Tools, not rules

In my current Write a Worthy Nemesis class, the subject arose about Helen’s character in Bridesmaids. Throughout the story, she functions as a Nemesis in relation to Annie, who is the Protagonist. But by the end, Helen mends her ways and joins together with the other bridesmaids to help save Lillian’s wedding, even going so far as to help nudge along the budding romance between Annie and Nathan. Michelle, a writer in the class, asked:

I’m glad you mentioned Helen as the Nemesis in Bridesmaids in this lecture. I’ve heard/read a lot that the Nemesis doesn’t arc in the end (for the most part). They get hit by the karma train and that’s that. In Bridesmaids, Helen and Annie end up teaming together, becoming friends in the end. It makes me wonder if she is first Nemesis and then trickster?

That spawned an energetic discussion and had me digging back into some lectures I’d written years ago, so I posted this:

I used to be pretty hard-assed about a character never changing their primary archetype function. The real reasons for this was I found two things with young writers: (1) They didn’t take the time to really drill down into their key characters to determine what was at their root, what was their core essence. That almost always indicates what their narrative function [archetype] is. Instead they would say, “Oh, he’s a Trickster-Mentor-Attractor.” That doesn’t provide clarity, rather confusion. (2) Per this last point, some would get confused, rather than helped by using archetypes.

So I’d just say flat-out: Whatever primary archetype your character is, they are throughout. They may change masks, but their primary archetype never changes.

That sounds an awful lot like a rule, doesn’t it? And over time, I have found myself moving further and further away from anything that sounds like a rule.

Stories are organic. We need to find our way into their heart and soul to make them come alive.

With screenwriting gurus trumpeting so many formulas and paradigms, that has led to a proliferation of formulaic scripts.

So I have strained out anything I say that can be construed as a rule. Principles, yes. Conventional wisdom, yes. Rules, no.

Circling back, is it possible for a character to change primary archetypes in a screenplay? While atypical, it can happen.

If we look at Bridesmaids and consider Helen’s character as a Nemesis, when she turns at the end, does she transform into a Trickster or more aptly an Attractor? You could make that argument.

Again archetypes are tools, not rules. [Mantra time!]

So that is a brief summary of how my thinking has evolved, mostly in response to the formulaic tripe that comprises a vast majority of the screenplays written in large part due to these formulas and paradigms that have been promulgated, and the writer not going into their story sufficiently enough to connect with the characters and allow them to breathe life into the narrative.

Archetypes are wonderful, but like anything else, when we try to codify them into rules, we run the risk of strangling creativity, spontaneity and squeezing the life-blood out of our stories.

So whatever approach you have to writing, archetypes or otherwise, remember: They are tools, not rules.