Stories, Masculinity and Archetypes

An Important Observation from How To Train Your Dragon

On my YouTube channel, I went through a phase of making videos on matters related to masculinity in fiction.

These videos are as follows:

April 2019 - A Presentation on the Appeal of 300 (and discussing how it contrasts with current western culture)

June 2019 - Concerning Damsels in Distress (an explanation of the convention)

July 2019 - A Look at Anime Male Protagonists (or why are anime male characters so weak?)

May 2020 - An Explanation for 2D Women and Anime Waifus*

July 2020 - The Core Reasons for SAO's Success

May 2023 - Explaining the Appeal of Action Heroines (and Tomboys)

This spans a period of five years.

During the earliest part of this period and until just recently, I thought about making a video on the DreamWorks’ film How to train your Dragon (HTTYD). My analysis would have concerned the character of Hiccup and the central thesis would be how he is a subversion of masculinity in the story.

To help understand what my essay would have touched upon, we need to briefly run through the film’s plot.

The Plot of HTTYD

The film’s plot follows Hiccup who is the son of a fearsome Viking chieftain - Stoick the Vast - who rules Berk village. The village is raided by dragons on a regular basis and all the men (and even the women) are strong and tough warriors.

Hiccup is nothing like his father. He is weak, scrawny and not skilled at arms but he is talented at invention and engineering. Hiccup is intelligent yet he is terrible at fighting and inspires no confidence in either his father or anyone else in the village and he’s a loner-loser.

One night, he uses one of his inventions to shoot down a night fury – the fastest and most dangerous species of dragon. His idea is to prove himself to his father by shooting one down with his contraption, killing it and cutting its heart out.

But when Hiccup arrives where the dragon has crash landed, he cannot bring himself to kill the reptile. He instead frees the dragon and it tries to fly away but, since it has lost part of its tail in the crash, it cannot physically fly.

Hiccup eventually befriends the dragon and creates a prosthetic tail so it can fly again but, because it is a mechanical device and not a cybernetic limb, Hiccup has to help operate it and so he becomes the first dragon rider.

While he is doing this, Hiccup is sent to dragon training with all the other kids in the village, including a girl called Astrid whom he has a crush on. Astrid is a tomboy and is better at fighting than he is. She disrespects and disregards him like everyone else, of course.

Hiccup triumphs in dragon training but not through fighting. Instead, he learns about dragons from spending time with the downed dragon (whom he names Toothless) and uses this knowledge to subdue other dragons without hurting them.

To keep this section brief, Hiccup saves the day by learning how to ride a dragon. He teaches others how to ride dragons as well, wins Astrid’s affections and saves the day by dragon riding. He finally gets the approval and respect of his father and the film ends on a happy and triumphant note.

My Analysis from a Time Past

Past Self

My analysis of the above plot would hone in on the fact that Hiccup doesn’t grow or develop any masculine or martial virtues. He doesn’t grow stronger and he doesn’t become more skilled at arms.

In fact, he shirks the whole process of becoming more masculine and manly via the use of dragons and technology. By the end of the film, he is still the same limp noodle and weed that he was at the start.

The un/intentional message of the film is thus:

You don’t need to acquire the masculine skills or develop the manly warrior virtues of your fathers.

This is the message, not because Hiccup is a skilled machinist or because he saves the day by dragon riding, but because of the context. If Hiccup wasn’t a weed, if he had grit and a respectable affinity for fighting like Astrid on top of his machinist talents, then HTTYD would not be the story of how a loser became a winner by shirking the masculine virtues of his father but, instead, a tale of how an up-and-coming warrior learnt to train dragons.  

These might sound like superficial alterations to the character, since the actual plot of the story wouldn’t change, but it would transform the film’s message to this:

The masculine warrior virtues of your fathers are good but your mind should be open to new possibilities.

I would argue the actual film does not affirm masculine virtues but my suggested and improved version does.

I’d then either explicitly argue or else impress the implication upon viewers that media, such as HTTYD, are part of a larger phenomenon wherein mainstream creators try to influence men and women into believing that old notions of masculinity and manliness are outdated.

