Servant of the Lord, I use the words "trope" and "archetype" to refer to ideas for characters. I think you put more emphasis on denotation than connotation.

I tried to put emphasis on the word "blueprint" which is a laid out plan from which a builder builds a building.

In my opinion, if tropes are treated as plans for characters, it creates the shallow characters lacking depth.

When you take for instance yamato nadeshiko and shrinking violet, what these actually map to are reserved but strong-willed woman and shy person who lacks self-confidence. Even if you have not interacted with such people, is it possible to call real personalities unoriginal? (please focus on the first 2 paragraphs)

Put two shrinking violets in a room. Are they identical in personality or is there variation and uniqueness within it?

Humans are excellent at noticing (and categorizing) similarities and patterns. Tropes are patterns we have recognized and categorized.

Tropes are the similarities intentionally stripped of their uniquenesses. Tropes are the least common denominator of many creative characters from many works with the uniqueness averaged out. Tropes are the shared portions of unique characters - that is, taking the non-unique parts of the otherwise unique characters, recognizing it as a pattern, and giving a name to it.

Take the two unique shrinking violets in a room. The "shrinking violet" is the part of their personalities that aren't unique - the part they share in common.

Tropes are extremely good and extremely helpful - but not as guidelines or outlines for how to make characters.

We fall into the exact same trap with game genres. If someone tries to make "an FPS" or "an RPG", it's very easy think too much about other FPSes, or other RPGs, and they (major studios and indies alike) end up accidentally not allowing themselves to be inspired by the entire spectrum of games, so much so that when any major developer takes even the tiniest steps to allow different genres to influence the genre they are working in, everyone freaks out in a positive way for them breaking 'new ground' and praising them for being innovative. Water in a desert. :)

(The same applies to other areas, like music, art, and level design also, not just writing and mechanics)

If you take a trope and set out to make "a shrinking violet" (or merely to be "inspired by" that trope), by default we automatically think of other shrinking violets from other creativity works, and subconsciously limit ourselves to stay within the scope of the trope's lowest-common-denominator, or else stay within the scope of other examples of the trope we have seen. It takes extra effort to even remember to pull ourself out of that mindset, because once we start making "an X" we are already unintentionally narrowing the scope of inspirational material we are being inspired by.

But if we set out to create "a human", we have a range of inspiration a thousand times more diverse, and we can then later identify the character as falling into and crossing between one or more tropes.

I don't want to start with more than half the colors of the rainbow missing from my palette. Sure I still "have" the other tropes, but they are out of mind, put away, because I'm not thinking of, seeing, and feeling them.

If you take a trope and call it a character without any character development, that is certainly not good.

Character development is very important, but the temptation to just take a trope and leave it at that, often means (in many media, especially the majority of long-running American TV shows or Japanese Anime (and videogames)) that the character basically has a set personality chosen and they are basically the same person throughout the entire series, and that "person" that they are is shallow and virtually identical to half-dozen other shallow characters from other anime.

There are exceptions, thankfully, in both Anime and Western TV, where the characters actually do develop, and do have rich characters.
(Note: Development is great, and rich personalities are great, but you can have development with shallow personalities, and you can have rich personalities without in-show development. I'm not trying to tie in-show character development to rich personalities).

Look at Breaking Bad (American TV show) if you've seen it. The character development of almost all the characters in that show is incredible and natural and flowing.

Look at, say, Lost (American TV show). The character development of most of the characters is virtually non-existent, with tacked on backstory (via flashbacks) to try to shove in "explanations" of who they are after the fact (some of the characters were done better than others). There are a few characters who have a tiny bit of character growth, but usually in Lost it was done (poorly) in one of three ways:
A) They crammed in in flashbacks to 'explain' who they are, after the fact, and it feels too structured and 2 = 1+1.
B) The character was really designed for the development from the get-go, and that "development" happens a few episodes after introducing the character, and then the real status quo for that character begins, because now he "is" developed. What they had was a character they wanted to act a certain way, and used the development to justify it.
C) The character has the "development" right at the end of the show or right at the end of their life when they die, so you don't actually see them truly developed, they just have a (often clumsy) 15 minutes of their personality being suddenly different and they do one or two dramatic self-sacrificial actions to *show the audience* that they've really changed... rather than actually growing them.

I still enjoyed Lost. So one could say, "then it did it's job well!", but enjoyment isn't not a true-or-false equation. They could've done it much better - which is the rallying cry of of consumers - "Show/movie/game X was good, but they could've done it better". Hence, 90% of everything is crap. Of the remaining 10%, 9% of it was merely decent.

