I thought that whether the MC sees the problem within himself depends on whether he is a change or steadfast character. If he’s a change character, then he sees the problem within himself. If he’s a steadfast character, then he sees the problem external to himself.
But, that must not be all that is factored into it because I have a story form with a change resolve and the Four Throughlines Themes report states, “Main Character doesn’t see the problem to be in himself.”
What else is the problem location (i.e. internal/external) dependent on? How do I go about changing my story form so that the Main Character sees the problem to be in himself?
A Change character, if I’m not wrong, will always see the source of the problem outside of himself. Or at least, his problem isn’t what he thinks it is. That’s the Symptom/Focus element. He is blind to his actual problem because it is his source of drive / motivation and as such, he doesn’t realize that the problem lies in himself and that he needs to change.
The Steadfast character is the same way, expect that even after being exposed to his drive, he’ll still decide to focus on where he sees the problem – because he doesn’t believe the problem to be inside himself, rather it’s his source of drive and demotivating himself (using the solution) would prevent resolution.
A Change character may be right to change or not, just like the Steadfast character may be right or wrong to not change. It depends on the OS Outcome and Judgment. The Change character sees his justifications being torn apart until he sees the inequity within himself and decides to change his worldview. The Steadfast character may or may not be aware of his inequity / drive but either way, he builds his justifications as better focus on his Symptom rather than his Problem.
So, the Four Throughlines Theme report has a bug in it?
I’m pretty sure that report says the Main Character doesn’t see the problem to be in itself for any storyform.
You may have to twist your perspective regarding what “see” and “the problem” mean. I think all it means is that the MC doesn’t see their problematic drive (MC Problem) as their true problem. Take an enslaved character with a desperate drive to be free (MC Problem Uncontrolled) – she doesn’t think that craving freedom is her problem. She might recognize it causes her trouble, sure, but she thinks her problem is really elsewhere, in how she’s being enslaved.
Now it gets trickier when you have an MC who hates himself and has, say, an overabundance of guilt (perhaps an MC Problem of Consider or Conscience or Determination is at play here). He might see himself as “bad” or “unworthy” – totally cool. All that Report is saying is that he doesn’t see his own view of himself as his true problem.
1 Like
I thought the fact that he saw the problem to be in himself is what motivates a change character to change. If he doesn’t see the problem as in himself, then there is no reason to change.
I think he comes to see the problem in himself, but only later in the story. So, that sentence in the report is only telling you the MC’s perspective at the beginning (and likely for a good chunk) of the story.
MC is the personal view of the inequity. The one the audience sees as personal. Resolve will change how they see it.
Thank you, Brian. Yes, I realize that. I just don’t understand why a Resolve: Change character is not to be motivated to change until later in the story. I can easily imagine a story in which the change character gets his resolve: change set early in the first act. Rite of Passage comedies (for example, wedding comedies or comedies about graduation from high school/college) are often like this where the MC realizes that his world is changing, his friends are moving on with their lives, and that he needs to grow up.
The same report as above also states, “Only if MC continues to believe that his own deficiency of Reconsider is not really causing all the problems, but is just the work he must do to resolve the problems will he be able to set things right.” In this story form, Reconsider is the problem. So, this report seems to be saying that not only will characters misidentify where the problem is (symptom) and misdiagnose the treatment (response), but that misidentifying and misdiagnosing is critical to resolving the problem. Do I understand that correctly?
Change Characters have a lot of baggage. They have four levels of justifications that have to be removed before they can change. Each signpost is an exploration of that as they are influenced to give up a justification. This can feel gradual or be a leap of faith at the end. But, they can’t really change until they lose all their baggage.
1 Like
I totally agree. However, I don’t see why they can’t be motivated to change rather early on.
Take Big Daddy, for example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Daddy_(1999_film) The Sandler character makes a determination to change in the first act. Of course, the rest of the movie is about his journey to change, but his motivation to do so is clearly seen when he goes to take the boy back to child services.
I don’t think it’s a question of being motivated to change or not; it’s a question of being blind to what has to change.
3 Likes
Some characters are motivated to change because
they know they need to. But, they are still blind to how to do or be it. So, their baggage is in the way no matter how motivated they are to do it early on in a story.
Well put, @crayzbrian and @MWollaeger.
I think the takeaway from this thread is that the language in the Four Throughlines Themes report can be confusing. When it says “he doesn’t see the problem to be in himself” it really means the problem.
That is, authors are free to make their MC see himself (his own behaviour, attitudes, capabilities, whatever) as problematic. To see a problem or problems within himself. It’s just that the MC doesn’t see the exact nature of his true problem, nor how to go about changing to fix it, until the story (particularly IC throughline) exposes him to a different approach and perspective.
1 Like
I think it’s best to relate this back to real life.
How often do you go into an argument thinking, “I’m the one who is wrong.”?
1 Like
Hmm. I think I must be misunderstanding your question? I can think of several examples where I might go into an argument knowing I’m the one who’s wrong.
- Traffic court: I wasn’t speeding, honestly!
- Argument with wife: You never told me I had to be home by four o’clock! (thinking: I probably wasn’t paying attention…)
But in my last post I was really trying to help @YellowSuspenders by understanding his perspective … I believe he thought the report was saying his MC couldn’t go in thinking “something is wrong with me”.
1 Like
That post was right – the MC can think they have a problem. It’s just unlikely to the the problem, as you said.
Going into traffic court knowing you were speeding is knowing you’re wrong about the speeding, but missing the point that it’s bad to go through life being a liar.
Also, a traffic ticket is probably a tale, not a Story. (What we’ve done is mixed colloquial arguments and “a story is an argument”.)
2 Likes