’s open hatred of Harry makes no sense whatsoever for the audience. He’s the typcial ‘bad teacher’ who picks one (with Neville, two) students and constantly bullies them, which makes him very much look like a caricature and not like a character. He seems to hate Harry merely for being a celebrity. Had his reason for the hatred, as illogical as it is, been established earlier, it would have been different, but for that, it should have happened in the first book – the second at the outmost. Giving a first real glimpse in the fifth was too late. Even after Harry has learned in the third book that Snape hated his father (but not really why, the full extent of James Potter’s bullying doesn’t come up until book five), it is suggested that the mere fact that Harry looks a lot like James is the reason why Snape treats him badly. And that makes him a typical ‘hero hater’ who hates the hero for no reason important to the story, but just so the hero has an enemy (who, like Snape does, has the power to make their life hell).
I love Snape. I know why he’d do all those things to Harry. I don’t know why Rowling allowed Harry to be so stupid-blind about everything except to keep the story going. If you’re going to attack an archetype, attack the dumb hero card that’s overplayed.
And I agree to a point with Man in Moon. Where you think you lose meaning, I think it gains. The writer wanted to put God into the story. There is more meaning to life if I knew I was created and I didn’t just exist. I was made for something. Someone that feels abandoned but ends up fulfilling his meaning through his free will…I see how that might upset some, but not to those who believe, and feel that similar abandonment.
I’ll take what this post says to mind. I still know authors that use archetypes and twist them in a way you can’t notice.
Perhaps if Rowling had established Snape’s reason earlier, he’d been in a better position. The way she worked it out (nothing tangible as an explanation until book five), he really came across as a character who hated the hero for no real reason.
Harry wasn’t really stupid or blind, though. He couldn’t have known that his mother and Snape grew up together (because he quite likely never met his grandparents – had they still been alive, do you think he’d have grown up with the Dursleys?). He couldn’t have known what kind of person James Potter was. He had no information whatsoever on Snape before he became a teacher and little information on him as he was. That’s not being blind or stupid, but an author who kept that information out of the books, so it wasn’t available to the audience or the characters until very late.
Seems to me Harry Potter is anything but a paragon of virtue. More, he would have never achieved anything at all without the help of many others–an interesting irony since of course he is such a crucial figure in the defeat of Voldemort. Granted, the use of “The Chosen One” has become tiresome and generally ill-used (I would call Annakin Skywalker the worst example of this) but Rowling used it very cleverly, with genuine depth.
Re: Chosen One. I want to see this trope using a very flawed character. Like they have an emotional breakdown because of the weight of expectation put on them, or they really let everyone down and have to work their way back up, becoming the Chosen One not by prophecy, but through blood, sweat and tears. (A story about destiny vs free will could get a lot of mileage out of “was Chosen One destined to succeed and then somehow failed, or were they destined to fail so they’d work harder and thus succeed?).
Annakin is a good example of the emotional aspect going horribly wrong – so many people expect him to be the Chosen One, he gets taken in by the Emperor just treating him like a person. By the time he realizes the Emperor has plans for him as The Chosen One, he’s gone too far to turn back (or so he’s convinced). I will definitely agree with you that Episode I played this WAY too straight, though. I loved Phantom Menace when it came out, but that was because I was about Annakin’s age and used to kids’ movies have the story revolve around a kid, logical or no. Looking at it now in the context of the rest of Star Wars, I like it a lot less.
Re: The Prize. Ramona still suffers this a bit in the comics, but less so. We see a little more interaction between her and other characters, Scott has to go through character development of his own, and it’s Ramona who takes agency and turns the tide in the final fight. There’s still “trophy-ization” in the storyline, but it’s a little more balanced.
But they cut all that out in the movie. >:-|
That would be cool, I’m up for all subversions of the Chosen One archetype. The prequels were maybe attempting that? It’s hard to tell what their intent was, just that they didn’t succeed.
I’ve never read the Scout Pilgrim comic but I’ve heard it’s pretty good, and explains things better. I’m glad Ramona has a stronger role.
Yeah, the prequels suffered from a lot of “it could have been so much more”
Definitely recommend the Scott Pilgrim books. They still suffer a little from the same issues, but to a much smaller degree, and Scott actually has to confront some of his own issues (the movie’s just like “so yeah he’s a loser but now he’s kinda cool just roll with it”)
(The rest of this is about the comics ending, so if you do plan on reading them just stop here).
In the books, we repeatedly get an actual entry into Ramona’s mind, where she is still in thrall to Gideon. At the climax, we return to her mind, where we see that this version of Ramona is a part of her mind that is still attached to him – but that other parts are more than willing to kick his butt. If you read her relationship with Gideon as somewhat abusive (it certainly comes off this way to me), it reflects that You can’t erase an emotional relationship from your past, but you can move on from it, stronger than before.
I’m guessing you still havent read Scott Pilgram (because it’s still in this post). You really should. Mostly because its good. In the books Gideon Graves isn’t just a jerk, he’s a monster who uses a psychic weapon he invented to use & manipulate people. Both Scott and Ramona rescue eachother, once they work past the fact that they’re both total jerks.
The movie suffered from not having enough time to tell the story. But the place to improve it wasnt in the characters; they needed to take a few extra moments to show the extent of Gideons control over people, and when his power was broken.
Great artical by the way.
Re: Snape. I think he had deeper reasons for hating Harry (not good, but more developed). The problem is we got so very little of those reasons until nearly the end of the series, making Snape fit this type until near the very end.
Another big component to this type, that Snape plays to a T, is that these characters exist in a vacuum. No one ever steps up and says “cut that out” – Snape abuses Harry like crazy, and no fellow staff, not even Dumbledore, either stops him or explains his reasons to Harry. This sort of thing is necessary for the archetype – the Hero-Hater having to justify their actions either a) reveals how silly their reasons are or b) reveals deeper reasons that push the characters toward reconciliation if they’re not total dingbats.
Sorry for replying to an old comment but I think about what you said about the characters existing in a vacuum a lot.
It’s not like it was in any way a secret that Snape and Lily were friends until their… 5th year was it? 5 out of 7 years in school they were friends, and Snape was so young when he became a teacher that several of his now-colleagues would have been teaching him and Lily. Then there’s characters like Remus and Sirius that were in the same year, and the same class as Lily.
Yet no one even hinted to Harry that Snape and Lily had ever been on speaking terms. Some are excused, like Dumbledore who made a promise to Snape to be quiet, but that still leaves
– McG, though admittedly I’d find it more likely that she just tells Snape off for harassing one of her students and leaves it at that.
– Sirius, who could have let something slip when Harry mentioned the memory, even just commenting along the lines of “serves him right that she never spoke to him again after that”.
– Remus, who seems to have at least known Lily before she started dating James and is unlike Sirius capable of mentioning Snape without bringing the insults.
– Slughorn, who would have had Snape and Lily in the same classroom and likely see them working together if the double class divisions were the same in the 70s as in the 90s and given that they keep the same textbooks for three generations I don’t think they changed double class.
– Hagrid, who in all other instances is more or less completely incapable of keeping anything secret. Given that he wasn’t a teacher in the 70s and would likely not have interacted much or any with Snape or Lily when they were young, I would say he’d be excused. Except for the fact that he’s notorious for conveniently handing out information that Hermione can’t find in a book.
Instead, if any of these characters do mention Snape’s reasons they all reinforce that it’s all about James Potter and only James Potter. And while James does play a really major part among Snapes many issues, it makes it seem like all these people who had seen James and Snape fight couldn’t recall a single instance Snape and Lily had ever interacted. It makes one wonder if Dumbledore (or Snape, for the sake of fairness) went around and obliviated those memories away for everyone.
The only resolution Snape gets for the entire mess is a gory death and a posthumous “I am not sorry for harassing you throughout your education but here’s a montage of my motives now go die”.
For me, the biggest problems with Harry Potter had to do with the fact I loved it while I read it but there’s way too much “fridge logic” for the magical world to be anything but an unpleasant place to be.
Yes, Snape has a lot of those moments. I get his disliking Harry. He’s not exactly a creative thinker, but a very logical one with a very small box. He didn’t love Lily. He was obsessed over her. James didn’t “take” Lily. Lily and James chose one another. Snape could never see Lily as her own person, but only as this idealized fantasy.
Then, he gets so ticked off by his fantasy being betrayed, that he joins the Death Eaters. AKA, the magical world’s version of the Nazi Party.
Then when he learns that Lily has been targeted, he turns on the Death Eaters and spends the remainder of his life virtually unpunished for what he’s done before Lily and James were targeted. Even when he goes to the Potter house… he comforts her corpse instead of the crying child.
So… the potions master is supposedly a reformed Nazi War General in a school where the very students are likely his prior targets. He did nothing to prove that he was worthy of that title except for his skill with potions.
Not that the school in general has ever cared about the welfare of the students. Dumbledore said it mockingly about the Slytherins when there was a troll in the dungeon, but when Lucius Malfoy threatens Harry right outside his door, Dumbledore doesn’t even peek his head out.
And that’s not even covering how there are no safety spells in regards to Quidditch.
But back to Snape. He wasn’t worthy of spit. Yeah, he was an interesting character over the course of the books, but Snape never had to admit to any of the wrong he had done and a single session with the pensieve and Harry forgives him?
There’s a reason Harry didn’t go to Ravenclaw, but maybe he should have been sorted into Hufflepuff because he just wants to be friends with everyone (at least after they say they’re sorry and apparently really mean it).
Harry sorted himself, he could have gone to every house (which is, actually, another of those ‘chosen one’ traits he has – ‘super special’).
