Does a change main character's "flipped" perspective need to match the influence character's perspective?

[Lakis]

Every time I think I start to understand this Dramatica stuff…

Okay so I get the analogy of an argument. The main character either stays steadfast to his/her worldview and changes the IC; or the MC “flips” and adopts the IC point of view.

But there are lots of examples where the MC is influenced to change by the IC, but you can’t really say they’ve adopted the IC’s POV. Two examples that come to mind are The Graduate and The Godfather. Yeah, Ben changes as a result of Mrs. Robinson’s influence, but he doesn’t take on her point of view, he runs away with her daughter! I guess I could see this as a kind of unconscious “don’t become like me” perspective, not actually the “point of view” of the character. (Is that the right way to look at it?)

The Godfather is even more confusing. Michael certainly changes (for the worse) in The Godfather but in this case it seems to be in spite of, not because of Kaye’s influence. Her perspective “loses” the argument. You could suggest (as I think someone did on a previous discussion somewhere) that the Dramatica storyform is wrong, that she’s not actually the influence character, but that’s pretty unsatisfying; it’s been a while since I watched the film, but I don’t see how she could be anything but an influence character.

Not that I really care so much about those specific stories – I’m more concerned with how to approach this “argument” between MC and IC practically as a writer. This matters because my first instinct when encoding seems to be to create a literal “argument” (like two people would have) which one of the two characters “wins” – which seems a little trite and obvious (and unconvincing).

[mlucas]

Great question!

I would say it’s not so much the perspective of the character that gets adopted, but more, the perspective represented by the Throughline and its story points. Sometimes this perspective is easy to see within the IC character, but sometimes it’s not really attached to the character, just to their influence.

The easiest way to see the “flipped” perspective is to look at the Do-er vs. Be-er and maybe Domain.

[Greg]

I had the same question for a while. The conclusion I came to was that the characters don’t have to agree on a single issue within the realm of the story, just within the Story Mind. The Story Mind isn’t interested, after all, in the MCs problematic pursuit of the truth, say, but whether continuing to pursue would solve problems or keep leading to them. And since it’s looking at two different perspectives with two different sets of lenses, it’s not always going to look like the characters are involved in or agreeing on the same thing.

[Lakis]

@mlucas

Sometimes this perspective is easy to see within the IC character, but sometimes it’s not really attached to the character, just to their influence.

The easiest way to see the “flipped” perspective is to look at the Do-er vs. Be-er and maybe Domain.

I can see this in the Graduate example – a be-er stuck in a psychology/manipulation throughline is thrown by the IC’s physics/activities and gradually adopts that approach.

Not sure I quite get it for the Godfather though. Kaye is fixed attitude I think. So Michael adopts a fixed attitude and becomes a Mafia Don? (Ironic – actually, now that I think about it, that seems like a nice dramatic irony). But even if I can justify it in the model, I can’t quite reverse engineer it … I don’t see how you would ever come up with that story using Dramatica.

@Gregolas

I had the same question for a while.

Glad to hear that.

@Gregolas

The Story Mind isn’t interested, after all, in the MCs problematic pursuit of the truth, say, but whether continuing to pursue would solve problems or keep leading to them

This makes sense… I think? I’m still not sure I totally grok the storymind idea. Even if I could see it from the outside in a finished story, it feels like I can’t help but see it from the inside as I’m writing. I guess the question comes back to how as a writer you’re supposed to use Dramatica to generate the variety of dramatic situations you want if you’re always thinking “if MC argues x, that means IC argues y”. To attempt to answer my own question – maybe if you just address encoding on a point-by-point basis you can trust the model (with the help of the gists) assuming that its going to work because you’re know you’ve covered the bases as long as you don’t limit yourself to a too-literal understanding of the “argument” between the MC and IC. Does that sound right?

Thanks @mlucas and @Gregolas.

[Greg]

@Lakis

This makes sense… I think?

The Story Mind is looking at elements, the relationships between them, how to balance them. The Story Mind perspectives will need to be on the same path at the end of the story element-wise. The characters within the story that embody these perspectives will not necessarily need to be in agreement on a single issue because it’s the Story Mind elements that need to line up, not the character arguments.

The characters aren’t always arguing in the sense of having a debate about which way is the better way to handle the problem. It’s more that their two approaches are being compared.

Without looking at Dramatica elements, say you have a bomb technician driven to focus on problems until they go away. Then you have an influence character that encounters a problem and goes out to party, or drink, or change the subject, or whatever. At some point in the story the bomb technician is up against a bomb that’s about to go off and he still doesn’t know how to stop it. The IC’s avoidance of problems influences the bomb technician to give up and run away just before the bomb goes off. Again, that example wasn’t looking at any specific elements, but we’ll assume they line up in Dramatica so that one is a proper Changed MC and the other a proper steadfast IC. The IC doesn’t care anything about whether the MC runs from bombs and the MC doesn’t care anything about whether the IC parties and drinks. So they don’t come to an agreement on an in-story issue. But the perspectives they represent within the Story Mind do come to an agreement on how to resolve problems.

At least, that’s how I see it. Is that helpful?

[Greg]

One more example, i think this one may be closer to what you were asking about in the original post.

