Character Archetypes: Will the next Spike (or Rhett Butler) please stand up?

[lettered]

First of all, my_daroga is amazing, because we can go to a movie like Batman Begins and walk out talking about archetypes, tropes, and narrative devices. Also, when Batman suddenly appears behind people, she's thinking, "SURPRISE BATSEX", and when Batman says, "Can you drive stick?" she knows why I laugh, and when Bruce Wayne is sitting carving little ninja stars to look like bats, we are both thinking he is possibly the most ridiculous person in the whole of EVAR.



I. The Observer Archetype. So, one archetype we got to talking about was the Outside Observer Character. I have mentioned before, but I'm not sure it was here, that I see a lot of similarities between Commissioner Gordon and the Persian. For those of you who don't know, the Persian is a character in Gaston Leroux's book, The Phantom of the Opera; he is left out of most screen and stage versions (a sad loss). He's this dude who knows Erik from the Phantom's early days in Persia. But when Erik leaves Persia, the Persian follows him later, and the both end up in the Opera Garnier in France. The Persian is not on Erik's side; he used to be a policeman and thinks what Erik does is wrong. But, as Ms. Daroga has pointed out, he's . . . a little obsessed, isn't he? He followed Erik from Persia to this foreign country, and follows him around now. There has to be some kind of fascination factor at work. For the most part, he stands around watching events play out. But then, at the end, when events come to a head, he takes action--action only he can take, since he's the only one In The Know.

In some ways, Commissioner Gordon (in all universes of Batman) is a similar character. He's a little more in line with Batman than the Persian is with Erik. Both Batman and Gordon fight crime, although Gordon often disapproves of Batman's methods. Still, Gordon isn't exactly going about wearing a bat suit (though his daughter sometimes is). He may or may not know Batman's identity, but, they exist in different worlds. Batman's world is bizarro and unpredictable because it is unique to him, whereas Gordon is more "normal" and lives within social norms. So Gordon is outside.

But he is also In The Know--not because he knows where Batman lives, like the Persian does Erik, but he's the one who can contact Batman from the outside world (Bat Signal), and he's the only one from the outside world Batman really goes to for help. Batman gets help from other characters, like Alfred, and Robin and Batgirl in other universes, but they are not Outsiders. (Alfred does not wear a mask, but his life pretty much revolves around Wayne--don't think he counts as an Outsider.) Interestingly, in both Nolan movies, Gordon has the decisive action that disrupts the main Protagonist/Antagonist battles, just like the Persian does. But Gordon plays very little part in either movie until those final scenes.

Both these Outside Observers (But In The Know And Able To Act) have elements of the Everyman, the archetypal audience stand-in. Gordon's really the only normal guy in the world of Batman--everyone else dresses up like plants or animals or themes or abstract concepts and does dances. And the Persian--well, the guy doesn't even have a name. But Xander Harris, in Buffy, is also an Everyman; however, he does not fit the archetype of the Persian or Gordon. Xander is the stand in for the audience; he is the normal guy. But he is an Insider; he's in Buffy's circle and her world.

Ms. Daroga suggested that perhaps the archetype required that the character have an ambiguous relationship with the character whose Inside World they liaison with to the Outside World. Both Gordon and the Persian have ambiguous moral relationships with their respective liaisons--they both think what Batman and Erik are doing Might Not Be Right.

I'm not sure this is a spec of the archetype I am looking for--for instance, I sort of feel like Doctor Watson (from Sherlock Holmes) is another example of the kind of character I'm talking about. But I guess you could say Watson is an Insider--I mean, he doesn't have Holmes' [Buffy's] Supernatural Powers, but he is involved in Holme's cases. Still, Xander's role is much more participatory than Watson ever is. Then again, both the Persian and Gordon participate--theirs are the final decisive actions, like Xander's in season 6. Though Xander's in S6 is all about his Special Everyman Powers, whereas the Persian's and Gordon's actions are precipitated by them being In The Know (and in The Dark Knight, it's not even Gordon's actions that are the final decisive measure. But I think it significant that it's his scene that matters, him being in danger is the final straw, not Joker threatening abstract masses).

Sort of by default if you're going to mention Watson as this archetype, Wilson from House M.D. is probably going to fall into the same role. I think he does. House has a world of his own. Wilson has to mediate between him and the hospital (Cuddy). He also has to mediate between House and the general population outside the hospital (patients). But he is in no way under House's authority or protection, as House's students are--and as Xander is under Buffy's protection.

I'm trying to think of more Everyman characters (Horatio in Hamlet?) and Outside Observer characters (Booth in Bones? That doesn't seem quite right . . .) to examine this archetype, the role these characters play in relation to each other, and the role they play in the narrative. Got any suggestions?


II. The Self/Everyone-Aware Archetype There's this part in Batman Begins, where Morgan Freeman is showing Bruce Wayne what later becomes the Batmobile, and Wayne says, "Does it come in black?" my_daroga dissolved into quiet giggles and said, "Bet he does that a lot. Goes around and says, 'This could be--more black! Just like how the Doctor looks at a screwdriver and thinks, Hmm. This could be more sonic." (Who says that? Like Jack Harkness, I ask you.) So that when Wayne was spray painting his suit, we were both laughing (with K saying, "MOAR, MOAR"--it was a whisper, but I could HEAR the catslock, I swear), and by the time it got to the ninjas, it all went downhill from there. (This could be--more bat!)

