I don’t quite understand the Consideration-Protagonist.
Pursue is function. Consideration is also a function? How does it relate to goals? How does Consideration-Protagonist pursue its goals and move the story forward?
Can I divide PROTAGONIST into two persons, one is Pursue, the other is Consideration? Are there only Consideration-Protagonist movies?
Protagonist is a role so it could be divided among any number of characters, even non-human ones like a computer program or something. Or you could have a group Protagonist.
You can definitely split Consider and Pursuit between different characters. These are seen in light of the goal, e.g. Consider is about getting people to consider the goal (i.e. to consider its validity, worth, etc. and to consider pursuing it). You can see how Consider and Pursuit fit together naturally in this way (the one Pursuing the goal most strongly might naturally try to get others to Consider it too). They aren’t required to go together, but it’s probably rare that they’re separate.
My understanding is that if (and only if) Pursue and Consideration are in one character that you have a Protagonist.
You do not have to have a Protagonist, but you do have to have Pursue and Consider represented somewhere. They just don’t have to be in the same person.
Do not confuse Protagonist with the Main Character. The Main Character can be anyone.
This is probably technically true, but DUG meetings and other analyses appear to discuss protagonists entirely in terms of Pursue. Story Goals seem always to be framed in terms of the Pursue element. I’ve never heard someone say, “X is the goal because it’s the thing character Y is Considering.”
I’m sure there are a bunch of reasons for this. Pursue is easier to see. Archetypal protagonists with both elements are probably really common. Colloquial language being used. Etc.
Going off of @mlucas, @pattyloof, and @Etherbeard here.
Likewise, you can split the Avoid and Reconsider elements (two elements that an Antagonist illustrates), or the elements for any archetype for that matter. One example is in the film Inception, where Fischer’s subconscious agents illustrate Avoid/Prevent, and Ariadne illustrates Reconsider.
Since Pursue is the more external of the two elements, it makes sense that it’s easier to see most of the time.
“The Protagonist pursues the Story Goal and considers the value of doing so,” to put in Jim Hull’s words. Ultimately, character archetypes are just a shorthand. The important thing is illustrating the elements, as @pattyloof said.
Sources:
Then, how would a Pursue/Reconsider character feels? Would it conflicts itself because they pursue the goal despite being against it?
I’m not sure if this is correct, but what came to mind was Aragorn in Lord of the Rings. In the main story, he’s a Help and Support to Frodo, but if you look at his subplot (Taking the Mantle, if you will), while he does Pursue the steps needed to reach the goal out of duty and loyalty, he doesn’t really want to be the King, nor does he even think he’s worthy of it. He’s constantly Reconsidering what he’s doing and in the end decides to Take the Mantle because there’s no one else qualified.
I feel that this inner conflict is what makes him such an interesting character.
When it comes to achieving a Goal, the easiest Elements in the Model to associate with that task from a Western-biased point-of-view are Pursuit and Avoid.
That said, Consider and Reconsider are just as valid in determining Protagonist and Antagonist from an objective point-of-view.
It’s better to think in terms of Initiative and Reticence when it comes to Protagonist and Antagonist as they aren’t really people–they’re analogies to forces within the mind during its problem-solving process.
The consider characteristic is the one that says, “Let’s keep our eye on the goal,” and “Let’s weigh the pros and cons of what we’re doing.”
thank everyone !
Thank you very much for your wonderful answers !!
I need to digest slowly…
I’ve offered the idea earlier that in a Decision story, the Consider character is more Protagonisty than the Pursue character, because internal choices are what drive the story, and Consider is more internal than Pursue. I don’t know if that’s good doctrine, but it’s worth considering. (Ultimately, the bottom line is to eventually step away from the Archetypes and treat each Element individually.)
This seems like a slippery slope toward James Bond being the antagonist. In a lot of action adventure genres, particularly secret agents and superheroes, it’s common for the antagonist to have the initiative. In stories with MC protagonists with mismatched Approach and Driver, those protagonists could often be described as reticent.
That’s not to say it’s not better than looking for Pursue or Consider (or Knowledge or Actuality or any of the other elements assigned to the archetypal protagonist).
I think Jim meant initiative and reticence toward the Story Goal, based on looking at how the First Driver creates an inequity.
For example, the First Driver in Captain America: Civil War demonstrates that superheroes are running amok. Initiative is a plan to control them and teach them a lesson (revenge); reticence is to leave them unshackled like they’ve always been.
The First Driver in The Matrix is the decision that Neo is The One. Prior to that, although Morpheus and other rebels wanted to gain control of the matrix, it simply was not possible, so everything was in a kind of balance. (Desire was high but Ability was zero, so Desirability was zero.) The One’s presence sets up an inequity where the side of initiative is to turn the tables and have the humans gain control of the matrix. Reticence is the agents trying to stay on top, maintaining (and cementing) their stranglehold on the human race.
Used this way, Initiative and Reticence can be excellent tools to help figure out the Goal etc.
I appreciate what you wrote. Anything that helps clarify the process of defining the Story Goal is helpful. In my experience defining it is either obvious and almost arbitrarily easy, or it’s incredibly tricky.
Having said all that. I’m not I glean any new meaning from your examples using Jim’s terminology. In other words, if all the instances of Initiative and Reticence were replaced with Pursue and Avoid (or Prevent), I’m pretty sure the meaning would be the same. If the point is simply to eliminate overlap between the Dramatica Elements and the words used conversationally to identify the goal, then I’m all for that.
I think Initiative/Reticence do specifically help when defining the Story Goal, and are tangibly different from Pursuit/Avoid. The latter rely on the Story Goal to come first in order to align them, but I think Iniative/Reticence can be used in actually defining the Story Goal.
For example, take The Princess Bride. If the First Driver of that story (inner story) created some imbalance between Guilder and Florin, so that the way to take Initiative and deal with it was to start a much-needed war, then the Goal could indeed have been to start the war, and Humperdinck could have been Protagonist, Pursuing such a war.
Instead, the First Driver is the combination of Westley’s ship sinking and Buttercup getting engaged to the prince, setting up the inequity of that engagement (part of the scheme to murder her and start a war). Once that inequity is established by the First Driver, reticence is to let it play its course (Humpderinck’s side). While initiative is the drive to stop the scheme and save Buttercup – and that’s the Story Goal.
Notice that at face value it seems like Avoid (avoiding the war) more aptly defines Westley & Buttercup’s drive, which is why reticence and initiative are better concepts prior to defining the Story Goal.
Terms like Initiative and Reticence are not meant to be replaced with either Pursuit or Avoid, rather Pursuit and Avoid describe the forces of Initiative or Reticence within the model of the Storymind.
There is no slippery slope towards James Bond as Antagonist because storytelling is not tied to structure.
The characters in a story are not real people - they don’t exhibit traits of “initiative” or “reticence” that you can then tie to structure. Real people have their own Storyminds and thus exhibit both initiative and reticence.
A story is a model of the Storymind - of a single mind at work. The characters are there to stand in for the forces at work within the mind. The Protagonist is there to function as Initiative, the Antagonist is there to function as Reticence within the context of the Storymind, in accordance with the rest of the structure including things like the Story Goal.
Objectively, yes, though storytelling is connected to the audience through story reception, and if it affects the audience interpretation of the story, it can muddy their ability to decode the storytelling to reveal the underlying structure.
