Making the Audience a Co-Conspirator

questions
#1

So I am writing a story with a Steadfast Main Character and a Change Influence Character. However, I want the solution to the story to lie with the Influence Character and I want the Main Character’s approach to (in the objective story throughline) be the wrong one.

In effect, I want the main character to remain confident that their steadfastness is the correct course throughout the entire story, even at the end, but to allow the possibility that the audience would come to a different conclusion. But, I want the audience to experience the story from the main character’s perspective since I want to make the audience feel complicit in the actions of the Main Character.

Is this simply a matter of having a Failure/Good or Success/Bad kind of ending? Is this a matter of making the Influence Character the protagonist? I know what I want to do, but I don’t know how to frame it in Dramatica terms.

#2

…making the Influence Character the protagonist?

I think it depends on whether you’ve got it figured that a protagonistic approach is right or wrong for your argument.

The Protagonist can be Steadfast and Wrong, sure.
The Protag can be Steadfast and Right.
Likewise, the Influence can be wrong and Change into a Protagonist.
The sky’s the limit.
Framing your ideas in Dramatica terms is futile - you have to illustrate in order to truly know what you want to do.
That’s what I’m learning anyway.

#3

This sounds very interesting. If the MC’s approach is the wrong one and the MC doesn’t solve the overall story problem, this could be a negative character arc story. (http://www.helpingwritersbecomeauthors.com/negative-character-arc-1/) however it doesn’t sound like the MC ever recognizes they are wrong so perhaps not. It sounds to me like you want to write what appears to be a flat character arc story and subvert it.

It seems to me that the MC is whoever “learns the lesson” or comes away at the end of the story with the new truth. Mr. Wrong could still be the protagonist, but if the IC is the who solves the problem and understands what’s actually going on at the end, I’d say there’s a good chance that the IC is actually the MC. :smile:

#4

The INFLUENCE character could be the Protagonist and Change for another archetype such as GUARDIAN or MENTOR - or SKEPTIC or LOGIC. ( I guess those aren’t all archetypes, but anyway)

Do not all characters influence each other - even if by degrees of separation ?
I think the term INFLUENCE must serve as the definitive building block for a story.
The character that most directly influences the…

…makes him/her a PROTAGONIST - I think?

The crux in the terminology lies in the fact that you want a…

What is that change?

Does not the CHANGE require some definition to complete the arc?

#5

You have some large misconceptions about Dramatica.

An Influence Character cannot change into a Protagonist. This statement alone needs to be unpacked, and will be revealing to you. Please re-read what an Influence Character is, a Protagonist is, and what Change means.

#6

I’m sure you’re right about that.
I also sure that I’m spilling all kinds of other “story study” stuff onto it as well.

Still…If one wants to create an INFLUENCE character that ultimately solves the story problem via a change of viewpoint –
What does that mean?
I should say what does that look like?

#7

This question has been a bit hard for me to unpack, but I’ll do my best to give a comprehensive answer.

If the MC’s approach is the wrong one, and the IC Changes, then the story will end in Failure. (I think some Greek plays may violate this, but they employ a Deus ex Machina. I don’t have an example.) If they remain certain that their way was correct, even as the story ends in Failure then they must be blinded somehow. Or crazy. Maybe the ending of Sunset Blvd. is relevant here.

Perhaps what you want to do is having the MC actually be correct and lead the story to a Success but have an insanely high Cost. To quote King Pyrrhus: “Another such victory, and we are lost.” This might make the audience feel complicit because they cheered for the victory but didn’t consider the price they’ve have to pay.

Another possibility would be to have the Main Character be the Protagonist, but abandon his plans at the end, only to have a different character follow through. A similar (but not identical) thing takes place in Lord of the Flies, where [SPOILER – worth an unadulterated read if you haven’t read it] the Protagonist abandons his plan only to have the Antagonist follow through.

Hope that helps.

Outcome and Cost
#8

Please add MC Unique Ability to your reading list. Then come back and ask. It will all make a lot more sense then.

#9

“If they remain certain that their way was correct, even as the story ends in Failure then they must be blinded somehow.”

Yes, this is exactly right. The point of the story is that the influence character pushes the main character right up until the point that they change but, in the end, they can’t bring themselves to do it. They are not blind to the harm they’re doing (from an objective story perspective) but they are simply more comfortable not changing. The fact that they don’t change (and in fact that nothing could make them change) is a key attribute of the character that is meant to be illustrated here but has impact on other parts of another story.

I’m trying to accomplish two things simultaneously: for the audience to see things through the eyes of the Main Character (thus making them automatically sympathetic) but for the audience’s sympathies to lie with the influence character, at least in part. In short, I want the audience to feel deeply conflicted at the end of the story and to have empathy for both characters.

#10

Naming the character the Main Character, and seeing the story through their eyes, is not sufficient to make them sympathetic. It’s not sufficient.

