In a story with a change main character that ends in succes and a story judgement of good, should the mc wait till signpost three to embrace the solution or can they embrace the solution in signpost one and then we see the aftermath of how the live in their new world view for the rest of the signposts?
I’ve seen similar things done, but I think it becomes imperative to make the solution feel like it could be temporary – there needs to be tension in the story, or else it’s difficult to keep interested.
I’ve seen that mistake too: an MC throughline resolved at the midpoint, and then 50% more story and it just couldn’t sustain itself.
1 Like
I think it depends on the kind of story your writing because in a tragedy, the climax tends to happen in signpost one, conflict can still happen despite of when the mc embraces the solution in a a changed success good story I believe. @mlucas what would you advise?
Dramatica stories argue an approach how to solve a problem. In that sense, the climax (in Dramatica terms) proves whether your approach was good and successful or it was a failure.
Structurally speaking if there is a tragic event in the first signpost, this is not the climax in Dramatica. It can be anything and it might be your first or second story driver or any other turning point.
Its totally up to you what you want to tell and what you want to prove and argue with your story. But from a Dramatica standpoint, whatever your trying to argue, the climax is at the end, otherwise you would prove something else.
Just as a quick example:
If you have a tragic event in the first signpost with a goal to get back to a normal life, you could argue:
- It needs hope to overcome it – to be happy again (Outcome Success/ Judgment Good)
- You never can get back your normal live - but you can still try (Outcome Failure/ Judgment Good)
- There is no hope anymore in the world - its better to leave this place (Outcome Failure/ Judgment Bad)
- You only can overcome it - by becoming a cynical person (Outcome Success/ Judgment Bad)
Nevertheless, from the authors standpoint, you can start with a climax and tell the aftermath – even so as mentioned @MWollaeger it might be difficult to keep you readers interested. The question would be, if you really need Dramatica for this?
3 Likes
I agree with both Mike and Gernot.
I think what might help here is to separate the idea of the MC embracing the Solution (Change Resolve), and the MC Throughline resolving all of its conflict. You can show them moving toward Change and their Solution early, but you need to keep up some kind of conflict around their personal issues, so that we’re not sure whether they might “change back”. Maybe this could be handled with some other characters that don’t like how the MC is Changing, maybe they don’t like the IC’s influence on the MC and say so, that kind of thing.
A good thread to check out would be Mike’s “Taste of Change” one:
That thread gives examples of stories where the MC embraces their solution and wavers toward Change a lot early, but “changes back” and ultimately remains steadfast. You can see the similarity to your idea – it would be like one of those stories in which the conflict is still there after their change, but in your idea they would stick with the IC’s influence / perspective and remain Changed at the end. The Devil Wears Prada is a good example because you can see how her boyfriend and other friends offer conflict and pull on the part of the MC that wants to remain Steadfast. You would want a similar pull, from other characters or situations or something.
I think this will be tricky but if it’s an important part of the idea you have I say go for it!
3 Likes
I’m open to correction, but I think the OS climax (or OS concluding event) is defined as story driver 5.
Other than that definition, I think dramatica doesn’t strictly require any particular “minute to minute” placement of the character “resolves” (plural form of resolve) for the MC & IC. The resolve compares end to beginning, so “the end” implies that the resolve happens at or around the OS climax (i.e. story driver 5).
I echo MW’s comment that making that too early is often deflating for the viewer/reader.
My opinion is that I would broaden it to say that having any of the following big outcomes or resolves causes a sense of premature ending (“why haven’t they rolled credits?”) and of diluting the impact of the climax by spreading it out over time. Again, my amateur subjective opinion is that a climax should resolve all of the following in the shortest amount of time possible–ideally in one action or decision:
- MC resolve
- RS “unofficial outcome” (basically, how did the relationship end up?)
- OS outcome
- MC judgment
- thematic verdict (this usually happens automatically via subtext, but you could also say it out loud)
For example, in Star Wars, the ending pops because it all happens nearly simultaneously (seconds not minutes): MC changes resolve to trust himself, the relationship continues, grows, & is finally in sync, the rebellion destroys death star for OS success, & MC judgment good. The thematic verdict is that humanity / good spirituality defeats technology (even though the rebel ships are full of technology, but you get the idea–the rebellion has relatively less compared to the empire). The force will be with you always.
4 links with useful climax & structure tips from Michael Arndt:
- http://jalmonpolk.com/michael-arndt-his-take-on-great-ending/
- https://gointothestory.blcklst.com/screenwriting-lessons-michael-arndt-part-4-b118d7d7f611
- http://wagstaffnet.blogspot.com/2014/06/these-are-notes-i-took-at-austin-film.html
- this one costs $2.99 to access his PDF: https://www.scriptdrive.org/index.php?threads/endings-the-good-the-bad-and-the-insanely-great-michael-arndt.6849/#post-49108
1 Like
The climax is OS, the MC Solution is MC Throughline. What are you asking about?
I believe you can have the climax in signpost 1.
This is because I believe that the climax is part of the illustration.
You could have a flashback 75% into the story, one that takes you all the way back to around the inciting incident and takes the story in a new direction. You could have that flashback contain signpost 1.
Not exactly. Signposts deal with the actual order of events, not the order they’re presented.
Signposts are a part of storyforming, whereas non-linear narration is part of storyweaving.
1 Like
Which is why I wrote [quote=“YellowSuspenders, post:8, topic:1828”]
You could have that flashback contain signpost 1.
[/quote]
The actual event at signpost 1 is revealed at the 75% mark, but it actually occurred before signpost 2. Actually, though, you might not even need a flashback, just evidence that the event occurred before any signpost 2 (for example, Norman Bates’ mother was killed before any signpost 2, but is revealed to have been killed back then only at the end of the movie).
This is a misunderstanding of the Dramatica theory of story.
The climactic event of a story happens in Signpost 4, after all the various contexts of a Throughine have been explored. Where it happens and when it is revealed during the course of a story is a completely different matter.
While the climax of The Usual Suspects is shown in the opening minutes of the film, the actual “climax”–when it happens with the logistics of the narrative, doesn’t happen until Signpost 4.
4 Likes
This raises some questions.
1.) Does each throughline have its own climactic event? I assume it does.
2.) Assume you’ve got an OS Throughline which is “Gathering Information, Doing, Obtaining, Understanding.” By “after all the various contexts of a Throughline have been explored” do you mean that the Climactic event should happen after the Understanding appreciation?
3.) How does the Denouement fit in? Does Signpost 4 include it?
1 Like
Denouement comes after Signpost 4. It’s the proof that what happened, happened.
Climax happens within Signpost 4. After the Understanding Signpost is the next story.
5 Likes