My problem with Snape is actually not that he is hating Harry for illogical reasons (people do so and Snape is not the kind of guy who would be expected to ‘do better’ – not with his past). My problem is that his whole connection to Harry’s parents (which is the reason for his hate) is put in so late.
When Petunia complains about ‘that boy’ at the beginning of, I think, the fifth novel (after the Dementor attack, saying he had told Lily about Dementors when they were kids), I was absolutely sure she meant James Potter. Yet, as the last book shows us, she meant Snape. There’s no explanation for why Snape and James were at odds until the fifth novel, when Harry sees Snape’s worst memory. Nobody even mentions that they had a real enmity going (both Remus and Sirius could have said so – not to mention at least half of the teachers and, perhaps, Hagrid, too). Nobody mentioned that Lily and Snape grew up in the same neighbourhood, let alone that knew each other even before Hogwarts and were friends for a while, despite being in different houses (and rival ones to boot).
Snape comes across as that teacher we all had (if we were unlucky) who picked one student per class and would torment them just for his or her own sadistic satisfaction. He comes across as the kind of teacher you pray you won’t have lessons with (no such luck at Hogwarts, of course, since he doesn’t teach an elective) and pray won’t pick you as his target. That his hate for Harry and for Neville both come from the same root (he hates Neville for not being the chosen one, because that would have meant that Lily could have survived the war), is something the audience isn’t told until way into the story. That is my problem – Snape becomes a carricature of the teacher we all feared and hated at school, because his motivations are not explained early and not fully explained at all until the very last book.
A great subversion of the Chosen One archetype exists in the Mistborn trilogy by Brandon Sanderson. Or should I say, there are at least three subversions of the archetype in the trilogy. I don’t want to spoil it, but suffice to say that what people THINK regarding the chosen one (who it is, what prophecies prove them, where the prophecies come from, what the chosen one has to do) is heavily toyed with by Sanderson. Do note however that Sanderson does heavily use the Chosen One archetype in his fiction overall, and in a number of cases plays it mostly straight.
If you want a spoiler to pique your interest, I’ll post it here: SPOILER ALERT
The Lord Ruler is a ‘chosen one’, but he’s the big bad of the first novel. Except you learn that he’s not the chosen one at all, but killed the chosen one everybody expected out of suspicion and jealousy. Then you learn that he heavily screwed up using the chosen one powers and basically failed utterly at the role he took for himself.
I think Snape’s hatred for Harry was justified; not in morality or sensibility, but human nature. He was bullied by James, he was jealous of him, and James ended up marrying the love of his life, who got murdered. So no, I don’t think he had any real, rational reason to hate him; human beings aren’t always rational. I would say all of his jealousy and frustration got passed down to harry directly, because he never got to express it to James or get him back. Harry being in Hogwarts as his student might seem like the perfect opportunity to get revenge on James for a man who was tormented, and who’s love chose his tormentor before she died. It’s safe to say that Snape was going through a lot to be completely rational. Also, I felt there were a few times that Harry picked up on some bullying tactics towards Snape that seemed to be exactly like his father’s. Let’s not forget that the hero (Harry) also had some presumptuous feelings towards him when they first met. I admire most all of your posts and find them to be well explained and helpful, but I think there’s justification for some of these character archetypes.
First of all, hating a child because of what their parents did is never justified.
In addition, while understandable motivations, both through James and through Lily, do exist, they are introduced by far too late to save the character from being a ‘hero hater’ for no good reason. Snape’s hatred is introduced in the first book and there’s never a situation in which he is called out for his behaviour towards Harry (or Neville, whom Snape hates, because had he been the chosen one, Lily wouldn’t have died). Snape is a teacher, not the headmaster (until book seven) or otherwise in control of the school. He should have been reined in by someone (Dumbledore obviously, but I could also imagine McGonnagal tell him to lay it off). He is allowed to be antagonistic and outright abusive towards Harry without any repercussions for himself. That is what makes him that ‘hero hater’ archetype. He’s allowed to hate the hero for arbitrary reasons and he gets away with it.
If you want you hero to selflessly save others, you still don’t need a major character to scream and kick their legs helplessly.
Indeed, while “make it personal” is usually good advice, if it’s selfless heroism you want to demonstrate, then it’s a much better demonstration with someone the hero doesn’t specifically care about. Buffy – since Dawn is your example picture – would risk her life to save someone she met two minutes ago, and may never see again. That’s what made her a hero.
I get pretty miffed at The Chosen One these days. That goes double if it’s my character in a tabletop RPG, since it usually means the railroad tracks are going to chafe.
Sometime, I’d like to see a Chosen One flat out tell the oracle he’s not interested in the job, he’s happy with his life as is, and proceeds to derail every attempt to get him involved. In the end, everything works out better because people who actually had a stake in the matter chose not to wait around for the prophecy.
Another subversion I’d like to see is a world where everything falls apart because people spent too much time and effort arguing over who’s “really” The Chosen One. Answer: No one. The oracle was just gibbering or telling people what they wanted to hear. Some relative “nobodies” get sick of it and fix the problem with elbow grease instead of fate.
I agree with you, my only exception that I’ve enjoyed when I come across it, is the “chosen one” isn’t someone destined for greatness, but someone with a social obligation. You are the chosen one…now do this dreck job so no one else has to. Or, you are the Chosen One, so get sacrificed to the elements come dawn. It actually has a job of bringing up duty and leaves the character to decide how much they want to follow that. Without future predictions, it can be a good lead in to the story. Of course, saving the world isn’t a social duty.
I agree. Having a “Chosen One” whose fate is negative or coupled to not being allowed to make choices (few people get asked if they want to be sacrificed at dawn) can make for a great story. You can either have the character defy is fate or fight it and in the end realize they have to accept it for one reason or other. That makes for a nice tension in the story.
Hoo, boy–this comment is at least a month late. But your comments about Harry Potter pushed too many of my overly-sensitive buttons–overly-sensitive due to awful fanfic.
Harry’s hard-working friend Hermione sits in his shadow? Snape only hates Harry because of his arrogant mannerisms? J.K. Rowling portrays Harry as a paragon of virtue?
I’m sorry, but have you even READ all the Harry Potter books? Or did you just watch the movies? Or have you only read horrible Harry Potter fanfiction?
1. It’s an insult to Hermione’s character to even suggest she sits in Harry’s shadow. Hermione is not only a hard worker, but a bossy know-it-all. When she doesn’t agree with someone, she says so–often quite tactlessly. She has strong opinions about causes, but little tact and few social skills, with the result that she alienates people who might otherwise get along with her. She’s argumentative. She can get petty and jealous. Despite all this, she becomes a success in her own right–hell, in the Cursed Child, she even becomes Minister of Magic! Finally, J.K. Rowling has repeatedly stated that Hermione is her favorite character–in fact, her self-insert. I don’t know where people get this stupid idea that Hermione is a long-suffering, submissive Agnes Wickfield clone whom the other characters just don’t appreciate enough, but I wish it would stop. I also wish people would stop characterizing Ron Weasley as the clown of the Harry Potter series, but that’s a rant for another time.
2. All the reasons why Snape hates Harry are harped on in the last three books. I’m not going to mention them, but to reduce Snape to “the character who just has to hate the protagonist for no reason” is absurd.
3. Harry is hardly a paragon of virtue. In Book 5, he’s an angsty asshole–and characters call him out on it. In the same book, he charges straight into danger, dragging his friends with him, and gets many of them injured and his godfather killed–and he actually learns from this experience. Moreover, we learn in Book 5 just WHY Harry is the Chosen One–in a nutshell, it was all Voldemort’s fault. If Voldemort hadn’t believed a half-assed prophecy, he wouldn’t have gone after Harry in the first place, and there wouldn’t have been a Chosen One anyway. So yes, the “Chosen One” cliche is in Harry Potter, but it’s a little more complex than, say, Anakin Skywalker and his midichlorian count.
If you don’t like Harry Potter, that’s fine. But when you use it as an example in your analysis and get so much about it blatantly wrong, that’s another story.
AMEN TO THAT!
A late reply, but I have to say.
Harry is a paragon of virtue. JK Rowling brushes over his angsty teen phase by giving the Voldemort’s soul part that makes him so aggressive to begin with. It influences his personality with more exposure, just like they turn aggressive when wearing the locket, another Horcrux. Negative feelings are easily born. Harry is basically sinless. The Snape thing has already been commented upon, so I will refrain from explaining it.
The Prize works better if it’s both ways. In the original Scott Pilgrim comics, Ramona was having to fight her own battles (internal and external) to win Scott even as he was doing the reverse.
You’ve made a mistake. A BIG mistake.
Snape hates Harry because he’s too much like James. And he hates James for stealing Lily, his true love, the one person he would have died for over and over again.
And he actually likes Harry, he protects Harry constantly. He’s been watching over him for all these years. He just can’t stand the James in him because it’s too painful to be reminded of Lily, who died “because of James” (not really, but it’s complicated love stuff).
So no, you’re wrong. You’re VERY wrong. Snape has a GOOD REASON to dislike Harry. I’m not saying the archetype isn’t real. It’s very real and very annoying to have an antagonist just for the sake of wanting an antagonist. But not Snape. Especially, since in the end, he actually loved and wanted to protect Harry. Even giving his life for it.
He protects Harry, because Harry is Lily’s son, not because he likes Harry. And he hates Harry, because he’s James’ son, not for something Harry did to him.
His motivations are established far too late – he comes on scene as a person who hates a boy he’s never met before for his ‘celebrity’ status (as that is his first comment ‘our celebrity’) or for the sin of looking like his father. Neither of those are good reasons for hating someone or treating them like Snape treats Harry.
