Three Basic Action Archetypes

Do You Notice Them?

As we close out another year, I had planned to write another Men At Work essay but with the end of the year, I am feeling a bit more contemplative in terms of essay writing. I have been reading a lot of pulp stories lately.

The latest work of pulp fiction I just finished is Creepin’ Clues, edited by Arbogast. It is a series of short stories where the protagonist is some type of occult investigator, in many cases, an amateur and reluctant one. I have a story in this brilliant anthology and everyone should pick up a copy. I enjoyed all of them, which is rare for me when it comes to anthologies.

Something I noticed is that many of these stories contain at least one of the three basic archetypes of men you find in any kind of modern action story.

What do I mean by this statement?

Well, thirty years ago, I took a film appreciation class while an undergrad. It was an easy one credit class and I needed some sort of art class in order to graduate from my small New England liberal arts college. I wanted something easy that required very little effort on my part, so drawing, painting, clay pottery was out.

Instead, I signed up for a class that gave me much more than what I had expected. It was so long ago, I don’t even remember the professor’s name, who is probably dead (at the very least retired) at this point, since he was well into middle-age when I took the course.

What I do remember is that he was neither a filmmaker or artist but a Jungian trained psychologist. He also loved film, especially action films.

He had this theory when it came to modern action films that has stuck with me. He distinguished between modern and postmodern films. For the purposes of this essay, I am not going to go into detail in terms of what he meant by these terms. Suffice to say, the modern action film had an identifiable hero, he may be flawed but he is heroic.

At the same time, he discussed what made a modern action film truly entertaining. In his mind, a good modern action film needed three specific archetypes of men.

His three basic character archetypes of a modern action drama were: the good man, the bad man, and the good-bad man.

He used the film, Shane (1953) to explain his modern action archetypes. These could also be applied to certain types of pulp writing as well.

Shane is a great example because it is such a simple story. In the Old West, a small farming and ranching community is beset by thugs who work for a cattle baron who wants all the land for his spread.

A Homestead Act rancher and his young family are attempting to make a living on this harsh, unforgiving land. The rancher hires a mysterious drifter to help him with their small ranch. The rancher defies the cattle baron who wants him dead and hires a professional gunfighter to carry out the deed.

Meanwhile, the drifter, named Shane, finds out about the plot and goes into town to confront this devious group. A gunfight ensues, it turns out that Shane is a superb gunfighter and takes out the murderous fiends but is wounded in the process.

The last scene of the movie is iconic since it is Shane riding away from the small ranch with the rancher’s son calling out to him. In the distance you see Shane slump over in his saddle, Shane is dead.

Now, let’s look at our archetypes (according to my professor). The good man archetype is represented by the rancher; Joe Starrett. Starrett is respected by the other ranchers who consider him a competent rancher, he treats others decently, he is a loving husband and father to his young son. One could consider him the ideal, a pillar of any American community. He doesn’t like violence but will not run if he is faced with an injustice. He simply wants to run his ranch and raise his family in peace.

Now the opposite of the good man archetype is the bad man. In this film, there are two main bad men. The cattle baron, Rufus Ryker and the professional contract killer he hires to kill Starrett; Jack Wilson played malevolently by Jack Palance who is perfect for any villain role.

Both men have allowed themselves to be possessed by their most base characteristics, one could argue sins really. For the cattle baron, Ryker it is greed, he wants the land and doesn’t give a damn about the families who live on it. As for Wilson, he just enjoys killing, so why not get paid for it? The bad man lacks empathy or scruples. He is fully engaged in his selfish desires. Neither man is capable of ever being a family man, that would require agape; sacrificial love, which they lack.

Now we come to the final archetype: the good-bad man. In Shane, this is the title character. What makes Shane this archetype?

Shane is a drifter, he wanders from town to town, looking for work but never really making connections or staying for long. The way he interacts with Starrett’s boy, Joey, you can tell he longs for a family on some level but is incapable of creating one.

He is clearly damaged or traumatized in some way. Some experience has fundamentally altered him, perhaps war? In Batman, it is the grisly death of his parents that permanently alters Bruce Wayne. Wayne will never be a content family man. It is clear Shane will never be a family man like his employer, he will never be respected by the community he lives in.

He is a rolling stone but he is also cool.

At the same time, he sees the value in community and family, he recognizes that these are good things, well worth defending. He is always prepared to engage in violence. Unlike the good man, who will only kill and use violence when absolutely necessary, often feeling terrible about himself when the violence is over. If he even survives the violence.

The good-bad man will kill to protect the community, without compunction. He rarely enjoys it but recognizes violence has a place as a useful tool.

Also, the good-bad man is superior at making war. This is the biggest difference between him and the good man and often the bad man. He is trained or a natural in the judicial application of violence. Most of the time, the bad man is just too ill disciplined to be anything more than thuggish. The bad man tends to rely too much on numbers rather than skill.

Here is an interesting note: you don’t need all 3 archetypes for a successful action narrative but you need at least 2 out of 3.

Donald E. Westlake, writing as Richard Stark, most famous pulp character is Parker. One could look at Parker, a professional thief and strong arm robber as the least heroic character that has ever existed. However, in Parker’s world (the criminal underworld), he is honorable, loyal and has a sense of duty. It may be twisted at times due to the world he inhabits, but he has virtues all of his contemporaries in that realm lack.

The other criminals are venial, dishonorable and mostly lazy.

These blackguards always double cross Parker and try to kill him...every damn time. Parker then seeks revenge on his former coworkers and kills them all. End of tale.

In the Parker series, you are not going to find any good men. As the reader, you are inhabiting this criminal underworld. Everyone has a price, everyone will betray anyone…except Parker.

There are only bad men in these stories, even the female characters fall into that archetype. Parker is the lone good-bad man. He lives by a code he will not betray, much like the samurai and their code of Bushido in feudal Japan.

You can also have a story where you have a good man versus bad man. I think of Charles Bronson’s architect character in Death Wish as being a good example. He doesn’t want to be a vigilante, he would prefer to be a regular middle-class family man but is forced by circumstances to leave this role for a bit (unless you include the sequels and then you could argue he eventually becomes a good-bad man).

As you watch movies or read action, adventure pulps, be on the lookout for these three archetypes.

If you are a pulp writer, do you utilize these three archetypes in your work?