Arhetypes
The Soap Opera Book, 1978

There must have been a time in soap opera history when characters were well-defined types; when heroes were heroes, villains were villains, and almost nobody was in-between. There must have been such a time—because critics of soap opera and hosts of talk shows on the subject always allude to it. They describe, with some presumption, a standard cast of characters which is interchangeable from show to show.

If ever this was the case, it's not today. Soap opera characters are seldom merely Good or Bad. Though some male characters are superficial, females almost never are. Most display the depth, contradictions and growth that we associate with human behavior. The heroines have their share of weaknesses—not only for love, but for alcohol or crime, for example. Villains are not what they used to be either. Shows like Another World, Ryan's Hope and Love of Lifetake great care to present a full psychological picture; even the villain of the moment is perceived as an individual with "needs."

If there has been a general change in soap opera thinking, it can be seen rather clearly in the career of Meg Hart (Love of Life). Meg Hart was on the show for its first ten years. She was played unabashedly, unrelentingly "black." She had not one redeeming quality. Eventually viewers (and writers) tired of her and sent her packing. When she was brought back to Rosehill some eight years later, she was altered, deepened, by her life off screen. Now, says Associate Producer Tom de Villiers, "we play her with feeling; she bleeds. She doesn't always like the things she does...she has dimension."

Another example can be seen on Another World, in the character of Rachel. For many years Rachel was an arch-villain of a highly enjoyable variety. Gradually she began to be perceived as a woman of greater dimension. Writer Harding LeMay says that he inherited an "utterly worthless girl" and subtly transformed her into "a girl who had certain drives and needs and was very dissatisfied with life; and then once those needs were fulfilled; once she'd married the richest man in town...a man old enough to be the father who had walked out on her, she became a different kind of person." An entirely understandable process. Other characters (for example Ann Larimer, The Doctors) have undergone the reverse transformation. Originally a heroine of sorts, Ann has become an embittered and unsympathetic character, as a result of romantic misfortune. Characters like Ann and Rachel function not as types, but as individuals.

This is not to say that we may make no generalizations or construct no stereotypes around the soap opera character. It is only to say that we can do so no more in daytime drama than in any other kind of drama. There are certain archetypical characters in the soaps, but they are characters of depth and individuality. Young actors and actresses commonly say that they represent some of the most "challenging" roles available. If we look at the archetypical roles, and the variations from show to show, we can see why this is so.

Return to Media