And again: it is never right to hate a child for whatever the parents did.
After reading all of the comments, basically, the moral of this story is, don’t mess with Snape. Or for that matter, don’t fit Harry Potter into little boxes labeled “archetypes” or “stereotypes” because the Harry Potter universe is so much more complex and unique than that.
This was well laid out and while I don’t agree 100% it lays out the pitfalls and flaws to all of these tropes, and shows just how toxic and awful some of them are really well.
Another annoying archetype that I see in fiction a lot is the “I don’t belong” Archetype. Similar to “the chosen one”, there is a character in a certain race or group who has a feeling that he/she doesn’t belong. A real-life example that I encountered in a roleplay was an orphan character who felt like she belonged to another clan, even though her siblings were perfectly normal characters who were barely even in the story, other than just to add “pocket litter” to her. When she and her friends embarked on a quest to save their clan, she acted like she was the leader, or somehow chosen to be the main character, because she didn’t belong with the others, and that she had to continue the quest alone. She destroyed the entire roleplay. The thing that i really hate about these characters is that they did nothing to earn this special title, they were just born like this. I much prefer works such as Narnia, where the characters got themselves into this mess and now they have to fix it. This makes much more seense, as the characters aren’t trying to be “heroic” or “special”, they are just average people who made a mistake and have to fix it. In reality, if there was some huge threat to humanity, I. E. Voldemort from harry potter, normally the characters wouldn’t rush forward to defeat him, unless they accidentally took a few missteps and now they have to fix what they broke or DEATH(or some other mundane consequence). The reason that I really hate the “i don’t belong character” over the chosen one character(the spectrum is much wider there) is that often they either have some awesomely magical, Uuber-good shaman sort of person in their family tree that they’re a direct descendant of, and that makes them special or more important than all of the other characters, and the fact is that they actually WANT to follow in this person’s footsteps, even though they’re roughly a hundred times less powerful than them (though they’ll still have some special oddball power, anyway). other Chosen one types might include the “I don’t want to but I have to” character, who at least feels a tad more real, as they are sort of forced to embark on the quest ahead, instead of volunteering on their own will.
Eh. This smacks of some kind of postmodern political correctness. There are so many examples of success with these archetypes that there is no rationale behind “ditching” them, except to suggest it can’t be done well. In particular, the “Chosen One” and the “Damsel in Distress” are probably the most archetypical of all archetypes. The “chosen one” gets depth through reluctance, coming from bad circumstances, being ill-prepared and wary of the task ahead. He usually is only forced to go by the destruction of his home (i.e. Luke in Star Wars). They usually don’t believe they are the chosen one, and growing into that is the drama of their story arc. The problem with Anakin Skywalker is that his arc was unsatisfying, and everyone knew what it was from the start. It was a very difficult writing task, and George Lucas didn’t quite pull it off.
Meanwhile, the Damsel in Distress (understandably hated by feminists, but not hated by female audiences) is the ultimate expression of male heroic purpose, and female desire for a hero to sweep her off her feet. Saving the world may seem like a grand goal, but finding and saving the perfect woman is an even better reward for the hero. The fact that she is good and innocent in an evil world is what gives her character dramatic impact. She may not be complicated, but she is a mirror that reflects the evil in those who threaten her, and the good in the hero and other protagonists. She is an ideal, thus an archetype, more than a real human – because it’s fiction.
“understandably hated by feminists, but not hated by female audience”
Are you sure? I don’t think so, because of this little gem below: “saving the perfect woman is an even better reward for the hero.” What is the ‘perfect woman’s’ reward here? Not dying?
The damsel is an overused archetype which a lot of women, whether they call themselves feminists or not, feel bored with. Why? Because in a lot of stories you could make her a vase and not much would change. Because she has no agenda of her own, she’s just there for the hero to be rewarded. Give that guy a medal, a huge ham, and a money bonus instead.
And then this: “ultimate expression of male heroic purpose, and female desire for a hero to sweep her off her feet.” You know what a lot of women desire, even in stories, not just in real life? To kick ass for a change. That’s why they cheer for Furiosa and adored Xena. Because those are women who kick ass and take names. That’s why they love Wynonna Earp, because she even kicked ass while pregnant. That’s why they love Princess Leia – not the metal bikini.
Yes, I know some women dream of the Prince Charming to sweep them off their feet and carry them off into the sunset, but do you know where that desire comes from? From being fed the story of the woman who needs to be saved from childhood, from the fairy tales (especially the Disney versions up to Brave/Frozen) and the romance movies and novels.
Well the Twilight Saga spent more than four years on the NY Times bestseller list. The fastest selling paperback ever is Fifty Shades of Grey. I think its a little offensive to suggest that women only bought these books because we’ve been indoctrinated by Disney. Can you really say that women express “agency” when we make choices you approve of but if our desires aren’t feminist enough they must come from Disney or wherever?
I wish the damsels had any kind of agency, but they’re just standing around and waiting for everything to happen. As I said, they could be replaced by an inanimate object most of the time. The fact alone that the commenter I answered to puts them down as ‘reward for the hero’ says a lot, I think.
Fifty Shades of Grey actually introduced a lot of women (and statistically older women, well into their middle age) to erotica for women. That doesn’t mean its characters have any quality … as with porn in other forms, the action is more important than the actor. As a matter of fact, Christian Grey is a creep who’d be thrown out of any self-respecting BDSM community and Ana basically doesn’t have a character to speak of.
Twilight was loved by women, yes … in this case mostly by young adults, though. Those are the women who are still very much influenced by the idea that your Prince Charming will come and save you … from whatever. And I wonder if it would still sell as well as a new entry today, with the large section YA literature has become.
For the record, it’s really hard to extract meaningful data about audience taste from sales numbers, especially with such limited sample sizes.
Like, did Twilight sell super well *because* Bella is a damsel in distress, or *despite* of it? Did readers respond to Bella’s disempowerment, or were they responding to the way Meyer (for better or worse) captured the all consuming nature of teenaged romantic attraction?
Similarly, does the fact that the Hunger Games movies did significantly better than the Twilight movies mean that audience tastes have changed and they now prefer female characters with more agency?
There’s a sales data point out there to support nearly every view point, it’s never wise to rely on them.
From what I’ve read/seen of “50 Shades of Grey,” and from your own review, nothing really happens beyond “powerful guy obsesses over damsel.” I have read “Twilight,” and while it at least it has an actual plot, most of that plot is again “powerful guy obsesses over damsel.” In both cases and in a lot of chick lit and chick flicks, the damseling of the female audience-surrogate is not an unfortunate sideplot, it is at the center of the narrative. Asking whether Twilight succeeded *because* Bella was damselled or *in spite of it* is like asking whether the New Testament sold so well because of or in spite of the main character dying.
As for the success of the Hunger Games, of course there are women/girls who want to see a character like Katniss. And of course there are those who want to see objects-of-obsession. There is no singular “female audience,” each woman and each person has their own tastes. No one’s tastes are wrong because they aren’t feminist enough.
Also, the “Twilight” series grossed slightly more than the “Hunger Games” series, even though “Twilight” had to pave the way as it was really the first mainstream teen film series with a female main character.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films
You’re looking at the wrong statistic. Twilight had 5 films, Hunger Games had 4. Hunger Games has a significantly higher average per film.
It is funny, but also typical, that a woman has to tell a guy who thinks he’s the great feminist that he’s wrong about this. The reasons why these archetypes exist is that they come from places so deep in the human psyche that no amount of political dogma can wash them away.
The politically correct trend of the past few decades to shoehorn women into action-hero roles can only succeed by making the woman into a sex object for male audiences. And generally, in my experience, women are not huge fans of those kinds of stories. But I’ll let you speak for it.
Women becoming heroes of their own stories a) doesn’t mean they have to be action heroes and b) doesn’t necessarily make them sex objects for the male audience. There are many different kinds of heroes, not all of whom wield weapons and leave a bloodbath behind, even though I personally want to see more female badasses on screen. But less waif-fu, if possible. Give me a female hero who looks like she can beat up all the bad guys and not like a strong breeze can topple her over. And it is down to the kind of filming done whether you turn a woman into a sex object (that is the ‘male gaze’) or not and to how you dress her. Action heroine in heels? Nope. Action heroine in similar practical clothing as a hero? Yes, please.
The problem with the damsel is that she has no agency and no say in her own fate. A woman can get caught and threatened, but while she is doing her stuff. And she should not just be a ‘present’ for the hero in the end.
Female warriors are nothing new, in either reality or art.
No, they’re not. There’ve always been warrior women in a lot of different cultures.
Relying on sales data to draw conclusions is how some of us make a living :)
First of all, the issue at hand is whether the popularity of “Twilight” and “Fifty Shades” can be ignored, and I don’t know whether that is even a serious discussion.
Secondly, not only was “Twilight” breaking new ground in several ways, but it opened during the Great Recession. Thus while “Twilight” still managed to be the highest grossing film *ever* directed by a woman it was massively outperformed by the next four installments. Collectively, the later four “Twilight” movies still outperformed “The Hunger Games,” which had the advantage of opening during the recovery (not to mention more screen-suitable action scenes).
Thirdly, if “audience tastes have changed and they now prefer female characters with more agency” we would have expected to see the popularity of Twilight steadily decline with later movies, and the popularity of Hunger Games increase. The opposite happened, which supports the hypothesis that there isn’t some singular female zeitgeist demanding one kind of story.
It is a good thing that stories with female-damsel-surrogates aren’t the only stories we tell, but they clearly aren’t going away. And I agree with Artistic Druid that it is offensive to suggest that women would only enjoy this kind of story if they have been culturally brainwashed.