I was talking with an artist friend the other day, and we were discussing Full Metal Alchemist: Brotherhood.
An interesting observation she made was, (to heavily paraphrase from memory) "I like Brotherhood, but the problem with it is I like it because it doesn't do anything badly. Not because it does anything great. It's characters were very good - there wasn't any I disliked, but none were absolutely incredible. The animation was decent - it never was poor, but it was never amazing either. The writing was decent - it never was terrible. The concept and ideas that were explored were good, but not fantastic. It is a very well rounded 4-stars in every category, it's a really good show. But in not a single area is it truly 5-stars. In every way, it is merely 'not crap'. In every way, it was merely above average. I like Full Metal Alchemist: Brotherhood because it never disappointed me - but it never amazed me with it's quality either."

To be clear, we both greatly enjoyed FMA: Brotherhood (which we've watched more than once - dubbed and subbed, and we've seen the original FMA). We have tons of characters we like in there. Our criticism of it is not to say, "It should never have been made" - we, and anime, would've suffered a loss from its absence - but Our desire, as creators and consumers, is to critically examine and say, how can we improve? How can we do better? How can we not camp in the foothills, but climb still higher up the mountain? How can we challenge ourselves, and other creators, to reach farther? How can we be satisfied with merely "not crap"?

This is where tropes come in especially useful - and how trope classification was created, and what it was were created for. Analysis and examination (especially cross-examination) of works that already have been created, and communication of those concepts between creators and (occasionally) as a sub-language to consumers (some parts of 'genre-savvy' / all of language-of-film).

When you use the Dewey Decimal system, you use it primarily to find what you want. It leads you to your goal.
When you use the Thompson motif system, or the Trope system, you use it (primarily) to understand what you already have.

I'm not saying you can't make good characters by starting with a trope and working from there. I'm saying, you can make better characters by not thinking too heavily of the trope at the start of the character's creation. By not using the trope as a character frame you fill in or merely spill an inch or two out of.

if you develop your characters by giving them lives that have influenced their personalities, then I do not see the harm.

You're working in reverse. "Here's my trope for this character. What can I cram into his backstory to justify it?". The backstory of such characters don't influence their personality, instead their end-result personality is dictating their past history, and in rather forced ways, IMO.

Think of when a character in a movie or show is really cool, but then they try to make a prequel that explains his origin, and trying to come up with the backstory to explain his personality after the fact, the writers terribly botch it. It sounds like what your saying is, this is the default way you should write characters: Find a trope that looks good, and try to justify it backwards, and try to character-develop it forward.
That sounds like writing a book by starting with the middle and then trying to make the beginning and end justify the middle. It might work by chance or if you're an especially skilled writer, but as a default go-to way to write a book, it doesn't sound all that great; and even if you are an exceptionally skilled writer, how does doing it backwards make it better than doing it forward?

When I'm pouring concrete, I can build the frame and pour in the concrete. But when I'm making a living breathing character, I need to grow them, I need to know them. I need to understand their motivations, their desires, their flaws, their strengths, their histories. What choices they made in the past, and why, and how it changed them and the people around them. Not just their personality. I can't take a trope and pour history into it, or it'd just feel too forced into shape. And if I take the trope without backstory, it'd feel too empty.

Life is much richer than this. Two real-life shrinking violets can't just be swapped. But in many works of fiction, you practically can swap them - because they lack the depth and breadth of reality. They too neatly conform to the mould that the creators used in common.

[Edit:] Bah, sorry for the wall of text - I'm not very good at being succinct. But I'm not intentionally trying to drown you out, I promise. :)

I enjoy intelligent back of forth design discussions, and your thoughts are good ones worth discussing and thinking about.

Put two shrinking violets in a room. Are they identical in personality or is there variation and uniqueness within it?
...

Take the two unique shrinking violets in a room. The "shrinking violet" is the part of their personalities that aren't unique - the part they share in common.

...

If you take a trope and set out to make "a shrinking violet" (or merely to be "inspired by" that trope), by default we automatically think of other shrinking violets from other creativity works, and subconsciously limit ourselves to stay within the scope of the trope's lowest-common-denominator, or else stay within the scope of other examples of the trope we have seen. It takes extra effort to even remember to pull ourself out of that mindset, because once we start making "an X" we are already unintentionally narrowing the scope of inspirational material we are being inspired by.

...