The Present Day

Present Self

This is the critique I would have made of HTTYD as little as maybe one year ago but this is not the opinion I hold today. It’s not that I believe my argument above is wholly wrong per se, rather, that it doesn’t account for the whole picture.

Back in 2018, I was younger and had just started martial arts. I became enthusiastic about kickboxing and Muay Thai. As a consequence, I also became interested in health and fitness.

Preceding my foray into the worlds of martial arts and fitness, I had read a lot of manosphere web articles from all the major blogs (including Return of Kings as it was still live during this period). In fact, it was because I read these manospherian bloggers that I decided to take up martial arts; I was persuaded by the arguments that it wasn’t good for a man to be incapable of defending himself.

I now give this strange and unusual disclaimer: I still do martial arts to this day and I believe every man should train.

Why am I giving this disclaimer? Because what I am going to argue next using HTTYD as my springboard is going to sound like an argument against combat training.

Here’s what HTTYD gets right about boys, men and masculinity:

Not all men can be warriors.

Masculine Archetypes

The most recognizable masculine archetype in stories and media both in the past and the present has to be the warrior. When we encounter warriors in real life, we recognize them as men among men.

But what makes a man a warrior? Contrary to popular belief, it’s not simply a matter of employment in a particular profession, the possession of specific tools or the development of specialized skills. Anyone can be trained to shoot a gun but that doesn’t make him a soldier. In the same way, anyone can be taught how to draw but that doesn’t make him an artist.

It is true that you are what you do and especially what you consistently do as a habit - Aristotle is not wrong when he makes this observation. However, there is a limit to this rule. Someone could train me to act like an American, I could move to the USA, adopt the accent, the customs and politics; get citizenship and eat the right foods but I’d never become an authentic American.

It is not just about how one acts, it’s also about who he is. It is a question of being as much as doing.

The warrior does not fight to become a warrior, he fights because he is a warrior. The warrior was born to fight, his instincts lead him to master combat and to develop his strength; it is where he is in his element. This is what it means to be a man who embodies the warrior/fighter archetype.

After much self-reflection, I can say with confidence that I am not a warrior. It is not for lack of trying or wanting, at one time, I believed every man could be a warrior/fighter with enough training and dedication. But even after seven years of training in martial arts (really only five because lockdowns took away two years of my life) I haven’t become a warrior or a fighter, I have simply learnt how to fight.

While my current level of skill is and was a factor in reaching this conclusion, none of this is to say that I believe people who have an aptitude for violence are automatically warriors/fighters. I have met all kinds of people who were/are more skilled and dangerous than myself but I have only met one or two whom I’d describe as fighters/warriors.

In the past, I believed the archetypal warrior potential was inside every man and I thought I could unlock it within myself.

In truth, I longed to realize this potential which I believed to be real.

But it is impossible to unlock a treasure chest which doesn’t exist, even if you have the key.

The truth is I do not embody the warrior archetype. Instead, I embody another archetype, in fact, I have a foot in two different archetypes: the creator and the thinker.

It’s more than the fact that I write novels and video essays which makes me a creator and a thinker; it’s that these are the means by which I express myself fully. I do these things because I am a creator and thinker, not because I want to be a creator and thinker.

For as long as I can remember, I have been drawn to creativity, philosophy, logic and argumentation. When I was a child, I wrote, read, debated and sought out information pertaining to these interests; the instinct and drive were natural. I did and continue to do these things because this is where I’m in my element and where I feel called.

I grew my joint creator and thinker potential via mental and creative endeavours many years ago and I did so without being consciously aware of it. In my adult years, my efforts to further grow and strengthen these skills and nature have been conscious and deliberate. 

If I had a foot (or both) in the warrior archetype’s camp, I would have started martial arts much, much, much earlier because I would have been drawn to fighting. But that potential was not within me, so I felt no call or drive to it. I was on an altogether different journey.

The realization – that I am not a warrior and cannot become one – has caused me no small amount of pain and depression because warriorhood is something I have always admired and, until recently, I believed I could achieve in myself. The reason I have always admired the warrior is because he is the most potent personification of masculinity and the most masculine men in both history and legend have always been warriors.

My goal and desire was to become a warrior poet but, although warrior poets are real (Ernst Jünger springs to mind), I only have the spirit of a poet, not the dual spirit of a warrior poet.