This got me thinking about the Dark Brooding Hero archetype, which is relatively common. Dark Brooding Heroes often do ridiculous things and get away with it. They wear swirly capes and sometimes tights; they sit alone in dark rooms, and find tall buildings to stand on for no apparent reason. That last is a particular joke with my_daroga and I, because when we were watching Torchwood, and Jack Harkness randomly stood on tall buildings, I'd say something like, "What's he on that building for, anyway?" and she'd say something like, "Dunno, thinks he's Batman." Which was terribly funny to us, because neither of us has sympathy with Jack. I have sympathy with Batman, and thus it's reasonable to me he's on a tall spire, even though he has no more reason to be on it than Jack Harkness does.

Because I frankly can't stand Jack Harkness, I found everything he did that was trademark of a Dark Brooding Hero archetype absolutely ridiculous, and that was one reason I didn't like the show. And that's a real problem for a narrative: if you want to use a Dark Brooding Hero, and for some reason your audience is not completely on board with said Hero . . . well, they're going to notice your Hero is wearing tights. They're standing on buildings for no reason. They're carving bat stars, and it's silly.

Thinking about TW and why I didn't like it often got me thinking about Angel--mostly because I was watching TW because fans of AtS loved it, and there were a lot of comparisons between Immortal Brooders In Long Coats. Angel was ridiculous a lot of the times too, but then again I had perfect sympathy with him, so it didn't bother me. But then I thought about those fans who did think Angel was ridiculous, and also the fact that I perfectly aware he's ridiculous, while at the same time I'm completely in sync with him. And then I heard Spike's voice in my head.

Spike was the one who pointed out Angel was an idiot, and that his choice in clothing was dumb. He would not have let Angel stand on a tall building without making fun of him while he climbed down. And I started thinking about that bat star ninja thing, and how if Spike had known Batman he would never, ever let Batman live down matching coordinating themes between his weapons and his outfit, not ever.

I pointed that out to my_daroga, who pointed out Spike was a lot like the Outside Observer archetype we had been discussing. In S4 of Buffy, Spike's definitely an Outsider. He has an ambiguous relationship with the central character(s)--he's willing to help them but does not necessarily agree with their ideals.

Is he the Everyman/audience stand-in? Well, no. He's a vampire and a bad guy and has a distinctive look. But he is an observer, as we are. He internalizes what our heroes are going through, and then interprets it for us. Only his interpretation is diametrically opposed to ours. We are supposed to be on board with the Scoobies; we're sympathetic; they are not supposed to be ridiculous to us. The fact that Spike's assessment is usually unsympathetic to Our Heroes, and in fact the opposite of sympathetic, makes him a lot more like the Villain Of The Piece.

The Villain Of The Piece is opposed to our protagonists, and thus we are opposed to him. Even if we are sympathetic (as we are sympathetic with Faith and Lindsey and Connor, for instance), we still don't want them to defeat Our Heroes. But Spike isn't the Villain Of The Piece in S4. Adam is. Spike, in fact, can't win or lose in S4, because he is so completely outside of everything. In that way he's like the Observant Observer.

And like both Gordon and the Persian, Spike becomes more personally involved. By the end of S5 he has a stake (ha!) in the action. I like to think that after the events of POTO, if Erik were to live, the Persian would be involved in Erik's day-to-day as well. I think Gordon is involved in Batman's day-to-day, but we see less of that. It's interesting how Spike's able to evolve from that outside position to an insider, and the conflicts that brings. Interesting, too, how when he goes over to AtS he takes up exactly the same narrative role he did in S4 of BtVS.

In other ways, though, Spike isn't at all like the Observant Observer. In some ways, he's even further outside. Gordon wouldn't tell Batman he's ridiculous for carving Bat stars, and the Persian doesn't tell Erik he's an idiot for talking in the first person. (I wish ALW's POTO had a Spike. It would relieve the unrelenting melodrama--and would probably make my_daroga feel better about it. :o) Someone needs to laugh at the Phantom character for swishing his cape around, and for the hours he must practice tossing his fedora at the perfect angle.)

Daroga mentioned writers might avoid putting a Spike-type character into Batman because it would take us out of the narrative. We have to be with Batman there, carving his stars, or again, we realize he's silly. But as we discussed, this isn't entirely the case. There are several levels to Batman needing everything to be "More Bat!":

On the surface, and the way we're meant to read it I think, Bruce Wayne has a Cause, and it is Just, and there's no way to follow it through other than to Become A Symbol. If he's half assed with his symbol it won't work; every detail needs to match; nothing can hint at the man beneath. Even little ninja stars. It's all very Dark and Thematic.

