Subjective Characters That Aren't Me

theory
#1

Was just reading 2.8.1.1.2, quoted here in part:

"The Subjective view is as if the Story Mind were our own. From this perspective, only two characters are visible: Main and Impact. The Main and Impact Characters represent the inner conflict of the Story Mind. In fact, we might say a story is of two minds. In real life, we often play our own devil’s advocate, entertaining an alternative view as a means of arriving at the best decision. Similarly, the Main and Impact Characters make the Story Mind’s alternative views tangible. To the audience of a story, the Main Character experience is as if the audience was one of the players on the field. The Impact Character is the player who blocks the way.*

…Objective Characters represent dramatic functions; Subjective Characters represent points of view.

I’ve been having trouble understanding how two characters could both be subjective. The Main Character, well, that’s easy to understand: it’s the skin the reader or viewer temporarily slips into to experience the story.

So how can the Impact Character be subjective?

Well, Wittgenstein said in his later days that philosophy was basically about clearing up misunderstandings caused by language, and I think that’s a bit of the case here: meaning, I think “subjective”, Wallace Shawn, i do not think it means what you think it means. Or rather, I think it means two things, when applied to Main and Impact Characters.

The thing is, about the story mind, it’s an analog for the human mind and the story process, but it’s not the human mind itself. In a strange way, it’s possible to have two subjective points of view, and for that we have to go to someone with mental illness, like me: I have Dissociative Disorder, meaning the internal voices of conscience and anti-conscience (you know, that guy, the Devil), are a bit more real than they should be, and persistent, and I have to quiet them down willfully throughout the day or they ‘displace’ my normal subjective point of view, until I remember to take back the throne. Just part of my life, and been that way so long, I don’t know how the rest of you live. The interesting thing about these internal voices is that when you occupy them, they are indistinguishable from the, for lack of a better word, Main Character–me. Me me, I mean.

How we think of the Christian Devil in stories is a great analogy, actually, or Hannibal Lecter–you know, those soft whispering voices that tell you your worst fears or depict your worst self to you (or your crazy fantasies of being with Anne Hathaway or of being a Rock Star). They’re not really ‘other people’–even though we characterize them that way in a movie or a book. That’s actually sleight of hand. The Impact Character is not “just another person” in the book. it’s the externalized version of an internal voice that you hear all day long in your own head–the ‘devil’s advocate’ and so on. That’s why it’s not an objective character, but still not you.

If I had my druthers, I’d call it The Externalized Inner Voice character, because if it’s a good one, it’s probably going to know more about your Main Character than he/she does him/herself.

I’d call the two Subjective-Main and Subjective-Internal, just to get it straight in my own head. This is a cultural failing–those voices are utterly real, most of us have them, and we have no name, or only trivial names for them, but they play a huge part in our lives.

Suggestion - storytelling is at least in part a desperate attempt to come to terms with those voices in an external arena, and it’s the closest we have to having a way to tell people ‘what it’s really like’ inside our own head. That’s when a story ‘feels right’–when it’s giving someone that true internal voice that speaks really only to the Main Character in its truest words. At least, so it claims–but it might be lying. Those voices have their own agendas, based on inner drives we’ve chosen to supplant with consciousness, and you can’t trust them to give you good ideas. But you can trust them to be true to themselves, because they don’t have an interfering conscience, the way a MC does. (For that matter, when a scene pops up in your head, from you know not where, that’s yet another manifestation of internal pov, giving you dramtizations like gifts.)

And the fact is, I think we often hope between the MC and IC pov in a story, most often in the middle. At first he’s internal, then, like someone with dissociative disorder, the MC is in danger of being displaced by the IC (so stories like Face Off), then at the end the MC ‘remembers’ he has the con, not Lt. Sulu, and we are emotionally and pov-wise separated from the IC again.

Anyway, just some thoughts, needs to be cleaned up, but this is the insight I had tonight. I feel on much solider ground now that I realized this.

#2

The easiest way to distinguish them is by personal and impersonal points of view.

The MC is personal and the IC is impersonal. Both will be driven by personal problems. But, the IC will be slightly removed from the audience.

Everyone dissasociates, but some more than others. I would imagine that the different child parts in DID would be similar to group MCs like Stalag 17. Other dissasociations might be represented by various kinds of Be-ers if you wanted to write about it.

1 Like
#3

I think you’re right, but I’m driving more at what makes that ‘other’ special to the Main Character, what makes the IC an indispensable dramatic figure in the story. It’s that aspect of being a mirror reflection, a self divided from the Main Character, and yet directed towards it.

Disassociations aren’t like having a split personality. There aren’t different people banging around inside, it’s more like…I dunno, different points of view, that can believe completely opposite things, that somehow can slide in and make you forget what you really think. And you’re right, everyone is like that to some degree. Well, you’re never lonely and you always have entertaining company :slight_smile:

You just gave me the thought that you could portray the shifting POV by having the internal Be-er become a Do-er, a la Buddy Love.

