Rename (alt titles 7/24): The Archer

Sure, and that meshes pretty well with my understanding of it, but that's not what Archer Archetype says. It starts by saying that the archer archetype is a skilled bowman, then immediately beings listing things that aren't really relevant — they work alone, they're haughty or arrogant, they're stealthy, they're often found in wild settings, etc etc.

I'd rewrite the description to be something like this:

The Archer Archetype is the standard portrayal of a bow-wielding character. Because of the perception that archery is more a matter of skill and finesse than brute strength, an archetypical archer will be lean and slender rather than brawny and buff. They'll also be calm and collected, especially under pressure, and able to focus on their archery even amidst the distractions of battle. This may extend as far as being cold and emotionless — but then again, it may not. They tend to be a type of Fragile Speedster, forsaking heavy armor in favor of unhindered mobility.

As the bow is seen as a tool of wilderness survival as much as a weapon, it's likely to be used by more outdoorsy types, like the Forest Ranger and the Nature Hero. Elves of a nature-oriented bent are also likely to fit the archetype. In groups, the one most likely to be an archer is The Chick, because Guys Smash, Girls Shoot. Exceptionally skilled archer archetypes will have Improbable Aiming Skills, and likely be able to fire multiple arrows simultaneously.

A subtrope of Weapon Of Choice. Characters who use archery even when more advanced projectile weapons (like guns) are available follow The Straight and Arrow Path. If a character is a competent swordsman as well as an archer, then they wield the Bow and Sword in Accord.

edited 14th Jan '13 5:26:21 PM by NativeJovian

That makes the trope anyone who wields a bow again. That's not what we're aiming for in the least. It is not just a skilled bowman. It is the persona that comes along with being a skilled bowman.

I think the first paragraph is going in the right direction, though. It's much more definite.

I'm inclined to say the minimum bar is not that they wield a bow, but that they look like an archer is supposed to look.◊ That's the real crux here. Personality traits come with the trope, but they can be subverted or played around with and still fit the Archer Archetype. It's all about that silhouette.

If it were my call, that's what I'd put front and center in the first paragraph of the description. Personality traits matter, so they'd go in the second paragraph. And it would be nice if we could get a collage for the image, to emphasize that standard look the best we can.

edited 14th Jan '13 6:05:07 PM by troacctid

I like Troa's suggestion.

There's no coherence between those images other than they all have a bow. They go from lean and thin, to big and burly, to soft and curvy. They wear any colour that exists. They don't have a coherent gender or race. There's no look there other than holding a bow.

edited 14th Jan '13 6:16:17 PM by shimaspawn

I think the personality type, at least the "calm under pressure" part of it, should be part of the core definition. An archer that panics every time an enemy gets within fifty yards of him doesn't really fit the archer stereotype. But other than that, I'm pretty much with Troacctid.

They're all lean rather than muscular (no hulking musclebound brutes), wearing no more than light armor (no one in heavy plate mail), and all of the ones that have any sort of coherent background are in woodsy, wilderness settings. Which is pretty much the highlights of what I wrote at the top of the page (minus personality, which doesn't really come across in a static image).

http://i.imgur.com/V5LKx.jpg?2

These guys could all be siblings. It's uncanny.

Here's a hulking brute in those examples.◊ This one has heavy armor.◊ Most of them have no background at all. Close up the ones highlighted are wearing a wide variety of styles of armor, colours, builds, genders, and even weapons.

They only look similar in thumbnails. You've highlighted two characters in heavy armor. One in lingery. Two burly guys. Some slender characters. Some nature characters. Some that are based out of cities. There's some brown or green in all the images, but there's brown or green in a lot of things.

edited 14th Jan '13 6:31:15 PM by shimaspawn

And one of them is the logo for Archer. Whatever. It's clear there's a trend. The thumbnails are enough to see the silhouette, which is vital, like I said.

Contrast with a similar search for barbarians◊ (another common archetype). You can see a clear difference. Broader shoulders. More red than green. Heavier metal armor. Fewer trees. Not so many bows, even though barbarians have historically been very proficient with arrows. Etc.

edited 14th Jan '13 6:33:44 PM by troacctid

Also not seeing the similarity. The bottom row ranges from a girl wearing very little to a guy in plate armor.

The barbarian search also turns up a wide range from heavy armor to almost naked.

The broad shoulders vs. slim are the only trend I see. The "silhouette" is just the pose you take when drawing a bow. Whatever clothing trend there may be is swamped by fanservice. The hooded-green-Robin-Hood clothing is far from universal with the archers — I see only 3.

edited 14th Jan '13 6:37:40 PM by ArcadesSabboth

And even the broad vs. slim shoulders isn't universal if you actually look at their shoulders. The pose you take when you draw a bow hides how broad as a sort of optical illusion because both your arms are up. A lot of those men have much broader shoulders than anyone you'd see on the street.

They just aren't cartoonishly large.

edited 14th Jan '13 6:42:23 PM by shimaspawn

Probably where the stereotype comes from.