To be honest, I’m not annoyed about women who enjoy the idea of being damselled and rescued. What I was annoyed about when it came to the original post was saying ‘only feminists (evil women who are not really women) hate damsels, all other women (good women who are real women) love them.’ You don’t have to be a feminist not to enjoy that trope and you’re not supposed to hand in your ‘feminist card’ just for sometimes enjoying it. I agree that different women enjoy different stories and have the right to so. But I still do think the way we’re introduced to romance, men as well as women, does influence our take on it.
It influences men who think they have to be heroic manly man to ‘deserve’ a woman – which leads both to men who think they’ll never get one and to men who think they are cheated out of what they ‘deserve’ by life or evil feminist women. They adhere to strategies shown in romance movies (some of which are more likely to get you a ‘cease and desist’ order in real life) and complain when the woman doesn’t fall for them, but gets a lawyer instead (and in my ideal romance story, she’d then marry the female lawyer in the end…). They think that just because they’re interested in what media classifies as ‘nerd stuff’ or ‘geek stuff’ they’ll never have a girl – even though girls are into that, too.
The limited view on women in popular fiction/media does mean girls are often first introduced to passive women who are, indeed, often just around as a ‘reward’ for the hero (because they’ll watch/read kid’s stories a long time before they watch/read YA or movies/books for adults – and a lot of YA and adult stuff also adheres to the ‘classic’ stuff). The view has been expanded recently, but that’s one of the actual points – recently. Most women who grew up in my generation (born 1974) or slightly after me (until into the 1980s, I guess, since the late 1980s/early 1990s are when kids stories and teen stories branched out into different characters more often – from my own childhood, I could only list Pippi Longstocking as a non-passive female character I can still remember) have been introduced to romance via fairy tales (and often the ‘kids-friendly’ Disney versions). While later movies (especially Arielle onwards, I’d say) give their female leads more of an agenda, it’s still about finding the perfect guy, being rescued by him in the end, and being with him for the rest of your life. The same topic which romance and rom-com also show, cementing the idea that there is ‘one true love’ and something special should happen when or after you meet them. A lot of the female audience still is from that time – actual statistics say 50 Shades has a lot more fans in the older demographic than among the youngers. Twilight is a different topic, even though its original fans by now probably are well out of their teens, too. Also, about recession and Twilight: recession is when media consumption usually goes up, because people want to get away from the reality for a while. That’s why, for instance, pulp and serials bloomed in the late 1920s and the 1930s.
Brave introduced the first female lead in a Disney movie who refused the classic route and Frozen even originally was going to adhere, until they decided to change Elsa and switch from romantic love to sisterly love – a good move, I think. It will take a lot more time until the changes in the stories will really show in our perception of romance and love (especially with the late 1990s/early 2000s often going back to the more traditional characters). That’s why its important that all kinds of media try to diversify more, not just in cast, but also in story. Using the ‘chosen one’ over and over is just as boring as using the ‘damsel in distress’ over and over. Every now and then is okay.
Also, don’t forget romantic marriage is a relatively new phenomena. Until recently (well through the 19th century and in some areas even today), marriage was a business between two families first and foremost. The people about to get married had no say in it – pretty much like the damsel who is with the man who saved her, despite often knowing little about him.
God help me, I think I am about to defend Twilight…
Above I see it is being used as an example that women still dig the damsel trope, like 50 shades. I have not read 50 shades, will probably never read it, but I have read the Twilight books when I was a teenager and, well, enjoyed them.
And while I absolutely agree with the fact that there are a lot of messed up things in Twilight, from the weird stalker-boyfriend and emotional manipulation to the empty, egotistical shell of a protagonist, I don’t think I agree that Bella falls neatly into the damsel category.
If you look at her actions – because, yeah, she acts – you can see that she is never waiting to be saved. She is incredibly self-sacrificing – to the point of complete creepiness – but that is a choice she makes. In the first book for instance, she ditches her protector vampires to go save her mother by… sacrificing herself. In the third book, she is on the point of cutting herself to distract a vampire opponent of Edward, to save him. Point is, she usually acts, she doesn’t wait for someone to act for her. She has agency, it’s just the agency to make stupid, suicidal decisions.
Btw, I absolutely agree with everything you said, Cay, I just wanted to make the point that even so-called ‘obvious’ examples of women liking damsels – and feminists not liking them, because they’re not women? (I mean, wtf) – might be more nuanced, and might actually be empowering for the women who read them – though in this case probably in the wrong way. Bella has power – her decisions matter – even if it is power over men. She’s more of a chosen one in that everyone considers her superspecial, while she shows nothing that makes her even remotely interesting.
Anyway, the books never really did me any wrong, they actually gave me a lot of laughs over the years as well as helped me develop my critical thinking when I started reading why people had issues with it.
I’m not saying Twilight is evil, either, I’m just saying that ‘it sold extremely well’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘the story is good’ or ‘the characters are great.’ It hit the market at the right time, in the right social climate and that is what made it so successful.
Bella making horrible decisions instead of being a damsel works for me. I was annoyed by that ‘real women like damsels’ argument and the original poster used Twilight in his own comment.
Oh no, I was agreeing with you, I had issue with the other commentator(s) who I think brought the point up :) First time I replied to any conversation, so sorry if it came across as disagreement. I replied to you because you were the last one commenting on the chain ;)
No worries, no harm done :)
Hi!
I believe that a character I’ve been working on falls under the Chosen One archetype by inadvertently forming a contract with a rare spirit.
Is he a Chosen One because this spirit propels him into a global conflict, or does he dodge the trope because it was his character traits that led him to create the bond in the first place?
I’m leaning towards “he’s still a Chosen One,” because he has little skills to offer that validate his importance; I’ve had fun subverting the trope slightly through his woeful lack of skill with magic or swordsmanship, but I’d like to do better.
What would you, Mythcreants, recommend to either further subvert the trope, minimize it, or avoid it altogether?
If he qualified for the bond because of something he does that makes him deserve that bond more than the average person, you’ve already subverting the “chosen one” archetype fairly well. In this article, I defined the chosen one as “Characters of the chosen one archetype are hailed as the most important person in their setting for reasons that are entirely outside their control.” – But if he did something to earn his status, it’s not outside his control. Whether it could use further subversion really depends on your implementation. How much of what he does in the plot is justified by “because he’s the chosen one!” and how much does he earn his involvement? And he doesn’t have to earn his involvement by being a badass. The same personality traits that got him the bond could also come into play.
We have another article mentioning the chosen one you might like: https://mythcreants.com/blog/five-tropes-that-make-a-protagonist-boring/
That was fast!
Thank you for the response, that helped!
I really think your wrong for saying that we should “ditch” them. These tropes are tools. Just ditch because they have problems or issues is just limiting yourself.
And more. The reasons listed as to why we should ditch them is not because the problems with the tropes themselves but on how it was used or executed or just your bias against them.
The Chosen One one for example is just complaining about its terrible use in the Star Wars prequels and using Harry Potter as an example when he is not A Chosen One.
The Damsel is you denying the characters value as characters because they need to be saved. People do get in distress all the time and can’t save themselves and needs to be saved. Does this makes them less of a person and becomes a prop to the rescuer’s narrative? Of course not. The problem is not the archetype, it is how the author uses it.
These tropes have their uses and place. It is wrong to tell us to ditch them because you essentially don’t like them. Instead of limiting yourself, be open and see how these archetypes could be used.
The problem is how a lot of those characters are used, how the tropes are usually used in stories. They lead to a lot of lazy writing, so this site, dedicated to writing, warns against them.
1) Harry Potter, a boy destined to defeat the Dark Lord through a prophecy is a Chosen One. A prophecy counts as a higher power, no matter whether you say it came from a god, from fate, or from the universe at large. Same goes for Anakin, who is framed as the Chosen One from the beginning, including even an immaculate conception. And, yes, there’s thousands of stories with Chosen Ones around and few are done well. Here’s a nice vid from Overly Sarcastic Productions on Chosen Ones:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpZG8wh8d-0&list=PLDb22nlVXGgcljcdyDk80bBDXGyeZjZ5e&index=19&t=0s
2) The problem with the ‘Damsel in Distress’ is when the damsel can be easily replaced by some object – like Princess Peach in the classic Mario games. Every character – male, female, or something else – can get into trouble and need help. But most damsels only exist to be rescued, they have no agency of their own and no deeper influence on the story. Replace them with a nice vase or a bag of money and literally nothing changes in the story. There are also lots of good examples of damsels, but for some reason, the ‘damsel as a vase’ is still far too common. Overly Sarcastig Productions has a nice vid on good damsels, if you’re interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rLfENrnsoQ&list=PLDb22nlVXGgcljcdyDk80bBDXGyeZjZ5e&index=15&t=0s
Harry Potter. The prophecy doesn’t actually choose Harry Potter as the one destined to defeat Voldemort. It is Voldemort who chooses Harry to be his nemesis. The prophecy doesn’t even say that he would defeat Voldemort. There was even another child who could have fulfilled the prophecy: Neville Longbottom. The chosen one is supposed to be the only one to defeat the enemy. And, Voldemort could have just done nothing about the prophecy and things would have go a different direction, where Harry would not be pitted against him. He was not a chosen one, though there are some elements of the choosen one in the narrative, specifically, it is Voldemort himself who choose Harry not some higher being or something.
Damsel in Distress. I have watched that video already and the author of the video even says she liked Damsel in Distress.
And this article doesn’t warn us against them, this article tells us to ditch them. That is, never use them. There is a difference.
It is one thing to warn others against the pitfalls of the archetypes and it is another to tell others to ditch them because people are using them wrong or you don’t like it.
