If most of my story is focused on an MC trying to overcome fear and my argument is “Stop avoiding your fears and you can feel satisfied with your life/self,” (and the narrative argument is assigned to OS, right?) what do I do with the other characters and OS? If other characters are having a problem with, say, MC flaking out of helping them (from fear of messing things up), isn’t that a problem of MC’s Activities, which means I can’t build a storyform using my argument since it’d be under Mind or Psychology? I know Commitment is in one of those, but it still sounds like a causing everyone trouble by not doing external stuff.
Would the other OS characters have to struggle with their own fears to make a fitting OS? That was my original idea, but wouldn’t that make the characters (esp the IC) pushing MC to face fears hypocrites?
I find it harder to care about the aspirations of non-subjective characters, so I don’t know which illustration ideas to eliminate or keep. I know the fear to be faced at the climax must have something to do with taking responsibility, and possibly facilitated by learning from a previous failure, but I don’t like any of my illustration ideas 100% to decide on.
Not exactly. I believe the way Jim Hull formulates narrative arguments in Subtext, which is the only place I ever actually see one laid out for a work, is by combining Growth, Judgment, Outcome and Problem. I might be missing something, but that should be pretty close.
Two of those items, Growth and Judgment, are related directly to the MC, and the others are OS. Though, Problem is shared by Changed MCs. So, it’s a mix.
The Main Character flaking out and causing problems for all the other characters isn’t really a MC throughline. The MC’s throughline is about what is causing problems for him, and how he goes about trying to resolve it. Whatever problems he’s causing for other people are in another throughline.
For example, in The Fugitive Richard Kimble (Harrison Ford) is an escaped convict trying to clear his name. All the stuff about clearing his name is the MC throughline. All the problems spiraling out from him being an escaped convict are in the OS. Kimble’s actions and the evidence he uncovers create problems in the mind of the Marshall tasked with capturing him, Gerrard (Tommy Lee Jones), as he comes to terms with why Kimble behaves so differently from a typical escaped convict, and those problems are in the IC throughline.
I’ll assume the OS Problem in your story is Avoid, and the MC is Changed. In the MC throughline Avoiding facing his fears can be what’s causing him problems without the OS being about facing your fears. What causes problems in the OS is avoiding or preventing… anything. It doesn’t matter what it is that’s being avoided, only that avoiding causes problems.
The Problem in OS and MC in Star Wars is Test. The Empire tests the limits of its tyranny. It destroys Alderaan because Dantooine is too far from civilization to make for an effective test demonstration. And so on. That’s the OS. The MC is about being a rube from the backwater of the Galaxy and feeling the problematic need to test yourself and your limits at every turn to show everyone you’re really a big deal despite your humble origins.
Maybe try picking an OS character and ask yourself how that character is driven by Avoid (which I believe is your OS Problem).
Another trick, since you’re more easily able to focus on the subjective characters, is take the IC character (whom I believe is Steadfast)… The IC Problem is not Avoid, so ask yourself how your IC character is driven by Avoid. Your answer to that would represent the IC player’s role in the OS, and thus, might shed light on what the OS is.
I also feel like your narrative argument isn’t complete (which is okay – I would never expect to understand a story’s narrative argument fully before writing it!). Why do I say that? Well, the second half “you can feel satisfied with your life/self” is really just saying Judgment Good; it’s not giving us anything specific to grab onto. This is where the OS would be represented (among other things). Something like “Stop avoiding your fears and you can become a successful actor like you always dreamed”. Or for Failure/Good: “Peace of mind awaits those who stop avoiding their fears, even if means learning you suck as an actor”.
You seem to enjoy working from the narrative argument first, so perhaps you can flesh it out a bit more to figure out the OS? (Or you could put the narrative argument aside for now and just think about what would make a cool story – you might surprise yourself!)
There’s not enough information here to say whether this is a Physics/Activity problem for the MC. If the MC Problem is Avoid and is illustrated by the MC flaking out, then this could be in any of the four throughlines. Also, I’d say there’s not enough info given to show that this is an MC problem and not, say, an OS problem where everyone is concerned with the MC player flaking out. You even word it by saying that others have a problem with the MC rather than that the MCs problem is causing conflict with others or something. That may be beside the point if you know this is an MC issue, but I point it out just to show that you can still potentially maneuver your storyform selections around if you want.
