Any tips on how to prevent telegraphing who will change (MC or IC)?

writing
#1

In some stories, it’s sometimes easy for me to tell who will have a resolve of change long before the change occurs. I’m interested in brainstorming how to prevent the viewer from predicting who will change. The only 4 things I can think of are:

  1. Give them each a clear personal problem. I wager a relatively angst-free character ain’t gonna change (unless it’s a descent into the dark side like Amadeus, Nightcrawler).

  2. Beware of telegraphing via minutes spent on backstory. That is, if you provide hefty backstory for one, then also provide it for the other. I wager that the character with the only hefty backstory will change. After 5 minutes of Lego Batman backstory (and 20 seconds for Robin), guess what, Lego Batman is changing at the end. Searching for Bobby Fischer has several minutes of backstory for the mentor (and much less for the kid–he wants to satisfy his dad), guess what, the mentor is changing at the end.

  3. Make sure each of their perspectives is challenged by the other character. I wager a character who doesn’t have their perspective challenged by their MC/IC counterpart ain’t gonna change. No clear challenge is given by George McFly to Marty McFly regarding anything in Marty’s outlook or behavior. Sure, the principal logically criticizes Marty for being a slacker, but this is a single scene and doesn’t come from George.

  4. The “feel good, commercial appeal” of the change. If a character is currently sitting on an “unpleasant” perspective, then guess what, they’re changing at the end. Exceptions prove the rule. The IC change in Nightcrawler is so surprising because it’s so dark. The telegraphed change is for the MC to change (at least a little) by seeing the error of his ways–probably by being caught or killed.

Thoughts?

1 Like
#2

From a structural standpoint I would suggest obscuring the storyform as long as possible.

As soon as they know the storyform they already know how it’s going to turn out…

2 Likes
#3

Could you flush out other characters, i.e. contagonist, skeptic, etc. who are not the IC? Perhaps, scenes emphasizing their player dynamics with the MC that would not give away the storyform could act like a misdirect and entertain at the same time? Is that possible?

2 Likes
#4

I would think Andy Dufresne in The Shawshank Redemption had way more backstory. He’s also the Steadfast IC. Not saying your point doesn’t hold up in most cases, but I think you could do all of these for the “wrong” character to hide who will change.

This pretty much falls under what Jim said about obscuring the storyform, but you could set up a classic “this character is going to change” scenario and then change the other character instead.

And this is a bit different, but instead of hiding which character changes, you could have the change character do something completely crazy. This is a terrible example, but imagine Star Wars if Luke had not trusted the Force, but instead put his trust in Darth Vader. I don’t know what that story would have looked like, but it would sure be unexpected.

2 Likes
#5

Hmm. That point about Andy Dufresne makes an interesting point. One thing you can do to make the change seem less obvious is push a Steadfast character to the brink (or conversely, drive the Change character as far from changing as possible). We may have an inkling that the story is about the Steadfast character remaining Steadfast, but in that moment when everything has broken around them, there may be a hint of doubt within us. Similarly, a Change character can climactically burn all their bridges and refuse any progress, and for a second, we might actually believe them. This is a little cheesy, true, but it can be done well.

Another option is to do the “back-and-forth.” For example, a Steadfast character might go most of the way to change early in the story, then climactically realize the error of their ways and go back to the way they were. A Change character might change at the start, temporarily go back to the way they were before, then climactically change for good. A Steadfast character might change, then revert, then change again, then finally go back to normal. Or… you get the picture. :stuck_out_tongue: Do this right, and at the moment of truth, it won’t be obvious which way the character is going to fall. How convincing was that change before? At the moment of truth, are they willing to stick with the path they’d chosen before? As they say, it ain’t over 'til the Limit runs out. :wink:

I think, by the end of Act I-ish, it’ll be clear to the audience what your message is. The question the audience will struggle with is: will the characters follow through with your message and reach a Good ending, or will it all end in Tragedy?

2 Likes
#6

@actingpower 's response reminds me that in the story that @jhull helped me with, for a long time while I was developing it I actually didn’t know whether the MC was Change or Steadfast. All I knew was that if she Changed, that would be Bad for her, but might bring about Success. While if she remained Steadfast that would be Good, but would definitely lead to Failure. So all my trial storyform files have names like SteadfastGood1 and ChangeBad3.

I could see what happened to bring about this climax, but not which choice she made at the “moment of truth”. Of course, the question of the IC’s Change was tied up in this same moment too. (I don’t think I ever told Jim this, as I’d figured out the MC was Steadfast before starting his Dramatica mentoring.)

You might consider developing your story without fixing that choice in your head for a while. That way, when you settle on a storyform, you’ll still remember the reasons the MC might have gone the other way, making it easier to keep the audience guessing. Some of it will be storytelling, but you’ll likely find that the forces pushing the MC the other way fit naturally into your storyform also.
For example, in my story – because Failure was so tied into the MC’s remaining Steadfast – the MC Unique Ability of Openness showed her willingness to consider the IC’s terrible control (wavering toward MC Solution: Control). While the Critical Flaw of Self Interest represented why she ultimately stuck with her drive to be free.

1 Like
#7

Another thought, here: Be sure to catch the movie The Accountant, if you haven’t seen it yet. SPOILER ALERT: The MC/IC reveal and dynamics at the last part of the movie was pure genius. I wouldn’t be surprised if the writer didn’t use Dramatica, being it was so together. That part of the storyform was hidden, for the most part, until the last few minutes. The OS was entertaining and appeared to be what the movie was all about. I had to watch the ending many times to catch for sure that the IC took control of the OS from the beginning, etc. Each viewing was more fun, btw. In fact, I have to think about who changed, MC or IC, even now, so it might give you some clues how to do it with few reveals.

#8

What does this mean? Do you think ICs typically take control of the OS?

#9

The only real answer here is “stakes”.

2 Likes
#10

Haha…no meaning, just action in that it was such a fantastic, interesting, yet dense scene I had to scrutinize each word to reaffirm what had actually happened in the story on the part of the IC, and I the audience and MC were just finding out about it. I thought the ‘hidden’ aspect might be of interest, since mc/ic is usually so in one’s face. It was such clever writing, I just had to share, thinking maybe it would help the original poster of this thread with his desired mc/ic/audience dynamics. (On the phone w/no scrolling around here, but lots of time on the train) I don’t know what is a usual pattern on the part of the IC and OS. It’s something to think about, though.

#11

I suspect you may have the wrong person in mind when you think about the IC.

#12

Could be. I decided it was the two bros at the end, so maybe it was 2 storyfoems going on. It was still clever and maybe worth mulling over.

#13

Remains of the Day left one waiting, without figuring it out, automatically. That could be a choice thing, flip flopping on expectations of the romance genre through the show and at the end. That could be a way…purposefully go against genre expectations through the story. Also, Memento and Reindeer Games did a misdirect. Would that be obscuring the storyform?

1 Like
#14

OK… it’s taken 3 days for this to sink in. Can you elaborate by giving some movie examples on this? This option sounds fascinating.

#15

I think Storyweaving can be one way to do this. Implementing mystery can also be used, like in Zootopia.

1 Like
#16

The Prestige hides the IC Domain for a super long time.

1 Like