To say that a DID is child perspective isn’t quite right. Some, sure, but I’ve also had traumatizing adult experiences that have resulted in similar ‘floating’ perspectives. These internal ‘perspectives’ or POVs don’t have a personality. It almost helps to think of them as literal POVs–imagine a floating field of them on a large sheet, for example, and every so often the sheet slides and one of the POVs moves over the Personality and the two bond. Then the sheet slides back. It’s quite literally as if you’re looking through the same eyes and personality but from a completely different perspective. Empathy is a successful, integrated personality version of this, imo: with empathy, the you that is you doesn’t shift out, but gets a new perspective layered on top of it. In the case of DID, the you that is you takes a cigarette break at the back door. It’s more about the loose connectedness, and frequent temporary absence, or sleep, of the MC. The MC has a very loose connection to his home, because he’s learned it’s not always a safe place to be. Sometimes it’s better to vacate until the storm passes, then go back in after a transgressive POV gets exhausted and goes away again.

Anyway, that’s all I’m going to say about this. Apologize for the self-analysis. Just helped me understand the IC a little better, at least a version of it that makes internal emotional sense to me.

#4

Here’s how I think of it:

Yes, stories are an analogy to the human mind trying to solve a problem, but they’re also analogues for how we experience living in the real world:

Thus, MC = My subjective view of myself
IC = My subjective view of another person
RS = My subjective view of the relationship that we share
OS= The God’s eye view of me, this other person, AND our relationship (available to me only in hindsight, and never in its entirety)

Now of course, when we’re telling a story, we’re not just dealing with life, but trying to resolve an inequity that exists between ourselves and the world. Thus, the relationships at the center of stories are not random, nor is our choice of ICs. When we experience “stories” unfolding in our personal lives; i.e. when we’re struggling to resolve a problem, the people who function to influence our POVs are people that we can project alternate models of our selves onto. We see someone taking an alternate approach to solving the same problem we’re struggling with and are forced to consider whether we should change to be like them, or whether they should change to be like us, since we obviously can’t both be right.

#5

According to the theory book, I don’t think this is correct. I think it’s the objective view of the relationship from the author’s point of view. Ditto the OS. I don’t think it’s quite the God’s eye view–all knowing, all seeing–because authors are limited, finite beings as a matter of fact. I always thought the idea that the author was God of the novel was inauthentic. The author is the human being writing the novel, attempting objectivity as best he can, and the characters are not living and have no relationship with the author because they are not really conscious. On the one hand, they are organizations of words on a page according to a theory of the creation of a thing called a character, and on the other hand they are the figures of imagination that happen in the mind of the author, and later the reader, that are triggered by and interacting in complicated ways with the words. There’s all kinds of problems with talking about the author as if he were a God.

I like your take on IC. What do I think of this person, how do I see this person, as opposed to how others see them. Nice.

I don’t disagree with you about the rest, but I think those alternate points of views, those devil’s advocates, are externalized expressions of our internal voices, at least they are when they are at their most authentic and convincing. After all they aren’t real people: they are, in fact, alternate POV that we’re inventing. Even if we’re not getting spontaneous voices in our head, we’re assembling them consciously and hope that they speak to us and to others.

#6

Well, right. But it’s not a coincidence that the RS was originally termed the Subjective Story, nor do I think it’s a coincidence that the RS is the most poorly understood POV. It is the most inherently subjective area of a story, and as such it is the hardest to pin down in objective terms. When telling a story, I’ve found it easiest to get a handle on the RS by considering how it appears to the MC, even if this view is not completely accurate to what the RS is. Defining what the RS is in objective terms is damn near impossible; we don’t really have the language for it.

Right-- attempting objectivity is the best any of us can do as human beings. Thus, the OS view is something we can only ever aspire to understanding, not one we can ever completely grasp. However, we presume that such an objective view does exist, even if it’s not entirely accessible to us.

As to whether the author is a God of her story, once again, I see that as something to aspire to, even if it’s rarely if ever achieved. The ideal author has perfect knowledge of their own story, and knows exactly why everything in it unfolds the way it does. Are any of us actually the ideal author of our own works? Of course not. But Dramatica provides a framework for us to get as close as we can.

#7

My problem with that is, what’s God? And until you can tell me, how can you aspire to it? All the definitions we have are local, provincial, cultural. I can aspire to be Jehovah or Allah or Christ, I suppose, or Zoroaster or Zeus or Pluto (who, according to Ovid, was Zeus’s equal, he just drew the wrong lot when they were deciding which kingdom’s to hold dominion over). But none of those really apply or are useful for the idea of authorship. Hard to imagine Jehovah really buckling down and worrying his throughlines until his storyform is perfect, when he can go and wreak havoc on the Canaanites or idol worshipers or whatever. Anyway, perfection, which is an idea that seems out of sync with God and more in sync with human mental illness, has never really appealed to me. Perfection isn’t needed for the goal of better human knowledge and better human tools, anyway. It’s a Kuhnian world: we use one paradigm until a better one comes along. I’m not even sure I could define what perfection is, let alone God.

At this point I’m just muttering to myself in public :slight_smile: back to my day job.

