Is it possible for a Main Character to really be a Do-er (e.g, have a Concern of Understanding) while feeling to the audience like a Be-er?
And, if so, are there any examples of a character like this?
It’s a weird question, tbh. The difference b/n a Do-er and a Be-er are pretty stark. If you imagine the MC as a key and the problem as a lock, then a Do-er changes the lock, and a Be-er changes the key. This isn’t something you can really obscure.
That being said, here are some things that might get you close:
- Have a Start story, as opposed to a Stop story. In a Start story, the OS Throughline and the MC Throughline are in disparate Domains vis a vis internal or external. So for example, if the OS is in Situation, then the MC is in Psychology. In this case, the Main Character as Objective character would feel more Do-er-y, but as a Main Character, they would feel more Be-er-y.
- Make the MC Unwilling; that is, make their Approach (Do-er/Be-er) different from the Story Driver (Action/Decision). Do-ers like taking action, whereas Be-ers like making decisions. In the version that matches, they’re instigators, always pushing the plot forward; but in the version where they don’t match, they’re always reacting to the Driver, always on the back foot. At the very least, this will make the story feel like Doing things drives the story forward, even if the Main Character primarily grows and changes through Being.
10 Likes
I’m wondering if you have a specific example or if this is just a theoretical question, and if you ask about Understanding specifically because of how understanding seems like something that would take place within the mind (e.g., to understand, you need to “wrap your mind around it”).
Here is a two-part replay:
@Gregolas, It was spawned from my current WIP, but I am very much a person who indulges in theory. Thus, the question, as posed, was meant to be theoretical. In it, I specifically mention Understanding due to the WIP background, but I spent the same amount of time considering each Type in the Physics Class before posting. I haven’t thought about the Universe class, yet.
Now, for my current WIP, I think @actingpower was right on the money. Thank you!
You’re welcome! Err… which one? I mentioned two concepts. Just for clarity’s sake, of course. 
The main place I notice the cross-over occur is when the Unwilling tendancy (Be-er/Action or Do-er/Decision) or in a Start story because then they have OS responsibilities to take that may be related to te OS, but not as the MC that are opposite to their approach. But, as soon as you focus on personal problems, all is clear. @actingpower - I love the Lock and key metsphor!
2 Likes
Turns out it was actually both, and I got those correct for my story up front. Interestingly, what I had wrong was that my MC is Steadfast, and I was amazingly blinded to that. (More poetically: I was staring into the deepest depths of a black wall and claimed I was looking through glass.)
Anyway, thanks again. (Sorry for the late reply! I didn’t know how to answer previously.)
4 Likes
The lock and key example is excellent and made me stumble over a problem I have when defining do-er or be-er. Reading it my first thought was: well in any case they have to change the key and the lock as changing one only solves one part of the problem!
But I guess the idea is that the Do-er will see the lock/situation/action as the problem, while the be-er will see the key/attitude/thinking process as the issue at hand, right? And an intuitive PS-style MC will see that both need to be changed but as a be-er his primary concern might be that the wrong person has a key/access and as a do-er his primary concern might be that his apartment isn’t safe. A linear thinker and do-er would say my apartment isn’t safe I need a new lock and in the process realise he needs a new key as well and a linear be-er will think Person X could just enter/be in my apartment at any time I need to change the key so he can’t enter and in the process will realise that he needs a new lock as well. I guess my major problem is that I always see the interconnections and can’t extract what the primary/dominant aspect is, they all seem to have the same importance.
I’m having a hard time encoding my MC’s do-er approach, because to me she feels like a be-er but in order to get all the other dynamics and issues I want in my story she needs to be a do-er. While mulling over this be-er vs. do-er aspect I stumbled across this post Be-ers, and Be-ing (adapting oneself) by Do-ing
It got me thinking, if someone does things to become something else it is acting in the external environment to change an internal state. Does that make the person primarily a do-er or a be-er? For example doing a bunch of courses to get a job is clearly a do-er approach to me. Being a good listener because you want your friends to like you is a be-er approach. Doing your friends favours because you want them to like you is a do-er approach? Does the approach really just boil down to which verb (do vs. be) I can use to describe the ways the MC meets his problems? And I need to stop considering the goal/effect of that approach?
