Why do we keep coming back to the stoic/soft pairing? From Wednesday to Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, this article explores how long-standing archetypes, narrative devices, and even cinematography shape relationships - making contrast the heart of connection.

Something recently occurred to me regarding narrative structure and common character themes within modern fiction. I wanted to share what I’ve found with all of you as fellow writers and fellow fans of fiction.

Here it is...

Basically any satisfying villain “redemption arc” in modern fiction boils down to the idea of the villain finding acceptance among a healthy peer* group.

Conversely, nearly every modern heroic “downfall arc” can be seen as the hero isolating themselves from all peers* until they’re left only with abusers, minions, and/or enemies.

*For the purposes of this discussion, I am defining the word “peer” with two specific criteria. For someone to be a “peer,” one must:

Consider that person’s life to be as valuable as yours

Believe that person has the potential to teach you something valuable, and that you have the potential to teach them something valuable

I believe there are four five main archetypes (updated 3-3-20 with additional archetype identified by @thegreateyebrows) that categorize the types of isolation such characters exhibit, and that each one has a consistent path towards narrative redemption.

The Living Legend - The reason that these characters have no peers is because they believe they are simply on a different level from everyone else. They see themselves as simply too brilliant, too mighty, too beautiful, or too righteous for anyone else to compare. As such, they see themselves as more valuable than others, and that no one else has anything to teach them.

The path to redemption for this isolation archetype is humility. Recognizing that there are others in the world who they can learn from, and whose lives are as valuable as theirs.

The Outcast - These are characters who feel they have been rejected by their peer group AND they have given up hope of ever finding acceptance among a peer group ever again. This second point is crucial because a character who has been cast out or rejected by their peers can still be a hero as long as they don’t buy in to the notion that they will be an outcast forever, and there’s nothing they can do about it, nor is there any other peer group out there worth being a part of.

With that in mind, for characters currently dealing with this type of isolation, the path to redemption begins with finding hope of ending their exile. This typically occurs either by finding forgiveness and/or acceptance among their old peer group, or by finding acceptance among a new peer group. (Typically this new peer group will consist of individuals the character previously would not have considered to be peers.)

The Martyr - This type of isolation occurs when a character believes they carry a burden that no one else can and/or should be asked to bear. Oftentimes this isolation archetype is magnified by the character being unwilling to even tell anyone about the burden they bear, believing that even talking about it would be either futile or cruel.

The path to redemption here begins with a willingness to ask for help and share the load. Often it may begin with simply sharing the burden they’ve keeping a secret, allowing peers to share potentially valuable perspectives and insights about it.

The Hermit - This type of isolation stems from the character simply believing there is no value to be gained by having peers, so they maintain their distance and simply don’t engage. I would argue this archetype is fairly rarely viewed as a sinister “villain” within a story, but is more often considered an obstacle to the hero of the story.

The path to redemption for this type of isolation is simply learning to care about others and finding value in getting involved.

The Crusader - This character adheres to a strict code of conduct, and the only peers they recognize are those who follow that same code of conduct 100% at all times. For these characters, the people around them will either inevitably fall short of their standards, or they are simply minions who are so devoted to maintaining their loyalty that they cannot be considered true peers anyway.

I would see redemption starting when this type of character makes a choice that contradicts their own code of conduct, forcing them to consider that their code is not as perfect as they once believed and there is room for compromise, or at least acknowledging that they are flawed at living up to those standards just like everyone else, and they must be willing to respect those who fall short of perfection.

Also, I thought of another way to sum up the various character isolation archetypes that we’ve identified so far:

The Living Legend - “Everyone else is too weak to be my peer.”

The Outcast - “Everyone else is too cruel to be my peer.”

The Martyr - “Everyone else is too innocent to be my peer.”

The Hermit - “Everyone else is too trivial to be my peer.”

The Crusader - “Everyone else is too fallible to be my peer.”

I think it’s worth noting that the path to redemption for each of these isolation archetypes is the same as the path to perdition if that path is simply traveled in reverse. I think it’s also worth noting that many villains experience overlap between archetypes, but most villains will exhibit at least one.

So what do you all think? Do these observations seem to fit with your experiences with modern fiction? Do you have any examples of characters who break these rules? Any additional insights you’d like to share? I’d love to hear your thoughts!!

Hades felt more than he saw Persephone’s approach. The stagnant air ebbed and flowed in the wake of her strides, the very molecules, dense as they were, seemed to crest and crash against him bringing with it the faint scents of his beloved goddess. Hades inhaled deeply, drinking in the approaching smell of barley wheat in harvest and the everlasting perfume of poppies in her hair.

The doors to his throne room were thrust open, and Hades marvelled, how moving this goddess was, whose very presence seemed to shift the nature of his domain. The land made of dust and debris became solid under her, and the very air itself seemed to shift and move with life. And though it was nothing like the breeze of the mortal plains, Hades thought it more pleasant to the skin. He opened his eyes and Persephone stood there, her face stony and cool, were betrayed by her eyes glimmering with a deep sadness. She had looked upon the mirror then.

purified-zone replied to your post: Reply-Reply to Purified-Zone: Wages of Ends

hey the last jedi did it :)

No. Kylo was always the end-game villain of that series, or(possibly, given the greater focus on the philosophical elements of the series in this cycle, though Kylo will continue to “embody” them) if not Kylo then something more philosophical, political, and nebulous like the social ills Kylo represents(misogyny, aristocracy, entitlement, apathy, fear of personal freedom, the glorification of violence and power, fascism and the sort of mindsets which fascism feeds on and grows from). The Canto Bight and DJ storylines were all about how these problems allowed “The First Order” to “rise again” in the first place.

Snoke was a red herring. He WAS the “Mastermind”, who’d typically be the Final Boss but, the Rey Cycle being as much about Kylo as Rey, modified what that typically means in a narrative sense. Kylo being a Deuteragonist-Antagonist, and thus “irredeemable” from a narrative perspective(because redeeming him would remove Rey’s primary antagonist and derail/end her narrative), changed his boss from being the “Final Boss” into being an obstacle to Kylo’s parallel development with Rey. As Rey advances Kylo has to advance in lock-step to remain an appropriate challenge for her and, since he was Snoke’s left-hand(his assassin, wizard-apprentice, religious acolyte and fanatic/enforcer to Hux’s more “legitimate” organizational, secular, public-facing, aristocratic military right-hand), literally the only way Kylo could advance was by killing Snoke. And then there’s just the fact that that dynamic is how Sith apprenticeships are setup to work traditionally: either the student kills the master and takes their place, or the master kills the student and becomes even stronger.

For Azula I would say she is primarily isolated by the Living Legend archetype, though there is a small sliver of Outcast isolation that lingers from the rejection she perceived from her mother.

I would argue that Murtagh isn’t truly a villain any more than the gun that shot Batman’s parents because the Eragon series uses a system of magic that makes it possible to literally override another person’s personal agency. (It’s one of my least favorite aspects of the books.) The terrible things Murtagh does aren’t things he chose to do. He wasn’t seduced by evil. He was abducted and literally had his power to choose taken away. You can’t be a villain if you can’t make choices.

Nahiri... *sigh*

Are we really doing Nahiri? OK, here we go!

Like nearly ALL Pre-Mending planeswalkers, I think Nahiri is inclined towards Living Legend isolation, except that she met Sorin and other planeswalkers before beginning that path, so she still saw them (or at least Sorin) as a peer. That’s what made his rejection and betrayal (from her perspective) sting so badly for her. He was one of the few peers she had left, and he was turning her away and ignoring his promise to her.

I believe the fight over this rejection likely would have resolved after a brief conflict, except the appearance of Avacyn escalated the conflict to the point that Nahiri was condemned to thousands of years of imprisonment and utter isolation in a Helvault with countless demons. To say she likely felt betrayed and rejected would be an understatement.

When she finally gained her freedom, she fled from the one she feared would betray her again, only to find her home plane was under attack by a threat she perceived as unstoppable.

Somebody at worked had asked about the Joker today, and I had a pretty rough time with that one. But while reading your question, something kind of snapped in to place that I felt like I had been missing.

The Joker has Hermit isolation. Hear me out on this...

The Joker doesn’t seem like a hermit. He interacts with people. A lot of people. But he doesn’t actually view them as people. He sees them as punchlines.

The only value Joker sees in interacting with other characters (at least in the animated series I grew up watching) was the value he saw in amusing himself at their abuse. Other than that, there was no point to anyone else for him. (Except maybe Batman, but whether or not Joker viewed Batman as a true peer is a well too deep for me to draw from right now.)

I’ll admit, Iago is a really difficult one to place. I think I would ultimately go with Outcast isolation for him because it was his perception of rejection (Othello being promoted over him) that sparked his hatred for the other characters in the play.

There may be some amount of overlap with Crusader isolation as well because his ingrained racism led to him losing all respect for anyone that tolerated Othello’s marriage to Desdemona.

Before “Chronicle of Bolas” came out, I’d say he’s pretty much 100% the “Living Legend,” but after reading ibis origin story I’d say he has Living Legend isolation that was exacerbated by Outcast isolation.