Again, without looking at Dramatica elements, which i know is probably a dangerous way to give examples, let’s say you have two characters who are seeking treasure. The steadfast IC character is a cruel and ruthless pirate that kills and steals to get treasure. Influenced by what this IC character has become, the MC decides to give up treasure hunting and start a charity for the poor or something. The two characters can conceivably represent elements that now match up within the Story Mind argument even though they completely disagree within the story.

@Lakis

but in this case it seems to be in spite of, not because of…

I imagine the IC could be saying within the story “you need to be like me” and actually influence the MC to NOT be like the IC. I think that would be part of the negative/positive aspect of Dramatica where things can go either way.

I may be wrong with that line of thinking, but again, that’s how I understand it to work.

[mlucas]

@Lakis

To attempt to answer my own question – maybe if you just address encoding on a point-by-point basis you can trust the model (with the help of the gists) assuming that its going to work because you’re know you’ve covered the bases

YES! Exactly. This is the benefit of Dramatica.

@Lakis

as long as you don’t limit yourself to a too-literal understanding of the “argument” between the MC and IC.

Basically just throw the idea of an “argument” between MC and IC completely out the window. You could have one in your story if it feels right, but it’s not at all required by Dramatica.

[Lakis]

@Gregolas

I imagine the IC could be saying within the story “you need to be like me” and actually influence the MC to NOT be like the IC. I think that would be part of the negative/positive aspect of Dramatica where things can go either way.

Aha! So this makes me think of Armando Saldanamora’s encoding advice to consider “reversing the appreciation” – it doesn’t matter if the IC is causing the MC to understand something, or creating misunderstandings – just that “understanding” is explored. On the one hand it make sense, and totally feels like it works when you’re doing it, but it still somehow feels weird. I guess that’s where you get back to the “just trust Dramatica” idea.

@mlucas

Basically just throw the idea of an “argument” between MC and IC completely out the window. You could have one in your story if it feels right, but it’s not at all required by Dramatica.

Okay cool. Thanks again to you both.

[jhull]

This:

@mlucas

I would say it’s not so much the perspective of the character that gets adopted, but more, the perspective represented by the Throughline and its story points.

It’s the Elements underneath - the Problem, Issue, and Concern that matter–not the particular story encoding of the Influence Character Throughline.

Which it looks like maybe you understand now…

@Lakis

So this makes me think of Armando Saldanamora’s encoding advice to consider “reversing the appreciation” – it doesn’t matter if the IC is causing the MC to understand something, or creating misunderstandings – just that “understanding” is explored.

Exactly.

[Lakis]

@jhull

Which it looks like maybe you understand now…

Yeah until three days from now when I’m trying to write and realize I don’t understand again lol

Thanks.

[Lakis]

Okay, sorry to keep this thread going but I suddenly had another thought/question as I was listening to @jhull’s analysis of Lego Batman, where there’s an IC “handoff”. In the classic “Christmas Carol” example handoff, all of the ghosts are essentially arguing the same thing: “change your ways.”

But what if you have a handoff from one IC character to another in which each is “arguing” the opposite side of the same concern? I probably shouldn’t use this example because I don’t know if this is right, but what if Kaye in the Godfather has a fixed attitude and is essentially saying “Michael don’t become a mob boss” but her fixed attitude IC perspective is handed off to Don Corleone who (maybe by dying) “argues” that Michael has no choice to become a mob boss. They both represent a Fixed Attitude approach (including the elements underneath - Innermost Desires, Dream, Hope etc.) as a way of solving the problem. By having the argument present itself in different players, you can tell a story in which Michael the character appears to be pulled in two directions and chooses the wrong one. But from a storymind perspective, the real flip is from his Situation “stack” to this other Fixed Attitude “stack” which with a story judgement of bad makes an argument that Fixed Attitude is not a great way to solve a problem in this context.

Does that make any sense?

[jhull]

I think either way he’s “flipping” to a Fixed Attitude, so the same argument holds up. It’s the Fixed Attitude bit that’s most important - not the StoryEncoding attached to it.

[Lakis]

Got it! From an encoding perspective, it’s two sides of the same “fixed attitude” coin.

It makes sense now!

Thanks.

[chuntley]

@Lakis

I’m more concerned with how to approach this “argument” between MC and IC practically as a writer.

Enter the MC and IC crucial elements.

While at the macro level the IC represents a huge paradigm shift by comparison to the MC – an internal approach v. an external approach, or vice versa – the crucial element provides the specific connective tissue at the element level. The MC Throughline and the IC throughline provide contrasts in perspective (“You and I are just alike,” “No, we’re nothing alike!”), the crucial elements provide direct, oppositional approaches within the OS.

If you wish to illustrate a direct conflict between the IC and MC, use the crucial elements. For example, in The Godfather, Michael represents logic, whereas his wife Kaye represents feeling. In The Graduate, Ben represents pursue while Mrs. Robinson represents avoid (prevent – “My daughter is off limits”).

[Lakis]

@chuntley

The MC Throughline and the IC throughline provide contrasts in perspective (“You and I are just alike,” “No, we’re nothing alike!”), the crucial elements provide direct, oppositional approaches within the OS.

I see … (maybe?). Restating to see if I understand, the IC/MC crucial element interactions create specific points of conflict that drive the overall plot – e.g. Ben pursues Elaine while Mrs. Robinson does whatever she can to thwart that pursuit. The broader throughlines, however, simply represent different approaches that the audience will subconsciously pick up on as long as they’re encoded properly. Is that right?

[chuntley]

Pretty much, yes. I think that about sums it up.