Also, if at the end of the story a do-er MC changes his environment, e.g. leaves the city to live alone on a mountain top, because he has become aware of what he needs in life and who he really is, is he still a do-er? Or is he a be-er because he has managed to change/accept his internal world and has reached a point where he can actually be alone? Would this exemplify how a do-er has changed or is he actually steadfast because he still changes his external environment to solve his problem?
I guess I’m probably worrying too much about theory minutia so I guess what’s really important to me is: how clear does the MC’s approach have to be to the audience? I’m guessing consistency is the key here but will it be more difficult for them to appreciate the MC if his general approach tends blend being and doing? Or are my ideas actually quite clear and the problem is my own way of thinking and obscuring things?
1 Like
…heh. The “lock and key” metaphor isn’t the best; I apologize if it’s confused you. 
Perhaps the best way to think of it is to think of Actions and Decisions. Do-er characters prefer Actions, and Be-er characters prefer Decisions. Remember also that Do-ers and Be-ers see their personal problems as entirely different things. For example, say the MC has cancer. To a Do-er, this is a Universe problem, because their physical body is now in danger of swallowing them. But to a Be-er, the problem isn’t the cancer, but their fear of death. Sickness, injury, cancer–these things come and go. To a Be-er, their need isn’t to cure their cancer, but to change their mentality until they can face death with a smile.
As to your question. This is kind of the thing, isn’t it? 
You have to do things to change the internal, and you have to be a certain way to change the external. You have to be careful with the words, because they mean a specific thing in Dramatica terminology. So for example, doing favors for your friends to make them like you better is actually an Internal, Be-ing action, not Doing; specifically, it’s about Playing the Role of a good friend, which is under Manipulation/Psychology/Ways of Thinking. Yes, it’s about affecting someone other than yourself, but it’s about affecting their minds, their internal selves.
Have you ever heard of the game Psychonauts? The important bit is that basically, the characters can step into the brains of other people, and their emotions and hang-ups are depicted as real, physical objects. When you write a throughline with an Internal Domain, imagine that the story is literally taking place in a world like that. Imagine the roles people play, or their beliefs, or their fundamental natures, as mental objects, and the conflict of that throughline is about the characters interacting with those objects. Zootopia has an OS of Mind–imagine the stereotypes of carnivores as a big hulking psychic monster, and each of the characters do their part to either defang or strengthen the monster. Nick Carraway’s MC Domain in The Great Gatsby, on the other hand, is in Psychology–specifically, Becoming. For this one, we need to imagine Nick’s self-image as a big old Jenga tower, and the story is about him plucking out those pieces one by one.
So in your “leaving the city” example, it depends on what the problem is. If his problem is in Universe (for example, moving out to the Radio Quiet Zone so he stops getting headaches), then what he’s doing is an external action to affect the external world. But if his problem is in Mind (for example, moving out to a log cabin to weaken his love of earthly pleasures), then he’s performing an internal action to affect the internal world. The point in the second example is not that he’s changed physical location, but that he’s cutting off the source of his desires.
…I have no idea if I’m making any sense here, or if I’m just coming up with silly illustrations now. 
2 Likes
Hey 
thanks a lot for your patience in trying to explain things to me! I think what your saying makes sense but I’m not sure if I really got it.
But I think I’m clearer on why do-er = external domains and be-er = internal
I’ll spend this week letting it run through my mind and probably be back for an encore next weekend 
Oh but I do have one question before logging off:
Does a change MC need to have a different approach at the end of the story? Or do the problem and solution elements account for this (required) shift from external to internal approach?
Ok 2 but noone’s counting, right? 
1 Like
I’m not entirely sure, tbh. I think it’s kind of inevitable, in a sense–when the MC finally decides to attack the problem the way the IC would do it, they end up taking the same Approach the IC would. So Luke can only save the day by meditating and letting go, just like Ben would; Neo can only become the One by internally accepting his destiny, just like Morpheus has; and Red can only earn his freedom by taking a stand against his captors, just like Andy did.