If the OS is in Mind (because of fears) and the MC is in Physics, then the ICs role is to influence the MC to change the way the MC approaches problems as Physics problems, not how the MC player approaches problems as Mind problems. The IC does this not necessarily by saying “stop approaching this as a Physics problem”, but more by saying “look at how I approach problems through Psychology”. So an IC might say to the MC “stop flaking out on people” or they might say “look at how driven to support others I am” which would then cause the MC to say to himself “IC has a good way of solving problems. I should support others as well. Instead of flaking out and avoiding them, I’m going to start pursuing ways to support them”.
As for everyone being hypocrites, maybe everyone’s concern is the MC players fear, not their own. If so, they can tell the MC player whatever they want without being hypocrites. Or if they are all avoiding fears and telling the MC to stop and are all hypocrites, so what? Maybe that will make for an interesting thematic argument.
Good point! I forgot I was going to comment on the hypocrite thing – I think it works really well if some or all of the OS characters are hypocritical. I mean, it’s almost guaranteed when you have a Problem that you don’t see as a Problem, and instead focus on something else and direct your efforts on something that’s not the solution, that you’re going to be hypocritical at some point.
Here’s an example off the top of my head. After spending the whole movie trying to find the damn Death Star plans – meaning, they must be important, must pose some threat, right? – at the critical moment Grand Moff Tarkin completely ignores their significance:
We have no Cause to evacuate; the Rebels will never Effect this battlestation, Tarkin is saying – despite knowing they have the all-important plans. He’s still driven to test his empire against the piddly rebels, but is blind to how that’s causing him problems, won’t trust his officer’s evaluation, and all this makes him a hypocrite.
(Now we just have to think of a hypocrite example that involves the MC player!)
That’s what I’ve got. [quote=“mlucas, post:3, topic:2076”]
the second half “you can feel satisfied with your life/self” is really just saying Judgment Good; it’s not giving us anything specific to grab onto.
[/quote]
I was trying to find a way to say something like “giving into fears leads to regretting lost opportunities” or that it makes fear worse, but formulate it in a more positive way since that sounds like Failure/Bad but I want my story to end in Good.
MC starts out with terrible regret from having avoided but is afraid to face pain and suffering. “Satisfied with life/self” sounded better than “whatever the opposite of regret is”. I’ve had a lot of ideas of what the message is, but have had difficulty keeping something short and consistent. Some stuff I have is about learning to trust inner strength to get through things, or learning from failure, or to realize one’s value instead of envying others, but that might be stuff like Requirements. The most consistent and important thing, though, is “you can’t avoid fear and the only way past it is to go through it (desensitization, learning confidence).”
MC wants to return to society to feel useful, loved, and not bored, but is that MC or OS Goal? I can’t say for certain if Stop Avoiding one’s fears leads to finding a place among other people, but I can say that trying, regardless of outcome, feels better (Closure?) than never knowing, and that avoiding fears will exacerbate them.
My best IC idea is that he wants fame (he keeps pushing MC to help him with stuff because MC gets attention whether he wants it or not) and acts all confident, but subconsciously wants to get his parents’ attention so they will talk to him first after having disowned him for dropping out of college to wander in an RV. So, if IC is pushing “face your fears” this whole time and the OS requires Success at facing fears, doesn’t IC have to swallow his pride and talk to his parents or else the message won’t work? I honestly don’t feel like dealing with IC’s parents too much (I suppose picking up a phone would be ok), though there’s something about that conflict I like as backstory.
That sounds a lot like one half of one of Jim’s statements for Failure/Good stories.
I was thinking, if MC was traumatized by a past failure, does the climax have to be a repeat of the same kind of situation? Like someone who’d choked during a performance would have to perform again, or someone who accidentally gave everyone food poisoning after cooking dinner would have to cook again, or is that too on the nose?
I have ideas that I like for backstory or maybe climax, but I wouldn’t want to make the whole story about being too afraid to cook something or whatever.
I believe this is called a bookend, and I see no reason it has to be done. Like you could have an opening scene where someone is scared to kill a spider, but an end scene where they’re not afraid to confront the bad guy. Thats kind of the same, but doesn’t give the same scene twice
Great idea! Another one with a small OS is the first Twilight movie, which, believe it or not, I’m convinced has a complete storyform. It’s probably 10% OS, 35% RS, 30% IC, 25% MC.
