Understanding Steadfastness and Change in a Character

questions
#3

What is the Issue that she is Steadfast on? What is the Issue the Influence Character Changes on?

For instance, it could be that she starts out with a little bit of self-reliance and then grows into even greater self-reliance at the end.

I’m sure you understand that characters can grow without fundamentally changing their point of view. This sounds like the case. If you haven’t yet, you might want to check out The Toy Story’s Dilemma. I explain why Woody–who most would consider to be a Chnaged character–is clearly a Steadfast character. He appears to be less “selfish” at the end, but really he has grown in his Resolve that playing is everything. That’s the essential part of the storyform–the part wrapped up in Buzz’s perspective, their relationship, and the move itself.

2 Likes
#4

Actually this insight (I’m sure it was from one of your articles, maybe it was Toy Story?) was one of the “aha” moments that convinced me that Dramatica was onto something that I hadn’t seen elsewhere. So I guess it’s just figuring out how to apply that insight.

Yes, exactly … I think this is what I’m going for.

The way I have it now is that at the beginning of the story the IC doesn’t really agree with what’s going on at the cult, but because of his war history with one of the cult’s leaders, he stays loyal. The MC’s steadfastness to principle (rather than to loyalty) is the trigger for his change.

So maybe as long as I show the MC’s courage/self-reliance to some extent at the beginning, I can show her growing into more of that, even as those traits are challenged by the IC and overall story.

1 Like
#5

Hmm… this is actually a really useful example. Maybe the key is that 1) by the end of the movie Neil believes he has run out of options (optionlock) and 2) he refuses to change (become an agreeable conformist) and thus kills himself. Maybe @jhull can tell us if that’s correct …

The start/stop stuff confuses me a bit too.

#6

That works for me. What part of Start/Stop don’t you understand?

#7

Let’s say we have a change character who needs to become more courageous. Couldn’t that be either “start” (need to start having more courage) or “stop” (need to stop being so afraid)? But that I can sort of understand that as a matter of emphasis.

Steadfast characters, on the other hand, are more confusing. Dramatica says a steadfast/start character needs to “hold out for some positive force outside of himself to finally start”. So Jason Bourne, for example, is holding out for … what? “Holding out” doesn’t quite seem to describe him to me – he’s a very active character. But also, what is he waiting for to start? I almost think he’s more trying to stop the bad guys from finding/killing him. (Note to self: listen to the dramatica discussion group on that movie … :slight_smile:).

1 Like
#8

I’m just gonna sliiide in here for a hot second, if nobody minds.

A change/stop character has an unnecessarily large impact regarding some trait and needs to lose it; in other words, they need to learn to sit down and listen. The argument is simply, “stop doing that.” On the other hand, a change/start character needs to stand and speak up; they have an unnecessarily small impact in some area and need to gain something. The argument is, roughly, “keep doing this, but also try doing that.”

Are they selling themselves short, or overextending themselves?

To use your “courage/fear” example, does the character need to remain a shrewd tactician, but also learn to risk defeat, or do they need to overcome their fear of battle, because they’re constantly disengaging?

It’s the same kind of difference for a steadfast character, but this time the problem is without themselves—e.g. in other characters. Where do their problems come from? From something others do (run away), or from something they don’t do (risk defeat)?

To be completely honest, I’ve never actually seen the Bourne Identity, but I’m assuming ‘they’ (not necessarily the bad dudes) aren’t stepping up.

2 Likes
#9

@jhull This got me thinking… I assume you are referring to the Issue in the MC Story Points? Is the Issue where I can look to determine where the MC is Change or Steadfast? In other words, if I’m trying to figure out a general area that the MC will have to deal with in order to Change (or the area they remain Steadfast), is the Issue the right place? Or is it more in the Problem/Solution?

1 Like
#10

@lovenote Okay I get your point on change characters. Still not sure about steadfast. I’ll have to look for some other examples of steadfast/start characters to compare. Thanks.

#11

Oh maybe I misunderstood. “What is the issue” refers to the MC Dramatica “Issue”?

#12

Well, one you’re probably familiar with is Romeo and Juliet. He grows in his resolve to be with Juliet despite knowing that their families aren’t likely to reconcile. Through his steadfastness (another example of suicide showing refusal to change…wonder if a trope’s emerging) he pushes everyone towards that reconciliation, giving us that Success/Bad ending.

#13

Oh, good example! I think that makes more sense now. Thanks @lovenote.

#14

This is the Protagonist, not the Main Character – being able to separate them is necessary before you can talk Change/Steadfast.

Not necessarily. For what it’s worth, I find the easiest place to be “Do-er/Be-er”.

It’s not even necessarily a specific story point that changes. I find it can be much more general.