But it doesn't seem to hold up as an actual part of the appearance. Sometimes we become convinced things are true because we read them in trope descriptions only to find out later that they aren't actually part of tropes in actuality.

So what is the trope in your opinion? If it's not "uses a bow + certain body type" and not "uses a bow + certain body type + certain personality traits", are you saying it's just "uses a bow + certain personality traits"? Or something else entirely?

Ok time out here. What exactly are we arguing about?

This back and forth has muddied the waters. One thing is blatantly clear. Archer Archetype is not just about someone who uses a bow.

The only thing really set in stone is that just using a bow does not make a character the Archer Archtype. The description as we have it right now is not immovably rigid nor is it too soft. It is flexible enough.

Ok we get some general personality traits. I see nothing utterly inflexible about this. It also mentions the common portrayl of the archer.

Again about general personality traits and common portrayl. Still nothing overly rigid here. There is no wording that says "must be" or "always is".

Some handy extra info that may or may not apply the archer archtype.

The way this reads to me is this. Any archer character with any mix of these traits or lack/played with/subversion of some of them as long as it is not just someone using a bow.

The character has to meet something from the trope in some way or another, other then just using a bow.

Borderline examples may have only one item from trope and use a bow. The more it takes from the listed personality traits and portrayl the better.

The way I see it there is likely not a single archer character who perfectly fits the entiriety of the trope. They will meet it to a point.

edited 14th Jan '13 8:15:22 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Exactly. They need to meet a number of the characteristics of the trope. Not every last one of them, and there is no single trait that every single last one has. Perhaps we should organize it like Cherry Blossom Girl. Is that format clearer?

Yeah, that'd be good. Currently it feels like it can't make up its mind as to what it is and the characteristics are buried in paragraphs; that format, though just as flexible, feels more definite and is clearer.

Normally, I do not like bullet point lists in trope descriptions, but it seems better than the current one.

I think part of the problem for this trope is the saturation of characters who use bows regularly and may or may not fit into the trope. Add in the problems with the old write up and name and we got the mess we have now.

I have nothing against a bullet or number list in cases like this. The characters we are talking about are like a venn diagram with multiple wheels. Very few if any will all meet in the middle under these traits.

The bullet list will help us organize the Personality and portrayl traits and give editors a clear set of definitions to measure a character against before dropping them in. Instead of has and uses a bow they need to stack up on the list in some way or another.

As for how many points off that list a character needs is where we need to strike the balance. I think just one is too few. Two is better still we can narrow it down more but personally I would prefer at least 3 points. That is just personal preference.

edited 15th Jan '13 8:11:06 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Yes, three is good. There are a variety of traits that can add up, and the results will be variable, but with three you can at least be reasonably certain the author intended the trope or something close.

edited 15th Jan '13 8:01:28 PM by ArcadesSabboth

I don't support the numerical approach. It's so awkward.

Seconding that. I wouldn't be opposed to using something similar to Cherry Blossom Girl, but the "you must have at least three of these nine things" is arbitrary and awkward.

Of course, that just shifts the question to what should be on the bullet point list. I would list my recommendations, but that would basically just be converting my proposed description at the top of the page to bullet-point form, so I don't think it would help.

The whole point of the number needed is to give some sort of yard stick for editors to go off of rather then no measure meaning sooner rather then later we will be back to sorting through questionable examples again.

Obviously the more of the traits the character can hit the better a fit they are. One or two traits is highly unlikely to fit the trope. You start hitting three or more of the assorted traits and it gets a bit harder to say it doesn't fit.

Obviously they have to be an archer of some sort meaning they have to use a bow. However that is not the only part of the trope. Do they meet the personality and portrayl of an archer as well?

If a character who is an archer and is say calculating does that come from being the archer or another trope that makes a character calculating?

For example in one of the Punisher Films the Punisher uses a bow to stealth kill some enemies. He is certainly cold and calculating and using a bow. However The Punisher really doesn't fit anything else on the trope. He hits the requirement for using a bow and has at least two points of the traits. However the Punisher would not be a good fit for this trope.

The Punisher is however noted as a using, guns, explosives, and melee weapons as his preferred methods of fighting. He is not shown in any other way that would mark him as being the archer archtype.

It may be a better idea to break the traits up between attitude/emotion/personality and typical portrayl.

The Punisher fails on the protrayl part. He is always shown as being large, strong, wears tough body armor constantly, and host of other points that moves him firmly from Archer Archtype.

Using that two part break up instead and say applying it to Robin Hood you get both typical portrayl and a lot of the personality and attitude the trope describes.

Edit: The Punisher uses bows more then than one instance in the film.

edited 15th Jan '13 8:52:32 PM by TuefelHundenIV

I disagree with the Cherry Blossom Girl approach as well. It's similarly awkward.

I'd still rather go with a more traditional description focused on the stuff I said before.

edited 15th Jan '13 9:12:14 PM by troacctid