Only now have I started to make peace with this revelation.

HTTYD and Fatherhood

Hiccup’s father - Stoick the Vast - is obviously a warrior. He is a purebred specimen of the warrior archetype.

Hiccup, despite wanting and trying to be one, isn’t a warrior.

While this is not Stoick’s fault, he has failed as a father in the film. He is dismissive, he doesn’t appreciate Hiccup’s innate talents for invention and engineering and doesn’t encourage him in developing these strengths. He also frequently ignores him and doesn’t listen to him in conversations.

As a consequence, Hiccup has little self-confidence and he is whiny and doesn’t have a lot of self-respect either. 

In an ideal world, Stoick would encourage and show interest in Hiccup’s talents and Hiccup would be more self-assured and not whiny. As it stands in the beginning of the film, both have chosen the worst possible responses to the fact that Hiccup simply isn’t a warrior like Stoick.

Of course, most of the blame falls on Stoick’s shoulders. As a father, he should have taken the time to understand and encourage Hiccup in his natural talents and patiently taught him in the ways of fighting while bearing in mind that his son would not take to it like a fish to water.

He should have loved his son.

Instead, Stoick actively disapproves of his son’s temperament and abilities and is clearly disappointed with him.

For his part, Hiccup reacts how any young boy/man would in this situation. He becomes immensely discouraged while still trying to gain his father’s approval.

I would almost maintain today that the film does a disservice to Stoick and masculine warrior virtues by letting Hiccup basically get away with saving the day without acquiring proficiency in any of them. It affirms the value of Hiccup’s skills without doing the same for Stoick’s and so dismisses one masculine archetype in favour of another.

Again, I would almost maintain this because, after re-watching the film, I noticed that the warrior archetype is affirmed throughout. Multiple times, Hiccup is saved from dragons by Stoick, Gobber and Astrid who use violence and strength of arms (sometimes literally). Stoick is brave and heroic, when he leads his army to certain doom on the dragon island, he tells his men to retreat and goes to distract the queen dragon to buy them time.

It is too simplistic to say that the film dismisses what warriors bring to the table because it portrays them as heroic, useful and necessary.   

In this scene, Stoick pummels this dragon with his bare hands to save Hiccup. And yes, it is awesome.

But coming back around to our topic, the film speaks truth. Not all men and boys can become warriors. It’s one thing to expect men and boys like Hiccup to learn how to fight, it is another thing to expect them to be fighters.

Many Masculine Archetypes

The warrior isn’t the only realization or archetype of masculinity in the world. It may be the most obvious and easily recognizable but it is not the be-all and end-all and we shouldn’t want it to be either.

A few years ago when he still posted essays on his website, Jack Donavon wrote a blog post arguing that our ideas about masculinity have become cartoonish. Jack Donavon eviscerated the idea that we should all be trying to achieve a lumberjack aesthetic, temperament and spirit. He dismissed the suggestion that this is the benchmark - the ideal standard of masculinity which all men should strive to emulate. He pointed out that men had all kinds of interests in the past from engineering to botany to fashion and they were allowed to have these interests and passions without having their manliness questioned. He argued that the fascination guys have with being manly, growing beards and only engaging in stereotypically masculine hobbies and professions is a modern phenomenon.

I agree with his commentary and its sentiment. Expecting every guy to shoehorn himself into a single masculine archetype is like expecting every gym-going man to achieve the shredded and bulked physique of Gerard Butler in 300, which, as honest fitness trainers, models and bodybuilders point out, is physically impossible for the vast majority of men even with the aid of steroids.

Manifestations of masculinity are far more varied and we should learn not only to explore different varieties but also to fully embrace them, both in art and real life.

We do everyone a disservice when, for instance, we bully and shame a boy for possessing deep emotions and feelings. Contrary to popular belief, trying to shame said boy into “manning up” and growing “thicker skin” only works on a superficial level. He will act more stoic but he won’t get “tougher” in a real sense, because he’ll just conceal his pains and emotions behind a dead and lifeless face. He will have “thick skin” but at the cost of authentic expression and colour in his life.