So would mine be something like: “The story of how anxiety tortures MC” or more like “How confronting fears teaches MC courage”?
@jhull I wonder if Subtext could eventually include some kind of rating of which throughline is most emphasized in each movie if there isn’t something like that already.
When you talk about MC approaching problems as Physics problems, do you mean all problems or just personal problems? Maybe OS should be Psychology if the other characters want to change MC from a terrified hermit to a functional member of society. I can see RS as Physics since they disagree on how to best do things and they might ruin each other’s plans by MC hiding, or IC dragging MC into an intimidating Activity. I thought that MC might be Mind since he has an anxiety disorder and bad memories of past failure… but trying to avoid facing them sounds like Physics. If MC was Mind, I don’t know what to do with IC in Universe. Does any of this sound wrong or right?
I guess it’s either:
OS = Psychology (transforming MC’s nature), RS = Physics (working, recreation), MC = Mind (anxiety disorder, memories of past failure), IC = Situation (???)
OS = Mind (fear vs desire, anxiety disorder), RS = Situation (dependency?), MC = Activities (tries to handle fear by hiding), IC = Psychology (challenging MC’s assumptions)
To use your crippling fear / anxiety example, that would be the MC’s emotional wound/flaw that the external series of OS plot events really triggers. Will the MC overcome this wound / flaw in order to accomplish the OS goal? How will the IC confront the MC to change or remain steadfast? The Puglisi / Ackerman emotional wound thesaurus series helps me come up with the emotional wound and corresponding situations, positive / negative traits, etc quickly, so Dramatica storyforming becomes straightforward and quick. They also operate the One Stop for Writers site fwiw.
I mean all MC problems. When I said that, I was pointing out that your IC role isn’t to change your MCs fear problem if the OS problem is fear. Your IC player can certainly discuss fear problems with the MC player, but the scenes where that happens are probably OS scenes. But your IC isn’t working to change the OS perspective, just the MC perspective.
If OS should be about changing the MC, then the IC is protagonist.
I’m wondering if avoiding fears is just part of story structure for a Change character and I’m mistaking the Elements for it and Avoid isn’t the right one.
The Goal could be like love and happiness (Mind) and MC must overcome anxiety (I’d say Mind again since it’s a mental illness and negative beliefs, but since I can’t use it twice and the problem is that avoidance perpetuates the cycle, that’d be Psychology) to get that belonging, confidence, etc, and IC tries to make MC see the merits of actually trying stuff (Physics) he’s afraid of instead of worrying about failure and accomplishing nothing.
It’s probably a typo, but the IC is meant to have an influence on the MC to get the MC to change. That does not make the IC the protagonist.
First, I think most people really only talk about the protagonist role in terms of the OS. Second, it’s not that the IC is pursuing the goal of changing the MC. The IC might or might not even know she is influencing the MC. Instead, it’s more that the MC is looking at what the IC is doing and being influenced by that.
@SharkCat, I read through this thread again and was going to offer a couple more ways that you might be able to word your argument because you seemed to be looking at that in one or two posts, but I’m really not sure that’s the advice you were seeking. Can you clarify what you’re looking to get help with?
In my story, IC is the most proactive character. If OS is about characters having their own fears, my IC is the confident one pursuing a solution. If OS should be focused specifically on something like getting the MC reintegrated into society after a long absence, IC is also the one pushing for the Goal (which is why I called him the protagonist) since he found the MC, took him into his care, and is trying to help him find opportunity, whereas my MC is a fish out of water who is reluctant to take risks.
I guess it spiraled out into a few questions. I wanted to phrase my argument properly, assign the throughline Domains properly, and I’d thought of questions along the way like whether the OS could be about fixing 1 person or if that’s more of a personal problem thing, or if having a different fear be faced in the end would weaken my message.
Gotcha. I may have misunderstood what you said that I was replying to.
Yes, everyone can be concerned with one person. Sixth Sense is about fixing Cole and Inside Out is about fixing Riley.
No. It shouldnt. Having the same thing happen at the beginning and end gives the audience a chance to see how the characters have changed by showing how they’d handle the exact same problem in a new way, but having a different fear at the end shows the audience how the character has changed and that they can apply that change in a different area. The message shouldn’t be any weaker or stronger because of it, and I personally prefer stories that are not bookended with the same scene.