No, it’s not the prophecy alone which chooses Harry. As he learns later in the books, it could also have been about Neville. But Voldemort’s actions and the Wizarding World’s reaction make Harry the Chosen One. He fits that mould and he’s treated as one, so, for all intents and purposes, he is a Chosen One. There’s been so many Chosen Ones lately, especially with the development of the YA segment, it’s high time people start writing about other types of heroes instead of producing the next one.
If you know Red’s video about Damsels, you also know that she prefers not the classic type (the one without agency), but simply characters who get damselled by circumstances. There’s nothing to say against those, but the classic damsel which has no agency and no impact of the story has been done to death and should no longer be used any more for a long while. Getting a character into a situation in which they need help? Great, as long as they have agency and it’s not just about giving the hero easy motivation and a nice reward at the end. And that’s what the article says: stop doing the classic damsel.
All five archetypes described here have been done a lot during the last decade or two and that is why they should be retired at least for a while – so other heroes can come forth, something different, something new. Not every hero needs to be a chosen one, not every female support needs to be a price or a damsel (or, worse, both). Not every hero needs someone who hates them for no other reason than being a hero. And nobody needs a puppeteer who thinks they know best for everyone and get away with it, because it always turns out they were right in the end. I guess the puppeteer yould still work for a villain (as might a self-centred Chosen One who just assumes everyone will bow to them).
Uh. . . I guess you didn’t fully understand this article that well. Here is the final words for The Choosen One:
Heroes can still stand out in a crowd, but they should earn their titles with hard work and the right choices, not because it was preordained by the cosmos.
So, it means, this article is talking about the classic chosen one.
The problem here? The author associates all choosen one as bad and should be ditched.
And what is the problem with having a chosen one that is chosen by the powers of the cosmos? Maybe there are problems, but should we really ditched this character archetype?
As for the damsel in distress. Again same problem. The author of this article bunch all the damsels into one and said that you should ditch them.
And even with the classic damsel. It might have problems, but should we really ditch her?
If the reason is because it is done to death, then you could almost say that to all the tropes. Why? Because there is really nothing new? Elves? Dwarves? Dragons? Done to death. So we should ditch them. Comic relief? Fem Fatale? Twist Villain? Done to death. Think of any character tropes? It surely have been done many times too.
It is not really because they are overused, the author wants us to ditch them because the author don’t like them. It grates against the author’s sensibilities or something.
Not every hero needs to be a chosen one, not every female support needs to be a price or a damsel (or, worse, both). Not every hero needs someone who hates them for no other reason than being a hero. And nobody needs a puppeteer who thinks they know best for everyone and get away with it, because it always turns out they were right in the end.
“Not every” – That is my point. But this article says that you should ditch all of this.
Okay, I think you didn’t get my point. I don’t agree with the author for saying that we should ____ditch____ these tropes. Very very heavy emphasis on the word ditch. No we should not ditch them. These tropes are tools.
For the author to say to just ditch this kind of characters is unhelpful. It just closes our minds to possibilities and diminishes the tools available to the writers.
I think you don’t get the point of the chosen one.
‘Chosen One’ equals ‘chosen by something or someone.’ A hero who chooses to do something is not a chosen one, but simply a hero. Heroes see something amiss and choose to do something. Active vs. passive, if you want to see it like that. They are not chosen by a prophecy, a god, or something or someone else. As soon as someone has ‘their destiny thrust upon them’ (like Harry, who surely didn’t do anything to provoke the attack on his family when he was one), they’re a chosen one.
‘Damsel in distress’ is usually understood in the way it’s even been in the fairy tales: a woman without agency who is rescued by the hero and, more often than not, also his price. Like Snow White. Like Briar Rose. They have done nothing to deserve their fates, they have not done anything but, perhaps, reacting (as Snow White runs away and agrees to do housework for a roof over her head). That kind of damsel is what people think about when they hear the description. That is what the archetype is about. Every character in a story can be in a situation where they need help. Even the hero themselves. But they have agency. They do something before and after and, sometimes, even during that time. They’re not just sitting around and twiddling their thumbs until it’s time to be saved.
And, yes, ditch traditional dwarves, elves, dragons, femmes fatales, twisted villains. Do new stuff. Twist the archetypes.
‘Chosen One’ equals ‘chosen by something or someone.’
-Uh. This is actually not what a chosen one is. I guess you take this definition from the video. She actually stretch the definition.
The author of this article has his own definition of what a chosen one is. It is his version of the chosen one that I spoke about. I’m not talking about her definition of chosen ones.
[That kind of damsel is what people think about when they hear the description.]
And while you say this about the damsel, you didn’t do the same thing with the chosen one. I talk about how the author of the article define them.
[They do something before and after and, sometimes, even during that time.]
Again, read what the author has to say about this archetype.
And do new stuff? Man, there is nothing new under the sun. Think of something? I’m sure someone else had thought of it too. In fact, those traditional types you talk about is kinda rare now days.
That is why instead of ditching these archetypes, you should instead look at them as tools.
In general, it’s a good idea to ditch any and all archetypes that are sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, and so forth.
Eh . . . Almost any kind of tropes and archetypes are labeled as sexiest, racist, homophobic, ableist, and so forth. For example, Sara Bellum from the Power Puff Girls was removed from the 2016 because she is supposed to be “offensive” and what not. Sebastian from The Little Mermaid is offensive. Pixar’s movie Coco is sexist.
You see, it almost impossible not to offend someone in this time. You could almost make a game and search in google for something like: *Story title* is offensive or racist or sexist and you’ll find articles and blogs and what not saying that thing.
If you don’t want to write anything offensive or sexist or racist or anything, then you should not write. You will offend anyone that way.
I think you need to look up sexist and racist.
It is not me who says they are sexist or racist or anything. Power Puff Girls 2016 for example, it is actually the makers who find Sara Bellum offensive and decided to remove her.
As I said, people could find something offensive from just anything. The most ridiculous one I find is people saying that milk is racist.
People will always find something to be offended by, if they look for it. But there are archetypes which are inherently sexist or racist and they shouldn’t be used.
And example (not from anything I’ve read or seen, just made up, as far as I know):
You have a Roma character who is sly, talks people into giving him money for nothing or nearly nothing, and is highly unreliable – you’ve got a racist character, because that’s pretty much a ‘gypsy’ archetype.
You have a Roma character who is your hero’s best friend and always has their back in a fight – you’ve just got a foil for your hero, nothing wrong about it. The foil is also an archetype, but neither sexist nor racist, because the foil can be every kind of character, they only depend on what the hero is like (because the foil usually is the opposite, so if the hero is hot-headed, the foil is calm, if the hero is experienced, the foil is still wet behind their ears, etc.).
To be honest, if people are offended by what I write, I’d rather they’re offended because I’m such a horrible SJW and not because I write tired archetypes which have no place in modern stories.
But there are archetypes which are inherently sexist or racist and they shouldn’t be used.
You keep moving the goalpost. I am replying to what Tifa said. Not to use tropes that are racist, sexist and what not. The problem is, they would offend someone in someway and find them racist or sexist and so on, while others don’t.
[– you’ve got a racist character, because that’s pretty much a ‘gypsy’ archetype.]
Like this one. You may find it racist but others won’t.
[The foil is also an archetype, but neither sexist nor racist, because the foil can be every kind of character, they only depend on what the hero is like (because the foil usually is the opposite, so if the hero is hot-headed, the foil is calm, if the hero is experienced, the foil is still wet behind their ears, etc.).]
You may say so, but again, people would be offended just because.
And if you want to talk about overused, the foil is also an overused archetype. Didn’t see you complaining about it.
[To be honest, if people are offended by what I write, I’d rather they’re offended because I’m such a horrible SJW and not because I write tired archetypes which have no place in modern stories.]
This is your opinion. If that is what you believe, then go! No one is stopping you.
But you have no authority to say what have or have no place in modern times. You don’t define what the modern times should or should not be. It is rather egotistical.
As said, people are offended by everything. There is still a difference between the definition of ‘racist’ and ‘sexist’ and what some people will say is racist or sexist.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary on ‘sexism’:
1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex
especially : discrimination against women
2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex
Merriam-Webster definition of racism:
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3 : racial prejudice or discrimination
A character is sexist if it is based on behaviours, attitudes, or conditions which are stereotyped as belonging only to one gender. That doesn’t mean no character can show behaviours etc. which are coded female, but they shouldn’t be defined by those. And, yes, there’s also sexism against men and there’s also sexist ways to portray a male character.
A character is racist, if it is based only on traits (often negative) which are attributed to a specific ethnicity. The character is black, thus he’s … Stereotypes like the ‘magical black guy’ or the ‘Mexican criminal’ are racist. Generally speaking, white characters are not shown in racist ways, but that has more to do with the ‘white default’ in our culture.
In essence, if you write characters instead of archetypes, chances are you will not fall into archetypes or stereotypes which are, indeed, sexist or racist. Some people will still dislike what you write and some people will still be offended. (There’s an awful lot of people who feel offended by a female character not abiding by the norm, for instance, but that is not a reason not to write a character who happens to be female, but no female stereotype or archetype.)
The foil is, by far, not as overused as the chosen one (which you find in every other YA novel, because it’s the classic ‘I’m something special and always was’ idea) or the damsel and the price (which come through in almost every action movie where the hero ‘gets’ the only conventionally attractive female character with more screentime at the end, usually after saving her).
One problem with the chosen one is that it’s always about a character who gets a position not because of what they can do, but because someone else said they were fated to do it. Heroes who get a position because of something they have done to prove their worth are much more interesting to write, because there’s no lazy shortcut.