You're working in reverse. "Here's my trope for this character. What can I cram into his backstory to justify it?". The backstory of such characters don't influence their

personality, instead their end-result personality is dictating their past history, and in rather forced ways, IMO.

People change as they go through life. That is called character development. If you need to use a flashback to develop your characters, then you are doing something wrong. If you have to use backstory as an excuse for character development, then you should rewrite the narrative.

I say "give them lives that have influenced their personalities". That means, as an author, you need to include events in the story that affect their lives enough to change something about them by the time the last word has been spoken, read or otherwise. If not, what was the point of the story?

Shannon from Umineko was quiet and obedient in the beginning of the story. Not even halfway through, we see that she becomes more bold and assertive after certain events take place. That is character development. I do not need to see a flashback or hear backstory of her past in any way because I can perceive her development in the present (they do go out of their way to talk about backstory with everyone though).

To reiterate: If someone has not grown or changed over the course of the story, then they have not been developed (eg. Sword Art Online, No Game No Life). Time moves forward, not backward. You didn't become who you are today without having lived up to this point, but your character will only develop in my eyes starting from the time that I meet you.

A shrinking violet character was not a shrinking violet from birth. They become that way for a reason.

• Physical isolation from others can lead to a hesitancy to interact with people, often because they are afraid of having panic attacks that make interaction physically uncomfortable and often impossible (this is known as the fight or flight response, if you want to look into it)
• Criticism from others can make that person withdrawn to avoid being in that situation of scrutiny
• Silence can be born from experiencing consequences of varying severity for speaking out

You can write it off as you please. It is only reality summed up by a term called a "trope". If it is not fairly obvious already, I can relate. And I tend to empathize with characters who share my personality. You can take a shrinking violet and ask yourself why he or she behaves that way. That's backstory. What he or she does about it in the actual story is the important part that we as viewers need to see. If they become more withdrawn, or more open, that is development. If nothing changes, then I have wasted my time.

If you need to use a flashback to develop your characters, then you are doing something wrong.
[...]
I do not need to see a flashback or hear backstory of her past in any way because I can perceive her development in the present (they do go out of their way to talk about backstory with everyone though).

The only time I mentioned flashbacks was in relation to Lost, which I was using as an example of doing things wrongly. :)

I don't think flashbacks are inherently bad, just not the first tool you want to reach for.

I don't think tropes are inherently bad, just not the tool you want to begin with.

People change as they go through life. That is called character development. If you need to use a flashback to develop your characters, then you are doing something wrong. If you have to use backstory as an excuse for character development, then you should rewrite the narrative.

I just spent three paragraphs giving examples saying almost the same thing - I don't think we're in disagreement about the importance of character development.

I say "give them lives that have influenced their personalities".

And I say, give them personalities influenced by their lives. If you choose a personality first, and then try to come up with a 'life' that led to that personality, it can come across as too shallow.

The sentence itself is almost a contradiction - "give them (future-tense) lives that have influenced (past tense) their personalities."

It seems like what you are saying is, create their personalities, and then create their lives and pretend the lives influenced their personalities.

What I'm saying is, give them lives first, and use those lives to actually create their personalities.

I don't think picking a trope and working backwards is the best way to create characters. You can create characters that way, but I don't think it's the right choice for maximizing creativity.

That means, as an author, you need to include events in the story that affect their lives enough to change something about them by the time the last word has been spoken, read or otherwise. If not, what was the point of the story?

Agreed. That's what I was complaining about in Lost (which did it poorly, except for a few exceptions), and why I was praising Breaking Bad (which did it well on pretty much every character).

You can write it off as you please.

What have I written off? Character development? :)

I said:

"Character development is very important, but the temptation to just take a trope and leave it at that, often means (in many media, especially the majority of long-running American TV shows or Japanese Anime (and videogames)) that the character basically has a set personality chosen and they are basically the same person throughout the entire series, and that "person" that they are is shallow and virtually identical to half-dozen other shallow characters from other anime.

There are exceptions, thankfully, in both Anime and Western TV, where the characters actually do develop, and do have rich characters.

It is only reality summed up by a term called a "trope".

Tropes are not the "summing up" of reality, they are a shared subset of reality - they are the non-unique portions of reality trimmed down to recognizable patterns.



Tropes are very useful tools, I just think they are the wrong tool to use to start to create a character, except as general inspiration, or, as I said, the two risks are either just take the trope and leave it at that without developing the character, and/or making the character too similar to existing characters of the same trope, because you are aiming at a target that is the averaged center of the actual unique characters the trope is inspired by.