Last time on A Writer Reviews I talked about the four temperaments, then pigeonholed the 10 main characters of Lord of the Rings (the Fellowship plus Gollum) into these categories:
- Choleric (leaders): Aragorn, Merry
- Phlegmatic (followers): Samwise, Legolas
- Melancholic (loaners): Gandalf, Boromir, Frodo
- Sanguine (wild-cards): Pippin, Gollum, Gimli
This time we’re going to look at the distinctions made between characters who share a broad temperament but are still quite different, and for this we’re going to look at the two bile-based temperaments, the yellow bile Cholerics and the black bile Melancholics.
We’re getting down to archetypes here. When we’ve got just four broad categories to fit characters into, a wide diversity is going to end up in each of these pigeon holes. Archetypes are fine, they’re wonderful, they’re absolutely fantastic. They exist for a reason, and readers respond to them. However, a character needs to be more than just the sum of their archetypes, and as writers we need to keep in mind how characters of both similar and dissimilar archetypes will react to each other. This is the essential ingredient in creating both friendships and conflicts within a story.
Let’s start with our two Cholerics. I made the obvious pick of Aragorn and the somewhat less obvious pick of Merry when picking who the Choleric characters are within the story. Merry isn’t given many opportunities to actually lead, but remember I’ve only called the Choleric a “leader” as a short hand. It’s more about drive, passion, and the ability to make those quick decisions on the fly. Yesterday I cited the example of Merry making the call for the hobbits to escape the Nazgul via the ferry, but he also takes a clear leadership role when we’re down to just he and Pippin in Orcish captivity and in Fangorn forest. His is an interesting leadership, as he’s the one willing to take the reins when no one else is, but he’s fully willing to defer to another when presented with an option. Put Aragorn into the formula, and he allows Pippin’s Sanguine nature to rub off on him. This is important. Anytime that a story has more than one natural leader in it, there will either need to be that moment of deferral or that moment of confrontation. There is a very short confrontation when the hobbits first meet Aragorn, and the real moment of deferral happens the morning after Bree when Merry pulls Pipping along when it’s clear Aragorn is not going to stop for every hobbit meal.
In a sense, we’ve got a natural leader, and a reluctant leader. Both are Choleric, but one never strays while the other is more than happy to experiment with being a Sanguine when the moment is opportune to do so.
Among our Melancholic types, we see a broader range of characters. We have an energetic Melancholic, able to lead men while still fitting many of the paradigms, in Galdalf. We have a Melancholic whose thoughtful introversion scales all the way to scheming in Boromir. And we’ve got our miserable Melancholic who can hardly bear the burden placed on his life in Frodo. We see two of the three overcome their base natures. Boromir ultimately backs off when given the opportunity to snatch the ring. Gandalf acts as the military leader at the battle of Minis Tirith. Frodo never really does. Even after his burden is lifted, he lives alone, and joins the elves, leaving Middle Earth. Which is fine. Having a character overcome their Melancholic nature can be a fantastic plot device for a story, but it isn’t a necessary one.
The problem comes with just how heavily to play the Melancholic. This is where we get into my issues with the movie. Two of our Melancholics are given bigger personalities. Gandalf is the great wizard, older than the ages, plyer of magic and in many ways the architect of everything that happens in the story. Boromir is scheming to get the ring away from Frodo. Frodo is…depressed. With the exception of the scene right after he’s released by Faramir he spends the entire time from the beginning of the second movie through the destruction of the Ring in a deep blue funk about how miserable he is with the path he’s been forced to take. This. Gets. Tedious. A character cannot be defined solely by his temperament, but needs some other depth or trait, especially a character nearly so introspective as a Melancholic.
So we have our temperaments, but we’ve got our layers on top of them. We have two leaders, but one is a destined king of men while another is a hobbit who only takes the lead when no one else is going to. We have our loaners, but one is willing to lead men, one is a schemer, and one is our overly introspective lead.
However, people change. Characters are dynamic. And a character who may start in one pigeonhole may end up in another. Which is what I’ll look at tomorrow with The Return of the Sanguine.