2 Likes
Do-ers are doers and Be-ers are be-ers by definition. However, people often mistakenly confuse Do-ers with assertiveness, and Be-ers with passiveness. You may have assertive Do-ers and passive Do-ers. You may have assertive Be-ers (Hamlet) and passive Be-ers.
ALSO, the same character in another context (story) may prefer the opposite approach. A do-er in one story may be in be-er in another, and vice versa. This is useful for series and multi-story novels.
5 Likes
Just came across this thread, and I think part of the problem is confusing or solely mating do-er/be-er with holistic/logical.
You can have Holistic Do-ers and Logical Be-ers, and sometimes those are really interesting characters.
How I look at it as far as Do-er vs Be-er: when something happens, what is their first impulse?
If it’s to jump into action then figure it out as they go along, they’re a Do-er.
If it’s to figure it out then act, they’re a Be-er.
Sometimes I consider what they value most: external action or who they are as a person, but I’m not sure if that’s the right way to look at it.
1 Like
Do-er vs. Be-er has been a blind spot for me. Lately I’m finding it easier to understand in conjunction with the Domains. So if you know the OS is Psychology, then the question is whether the MC is a Mind/Be-er or Universe/Do-er.
So watching the second season of Jessica Jones, Jessica struck me as being a quintessential Mind character – big issues with Preconscious (numbing herself with alcohol, rage) and Memories. But she’s definitely also a linear thinker and certainly not passive. But when the problems of her past threaten to catch up with her, her response over and over again is to repress, deny and refuse to address them. (Unless of course I’m wrong, which I could be!)
2 Likes
Only seen a few episodes but this feels right.
1 Like
I think this show illustrates the difference between what the MC prefers to do (Be-er), but what the OS requires (of the protagonist et al) to move the story forward (Action).
2 Likes
[quote=“Niandra, post:10, topic:1502”]
Does a change MC need to have a different approach at the end of the story?[/quote]
I’m going to stick my neck out and say the answer is a definitive yes. The changed MC is actually changing domains, crossing over to the IC’s domain, and since this is always a move from external to internal, or vice versa, it includes a change in MC Approach.
And, like @chuntley said, this only pertains to this story, to this particular set of problems or circumstances.
Consider Luke Skywalker. After destroying the Death Star using the Force, he now knows what to do. If he had to do it again, he’d no longer feel that need to Test himself or his position by bragging about shooting wamp rats back home. He’d just Trust himself and the Force and go out and do it. For this particular problem, he’s no longer in a Situation with a Problem of Test, rather he embodies Trust under Fixed Attitude.
Edit: I accidentally wrote Problem-solving Style instead of Approach. It’s now corrected.
If by “approach” you mean MC Approach, the answer is a qualified yes. Change main characters adopt the solution element, which is what defines the change. However, at a macro scale they also adopt the perspective of the IC, and because the MC and IC are in a dynamic relationship domain-wise, the implication is that change MC’s adopt the IC’s domain, which resides in its dynamic opposite domain. Since this happens at the end of the story, there is not much time for this to be explored and need not be carried forward into another story if the context of the new story is not similar to the original story.
For clarification, this is why a recurring character in a series that may go through a fundamental change at some point in the series does not need to be constantly changing or changed unless the story tracks back to that MC’s personal issue.
1 Like
So does this mean what defines the be-er from the do-er is not what they “do” but rather why they do it?
For example, Billy moves to a new school where he starts getting violently bullied. One of the other kids tells him, “that’s just the way it is here. Either you’re tough enough to fight back, or you’ll just get hurt all the time.” After considering all the other possibilities, Billy ends up registering at a self-defence school.
So is Billy a “do-er” because he’s going to learn to fight the bullies? Or is he a “be-er” because he figures he has to adapt himself to this new environment where being violent is the way things are? Or can he be either, so long as there’s some token thought of “I’d rather just find a way to avoid the problem, but clearly I can’t, so I’ll have to learn to fight”?
1 Like
No. Do-ers prefer to resolve personal problems externally by changing the world around them to remove inequities with themselves [sic]. Be-ers prefer to resolve personal problems internally by changing themselves to remove the inequity with the world around them.