#8

I agree with Audrey that “God’s point of view” is a great way to understand the OS. I wouldn’t worry so much about how all-knowing you have to be and all that. This is just a shortcut to understanding, an analogy as opposed to a perfectly accurate description. If it doesn’t work for you, “bird’s eye view” is also good.

Regarding the RS:

I think we tend to overthink the RS. Once you can picture the relationship itself as a character that experiences conflict and grows and changes, it’s not really that bad. (Though I do agree it’s hard to define objectively.)

I don’t think the MC’s view of the RS is a good way to understand the RS itself. However once you actually do understand the RS (i.e. you’re able to illustrate the various story points as true sources of conflict, using the relationship as a character), there is another step that isn’t discussed very often: you have to figure out how to put all those relationship-as-character illustrations into your story. This is tough because the relationship can’t talk, or grimace, or throw itself off a cliff – at least not literally.

This is where I think your MC’s view of the relationship comes in, Audrey – especially in a novel that uses the MC’s POV (1st or 3rd). You have to find ways to bring in the relationship and its growth into dialogue, comments by other characters, things the MC and IC do, the POV character’s thoughts, etc. It’s not easy. I find I’m usually just looking at it out of the corner of my eye, or even just ignoring the RS consciously and letting my subconscious handle it.

2 Likes
#9

I like bird’s-eye view.

The IC was giving me the most trouble, but I don’t find RS all that difficult, I just grab my beloved Star Trek and think about Kirk and Spock, and the relationship part is kind of obvious. Or Holmes and Watson. The RS is literally what happens when those two meet, when they are relating, especially in dialogue. Becomes more tenuous as they are physically further apart, when you focus on the IC and MC aspects of the two characters.

Was thinking about how there are at least a couple kinds: a shared RS where there is depth of feeling, and an unwanted RS, Batman/Joker, where the Joker imagines a great mythical relationship between the two, but Batman just sees Joker as a psycho murderer (Hannibal Lekter/Will Graham). I’m sure there are lots more flavors.

All this is great discussion. Thanks everyone for responding.

#10

Thanks, Mike!

But as to what you’re saying about the RS, I think that kind of proves my point. It’s easier to understand the RS if you think of the relationship as if it were a character in and of itself-- but, of course, it isn’t really a character. We think of it as if it were a character for the sake of being able to pin down a very subjective area of life in objective terms.

1 Like
#11

I feel as though there is some crossover between scope and POV at times. I’d say there really are only two component POVs in the writing of the story:

  • Subjective (Internal)
  • Objective (External)

With one Collective/Gestalt POV:

  • Authorial

Authorial/Collective/Gestalt POV can be overt or covert.

There are three scopes:

OST (Long Shot)
RS (Two Shot)
MC/IC (One Shot)

or

Relationship (field subject)
Individual (focal subject)

Or if you want to look at the POV as a distinct voice with a distinct Throughline – then I see five: the four Throughlines and the Authorial/Collective/Gestalt.

The RS, in my opinion, is completely defined by overt or covert commentary by the author. That can be accomplished by subtext, irony, subtleness, directness, external character commentary (anyone but the MC or IC).

I don’t think internal character commentary (MC, IC) falls into this category because it is already in a category. **But that doesn’t mean that it isn’t an available tool in defining the RS or expressing it. But I’d look at it as an unreliable narrator (in regards to the RS) and that’s why I’d avoid officially putting it on the list.

Makes sense to me at least.

#12

I think the issues with this come in when you’re trying to explain IC and RS to people. You need to highlight the differences clearly to get it straight in your head. I really like the cinema focused one shot two shot long shot take on things, though. I’m writing a novel, will never write a screenplay, so it’s a way I don’t think, but it’s really useful.

I was going to add to my first longer note: it’s misleading to think that the reader sees the story ONLY through the eyes of the MC. That’s just not so. It’s much more common that they’ll jump from POV to POV in the course of the story, with the obvious hero having more of the reader’s empathy. The reader’s POV is more of a ball being passed between the subjective players.

#13

On the run… so many topics to post to…later,but now…in a romance the RS is the main plot and in the other genres and/or ‘fiction’ the RS is a side story.
That’s been the take on for a lot of Romance writers and readers.

1 Like
#14

Back to my Star Trek examples: 1st season Trek was Captain Kirk and the crew of the Enterprise. Season 2 the network ordered that the show be about Kirk and Spock on space adventures, because of the strength of the bromance. That show’s such a great example because of the upheaval in television in 67/68.

These throughlines, they’re like a ball, you rotate one side to face the reader/viewer…hmmm…

#15

Dramatica is a very rule oriented and category specific way to break down a story. It is analytical and linear in many ways. At least in the analytical flow. It seeks the order of form in the chaos of creativity. I suppose that depends in which direction you are going though.

It’s Yin and Yang. That’s why I find the separation of Storyforming and Storytelling to be unusual sometimes. It’s like cutting a nickel in half. One implies the other. One needs the other. Otherwise, it isn’t a nickel anymore.

A ball is more than just a POV of one side of the ball. It is multiple perspectives of the ball or it is the ball spinning with one perspective. So good on you. I like your ball analogy. Spin the ball or spin the POV. :smile: