Pursue MC Versus Prevent MC

[geoff]

I’m building up to be a conspiracy/thriller screenwriter. With my current project, my premise has dastardly conspirators trying to enact a new state of things. My MC tries to stop them. My calculated storyform fit quite well.

Then, when thinking honestly about those character functions, trying to apply them in an outline, and then watching Shadow Conspiracy (1997), I became concerned my Story Outcome is off. The Dramatica Users Group analyzed The Conversation. They determined the goal revolved around an awful thing.

So, I was able to keep my entire Storyform, but change my Outcome to Failure … meaning the conspirators are unsuccessful in achieving their dastardly plan because my MC comes in to stop them. My RS problem and symptom changed, along with the signpost orders.

Perhaps it’s a matter of comparing first story driver with final driver. Tommy Boy finishes when he’s able to sell half a million break pads. My story finishes when my Central Character prevents a plan. Is this like the Story Judgment? You compare the MC personally, his personal tension level, between story start and story conclusion. This relates to whether his Resolve at story climax was the better way.

James Bond is a controversy when deciding which is the pursue character. I side with the villain of the week being the pursuer. Goldfinger is an excellent demonstration. I feel more honest with myself when plotting out my story now.

Any comments?

[geoff]

After some more thought, I recognized the Story Consequences would occur because of the Goal’s Failure. I must portray the Consequence in a positive, happy light. My Goal being Developing a Plan, the Consequence would therefore be Becoming. The innocents put into danger, along with my MC and IC (in their OS roles), would have their natures changed for the better.

[Greg]

@geoff

I became concerned my Story Outcome is off

Is your point as the author that dastardly conspirators trying to enact anew state of things by following the path laid out in your story will fail? Or is your point as the author that your MC player trying to stop them by following the path laid out in your story will succeed?

Both dastardly conspirators and MC are pursuing something, but only one is doing it in relation to the story goal. If you want your MC to be the pursuit character, then he’s likely pursuing a solution to the problem of dastardly conspirators enacting their dastardly schemes. Those sorry dastards.

[geoff]

My point is that spreading confusion in the world (what the conspirators are trying to do) is something bad. The central character working against the conspirators concerns himself with demonstrating one must look beneath illusion to solve their problems. They shouldn’t be confused by illusion.

[mlucas]

The only thing that has made logical sense to me is the advice to look at the First Story Driver.

That opening driver sets up an inequity, which in turn sets up the Story Goal within the storymind as an attempt to resolve that inequity. There will be forces of initiative/pursuit and reticence/prevent. The former side with “we need to attempt this thing to fix this problem” while the latter side with leaving things as-is and preventing that attempt.

So the question you need to ask yourself, what is the inequity that your opening driver creates? Is your story saying, “this conspiracy is trying to address this problem, they’re the forces working to resolve things” regardless of how dastardly the conspirators are? Or is the conspiracy itself (the conspirators’ goals) the true inequity, and your MC is the one working to resolve that inequity?

Read carefully the following @jhull article, it’s pure gold and is the thing that finally cleared up the James Bond Antagonist mess for me. The Captain America: Civil War example is especially clear, and I love that The Matrix is used in contrast (because the inequity setup by its first driver is a bit harder to see).

Identifying The Goal And Consequence Of A Complete Story

[geoff]

Thanks mlucas for sharing that article. I found another one Jim wrote at https://narrativefirst.com/articles/the-tragedy-of-james-bond-the-antagonist.

My central story message is: “If we don’t stop the confusion, we will not see ourselves for who we truly are.” Jim’s article pointed out the story driver throws in an inequity.

I chose misperception as the problem, a way of saying “illusion”. Perhaps my Subjective Story, as a means of commenting on the OS, should be brought up. It’s both MC and IC (not the conspirator) hiding who they truly are from each other. They go into the relationship with misperceptions and keep up facades.

They learn the proper author’s argument.

My storyform has perception as the problem, which resembles what I’m getting at. Under the failure story, the conspirators would be in balance until they misperceive something. They go about concocting a plan (Goal: Develop a Plan) of manipulating people’s minds, trying to get them to act a certain way. The MC notices this, like in a Scooby Doo cartoon, and investigates more about them … with a growing concern they must be stopped.

I’m saying the Conspirator’s efforts to treat the initial problem of perception is bad. It’s not the way to solve things.

[mlucas]

If I was to guess I’d say the MC is working toward the Story Goal.

Do you know what event (Decision or Action) is your opening story driver?

[geoff]

I’m figuring that out, in tandem with my concluding driver. It’s action driven. I want the conspiracy to be successfully exposed by the MC.

In comedic satirical form, the conspirators manipulate the characters to believe wacky conceptions of each other (Issue: Situation, Counterpoint: Circumstances). Chaos ensues (OS Symptom).

[geoff]

I reviewed some other conspiracy movies. My Fellow Americans, Shadow Conspiracy, Conspiracy Theory and North By Northwest. That last one could technically be a spy thriller. The common inciting incident seems to be that the central character we’re rooting for catches wind of the conspirators’ machinations already in effect. The DUG already found a storyform for Conspiracy Theory, with a successful goal of stopping the doctor. My Fellow Americans clearly has the central character using options in order to expose that machination, all the while being prevented by the conspirators. Shadow Conspiracy is odd because it climaxes with the bad guy/conspirator about to assassinate the president, but the MC stops him.

[mlucas]

Cool! So with those, the inequity is “there’s a bad conspiracy going on!” setting up a goal to unmask/stop it. Does that sound right?

Not to say your story couldn’t be different, of course!

[geoff]

Yes. So, the goal would be, I suppose, to conceptualize and make the public conceptualize the extent of the conspirator’s machinations. The machinations would be either already occurring or had just started prior to the movie’s inciting incident.

Perhaps the inciting incident is the conspirators perceiving (must check the definition) something about my pursue character catching wind of the conspiracy. It might also be on the pursue character’s part perceiving something of what’s going on.