Lit213 Archetypal Characters

This lesson develops Literariness through the study of archetypal character functions, drawing primarily on Narratology and the work of theorists such as Jeremy Hawthorn, alongside wider traditions of archetype theory. Rather than treating characters as “real people,” this lesson frames them as constructed narrative roles designed to fulfil specific structural and emotional purposes.

Within CECA, archetypal analysis allows students to understand how characters operate as mechanical components of narrative meaning, shaping tension, exposition, and audience response. This explicitly counters naïve character analysis rooted in empathy alone.

By the end of the lesson, students will be able to:

Identify common archetypal character functions in a literary text.
Explain how character roles contribute to dramatic appeal and meaning.
Analyse characters as narrative constructs rather than real people.

Characters in stories are not random or natural — they are carefully designed to perform jobs within the narrative. Some characters drive the plot, some oppose it, and others exist to reveal information or emotions. Understanding character types helps readers analyse how stories work and why certain characters are essential, even if they seem minor.

Student‑friendly anchor:

“Authors don’t invent new character types, they are based on models that have existed in literary texts for a thousand years.”

Protagonist — the central character whose journey shapes the narrative.
Antagonist — a character or force that opposes the protagonist.
Archetype — a recurring character type that performs a familiar function.
Confidante — a character who receives a protagonist’s thoughts or emotions.
Raisonneur — a character who provides exposition, explanation, or moral reasoning.
Foil — a character whose contrast highlights traits of another.
Well‑made character — a character whose actions appear motivated and coherent.

“This character functions as an archetype because they…”
“Rather than driving the plot, this character’s role is to…”
“The dramatic appeal of this character lies in their function as a…”
“By positioning this character as a foil, the writer emphasises…”
“This role allows the reader to understand…”

🚫 Incorrect method:

“This character is kind / evil / selfish.”

What’s wrong with it:
This is a moral judgement, not analysis. It treats characters as real people rather than narrative constructs.

✅ Correct direction:
Students should analyse what job the character performs in the narrative and why that role matters.

In a football team, not every player scores goals. Some defend, some assist, and some organise play. Removing one role weakens the whole system. Similarly, characters in stories have different functions, and each contributes to the narrative’s effectiveness.

Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck (1937) uses a small cast of characters to explore loneliness and responsibility. Each character performs a distinct narrative role that shapes the emotional impact of the story.

The old man came slowly into the room. He had his broom in his hand. And at his heels there walked a dragfooted sheepdog, gray of muzzle, and with pale, blind old eyes. The dog struggled lamely to the side of the room and lay down, grunting softly to himself and licking his grizzled, moth-eaten coat. The swamper watched him until he was settled. “I wasn’t listenin’. I was jus’ standin’ in the shade a minute scratchin’ my dog. I jus’ now finished swampin’ out the wash house.”

“You was pokin’ your big ears into our business,” George said. “I don’t like nobody to get nosey.”

The old man looked uneasily from George to Lennie, and then back. “I jus’ come there,” he said. “I didn’t hear nothing you guys was sayin’. I ain’t interested in nothing you was sayin’. A guy on a ranch don’t never listen nor he don’t ast no questions.”

“Damn right he don’t,” said George, slightly mollified, “not if he wants to stay workin’ long.” But he was reassured by the swamper’s defense. “Come on in and set down a minute,” he said. “That’s a hell of an old dog.”

“Yeah. I had ‘im ever since he was a pup. God, he was a good sheepdog when he was younger.” He stood his broom against the wall and he rubbed his white bristled cheek with his knuckles. “How’d you like the boss?” he asked.

“Pretty good. Seemed awright.”

“He’s a nice fella,” the swamper agreed. “You got to take him right.”

At that moment a young man came into the bunk house; a thin young man with a brown face, with brown eyes and a head of tightly curled hair. He wore a work glove on his left hand, and, like the boss, he wore high-heeled boots.

“Seen my old man?” he asked.

The swamper said, “He was here jus’ a minute ago, Curley. Went over to the cook house, I think.”

“I’ll try to catch him,” said Curley. His eyes passed over the new men and he stopped. He glanced coldly at George and then at Lennie. His arms gradually bent at the elbows and his hands closed into fists. He stiffened and went into a slight crouch. His glance was at once calculating and pugnacious. Lennie squirmed under the look and shifted his feet nervously. Curley stepped gingerly close to him. “You the new guys the old man was waitin’ for?”

“We just come in,” said George.

“Let the big guy talk.”

Lennie twisted with embarrassment.

Why this scene is suitable:

Candy acts as a Raisonneur, giving George’s information about the scenario.
George and Lennie are out protagonists.
Curley is presented as an antagonist by being threatening toward Lennie.
The scene intensifies dramatic appeal without advancing plot.
Demonstrates how minor characters are structurally essential.

Question – how are the characters presented in this scene?

Candy is nice to George and Lennie, he looks after them and tells them about his dog. Candy loves his dog and has had the dog since it was a pup, they hearded sheep together showing how their relationship developed its bond.

Why if fails

It only retells the story
It doesn’t show how stories are constructed using standard components
It doesn’t use any terminology naming these components

Candy is presented as a raisonneur; a character who can give information or reasoning to the main characters. They have information needed by the characters and thus the reader too. Candy here is telling George and Lennie about the setting and his dog, through him we learn about the agricultural nature of the setting; herding sheep and such. Curley arrives in this scene and we see from his stance, and the way George has to defend Lennie, that Curley is an antagonist. His role in the story escalates the disruption event because his antagonism drives the workers to want revenge on a future incident. George and Lennie are our protagonists; they will be transformed because of the events of the play – they are given the most motivation and development and so they can be described as well made characters.

Why it succeeds:

It recognises the archetypal nature of characters
It uses standard terminology that can be used to describe most texts
It synthesis information about the plot with Literary analysis, revealing how stories are made and what they are made from.

Question: Why is the use of these character conventions in your answer so important?

It reveals the student knows what literature is made up from
It begins to show that texts are connected together through shared conventions
It starts to awareness that readers connect well to standard character types, and new unknown characters types are difficult to connect with because they are unfamiliar.

Students analyse a different character from the text using archetypal terminology.

Instructions to students

Choose a character from the extract.
Identify their archetypal role.
Use at least two key vocabulary terms.
Begin with a sentence stem.
Explain how the character’s function contributes to dramatic appeal.

Success Criteria

A successful response will:

Identify a character function accurately
Use disciplinary vocabulary
Explain narrative purpose
Avoid moral judgement or description alone

Optional Scaffold

“This character functions as a ______ because…”
“Their role allows the writer to…”

Finish the sentence:

a) Pre-reading of the next lesson – read through the knowledge so you can be ready to discuss in class.

b) Apply the learning of today’s lesson to your own private reading text. Write a paragraph explaining how today’s learning changes how you might conceive your text. Be sure to use the key vocabulary and sentence stems.

c) Write a paragraph about the discipline of Literature, explain how key words from today’s lesson impact the field overall.

d) Add today’s vocabulary and sentence stems to your own glossary. Highlight any that you are unsure about, but you must also research the meanings yourself and develop your glossary to include this differentiated support.

How did you do? Remember, this is the disciplinary knowledge for Literature – it needs combining with the text you are studying now. Can you use this knowledge to write differently about the text you are studying? When you are ready, access the next lesson in this series.