What you will have at the end of this process is a man, hurting inside, who lives a bland and colourless existence which manifests in the form of a low-key, lifeless energy and depression. What’s worse, is the diminishing of his emotional depth and experience will result in the weakening of his key character strengths. Being sensitive is not always a weakness, it can be a tremendous strength in the right fields. Most of the great male artists throughout history would be considered “sensitive” but their sensitivity helped them to create the work everyone enjoys today.

A man who has an emotional or creative sensitivity will never fully realize his potential and know happiness until he accepts his sensitivities as good and integrates them into his character. Attempting to be a stoic, tough and unfeeling man, when he isn’t one, will cause inner emptiness and a reduction in outward vitality as he straitjackets himself according to social expectations.

To prevent any misunderstanding, this is not an argument in defence of weakness. This is not an appeal to let certain boys and men be vulnerable and unable to stand on their own two feet or to be soft. This is an appeal not to shame them for what and who they are and not to try shoving a square peg into a round hole.

In a similar vein, if we tried shaming a tough and adventurous boy with no real sensitivities into “being open with his emotions” or attempted to bully him into being artistically sensitive etc. we’d be doing a crime just as heinous. Square peg – round hole.

The goal of parenting for boys should be to help them develop the skills, virtues and fortitude to take on the dangers that life will throw at them and help them achieve their full potential and become fully realized men. The aim should not be to straitjacket them into a hypermasculine caricature or to rid them of their “toxic masculinity”.

There are no constructive outcomes for trying to impose a one-size-fits-all standard of masculinity on all men.

Not all men can be warriors and it takes all sorts to make a world.

A Man’s Telos

I am sure there are some men who will take issue with what I have written because they will misconstrue it as a kind of defeatism. They might respond that it is possible for all men to become fighters, for instance, if they triple their efforts, time and energy to the transformation. They might argue: “A man may not be a natural fighter but if he spends enough time and effort he could acquire the skills and character of a natural fighter.”

To this potential response, I must confess that I think it is probably correct. It is probably possible for a guy who is not a fighter to forcefully pull himself into the warrior archetype.

Hypothetically, if we had a man with all the time and money in the world, an extreme passionate dedication to fighting and access to the greatest trainers, he could forge himself into a fighter if he started young enough and spent enough time at it.

If we take the above premise as true, the question is less if a man should do this and more why.

If a man isn’t a fighter, why should he try becoming one? Wouldn’t his time, money and effort be better spent realizing who he truly is? Wouldn’t it be better for himself, the world, his friends and his family if he developed his own potential and embraced the archetype to which he belongs? Wouldn’t it be better if he found his true telos (purpose) rather than attempting to answer a calling which is not his?

Again, it is one thing to ask that every man trains and learns to defend himself, it is another to expect every man to become a warrior or act like one. Similarly, it is one thing to ask every man to learn how to drive, it is another to expect every man to become a race driver.

One man might be a natural businessman, another an artist and yet another an engineer or builder. For all these men, it would be better if they spent their time and effort developing their natural potential, embracing their archetype and realizing their unique telos rather than trying to become something they are not.

We should encourage men to manifest their masculine archetypes and give them due respect for doing so. We shouldn’t put the warrior/fighter archetype on a pedestal in both our art and conversations and we should cease using it as the yardstick for measuring manhood and masculinity.

Instead, we should be encouraging every man to discover his telos.

Final Thoughts on HTTYD

The previous critique of HTTYD, which an earlier version of myself would have made, goes wide of the mark because it assumes the only acceptable masculine archetype is the warrior. By ignoring the many other existing masculine archetypes, the critique does not only a disservice to Hiccup but also the vast majority of men both past and present

In closing, I think we should look at the film’s actual and intended message.

The film is clear and upfront about what it wants to say. In the beginning, Gobber tells Hiccup that he should stop trying to be something he’s not. In the middle of the story, Stoick tells Hiccup he needs to be “less of this” and gestures to all of his son. But at the end of the film, he tells Hiccup that “it turned out, we needed more of this” and gestures to all of him.

The message is that we should accept and love people for who they are and not disregard or shame them for not fitting into our preferred social and societal niches. 

As far as messages in stories go, this one has become a little cliché and has been abused by some people. Yet HTTYD delivers its message deftly and it is still relevant in our modern age.