Firefly's Fantastic Archetypes
A while back I paid for a professional critique of A Pair of Aces. To my delight, the critique came back positive, loaded with encouragement, and containing a few ideas that made the story better. But there was one piece of advice that at the time rubbed me the wrong way.
The reviewer said that I should be careful to not let my character archetypes turn into clichés. I was stunned. How dare he suggest that my characters fit into something as banal as an archetype?! Anyone who read about Tirador or the Jianhuren could see there was more to them than any mold could possibly contain.
For days I tried to forget the advice and keep writing my totally original, un-archetype-able characters, but for whatever reason it stuck with me. The advice kept coming back: Archetypes not Clichés.
So reluctantly, I took a hard look at what I’d written. As much as I hated to admit it, Tirador was the world weary loner out for justice. Clark was the evil bad-guy that does evil things for evil reasons. Esther was the sassy, no-nonsense old lady who is surprisingly good at kicking butt. I had done exactly what I had vehemently denied. It was a little disheartening to realize and I spent a couple days wallowing in mild depression.
During that time I binged on Farscape and Community, a couple of my favorite shows, and realized the characters I loved so much were themselves archetypes. It was like someone turned on a light and I could see them for what they were. Once the realization hit, I could see how each character’s individual role and viewpoint determined how they would interact with other people. And if done right, those interactions weren’t fake or forced; they felt true to the character and helped me get lost in the story.
My opinion on archetypes did a U-turn, and I needed to know more. I looked up articles written by other authors about the topic, some of which were insightful, but none of which seemed exactly right to me. So in the spirit of true authorial arrogance, I came up with my own way to classify archetypes. (Because whose opinion do I trust more than my own?)
So in this first part, I want to look at the characters in Community and Firefly — even though I think Farscape is a better show (That’s right, I said it. Come at me!) — and discuss how they fit into their archetypes. In the second part, I’ll discuss character growth using archetypes.
Roles and Outlooks:
To my mind, a character is defined by two things: their Role in the story and their Outlook on life, which together form the archetype. There are other elements to making a well-rounded character — stuff like backstory, appearance, education, etc. — but when trying to connect with an audience and grab them so they keep reading, nothing works so well as showing their Role in the story and their Outlook on life. So to start, let’s looks at the Roles and Outlooks we see in Firefly.
Outlooks:
The World Weary — The world has broken this man, and when he put himself back together, there were pieces missing. He goes on, he keeps moving, he survives. What option is there?
The Loyalist — Every good woman needs a cause — something to live and die for — even if that cause is just a friend.
The Goofball — Why does everything have to be so dead serious all the time? Life becomes bearable when you can laugh at mishaps. Even better if you can laugh while they happen.
The Tarnished — A woman of honor regardless of what the world sees and despite what she’s done.
The Optimist — No matter how many times she has failed, someday she will succeed. Maybe this time…
The Opportunist — Friends can be great things to have, but there are other great things you can buy.
The Conscience — Some things are right. Some things are wrong. Some things are both.
The Innocent — She understands there is darkness in the world, but it doesn’t reside in her soul.
The Pessimist — Bad things will happen. Happiness is fleeting. All you can do is prepare so the ones you love aren’t too damaged.
Roles:
The Leader — The Leader has a portion of all the qualities held by the people he leads, but to the same degree as the members of his crew. He can repair the ship, but not as well as the Engineer. He can fight in a barroom brawl, but he isn’t as tough as the Muscle. He can pilot a ship, but not with the same finesse as the Pilot. Etc. This lets him relate to each character and speak to them in their language. He is the glue that holds the crew together.
The Engineer (Tech Savvy) — A savant that instinctively understands all things mechanical, electrical, structural, and computer engineering-wise that have to do with her ship. She can repair an engine using chewing gum and an old bra. But it is guaranteed to fail at the worst possible time. Being so mechanically-minded often makes it hard for the Engineer to relate to other people and, depending on her outlook, she may disdain or crave human companionship.
The Wise Man — Older than the rest of the crew, his years have blessed him with insight. Young enough to remember the passions of youth, but old enough to understand that passion alone rarely produces anything of value. His advice can help members of the crew deal with tragedy, keep focused in a crisis, and become wise themselves.
The Muscle — This crewman is good at violence and is ready to engage whenever needed. Depending on the Muscle’s Outlook, they can relish violence, see it as sometimes necessary, or avoid it whenever possible.
The Doctor — As long as the Doctor is around, no major character will die. He can stitch, cut, drain, or set any wound using his limited supplies and unlimited knowledge. While the Doctor is rarely the main character, he can easily become one of the most interesting depending on his Outlook.