Definition of The Chosen One on TV Tropes:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheChosenOne
There’s also a big difference between the Damsel in Distress and a character who gets, as they say, damselled. The latter can be male, female, or non-binary. They can be badasses or helpless. They usually have another role than just ‘person caught so the hero can be forced to go on a quest’ – which is what the damsel is for.
Definition of Damsel in Distress (also Distressed Damsel) on TV-Tropes:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DamselInDistress?from=Main.DistressedDamsel
I’m glad Cay Reet brought up definitions, because I think they’re really important to this discussion. Since Cay is trying to prove that things can be objectively sexist and objectively racist, by which I mean things are sexist or racist not because people subjectively find them sexist or racist, but because they intrinsically are, defining these -ists is a big step in making a valid point. The “gypsy” archetype example is objectively racist because it’s a negative caricature of a marginalized racial group, generally instituted by members of the dominant racial group.
So if you’re arguing about whether an archetype is racist, sexist, or any other -ist, then you need the definitions. You were arguing that these archetypes aren’t offensive, people just /find/ them offensive “just because.” Cay Reet was arguing that the archetypes /are/ offensive, because they’re intrinsically offensive. Therefore the definition of the -isms at play here is quite relevant – fundamentally, you’re arguing about objectivity, and thereby the applicability of the definition.
Now, because I think language is a very interesting thing, I’m going to address your talk of different definitions. There are two approaches to dictating the use of a word: descriptive and prescriptive. In the descriptive approach, you either use a word or define the word the way a society uses a word, or you defer to an authority. The authority, in this case, is the dictionary, which has the definitions Cay listed above. You seem to be going for the other approach. Prescriptive approaches must make and maintain an argument about how a word /should/ be used or what a definition /should/ be.
Your argument is about how racism and sexism apply to the archetypes at hand – and, more specifically, that they don’t. You seem to hold that different, conflicting definitions are at work, and that Cay (and by extension, Chris) are defining things in an arbitrary way when in fact they’re taking a wholly descriptive approach by going by the dictionary. If you wish to debate either of them on Miriam-Webster’s definition, you need to try for a prescriptive approach. If that is not what sexism or racism really is, then what should it be? I can’t really tell what you think, based on your comments, but this is important information to the debate, especially if you’re going to argue that the racism and sexism is subjective. The traditional damsel, a woman without choice or agency who serves a role as a plot device that any sentimental bauble could fill, is objectively sexist in the Miriam-Webster definition, because it is a condition which stereotypes women’s social role through its commentary on female helplessness and borderline objectification. So if you wish to argue the contrary, you need to make a case about how the label “sexist” /should/ apply to character archetypes.
All this to say: definitions are indeed very applicable, and I’m especially happy because Cay’s given me an excuse to make a linguistic observation.
I sense this thread is devolving – I hope we can keep it civil.
*roaring applause for Cay Reet* :D
Editor’s note: I’ve removed a couple of comments for going clearly beyond the realm of arguing substance and into personal attacks, which we do not allow.
Huh . . . I’m targeted . . . Now I understand why people hate censorship.
@Bunny
I understand, but that is not the point of the debate. The debate is whether we should ditch these tropes or not. My stance is that we shouldn’t because tropes are tools. Use them to tell the story you want to tell.
As for racism and whatever -ism and tropes . . . again no. I’m brought up about people saying that various things is racist or sexist or whatnot because of how futile this act is.
I given Sara Bellum so I’ll put her forward again. She has been deemed offensive because of her body shape and beauty. Because they are afraid to offend people, they remove — or in another word ditch — this character from the show.
It is not about the definition, it is about being cowardly in using these tropes. You want to ditch these tropes because it might offend somebody. This is just restrictive.
If you want an example of this happening to the extreme, then look at the 1980 and children’s cartoons. We have the parents and whatnot who are against violence and sex and anything remotely offensive. The result is these terrible shows like Little Clowns of Happy Town or The Get Along Gang where the creators are so afraid to risk anything for fear of offending. The result are bland uncreative stale stories that risk nothing.
I’m saying that you go out to be racist or sexist or anything (though there are those who deliberately do so for some reason), what I’m saying is to not be afraid. There is nothing to gain from fear. Be brave. And the story you work on happen to be a bit racist, or sexist or whatnot (a lot of work is, even the classic and acclaimed) then so be it. Better luck next time and try again (and your new story, I’m sure, would be deemed offensive too in some way). Maybe you will one day write a story that no one would find offensive, though I doubt it, but at least you have written your story.
As I say, don’t ditch these tropes. Tropes are tools.
OOPS!!!!
I’m _not_saying that you go out to be racist or sexist or anything (though there are those who deliberately do so for some reason), what I’m saying is to not be afraid.
I forgot to put the _not_ in there. It should read “I’m not saying that . . .”
It is one thing to be offended by something. Some people are still offended by women wearing mini skirts (which have been a thing since the 1960s). And some conservatives might still be slightly offended by the fact that women (and POC, where applicable) have the right to vote. Taking offence is a very personal thing. Sexism and racism are systemic, they’re in the system of society. Sexist and racist characters hurt the minorities they depict by deepening stereotypes and predjudices about them. That is the problem.
Yes, media, especially mass media, will give in to loud groups protesting contents. They have to – they are only making money, if a lot of people consume the media and, thus, the advertising which comes with it. Companies might not want advertising to run during series which are under attack by those loud-voiced groups (others will aim to do so, but then, companies are different, too). That is why TV (and Hollywood mainstream) are usually not the paragons of showing diverse and unusual characters. They tend to stay with ‘what’s safe’ and remove content which is protested against, simply to keep the money flowing.
That is not what this article is about. Mythcreants is a site for authors, a site which gives very good and very interesting writing advice. Sometimes, the advice is worded very strongly (although I’m pretty sure the ‘we all have to write like they did in French Existentialism’ article was a joke ;) ). What the articles are, more than everything else, though, are think pieces. By saying ‘ditch these five archetypes which have been done to death the last couple of decades,’ the article also says ‘try to write stories with other, less overused archetypes’ or ‘try to develop characters and plots which are not based on overused tropes.’
Slightly OT: Red’s latest video on OSP was about writing pure evil characters – villains without complicated backstory or motive, your old-fashioned comic book or pulp villain. Most people will tell you that those are no longer something you can use – because they had, at some time, reached the stage of carricature. But, and that is an interesting thing, since people have been saying that for quite a while and those villains have disappeared, people have had time to recover from the overuse. By now, they actually are an option again, if they fit the overall story. So, just as making a pure evil villain is an option again now, having a chosen one or a damsel in distress might be an option again in ten or twenty or thirty years – once the stereotypes have not been done in every other piece of media for a while. Fodder for thought, I think.
[It is one thing to be offended by something. Some people are still offended by women wearing mini skirts (which have been a thing since the 1960s).]
Well, I say offensive because it is kind difficult to write this: archetypes that are sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, and so forth (quoted from Tifa). The common thread that you’ll find from them is that people find them offensive. It is better to write one word that that ten words.
[Sexism and racism are systemic, they’re in the system of society. Sexist and racist characters hurt the minorities they depict by deepening stereotypes and predjudices about them. That is the problem.]
I know. We have problems about racism and sexism and other problems, but being to involved about it will end up you being afraid that you might accidentally be something that will offend someone. You are more concerned about being inoffensive than writing a story to enjoy.
Again, I bring back Sara Bellum. She is ditched for her supposed sexist portrayal. The creators are afraid to have a beautiful curvaceous woman into the show because it might be seen as sexist/offensive. This is what happens when you care too much about such things.
Not to say that you be deliberate about it (though many writers are) but to be not afraid to be seen as such. If you are a decent person who aren’t racist or sexist or anything, then you are unlikely to write these tropes anyway or write these characters with dignity.
And because, this just futile, as many have discovered. You tried hard and someone would still complain and slap some -ism into your work or say you didn’t do enough. People would never be satisfied.
[That is not what this article is about.]
This article is not about that, yes, but this discussion is about what Tifa said: In general, it’s a good idea to ditch any and all archetypes that are sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, and so forth.
[Sometimes, the advice is worded very strongly (although I’m pretty sure the ‘we all have to write like they did in French Existentialism’ article was a joke )]
And my reply was to give another point of view. These are tropes. Tropes are tools.
And the author of this article clearly believes what he wrote. I mean, the concluding paragraph says: Every character worth developing shapes their own destiny through the choices they make, even though they won’t always make the right ones. If you take choice away from them or make their choices easy or meaningless, you might as well cut them out of the story.
It is not inviting us to think, it is telling us what should be.
[What the articles are, more than everything else, though, are think pieces. By saying ‘ditch these five archetypes which have been done to death the last couple of decades,’ the article also says ‘try to write stories with other, less overused archetypes’ or ‘try to develop characters and plots which are not based on overused tropes.’]
This is not what this article actually says. For example this statement: having a character that’s always right makes the storyteller look dumb.
I would been fine if the article says this but it doesn’t. It just tells us these tropes are bad, horrible, stupid, etc. and says that you should ditch them. We are not invited to think about using these tropes in a better or interesting way. Don’t use them because they are bad and that is the end.
[So, just as making a pure evil villain is an option again now, having a chosen one or a damsel in distress might be an option again in ten or twenty or thirty years – once the stereotypes have not been done in every other piece of media for a while. Fodder for thought, I think.]
Again, tropes are tools. Use them to write the story you want to tell. So this depends on the author and the story they want to write. So what if you want to tell a story with a damsel in distress? So what? Maybe you could actually write an interesting story about it.
But no, this article says to never use them. Not now, not ever.