On a deeper level it's fucked up. The movie makes out like Gotham necessitates something like Batman, but that's not quite realistic. Or if the ugliness of our world does necessitate dressing up like a Bat and fighting crime on the sly--I can't even say what the ugliness of our world does necessitate, after all--realistically, it's still a fucked up man who will say, "This is what needs to be done!" I mean, who does that, really? Sits down and decides Batninjas are necessary? Someone fucked up. So it's sad, and pitiful, and kind of insane.

On a level in which context is completely removed, it's funny. But a character operating on such a level does not necessarily negate the others; in fact, I would argue that he evokes that second, deeper level. If I have sympathy with Batman, but also have a character saying, "Look at how ridiculous that guy is!" --that's the point when I start to ask, "Why does this character, who has a Just Cause, do this ridiculous thing?" It no longer seems normal or intuitive that Batman carves little bat stars and says, "More bat!" to everything, so I ask why he does it. And then I see how fucked up he is, and it gives me a different kind of insight.

Not empathy--I'm no longer quite on board, no longer quite thinking as Our Brooding Hero thinks. I'm thinking about what a freak he is and how he needs mental help. With Angel I'm thinking about what a failure he is and how he's Not A Nice Man and he's sort of dense, and everything he touches he destroys. Their actions are no longer justified. But it makes me love them just as much or more.

Interestingly, Joker does sort of do that for us in The Dark Knight. He tells us it's stupid that Batman's prancing about it costume, and it makes us consider why Bruce Wayne does what he does. Some of the effect is ruined, though, by the fact that Joker is the Villain Of The Piece. Joker is evidence that Batman is required; Joker necessitates a Cause and so in some ways makes Batman Just. It's easier for the audience to dismiss what Joker says, though I hope most audiences didn't.

But Spike did that for me with Angel all the damn time. He made Angel look petty and small, and like a man, and it made me love Angel for his faults and failures and much as for his successes. And I wonder--where else do we see this kind of character? Spike is very self-aware, and aware of everyone else, too. He knows exactly what is wrong with everyone--even the ones we love and are so entirely sympathetic with that we forget how unfair and unkind they can be.

One example of this kind of character I love is in some ways mistful's Draco, who reminds us Hermione scarring Marietta was sort of horrible, and that Harry, though heroic, is emotionally dense, and that the Heroes, though they defeat Ultimate Evil, are just as human and petty as the rest of us.

Daroga and I think another example is Rhett Butler, from Gone With The Wind. We have this thing where we've been trying to cast a character from any other canon as someone to be Rhett-like when juxtaposed against a Scarlett O'Hara, and we come up with Spike, and--nothing. No one else.

It does not feel like Rhett is a singular character. His intelligent cool sarcasm exists in many other characters--Snape, Susan Kay's Erik, Sherlock Holmes, Valmont, Sir Percy...there are many more, but not on the top of my head. His Tall Dark Sometimes Violent And Fiery Unrequitedness exists in many other characters as well, i.e. Byronic Hero. But anywho, though Intelligent Cool Sarcasm comes closer, neither type seems to encompass Rhett's self awareness and self mocking, nor his awareness and mocking of everyone else.

Rhett's aware of exactly what Scarlett is, and everything that's wrong with her, in ways that the reader--who, despite Scarlett's essential ugliness as a peron, is inclined to sympathize with her--might overlook or forgive. He reminds us again and again of that ugliness as a person, and that she's ignorant and selfish and narrow-minded and behaves ridiculously. But he's also that way with the "good" characters of the novel--he constantly reminds us that Melanie is a fool, that Ashley is a weakling, that the Old Guard who consider themselves so upright and above Scarlett are ignorant hypocritical fools as well. Nothing is sacred with him, even himself, and it's all a laugh.

I can't think of any character besides Spike who is quite like that to that extent. But I also can't think of a character who is like that and then throws himself into the narrative with the gusto that Spike and Rhett do. They both are outsiders, not just due to the plot (Spike's chip and Rhett's blockade running), but because it's their nature to observe everyone and laugh at them all. But their utter and complete ability to distance themselves from everyone for the purposes of observation--to see that Buffy and Scarlett are flawed, often amusingly so--doesn't hold them back a single second from being ridiculous themselves, by being in utter tragic love with these women. And both of them are meta-aware that they are ridiculous, and behaving like ridiculous tragic fools, and it doesn't stop them.

I like to think that they realize that if it did stop them, then they would never act. They would be trapped on the outside, and they don't want to be. But I don't think it's that at all--they are self-aware, but not self-aware enough to realize that, or if they are, it's not what motivates them. I think Fear Of Being Ridiculous doesn't stop them because they don't see why it should. They think the whole world is ridiculous, and lovely, and they are just as ridiculous and lovely as the ridiculously lovely people they see, and the only difference between them and the rest is they are laughing, while the rest of the world is tearing themselves apart over it. But in the end, they tear themselves apart too--because it's ridiculous. And lovely.

Hey, so if you can think of a Rhett or Spike character? Who slides into that archetype as well as they do? I--and possibly Daroga--would be pleased as peaches if you shared. And if you can't, and so give us one the next time you sit down to write fanfic (it can be done in fanfic! Like I said, I really think mistful did it. I totally think the Persian can be the next Spike, with some work.) or original fic? I would worship your ridiculous and lovely self.