I have another story I’m trying to map, and wondering a few things. In the story, a teen girl whose parents have died in an accident goes to live with her Aunt and cousin. The girl, Karen, is shy and avoids trouble; her cousin, Jennifer, is selfish and stuck up, and resents having to share her home with Karen. The aunt is divorced, and a control freak. Makes for tense living arrangements, to say the least. I’ve mapped the OS to Situation, OS Concern The Future (will they be able to live together peacably); MC Manipulation/Way of Thinking; SS Fixed Attitude, IC Activity (Jennifer likes to get people into trouble). The Goal is The Future (living together in peace). At the end of the story, Jennifer the IC changes from Selfish (Self-Interest) to caring about all of the family, including her cousin; Karen changes from Avoiding things to Not avoiding them; Aunt is still a control freak, but her attitude changes from hard-hearted to more understanding.
Given that they all change somewhat, and they do live peacefully after all the in between fights, I’m concerned about Steadfast vs Change, since both MC Karen and IC Jennifer change. The aunt is more of the “you two stop fighting, I’m trying to relax” element, not really an Impact character. How should I handle this?
Hi @lazyhero
I just read your post. I’d like to give my impression on the issue.
From my understanding of the theory, the IC is a perspective that is fundamentally different from that of the MC. It’s essentially a different worldview from the MC. Hence the location of either in the presentation of the theory. They’re diametrically opposed.
This helps to clarify the relationship of each perspective in the subjective space of your story. Each could be represented by a person , force or any other being/thing that challenges the worldview of the MC.
As with life, there are no absolutes. The theory can allow for both changed perspectives. But there will be a weakness in the underlying argument of your story. So if you wish your story to offer up a solid argument about which worldview is better in the scheme of things, then one perspective NEEDS to be steadfast. The audience/reader will see through whichever resolve the MC has. This will help them compare (consciously or subconsciously) the right way to view the world after the inequity of the story has been dealt with.
If you still insist on having them both as changed characters, then you might not end up crafting a grand argument story in the Dramatica sense.
The work might still be amazing, but something might seem off to the audience/reader. Just my humble opinion of course.
Hope this helps.
Lazyhero, I think at least some of what you’re describing would be called “change” in traditional non-Dramatica language, but doesn’t refer to a Dramatica Change character. For instance:[quote=“lazyhero, post:1, topic:2174”]
Jennifer the IC changes from Selfish (Self-Interest) to caring about all of the family
[/quote]
This doesn’t refer to what Dramatica calls Change. This would be part of a thematic argument that Morality (pitting others first) is better than Self-Interest. Jennifer can stay Steadfast or Change within the context of that thematic exploration.
And then there’s this:
In Dramatica terms, not avoiding isn’t the same as Pursuit. For an Avoid character, change wouldn’t look like “I always hide from danger, but this time I’m not going to hide from the killer.” It should be more like “I always hide from danger, but this time I’m going take a gun and go after the killer myself.”
So you can have this character take a more Pursuit-driven solution to their problem, or you can have them remain Steadfast in Avoid as they Grow from Disbelief to Faith (or vice versa).
For your OS characters:[quote=“lazyhero, post:1, topic:2174”]
Aunt is still a control freak, but her attitude changes from hard-hearted to more understanding.
[/quote]
This sounds like it could be the Goal of “living together in peace” is achieved rather than the aunt changing her character drive. You even say that she is still a control freak.
Overall Story Throughline of Psychology and probably a Concern of Conceptualizing or Becoming.
It’s not “will they be able to live together peaceably”? It’s not the character’s concern, it’s what the Author is positioning as the Concern.
You have a bunch of incompatible psychologies, that eventually come towards a resolution.
The MC or the IC likely Change on a completely different issue.
The context of the meaning of a “Change” character is the Dramatica dynamic of character Resolve. Main Character Resolve concerns whether the character sticks with her personal paradigm – or way of dealing with her personal problems – or adopts the paradigm of the influencing character.
Another type of change is the character MC Growth, the type of adjustments and adaptations required to counter the increasing pressure(s) encountered by the main character in her efforts to address mounting and evolving conflicts with regards to her personal issues.
And then there are the changes that naturally occur as a story develops. Characters affect and are affected by evolving complications, and while they may not reshape their core personalities, they can result in adjustments to their approach to addressing conflict(s).
So, when we use the shorthand phrase “Change Character”, it exclusively refers to a subjective character’s Resolve, and within that context not all characters change.
I like to think of the Steadfast character as growing into themselves rather than changing.
It sounds to me as if Jennifer is the Change character, as she moves from liking to cause trouble (Self-interest?) to caring about the family (Morality). Karen, however, has been the Morality person the entire time, and grows from avoiding Jennifer’s antics to perhaps standing up to her. If this is the conflict you want to show, you could have a scene where Karen lambasts Jennifer for not caring about the family, urging her to change her ways.
So in this example (which may or may not be what you want to do), Karen grows into her conviction that taking care of each other is the way to go instead of causing trouble. But she doesn’t change her underlying conviction - instead she helps Jennifer change hers. Does that make sense?
Thanks everyone for the feedback! 
I appreciate it. When I look at the story, each character changes in a particular way to some degree, but no, there is no pro and con on any one specific issue/theme, and so no IC/MC to argue sides of that theme. So that’s why it felt weird trying to call one of them an impact character, there isn’t one.
I think I’m done with Dramatica theory then. It obviously works for some people, no finger pointing or complaining. It just doesn’t click with me like I hoped it would.
Again, thank you for caring to read my questions and give me your feedback. That’s worth a great deal.
I don’t know that it just clicks with anyone. Take some time, mull it over, then come back to it. It’ll be worth another look after you’ve had some time to let some of it sink in.