At this point, it’s clear you don’t want to listen, you just want to be offended by someone suggesting you do more than lazy writing. As being offended is a personal thing, there’s nothing I or someone else can do to change that. So there’s no use in gathering more arguments.
Use whatever you wish to while writing. It’s your decision. If you don’t want to reconsider something, go in a new direction, it’s also your decision. I wonder why you’re reading articles like this one at all, though. If you don’t want to expand your writing, there’s no reason to read something about writing.
It is you who didn’t listen. I say it again:
We don’t have to “ditch” these tropes. Tropes are tools.
These tropes becomes “lazy” not because of the tropes. They are lazy because the writers are lazy.
Even the “good” tropes becomes bad if the author is lazy. Even if discard all these “bad” tropes and left only with “good” tropes, the outcome is still lazy because the writer is lazy.
And you telling me that I don’t want to go into new directions. Bullocks. It is you and the author of this article who is closed minded. Look at Trope Talk, she understand that these tropes can be used well, but also be used ill. She looks at the trope and go in various “directions” with it. That is how to do it. You, on the other hand, is so inflexible. You look at the trope and can’t think of an interesting direction to go with it. You just go, this trope is bad and should never be used.
Just look at The LEGO Movie for example. It used the chosen one trope but go in an interesting direction with it. Harry Potter is the same, it uses the chosen one formula and play with. They look at the tropes and see interesting directions to go with it.
While you are stuck with old ways of using these tropes. Creating nothing new. Who is “don’t want to reconsider something, go in a new direction” now? Surely not me.
As I said, there is nothing new under the sun and tropes are tools. You say you want to go into new directions, but you really did is just use other tropes that other writers already used. And not only that, used them the same way they used it. You are not really going in new directions, you’re just starting in a different place.
It is really funny. What you said about me is what I think about you. So inflexible and closed minded. You see a paper clip and the only use you see is to hold sheets of paper together. I see other ways of using it. You could use it as a hook, to punch holes, to knit socks, to etch soft materials, to carve soap, etc..
That is why I say tropes are tools. You are supposed to be the writer, do something interesting with it.
I think part of the confusion here is about what using a trope means. Cay is saying that these tropes, played straight as they are presented in the article, should indeed be ditched. You’re saying that these tropes should be subverted or altered, like The LEGO Movie did. The whole plot was a subversion of the Chosen One trope, and as such the film had themes about the importance of choice and motivation and such.
On this, I think you may actually be in agreement. You argue for “using these tropes in a better or interesting way” and say in this most recent comment, “You, on the other hand, is [sic] so inflexible. You look at the trope and can’t think of an interesting direction to go with it. You just go, this trope is bad and should never be used.” But I think what Cay is saying is by no means contrary to that. From what I’ve seen, they’re arguing that these tropes played straight is bad, and you’re arguing that these tropes with a twist put on them is good. That’s … well, pretty much the same. Which was the article’s point: these tropes are tired, problematic, and ready to be subverted. I mean, the article basically describes The LEGO Movie: “Heroes can still stand out in a crowd, but they should earn their titles with hard work and the right choices, not because it was preordained by the cosmos.”
So let’s look at the Damsel archetype. In the form it’s presented in the article, it’s bad because it’s thoughtless and objectively sexist. But I don’t think that either you or Cay would disagree that putting a spin on it would make it better and more usable. Let’s say the Damsel is actually working for the bad guy – luring the hero into a trap! Now it’s a subversion, and the outdated trope has been revamped. In other words, the traditional form has been ‘ditched’ in favor of a subversive, stronger archetype.
You say tropes are tools; Cay says these tools are rusty. But I think you’re both in agreement that there are creative new ways to knock off the rust, and what comes out the other side will be new and fresh.
Anyway. That’s just my outside perspective. Also, in my experience, generally the longer an internet debate goes on, the more wedded ALL the debaters are to their sides. Just an observation.
Here’s something to consider. How far can you bend a trope or archetype until it’s something else entirely? It’s the Theseus’ ship paradox all over again.
I feel that it is extremely important for writers everywhere to use positive representation; the more creative and expressive, the bigger chance that more and more writers will be inspired and think ‘I can write the books I want to write, with all the wonderful things I love’.
On the flip side, negative representation is far more likely to make writers discouraged or afraid.
At least, this is how I see it.
[Here’s something to consider. How far can you bend a trope or archetype until it’s something else entirely? It’s the Theseus’ ship paradox all over again.]
These tropes are actually very loosely defined. It is just the nature of tropes. Though there are sub-tropes, a more specific incarnation of a trope. The Damsel in Distress for example just essentially means a person who is put in distress, like kidnapped by the villain or trapped under a collapsed building. Well, Damsel in Distress if they are female, Dude in Distress when male. We love to segregate sexes it seems. Though some makes an attempt to remove gender in the definition and just collectively call it Damseled, like the Trope Talk videos.
Even you, I guess, could see that it actually very full of possibilities. Like, the hero could be the one damseled and be saved, like in Disney’s Cinderella and many Super Hero movies actually. Or it can end in tragedy with the hero failing to save the damseled. Another common version of this is the damseled is sick (or disabled or something) and the hero has to go on a journey to find the cure or something.
Many of the tropes doesn’t even have a solid definition or are subjective.
[I feel that it is extremely important for writers everywhere to use positive representation; the more creative and expressive, the bigger chance that more and more writers will be inspired and think ‘I can write the books I want to write, with all the wonderful things I love’.
On the flip side, negative representation is far more likely to make writers discouraged or afraid.]
This! Agreed!
@Bunny
But the article isn’t talking about it being played straight. Look, Harry Potter is an example in the chosen one even though it subverts the classic chosen one trope.
[So let’s look at the Damsel archetype. In the form it’s presented in the article, it’s bad because it’s thoughtless and objectively sexist.]
And the article also presents a generalized definition of the trope specially the last paragraph:
[It begs the question: why bother with the damsel at all? The hero is usually attached to their own life; let them get kidnapped and free themselves. If you want you hero to selflessly save others, you still don’t need a major character to scream and kick their legs helplessly. Instead, your villain can threaten a busload of adorable kittens that are being broadcast over the internet. Don’t fashion a character just to use them as a prop.]
See? It is not just the straight examples. Any characters that gets into position of helplessness where they need to be rescued by someone is off. You shouldn’t bother with them.
I reiterate. It is not just the straight examples not even a specific execution, it’s the trope itself, at least the author’s understanding of the trope.
And other issue is that, anybody can be in this situation. Anyone can be kidnapped and be helpless and can do nothing but scream for help. Something that can happen in real life is now stupid or offensive in fiction. What a joke.
You called it sexist . . . and I do make an argument about how people would slap -ist on anything. You can invert it too making a man helpless and a woman save him and someone would slap some -ist again. And you will take the articles advice and use kittens and someone would slap another -ist about it too. In the end you might actually end up with your hero saving a paper weight for sentimental reasons. I’m sure you know how the readers would react about that. This is my problem with this -ist thing. It a practice of futility. You can not win.
[You say tropes are tools; Cay says these tools are rusty. But I think you’re both in agreement that there are creative new ways to knock off the rust, and what comes out the other side will be new and fresh.]
Uh! This was what I’m arguing about. Do something interesting with them. The article instead states that they are bad because of some reasons and it should never be used.
[In other words, the traditional form has been ‘ditched’ in favor of a subversive, stronger archetype.]
Huh? This is not what the article says at all. It didn’t say that you should do something with this tropes to make them interesting again. It says to just ditch them. This I don’t agree with, and it seems you too didn’t agree with it.
For me it is not trope that is at fault it is the writers. They take these tropes and do nothing interesting with it. I mean look at the “good” stories you read and liked. They will use tropes that had existed for a very long time. The difference? They aren’t lazy with it. The LEGO Movie takes the chosen one trope and do something interesting with it. Same with Avatar: The Last Airbender and Kung Fu Panda. They take this tropes and uses their creativity as writers to make it interesting.
As for the Damsel, again The LEGO Movie does the same when everyone was caught. They are Damsels in Distress. Did they save themselves as the article suggested? Of course not. Emmet saved them. With a sacrifice to booth, another really old and overused trope.
Stop blaming the tropes for writers laziness for it would never help. Even with good tropes those lazy writers would still mess it up. The story is lazy because the writer is lazy.
[Anyway. That’s just my outside perspective. Also, in my experience, generally the longer an internet debate goes on, the more wedded ALL the debaters are to their sides. Just an observation.]
In my experience, People outside seems to comment without understanding the sides, pretending to be better than any of them. Inserting themselves and saying how idiotic we are. Just an observation.
Again. I disagree with the final conclusion of the article, to never use this tropes, to ditch them because of some reasons and of how people are using it badly. Even Cay agree with me in this somewhat, by saying to use them ten years or so from now. Essentially, not ditch them, but to wait before using them.
You are just limiting yourself. Taking away possibilities. I encourage instead to expand and see more. Look at the trope and see what can be done with it. Don’t be constrained by imaginary roads and boundaries, and as Cay says, travel in a new direction.
Look, not once did I call you idiotic, and its unfair of you to rush to that. I’m not sure why you’re stirring up hostility – I just wanted to clarify what I saw as a misunderstanding in the hopes of reaching some kind of truce between you and Cay Reet. I merely pointed out that both you and Cay have remained unmoved in your opinions, so accusing each other of being inflexible was a bit of pots-calling-kettles-black. It was, as I said, an observation. I’ve been following the thread with interest since its start, and I think you’ve both made fair points. It’s all up there for anyone to see, and therefore any misunderstanding that is to be had will come from misinterpretation and not by simply being on the periphery. There’s no secret inner dialogue going on that I’ve missed, and I’m confused as to why I should be excluded.