I don’t understand how you say, about my advice:

And then say:

They can’t be blind and not blind.

#11

“Naming the character the Main Character, and seeing the story through their eyes, is not sufficient to make them sympathetic.”

I guess I should have said “make the Main Character more sympathtic” but really, I’m asking for your help, it shouldn’t be necessary for me to parse my words that carefully. My meaning was clear enough.

I’m simply pointing out what I’m trying to accomplish. I never claimed it to be a sufficient condition in and of itself, it’s a storytelling mechanism that I’m trying to use in a certain way. I’m trying to explain to you my conundrum inasmuch as it pertains to Dramatica. I’m not soliciting your opinion on whether my story goals are worthy.

Making someone who does awful things the Main Character does have the impact of making them more sympathetic to the audience, pretty much automatically. It doesn’t necessarily making them sympathetic in an absolute sense but audiences are much more able to rationalize the actions of a character when they see the action from their perspective. This is a well documented psychological phenomenon. Whether or not I actually accomplish my goals is a matter of the quality of my writing and outside the purview of this conversation.

If they remain certain that their way was correct, even as the story ends in Failure then they must be blinded somehow. Or crazy.

They can’t be blind and not blind.

If you posit a binary then, no I guess they can’t be blind and not blind at the same time.

My Main Character is just blind enough to be able to rationalize his retreat to his previously held, comfortable worldview but not so blind that he doesn’t consider changing.

The fact that he can see he’s hurting someone by not changing and that he subsequently chooses not to change is the central conceit of the character and the main mechanism I am trying to explore. Failure or Success is about perspective. I want the overall story to see the Main Character’s choice as a failure but for the Main Character to rationalize that failure.

To return to my original question, what configuration of the theory allows me to accomplish this?

#12

You seem to think that I’m making some sort of judgment about what you are doing, and that I’ve somehow slammed the quality of your writing. I’m trying to help by pointing out that seeing something through someone’s eyes does not make them, in your words, automatically sympathetic. I’ve read novels where people do this – in fact, I just finished one this morning – and the Main Character was as dry and flat as any objective character. It barely made the character more sympathetic – in fact, it was aggravating because he was falling short of expectations.

If you’re frustrated that I saw the question as a binary, then you have to ask… can something be a Success and a Failure? Not in Dramatica, it can’t. Because a goal can’t be accomplished and unaccomplished.

To state that he can see something, chooses to act a certain way and then justifies it… that is a long way from being blind.

Do you still think your meaning was clear enough?

To return to your original question, I’ve already given you several thoughts that you haven’t responded to.

#13

Yeah, you’ve been a big help. Thanks.

#14

A Main Character – the character through whose eyes the audience experience’s the story – can have several dualities co-exist within and associated with them.

For example, there are two pairs of story points that describe the source of the Main Character’s troubles/motivation and its response to it.

Pair #1
MC Problem – the source of the MC’s personal conflict
MC Solution – that which will resolve the MC’s Problem

Pair #2
MC Symptom – the primary symptom (i.e. side effect) of the MC’s Problem
MC Response – the treatment applied by the MC in an effort to resolve the MC Symptom

Pair #1 describes the ‘Cause’ of the inequity at the heart of the MC’s personal troubles, whereas Pair #2 may be seen as the primary ‘Side Effect’ of the inequity.

For Change characters, the character believes Pair #2 is the cause of its personal problems and is blind to Pair #1 and its importance. The character arc describes the process of character Growth that tears down the blinders – act by act – until the character is able to see Pair #1 as an alternative (and ‘original’) source and solution to the MC inequity.

For Steadfast characters, the character believes Pair #2 is the cause of its personal problems and MAY be aware that the MC Problem in Pair #1 is the source of its drive/motivation, but does not attempt to resolve the MC Problem. Instead, the character arc describes the process of Growth that shores up (or builds up) blinders to counter increasing pressure to Change, ultimately leading to an effort to stay the course and go with the MC Response to resolve its inequity.

This describes one example duality within a Main Character (or Influence Character for that matter).

Another duality can be seen by looking at the player to which the MC is assigned. By definition, a main character is a subjective character and represents a point of view – in this case the “I” perspective. However, players in a story also exist in the objective perspective of the Overall Story throughline. Within the OS you may find character archetypes, such as protagonist and antagonist, etc., as well as complex objective characters.

The player that embodies the MC will also have the functions assigned to an objective character. For example, Player X may be the MC and the protagonist, or the MC and the sidekick, or the MC and a complex character, etc.

Player X could embody the personal journey and perspective of the main character, while also performing the functions of the protagonist and its effort to achieve the Story Goal (by way of example). In this way, the Story Outcome and Judgment may be evaluated by Player X’s efforts, both objectively (Success or Failure) and subjectively (Good or Bad), thus providing an author another opportunity to express a duality associated with the MC.