1 Like
#15

By “issue” I mean what is the point-of-view, or perspective, attached to the Main Character. The whole point of the MC Throughline is to show what conflict arises from this point-of-view and whether or not it Changes of Remains Steadfast.

I use “issues” because Dramatica pretty much sopped up all the synonyms for problematic perspective. After concern, issue, problem there really isn’t much more to go with!

Think of them all as “problems” and look to what perspective is in question.

3 Likes
#16

Does Dramatica ever use “Conflict?” It seems, to me, that conflict is the mechanism of everything meaningful in a story. Essentially what an inequity is, in Dramatica. Through conflict you move a story, and through resolution of conflict you create “scores” on the various points of your argument.

I think it’s interesting, having been made to watch excessive amounts of terrible reality TV shows, the ways in which conflict operate as a tool of the shows participants. Big Brother UK — for example — there are so many house guests, and if you are just a nice person who is never in conflict you will never get air time and you will be removed. Creating and being involved in conflict creates narratives, and those narratives get airtime — every little bit of conflict is a small war for the hearts and minds of viewers who are either sympathetic to your perspective or aren’t. Maybe they’re just entertained and want to see more. Often people who are horrendously unlikable win. Conflict is attention.

Maybe this is all basic and off-topic, but maybe too it’s a useful perspective from which to talk about the function of change/steadfast. If you are arguing something, then you are saying “in this scenario, there are these two approaches — and the MC must change to take the other approach or they will never succeed. They do change, and they succeed.” OR you can change out any of those variables to be that they must not change and that THEY are right, that others must change to see that they are right and eventually their rightness will be self-evident as the problem is resolved. Or they could change/not change and the problem not be solved. However it works out, you’re making a small part of an argument via a conflict of concepts. Beliefs, actions, approaches in tension, and the resolution of that conflict is what you’re saying about those beliefs, actions, or approaches.

2 Likes
#17

Does Dramatica use “Conflict?” Nah, it’s just the fundamental basis of everything in the theory–the “Dynamic Pair.” :wink: When two characters align themselves with opposite ends of a Dynamic Pair, you get a conflict, and an insurmountable one. One side must remain Steadfast, and the other must Change.

#18

I guess I just don’t recall seeing the TERM used often if at all, but that could just be my memory. I feel it isn’t emphasized — where more difficult to parse terms are used frequently.

I know I wrote a ton, but I did encapsulate an understanding of your response, I promise :slight_smile:

#19

Ah, okay. I misread your argument and decided to be extra-glib today. :stuck_out_tongue: The reason why the world “Conflict” doesn’t appear in any of the terminology, I think, is because it’s up in the mission statement. The very first stepping stone in Dramatica theory is this: “A story is like a mind trying to solve a conflict.” Everything in the theory is integrated into conflict, one way or another. Steadfast versus Change, Success versus Failure, Action versus Decision–they’re all focused on how to solve conflicts.

3 Likes
#20

I guess that’s my point — it seems unintuitive that something so central to the theory is hardly referenced. If everything in the theory is about conflict, it might help the understanding of those learning the theory to express at various points HOW that is true — how the mechanics of the theory are creating conflict and why.

As someone struggling to learn the theory myself (but making progress!) I find that there are blindspots in bridging the gap between the knowledge of one who understands the theory and one who doesn’t. Certain things, perhaps, taken for granted — and also so much complexity that when certain ideas and themes aren’t reinforced with other explanations of other parts, that they’re lost or understandings are constantly shifting in response to new information. The process of learning Dramatica doesn’t feel as comprehensive as I believe it can.

Not to sound overly critical of everyone’s work with respect to the theory and its teaching. I think it’s a very complex thing, nearly as complex as the human experience itself. I see great value in Dramatica, and am interested in it as I feel I’m on the ground floor of a theory that has great potential to take off in potentially various disciplines. Telling a story is the essence of so many things, people in my line of work (software design) often describe themselves (perhaps eye-rollingly) as “storytellers.” People understand their lives, their politics etc. not in objective terms but in narrative terms. I want to write, but I believe understanding Dramatica will be valuable in its own right — so I’m invested in doing so and it’s in my nature to be critical of processes and attempt to improve them. If nothing else, attempting to do so should show me where I’m wrong in what would improve them and expand my understanding of the theory and its implementation.

#21

two words. Dynamic effing pairs.

(joke borrowed from Midnight Run)

#22

Conflict only exists within context. You don’t see it mentioned anywhere because it’s really mentioned everywhere–even beyond Dynamic pairs.

Context is everything–it’s why you have the You and I argument and you see it repeated throughout every quad. In one context you see the discreet, in another you see the blending.

1 Like