So, with that out of the way: Damsels. I’ll be the first to admit that I should’ve gone back up and reread that section more closely. It’s true, I was thinking of a different sort of damsel – the type that’s generally a princess of some sort who gets tied up in various lairs by various villains – and was pointing that caricature as sexist, which was what I thought I remembered the article discussing. But now that I see that the matter here is different, I admit I was mistaken. The Damsel trope on its own is not sexist; it has been traditionally used in an objectively sexist way. My mistake.
Okay, I guess it’s time for me to add in my opinion.
“Huh? This is not what the article says at all. It didn’t say that you should do something with this tropes to make them interesting again. It says to just ditch them. This I don’t agree with, and it seems you too didn’t agree with it.”
No, it doesn’t explicitly say “these tropes could be good if you added a little something-something.” But the examples provided all worked as subversions or altercations of the tropes – doing, in essence, what you’ve been suggesting. Looking again at Chosen One: “Heroes can still stand out in a crowd, but they should earn their titles with hard work and the right choices, not because it was preordained by the cosmos.” I cited this one earlier, because it’s a subversion – the same one used in Avatar and in TLM. I can’t speak for Kung Fu Panda since I haven’t seen it. Would you recommend it? I’m always on the lookout for good movies.
Similarly, having the hero be captured and free themselves is still the trope of the damsel – but again, it’s been subverted. The hero must save themselves rather than someone else. The subversion is what I think is meant by “ditching” – gotta knock that rust off in an innovative way.
These tropes exist because, as you said (“Stop blaming the tropes for writers laziness for it would never help. Even with good tropes those lazy writers would still mess it up. The story is lazy because the writer is lazy”), lazy writers commonly use them in these lazy forms. That’s not to say that the greater context with which these tropes are used is worthless – but certainly, the examples of the tropes used in the article are the lazy side which gets used far too often.
I agree that the article should’ve clarified that more. To be clear on my own opinions, I see each trope as part of it’s own “sphere” – that is, all forms of the trope, from good to lazy, from subversive to additive. I read the article as addressing the lazy-but-common portion of the trope as the thing to “ditch” rather than the whole trope, since the presented counterexamples still fall within the trope sphere. E.g. “the damsel” is the lazy archetype of the broader sphere of “characters in need of saving” and “the chosen one” (as it is presented in the article) is under the “destiny” umbrella. So perhaps the fundamental disagreement here is over different interpretations of the article. Hey, speaking of which, what’re your thoughts on death of the author? That’s a pretty fascinating topic, in my opinion.
In any case, now I’m curious. What books/stories do you think have executed these tropes well? I think TLA and TLoK are both interesting examples of bettering the Chosen One trope, because Aang and Korra are both parts of a long line of chosen ones, and because they could still die at any time, the stakes are still high. That’s true of Buffy, too, I think. One of my favorite subversions of the traditional damsel trope (by which I mean the tied-up-in-villain’s-lair lady) is in the book Dealing with Dragons, wherein a character who would be traditionally a dragon’s captive goes and volunteers for the job instead and spends the book happily working for the dragons, and being frustrated by the various knights and princes who come to try and rescue her. I don’t think I’ve ever seen subversions of the prize or the hero-hater, though.
[Look, not once did I call you idiotic, and its unfair of you to rush to that. I’m not sure why you’re stirring up hostility – I just wanted to clarify what I saw as a misunderstanding in the hopes of reaching some kind of truce between you and Cay Reet.]
Okay. Sorry.
[Looking again at Chosen One: “Heroes can still stand out in a crowd, but they should earn their titles with hard work and the right choices, not because it was preordained by the cosmos.” I cited this one earlier, because it’s a subversion – the same one used in Avatar and in TLM.]
Avatar is not a subversion at all, it played it straight.
The LEGO Movie actually played it pretty straight as well, but with a twist of the prophecy being made up. That is Emmet is seen as special because of the prophecy, it all goes pretty much how a chosen one trope goes until near the end, the prophecy turns out to be made up (considering the nature of prophecies in real life, it kinda make sense). And even then the working of the trope remains, Emmet is recognized as special because of some power (though made up) and not because of his own effort and he still ends up saving the day as the prophecy states. It is pretty much the same trope.
Harry Potter, given as an example here, is also a subversion of the trope but the article criticizes it because, like Emmet, Harry is recognized as the hero because or a prophecy.
[I can’t speak for Kung Fu Panda since I haven’t seen it. Would you recommend it? I’m always on the lookout for good movies.]
It is a good movie but it does have the chosen one through prophecy thing as the foretold Dragon Warrior of Legend.
I would recommend it if you like martial films.
[Similarly, having the hero be captured and free themselves is still the trope of the damsel – but again, it’s been subverted. The hero must save themselves rather than someone else.]
Actually, it is not always subverted. Many super heroes, even Batman, are kidnapped or something and is rescued by someone else. You often see this in movies about a group of super heroes. One would get damseled and be saved by the others.
So perhaps the fundamental disagreement here is over different interpretations of the article.
[These tropes exist because, as you said]
Not really. These tropes are really really really old and is present even in highly praised fictions.
[lazy writers commonly use them in these lazy forms.]
Yes, lazy writers copy these tropes from superior fict and didn’t do the necessary job. For example, the Lord of the Rings is one of the most copied fict I know and many of the derivatives doesn’t do it justice. They are lazy and lacks the nuances that makes LOTR great.
[ That’s not to say that the greater context with which these tropes are used is worthless – but certainly, the examples of the tropes used in the article are the lazy side which gets used far too often.]
[I read the article as addressing the lazy-but-common portion of the trope as the thing to “ditch” rather than the whole trope,]
You can, like, twist what this article says, but this is not what it says. The article actually gives reasons why we should ditch these tropes and author laziness is not one of them.
Even some of the examples are actually done really well. Harry Potter for example. There are a lot of added layers and subversion to the chosen trope, but no, article says its horrible because Harry Potter is a hero as ordained by the cosmos.
[So perhaps the fundamental disagreement here is over different interpretations of the article.]
This various interpretation appears, like your interpretation, because of my interpretation. If I hadn’t question the article, you would have not thought of those interpretations.
But not only that, your interpretations doesn’t really hold up when you look at the article. There is no nuance there that says its because these tropes are lazy, but because they are just bad. For example what the article says about Harry Potter:
[Characters of the chosen one archetype are hailed as the most important person in their setting for reasons that are entirely outside their control. The archetype is used to prop up bland characters who have done nothing to earn praise. Because these characters were born better than everyone else, they don’t have to practice or work hard to make a difference. In the Harry Potter series, Harry is worshiped because of what his mother did, while his hard-working friend Hermione sits in his shadow.]
You can say the same thing with Aang from Avatar: The Last Airbender, he is hailed as important because he is the avatar; Or Emmet form The LEGO Movie, he is hailed as the most important person because of some prophecy (albeit made up); or Po from Kung Fu Panda, he is recognized as the savior because it is the foretold Dragon Warrior.
None of this are in their control. They are all worshiped for something they didn’t do.
And thus, the article states, we should ditch them. This is a horrible trope that should never be used.
And I didn’t misunderstand that or have a different interpretation. The article clearly states what it wants to say. It is well written and clear (which means the writer of this article is a great writer) but the information it gives is just something I don’t agree with.
[Hey, speaking of which, what’re your thoughts on death of the author? That’s a pretty fascinating topic, in my opinion.]
Oh. That is one complex subject, but in essence I agree with it.
[In any case, now I’m curious. What books/stories do you think have executed these tropes well?]
Toy Story 2 has a interesting version of The Damsel in Distress trope. Woody is kidnapped by Al, its up to Buzz and the gang has to save Woody. And Woody was not able to save himself. Pretty much a straight Damsel in Distress but with a dude toy.
My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic makes an interesting twist of the Chosen One trope, given that the deity, Celestia, live among them and is her teacher.
The movie Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is given as an example, but this is actually a version of the trope and I find it quite interesting. But then again, the author of this article just hates this tropes and advice anyone to ditch it. This is more about preference in this case whether you find it interesting or not.
But then this trope is kinda rare because it more of a historical thing. It rooted in the past, so stories where you find this trope are often set in the past, really old stories (Mythology and Fairy tales for example) or places where the people still do the practice (where the suitor has to do things or acquire certain things to get the hands of their daughter). It is more of historical or cultural accuracy than anything.
Snape is actually a good example of the Hero-Hater, but again, the author just doesn’t like this trope. There are actually cases when people hate you for petty things (like racism and what not that we have discussed about). Many people just hates other people because they are popular (you know the haters?).
If I have to give another example of Hero-Haters then I would give Chi-Fu from Disney’s Mulan. He kinda dislike everyone but he is really against Mulan specially when they discovered that Mulan is a woman, like, he wants her to be killed.
Honestly, there are so many replies being angry about your Harry Potter examples that I’ve found myself enjoying scrolling through them watching the neat star images on the sides of the screen move.
To go deeper into the hero-hater in general, the hero-hater is a token, a way to say, “look, not EVERYBODY loves my hero.” But when that single doesn’t-like-our-hero is plainly an irrational jerk who has only the flimsiest of reasons for their antagonism, it becomes painfully obvious they’re a token who exists solely to be the one person who doesn’t like our hero.
One of the reasons for the persistent appeal of the Chosen One may be that it redistributes power.
Given a witch peasant and a witch prince who both work really hard, the prince will probably be “earn” more praise and magic power because he has access to better tutors, etc.
The hand of fate (the author) can simply give the peasant unearned power, and voilà, she’s now a threat to the status quo. Of course, many authors hand the power to a cisgendered straight white male peasant, but the opportunity to redistribute more radically is there.