Scope of a Main Character?

[Chadwick]

Communication is my mind (the way I see the world) wants to communicate (intent) with your mind (the way you see the world) and uses symbols within a ladder of abstraction (language) and various other visual and auditory patterns, which my mind sends (encodes) and your mind receives (decodes). But my mind and your mind are different (something we often forget when conversing with people).

The Story is between me and the audience and my responsibility is to package my message as best I can for my intended audience, so the message is not lost in translation. The Story is a mind and has it’s own psychology, which is a representation of my mind using symbols to communicate and attempting to encode the emotional intent along with it (since our conversation doesn’t happen in real time with me making all my different gestures and such). When someone reads or watches a story, they are receiving my message filtered by their mind. Sometimes we are asked to communicate for someone else. Now we really need to know both the intent and the intended receiver. But, being able to at least be sure I am able to communicate my intent from my own bias as fully and accurately as possible is all I can really do.

The four MC dynamics are Resolve, Growth, Approach, and Problem-Solving.

When you do a series, say, The Dresden Files or whatever, your main character can have a different resolve or growth, but will have the same approach and problem-solving, right??

So, if we made the character a MC in one story and an IC in another or an OS in another, he/she would have the same approach and problem-solving, right?? In effect, expanding our story world as storyforms are built around different characters and used for different roles in different stories??

Or, would you explore Dirty Hairy as a Do-er and then as a Be-er? Would you give him a Spatial Problem-solving style in one and a Temporal Problem-solving style in another? Could you explore a character like this and still maintain a personality or characterization overall that defines them to the outside world?

That is what I mean by “scope of a main character.” And this is definitely a question.

Cheers!

[actingpower]

I think that people can react to different situations (or activities, fixed attitudes, or psychologies) in different ways. In one situation, you’re a Do-er, while in another, you’re a Be-er. When you’re thinking about one problem Logically, you think about another Intuitively.

As an example, suppose you have a man who hates his job, but believes there’s nothing he can do about it. Rather than Do something like quit, confront his bosses, or otherwise affect the external world, he tries to convince himself to learn to love his dead-end job. Here, he’s a Be-er.

Now suppose he goes camping with his daughter, and it starts raining. This time, the problem doesn’t arise from the fact that he tries to convince himself that he likes rain, but instead because, say, he keeps doing everything for her. Here, he’s a Do-er.

While both stories have Overall Throughlines of Situation/Progress, the first’s Main Character Throughline is Psychology/Being, the second’s is Activity/Doing. You’ll also notice that the Growth required in these two is different. In the first, he needs to Start taking control of his work environment, while in the second, he needs to Stop taking over for the daughter.

The same goes for the Problem-Solving Style. Essentially, it boils down to what the character sees as the problem and how they intend to fix it. For example, maybe you have a woman who is a scientist. When she’s at work, she’s very Logical, always looking for the right connection. However, she gets stymied when outside factors run amok with her research, when she has to think outside the box. Take this same character and put her at Girl’s Night with her friends, and she suddenly shifts to Intuitive mode. Here, she knows exactly how to micromanage every relationship going on between the friends. She might, however, have trouble when she’s thinking, “What did she really mean by that?” when really, she meant exactly what she said.

Likewise for her male coworker. In the lab, he’s Intuitive. He’s the one who catches the experimental errors or tries unorthodox combinations, but make him follow an exact process and he’ll go nuts. When he goes out for drinks with his friends, he’s all Logical. He likes no-nonsense, straightforward conversations, but he doesn’t get what he said when his friend storms off, pissed.

All this to say, I don’t think a character has to keep the same Approach or Problem-Solving Style in multiple stories. People aren’t so black-and-white, and neither are characters. In fact, I think this very trick can make for great characters. For example, the stereotypical “genius ditz” who can’t add 2+2 but can tell you the chemical formulas for her hairspray and makeup. The joke (such that it is) is that she can’t follow a Logical train of thought for most things, but get her on the right topic and suddenly she’s Albert Einstein. Or as another example, a guy who thinks girls are another species but treats his dog practically like a member of the family. Here, he can’t balance the Intuitive aspect of conversation, but he can Intuit animal behavior. Basically, you need to keep a character’s Problem-Solving Style consistent for one line of thought (that is, one argument or story). If they switched midway, it’d feel illogical or unintuitive for them to come up with the conclusion that they did. However, they don’t need to be so consistent between different problems. After all, different problems call for different problem-solving styles.

The rest of your post was really interesting, but I thought I’d answer your question specifically. Hope it helps!

[Chadwick]

Thanks for the reply. You have given me more to consider.

Now I am looking forward to comments on your post as well as mine.