Got an ask and follow-up re: whether Dio is an “archetypal villain” so doing it as one reply (fwiw I just did a reply re: Dio’s nuance so keeping this to the ‘archetype’ part of the ask).
“so, i seen some people say Dio is simply a archetypal villain, perhaps even flat. what would you say to someone that told you he was without nuance? i plenty believe he has, but sometimes i dont know exactly what to say”
“someone i asked about what was their favorite villain told me he was a archetypal villain. and i think two years ago i saw a meme pic about how Dio fans are obnoxious or something. i mostly got my liking from him by analyses, alongside the fact that i do think personally that he DID change as a character, not completely, but he had some development.”
I partly agree with that, although maybe there’s not one single 'archetypal villain.’ The person you spoke with probably meant that Dio’s is Evil with a capital 'E,’ as opposed to a villain who does the bad things for understandable reasons, or who gets corrupted by events outside their control. Araki’s vision for Dio (in Part 1 especially) is, morally speaking, black-and-white, with Dio’s Evil defined by Araki as an innate trait rather than the effect of his circumstances.
fwiw David Mamet’s got a good list of eight villain archetypes - the anti-villain, the beast, the bully, the machine, the mastermind, the evil incarnate, the henchman, and the fanatic - and I thought for the purpose of this reply it’s helpful to defining Dio’s specific brand of badness. Of those archetypes, two stand out as defining Dio’s *specific* type: the Evil Incarnate and (technically not on the list but inspired by it) the Anti-Hero.
(fwiw you can read my convo here about why Dio isn’t a bully type. I see him mistyped this way especially by people who want to expand Jonathan’s role in the series. tl;dr, basically it comes down to the fact that Dio’s charisma - his most important character trait btw - draws people toward him while a bully actively seeks out confrontation. The bully barges into a room, the charismatic character gets you to barge into a room. Dio is the latter.)
Evil Incarnate’s almost self-explanatory - Dio’s literally called that in the series (邪悪の化身) - although I can talk more about this if you want. By contrast, his anti-hero role’s maybe less obvious … but that designation offers us a way of reconciling some of the stuff listed under Mamet’s 'Evil incarnate’ that doesn’t work with how Dio’s written. Specifically, an Evil incarnate-type villain’s primary role in the narrative is usually as an obstacle to the hero’s journey, ie, as an antagonist. imo, Dio functions instead primarily as a parallel protagonist.
(I’ve written about this before but) Araki’s said this a lot: Dio joins Jonathan as a dual protagonist in Phantom Blood, and Dio’s own story follows a Hero’s rising arc.
(Was surprised I didn’t notice this until I hunted a gif for this reply: while the Part 1 OP features both main characters throughout, it’s Dio alone who’s given a special manga panel mini-montage during its bridge, emphasizing his hero-style arc.)
In a lot of ways Dio’s more fleshed out than the actual hero since Araki had already worked out the specifics of his personality in a prior series (whereas Jonathan was vaguer to Araki, even as Part 1 was being published: “just as Jonathan was unsure how to live his life, I was unsure as to where to take his character.”) Phantom Blood starts off with Dio’s introduction, not Jonathan’s. As Araki puts it,
The title of the series is Jojo’s Bizarre Adventure, but first and foremost, I actually wanted to draw Dio.
The hero’s introduction is inserted within Dio’s introduction, as a story-within-a-story recalled in a flashback by Dio’s dad. We don’t get to meet Jonathan on his own terms until the next chapter, and, because of this ordering, if you read Part 1 cold you could start off thinking it’s Dio who’s going to be the hero. Dio’s story’s a riff on your stereotypical rags-to-riches tale but with the obvious twist that he’s written as unapologetically Evil. Like the rags-to-riches protag, Dio’s faced with increasingly difficult setbacks and challenges throughout his story’s progress, and, in spite of these, he keeps moving forward. Araki, again:
Dio moves in a rising direction, like Jonathan. Dio accepts and embraces his evil nature and follows his dark path without hesitation. In other words, both Dio and Jonathan are living life with everything they’ve got, and both always maintain a rising personal arc.
In other words, Dio has his own upward rising arc by design and it’s independent of the hero’s. ofc his interactions with the Joestars throughout the series are significant and their back-and-forths drive the larger story, but the trajectory of Dio’s arc remains largely the same throughout all this.
If you see Dio as a protagonist then you also recognize that Jonathan’s (and later Jotaro and company’s) relentless pursuit (yes, they pursue him, because charisma is a gravitational force) provides the antagonistic force to Dio’s arc. (And going back to the Araki quote, that “without hesitation part” is really important - Dio’s willful embrace of his Evil nature and the intentionality of his actions throughout Part 1 again align him with a heroic type: it’s a positive character trait, just in Dio’s case it’s executed wrongly.)
So call Dio an anti-hero or, if it makes you more comfortable, a Villain who thinks he’s the Hero in the story. This isn’t a unique situation (and probably as you’re reading this you might be thinking, well all villains have their own story arc too) but imo Araki writing Dio with this specific perspective and intent sets him apart from what we think of as the more generic model of a villain, whose role within the narrative is secondary to the hero’s and whose arc is cleanly set up as in opposition to that hero.
Ofc, a villainous anti-hero is by nature appealing because we know we really shouldn’t root for him. We should hate him … but we still sort of love him, especially when, because of that rising story arc that Araki gave him, he keeps coming back after stupidly impossible odds. Usually when you get decapitated you lose but Dio’s not like that, and there’s something compelling about a character who repeatedly breaks the narrative flow by improv-ing his way through impossible situations.
tl;dr, basically if you’re looking to characterize what 'type’ of villain Dio is (and why he’s attractive), Dio is Evil personified fused with the inconvenient fact of his also being more or less protagonist-identified. Araki wrote Dio with a hero in mind, and that fact keeps him interesting on his own terms and places him in the contrarian posture of a particularly reprehensible anti-hero.
