Mirror Moment & Climax

I recently read “Write Your Novel from the Middle” by J. Bell. He says to have the midpoint planned and structured as a triangle with PP1 and PP2 to guide your story. Looking at the progression of my Dramatica program, it looks like midpoint would be in the middle of Journey 2. In any event, my question is, when your MC is having a “Mirror Moment,” where he has to analyze and decide and move forward toward the end, is this where the Crisis happens? (Symptom-Response MC & OS), and is this to be in the middle of Journey 2?

I saw a post on this forum from February about “Dark Night of the Soul,” and this made me think it is the same idea as the Decision/Mirror moment in the center of midpoint that propels the MC forward ANYWAY, “in spite of all this.”

Or do all the Throughlines have their own “triangle” to consider?

And related to this, does the Climax end up being at Signpost 3 or in the middle of Journey 3? Is the Climax actually Problem-Solution resolution then?

1 Like

Good questions! Based on my interpretation of the theory, these climactic scenes usually happen as close to the end of the story as possible, when the Limit has run out and the characters have to make a choice. But I don’t think this is necessary for the theory to work. I think you can have that burning moment midway through Act 1, and have the character then retain their change through the rest of the story. No matter what you do, though, I still think there’s that “sink-or-swim” moment at the very end of the story, where that change or refusal to change becomes critical. And yes, each Throughline has its own arc, but as I said, it doesn’t have to be a triangle.

I was the one who made that “Dark Night of the Soul” post, I’d wager. :wave: I meant that more along the lines of the “All is Lost” moment at the end of Act 3 (Act IIB), where the character loses everything and everyone they care about and become overwhelmed with despair.

The important thing to take away here is that Dramatica Theory doesn’t expect or demand these audience-focused concepts like a “Mirror Moment.” Dramatica is about the back-end, constructing the arguments of your story: the Genre Domain, the Plotting, the Thematics, and the Character Problems. Your story might have a moment where the Main Character contemplates and analyzes what they believe, or perhaps the Main Character might simply change so slowly over the course of the story that they don’t even notice it until it’s too late. The Impact Character might hit a deadblock and change their strategy just this once, then discover with horror that they’re psychologically locked into that new strategy forever, or perhaps they get so worn down over the course of the story that they simply give in at the climax. Whatever the case, Dramatica can model the mind behind that change, but it turns a blind eye to the execution of it.

2 Likes

It sounds like Bell is referring to the Story Driver in the exact middle of the story.

Instead of Journeys, look at your story in terms of Signposts. The triangle you refer to - PP1 is the Story Driver between Signpost 1 and 2, PP2 is the Story Driver between Signpost 3 and 4. The remaining point of the triangle will be the Story Driver between Signpost 2 and 3.

So it goes:

Story Driver > Signpost 1 > Story Driver (PP1) > Signpost 2 > Story Driver (Mirror Moment?) > Signpost 3 > Story Driver (PP2) > Signpost 4 > Story Driver

The rest of this is spot on:

Let’s get this out of the way: I haven’t read the book, but I did read an article by Bell that preceded the book, and eventually turned into the book. So I know the basics of what he’s talking about, with serious limitations.

Anyway…

There is no “crisis” in Dramatica. And even if there were, nothing dictates that it should be at the midpoint of the story.

Nothing dictates that the Climax has to happen at any particular place in a story, though usually it’s towards the end, because it’s related to the Limit. It would be an odd storytelling choice to race to the end of the limit too early in a story.

The Decision/Mirror that you refer to is, I believe, an internal looking-about that the central character does which propels them forward. This is a storytelling device that is independent from the structure that leads to a meaningful argument. It may (at times) have an overlap, in say, a movie with a Decision Driver and a Be-er MC. But, be careful, because I doubt that the author realizes there is a structural difference between an MC and a Protagonist.

Do all Throughlines have their own triangle to consider? Sure, in so far as they progress through four perspectives, and the beginning and end are going to be different, and different yet again in the middle of the argument.

In the StoryGuide (Instant Dramatica) under each Throughline’s Symptom+Response, the descriptor on the top calls this the Crisis.

Thank you for your explanation. The driver is either the decision-based or the action-based event. This is vague for me, since I’m looking for the related Story Point.

Bell’s picture of this is a suspension bridge. Two pillars holding up the middle and the beginning and end of the bridge. His picture resembles the Progression pane of the software.

The middle of the bridge (he insists it is exactly at the center of the book) is a pivotal event (decision/action=driver) stemming from the story’s theme.

Examples:
Casablanca “What have I become?”
Gone with the Wind “Tara is worth fighting for.”
It’s a Wonderful Life “Now wait a minute, here. I don’t need twenty-four hours…The answer’s no.”

Character driven: What am I, what am I becoming?
Plot driven: What am I, what are my odds of succeeding?

WIth all the Dramatica Story Points spinning around as thematic and plot material, I see a lot of options for this. And perhaps all the Throughlines will have their own triangle (to propel that throughline through the center of the bridge)

But in the end, I guess it comes down to COST, DIVIDENDS, REQUIREMENTS. And it seems Bell is saying there needs to be a significant weighing the odds/decision-action point regarding willingness to pay that price that will hold up the story’s midpoint.

Ah! Had no idea.

Instant Dramatica – a very useful tool – is a way of porting the actual theory over into practical terms. It’s not part of the theory.

I would argue that it isn’t directly advocating for a specific moment in the story, but a way to encapsulate in an outline an example of when the Main Character (in the MC Throughline) comes to term with the fact that their method of going about things isn’t working.

I don’t think you are going to find a related story point for the Mirror.

In Hamlet (I believe) this moment does not exist. The Solution is adopted without reflexion. So, not only is there no Crisis, there is no Mirror either.

Likewise, imagine a character with a purpose (I want to be team captain) and a motivation (I hate being low status). At a certain point, these two things could come into conflict – “In my desired to be team captain, I have started picking on the scrawny kid – but that just makes me a jerk”. This feels a lot like Casablanca’s “what have I become?” but isn’t necessarily connected to the midpoint.

You are correct in saying that it may have more to do with Cost, Dividends, Requirements but I would take it a step further. Many other things could be combined to give your character a moment of reflexion. How you combine story points to create this moment is part of Storytelling and not directly associated with the storyform, or any specific story point.

Another thought: in the middle of Lives of Others the MC has a moment where his behavior changes outwardly for the first time (with the kid in the elevator). I can see an argument that this is a moment of self-reflection like the mirror Bell talks about. However, I would not argue that it motivates the character in any way. It doesn’t propel him through the midpoint.

In this way, it probably violates Bell’s ideas, but only if you look closely.

Nevertheless, we cannot disregard the affect it has on the audience: they are probably excited to see the changed (I was) and it motivated me to keep watching with interest.

To this end, I encourage you to dive in and explore the idea of mirrors and propulsion, but encourage you to divorce it from two ideas:
• Don’t look for a specific story point, but rather, look to see how several story points have been synthesized for the specific story you are looking at.
• Once you have explored the middle of stories, broaden out to other parts of the story. In general, things get more difficult for the duration of any story. The characters have to constantly dig in their heels and wonder if the are strong enough to do it – or, perhaps, know they too weak , but are the only chance to prevent a horrible outcome – or both. There is no reason on the surface for this to only happen in the middle.

2 Likes

The related Story Points is the Story Driver. You can attach whatever you want to it, but what Bell is referring to (from a predominantly subjective point-of-view) is that middle Story Driver.