Jung: “…a poet has the capacity to dramatize and personify his mental contents. When he creates a character on the stage, or in his poem or drama or novel, he thinks it is merely a product of his imagination; but that character in a certain secret way has made itself. Any novelist or writer will deny that these characters have a psychological meaning, but as a matter of fact you know as well as I do that they have one. Therefore you can read a writer’s mind when you [respectfully] study the characters he creates” (1969b, para 152). 

The characters in dreams and fantasy, Hillman explains, “are self-perceptions of instinct” (1979, p.55). The fantasy characters are namely representations of what Jung called archetypes: primal images (1968b, para 80). Archetypes are the unconscious structures of a psyche (1968b, para 99). They are energetic centres of gravity that give psychic energy [libido], meaning, affect and ‘colour’ to psychic contents (Jacobi, 2004, p.61-74). They are much like the basic colours black, white, blue, red and yellow that colour all existence. Archetypes determine meaning giving, expectations and behavioural responses: they are instinctive, unconscious, inborn primal patterns of behaviour and are present in each human (ibid.). 

Archetypes are constructed out of the sediments of human experiences acquired throughout history, just like instincts (Jung, 1968b). They can be described as the organs of the psyche (Jacobi, 1953, p.36). Our character is determined by the working and strength of the various archetypes in us (Jacobi, 2004, p.61-74). Dormant archetypes can be awakened by outer reality triggers (ibid.). The more affect or emotion a person feels, the closer to an archetypal centre of gravity one is (deeper in unconscious) (Grant, 2004, p. 168). Love is a prime example of an archetype at work.  

Jungian psychoanalysis is based on the nature-philosophy, since archetypes are independent of experience, i.e. nurture (Jung, 1968b). However Adams states: “[Archetypes are] prior to experience, although dependent on experience for its expression as a particular image” (2013, p.49). Archetypes are structures, which are clothed by a complex set of nurture experiences: so called complexes. A complex is an affect-loaded themed set of associations related to the archetype, based on personal experiences (Jacobi, 2004, p. 57; Sharp, 1991). (For example a minority complex. We experience complex work in our contact with others if someone triggers us and we respond ‘uncharacteristically’; differently than normally.) 

Complexes can be negative, positive or somewhere in between. When the personal associations and experiences are negative and unwanted the complex is conflicting with consciousness and instead of being integrated the complex becomes incompatible; the archetypal energy manifests itself in (unconscious) negative symbols (Jacobi, 2004, p.51-74). Evil characters thus symbolize incompatible complexes, such as a trauma-complex (the experiences and feelings felt during the trauma, Tolkien), feelings of depression (Rowling) or the negative experiences and feelings felt in relation to one’s father (Lucas). Incompatible complexes cause internal unbalance and problems. (These are the ‘wounds’.)

Whenever the associations are positive the complex is positive and the archetypal energy manifests itself in friendly symbols and characters. Each archetype and subsequent associated complex(es) can express themselves through many different symbols, ranging from characters, to animals, objects, elements, plants, energy etc.

The characters in fantasy are thus representations of archetypes and complexes (Jung, 1969b, para 383-388; Watkins, 1986, p.107). They can be described as ‘subpersonalities’ (Jung, 1969b, para 383-388). This is the second difference with other psychological theories: Jungian psychoanalysis sees a person as being a multiplicity of (sub)personalities. The strongest, conscious personality is normally and always should be, the ego, also known as consciousness, mind or identity (Jung, 1969b, para 383; Fitzpatrick, 2020, p.24; Adams, 2013, p.21). The subpersonalities, i.e. characters of fantasy, complexes or archetypes are – just like instincts – unconscious and autonomous (Sharp, 1991), meaning they are not under the influence of the ego/conscious will. Jungian psychoanalysts work with these unconscious subpersonalities all the time, and researches validate that having multiple unconscious subpersonalities is normal in every psyche (Barret, 1995; Bowers & Brecher, 1955; Jung, 1971 para 798-9; Lynn et al., 1994; Rickeport, 1992; Watkins, 1993; Watkins & Watkins, 1979-80; Watkins 1986). (For example: your inner child.) 

An example: the ego/consciousness is an archetype: a psychic centre of gravity universally present in humans. And it is a complex: everyone has their own associations, based on nurture experiences (like feelings, memories etc.) about what it means to be ‘me’. In Lord of the Rings this phenomenon can also be seen in the symbol of Sauron: archetype of evil, universally present in stories. And the symbol of the Ring: a power-complex that is associated with and drawn to the archetype of evil. The power-complex is constructed by Tolkien’s experiences with and ideas of power and powerlessness.

Fantasy figures that do not resemble anyone from outer reality (nurture experiences) have less personal associations (complex load) and are more archetypal (inborn); they come from deeper depths of the unconscious. The character is no longer someone the imaginist knows from outer reality, but becomes archetypal: primordial, mythological, universal. For example: a princess, a magician, a warrior, or a witch etc. (Jacobi, 2004, p.61). 

(Source: Discovering Wild Imagination. Thesis by A. Beijleveld.) 

Source: Discovering Wild Imagination. Thesis by A. Beijleveld.