The Diplomat — In the Diplomat’s eyes, there are few situations in which negotiation and tact don’t work better than guns. You might not get everything you want, but if all sides agree, then at least you haven’t made new enemies. But if the opposite side is implacable, guns are a negotiating tactic, right?
The Soldier — A fighter equally as talented as the Muscle, but with more discipline. The Soldier will follow orders because she understands that doing so is for the good of the crew, and those orders will be carried out even if it means sacrificing herself. Almost never paired with the Innocent or Opportunist Outlooks
The Pilot — Like a Gooney Bird, the Pilot is an uncoordinated mess on the ground, incapable of any but the most basic physical actions. But once behind the controls of his chosen vehicle he has the grace and dexterity of a concert pianist. Even if his ship is damaged, he will still cajole speed and maneuverability to put all else to shame.
The Crazy-Dangerous — As unpredictable as she is dangerous, the Crazy-Dangerous could lay waste to every member of the crew without half trying. It’s a good thing she can keep in mind they are her friends — or has forgotten how to access the Dangerous part — for now.
This list is simply my take on the main characters in Firefly, and isn’t intended to be comprehensive. In fact, whenever I start thinking about archetypes I come up with new Outlooks and Roles. The reason for listing them is simply to show that the characters in Firefly are more than the job they had. They were also different perspectives.
That’s one of the main things that bothers me about ST:TNG (Oh, man. I know I’m gonna catch crap for this opinion). Disclaimer: I like TNG. It’s a fun show that I grew up enjoying with my dad. But that’s not to say it’s perfect.
One of the ways it could have improved was by giving the characters a different Outlook. They have different Roles in the ship (Engineer, Counselor, Doctor, etc), but whenever a crisis arrives, on its regular weekly basis, they all act in nearly perfect unison. A dissenting voice among the crew was rare and shocking. With slight differences, I would say they all have The Loyalist Outlook. But stories can be much more interesting when characters have different Outlooks or when their Outlook changes.
One of the best moments in the series occurred after Riker spoke to Guinan about how loyal he was to Picard, and then he had to transcend that Loyalty to say, “Mr. Worf. Fire.”
It was such an amazing piece of storytelling that I got chills just typing that last line. And it was because he did something no one in the crew, or watching the show, could believe was happening. (We’ll talk more about this example and others in the post about character growth.)
But back to Firefly.
The first few minutes of the first episode are all about establishing who Mal is. He is The Leader. He inspires his men against impossible odds. He runs out under fire, Zoey always at his back, to take out enemy air support. When he gets back, victorious, Zoey berates another soldier for not doing his duty, but Mal brings him out of his shell with a pep-talk and the words, “We can’t die, Bendis, and do you know why? Because we are so…very…pretty.”
Not only is he The Leader, he is also a huge Optimist. He’s thrilled, excited, and sure that things will go his way. But then, only five minutes into the episode, the news comes that support won’t be coming and they have lost. He stares at incoming enemy, frozen in disbelief as the soldier he roused only seconds before is gunned down. In that moment his Outlook changes. That moment is then reinforced by the next scene where we see him graverobbing. Throughout the rest of the series he remains The Leader, but forever after he is also The World Weary.
While that scene gives some backstory to Mal’s character, backstory isn’t the focus. Rather, it’s letting us know who he is, which is much more important to viewers. It allows us to categorize Mal and thus quickly relate with him.
But what about the rest of the crew?
It’s easy to see that Shepherd Book was The Conscience and The Wise Man of the series, and that Wash was The Goofball and The Pilot. And seeing them on the screen it’s easy to think they couldn’t have been anything else. But how would it have changed the character interactions and the story if Book had been The Goofball and Wash The Conscience? Inara was The Diplomat. What if she had been The Opportunist instead of The Tarnished?
Assigning a Role (or multiple roles) is essential because it lets the reader know what the character can do. But just as important is the Outlook because it tells the reader what they can expect the character will do. Together they help to set the stage and, more importantly, set the hook that will keep people reading.
This post has gone longer than I anticipated, so let’s continue it in a week. We’ll talk about Community in all its brilliance (Two words: Paint. Ball.), and the archetypes they used. We'll also talk about how to use archetypes to tell whether a character should be in the story. Finally, we'll talk about the weaknesses inherent in the various Roles and Outlooks.
Then in the final post, we’ll go over how to use a character’s archetype to easily and effectively show growth, and how to keep archetypes from turning into clichés.
I'd love to hear your opinions! Was this helpful? Did I miss something? Want to swear at me for criticizing ST:TNG? Hit me.
