Or is a Steadfast MC waiting for other Objective Characters? It intuitively makes sense to me that a Steadfast MC is waiting for the IC because the IC would be the only Change character in the story.
If this is correct, does it also mean that a Steadfast IC is waiting for the MC to Start or Stop something? Or are all Objective Characters waiting for the MC?
Permababy, I think you’re over-thinking this. The Dramatica software makes clear that the “Growth” appreciation has to do with WHAT THE AUDIENCE IS WAITING FOR.
The Dramatica StoryGuide’s question for Growth is: Regarding your Main Character, the audience is…?
You can have all kinds of characters waiting for this or that, but the focus of this appreciation is: Do you want your AUDIENCE to subconsciously sense that they are waiting for the MC (or the circumstances around him/her) to either Stop or Start? And the numerous examples in the software help clarify this.
The essence of this varies somewhat, depending on whether the MC Changes or Remains Steadfast. But there is nothing in the definitions that talks about what the IC is waiting for.
Again, this question is ABOUT WHAT THE AUDIENCE IS WAITING FOR, regarding the MC.
The way I understand it is that the audience is waiting for something to Start or Stop. If the MC is a Change character, that something is inside the MC. If the MC is a Steadfast character, that something is outside the MC. Because the IC must change if the MC doesn’t, that something is usually the IC, but I don’t think it has to be. A Change MC changes because of the IC, and a Steadfast MC remains steadfast despite the IC.
You don’t have to have a single Change character in your story. You just can’t have both the MC and IC Changing. In Star Wars, both Luke and Han change. Luke starts trusting in himself, and Han starts fighting for something other than himself.
I wouldn’t say that all Objective Characters are waiting for the MC. The Antagonist, for example, is certainly not. In The Matrix, all of the free humans depend on Neo becoming the One, and all of the Machines are against it (ignoring the sequels). It just depends on which side each character is on.
Nice answer, JSensebe. You answered Permababy’s multiple questions better than I.
No and yes.
NO if you have a single grand argument story going on in the work with a single player MC. Only one Change character per storyform.**
HOWEVER, YES you may have multiple MC’s change if there is more than one story going on in the work, as there is in Star Wars. Han changes in the context of his own personal story – the one involving Jabba the Hut – but not in the context of Luke’s story. That’s why it feels a bit like a cheat when Han comes back and shoots at Darth Vader’s ship, because the [skeptic] Han in Luke’s story would not do that – he would have taken the money and run, which is what he did. ONLY because of Han’s substory is it acceptable/credible that he might act “out of character” in the main story context and return to fight.
** NOTE: A Subjective Character, such as a Main Character or Influence Character, may be represented by multiple players if all of the players represent the same perspective on the personal issue. In that way you may have a group or couple represent the MC throughline instead of the more traditional single player MC. Star Wars only has a single player MC in the main storyline, and that is Luke.
I’m confused. I thought Han was the Skeptic and Darth Vader served as Contagonist.
Yes, Han has to earn the right to change, with a story that supports that change. My point was that in the “container” story (the novel, movie, or whatever), there can be more than one character that changes.
A similar thing happens in Galaxy Quest (which I watched again recently). Jason Nesmith is the Change MC, but Alexander Dane also changes, because in his story he is influenced by Quellek, who looks to him (or rather, his TV character) as a role model.
My bad. Yes, of course Han is the skeptic and Darth the contagontist.
My point was that when talking about story it is important to make a distinction between a “story” and a work. With Dramatica the use of vocabulary is important (as you correctly pointed out my misidentification of Han above). When you said that there could be two change characters in a story, it appeared incorrect because that is untrue in a grand argument story, but is fine for a loose definition of “story” outside of a Dramatica context.
This being a Dramatica discussion forum I didn’t want someone unfamiliar with Dramatica to think that it is Ok to have two MC RESOLVE CHANGE characters in a single storyform.
I try to capitalize Dramatica terms, but sometimes I’m lax. I think I’ll take a cue from you and use “work” to keep things clear.
Here’s a somewhat related question that’s germane to my own story. How far can you push change in a Steadfast character before he’s considered a Change character?
For instance, in Ghostbusters, Peter Venkman is Steadfast, but he goes from ghostbusting for money to putting his life on the line at the end. In Rocky, Rocky goes from training really hard to beat Apollo to realizing he can’t, and his goal changes to being the first to deny Apollo a knockout. The characters change strategy, even goals, but their essential natures don’t change, making them Steadfast.
I have an IC whose problem has to do with her Situation because of who and what she is. She comes to think of herself differently in the end, but she’s still in the Situation because it is an immutable aspect of her being. Is this kosher?
Change or steadfast is a measure comparing where the subjective character is at the beginning of the story to how it is at the end of the story. They can waffle back and forth to a certain degree, but it must be within reasonable limits. If their too flighty, it may be difficult to convince an audience that the character is steadfast or change.
It’s important to distinguish MC personal goals, which are connected to their throughline resolve, from the Story Goal, which never changes (objectively speaking).
In Rocky, the story goal is for the underdog to win the fight and ends in failure, while the MC goal is to prove himself, which he does and leads to a MC Judgment Good.
In Ghostbusters, the story goal is to fight the supernatural phenomena and save New York City from being destroyed by Zul (or whatever the god’s name is). The MC Concern (personal goal) is steadfast in his efforts to charm Dana, even though he applies his effort to varying degrees.
When looking at your IC throughline, if she goes from being defined by her situation to looking at (or being looked at) in terms of Fixed Attitude, the she is a change character. Situation is only relevant to your IC throughline as it relates to the inequity at the heart of the story. If she goes from being defined by her situation in terms of her influence on the MC to being defined by her attitude, then that is a change.
Chris, does that mean that the MC’s personal goal is situated in journey 4 of the MC throughline?
Thanks. This probably means I need to switch my MC and IC throughlines, which is something I’ve been battling with. I can see that my MC doesn’t really change, because his behavior through most of the story constitutes a huge waffle. In the end, he goes after what he was after in the first place. It’s the IC who changes. She goes through a profound change at the beginning of the story, but her Fixed Attitude about herself doesn’t allow her to see beyond her original situation.
This is the third breakthrough I’ve had this week. Things are really shaping up! Thanks again.
No, it’s his MC Concern, though that Concern will be the topic of exploration for one of the four Signposts in the MC throughline.