Where to place a Change MC to properly solve the problem

theory
#1

Let’s say you want to write a story for a specific audience with a real problem. You as the author know that the audience’s problem lies in Psychology. You want the audience to identify with the MC because they have the same problem. You want the audience to identify you with the IC so that they will accept your advice on which path to take to solve the problem. Do you:

A. Give your MC a Psychology throughline because, as the author, you know that’s where the problem is even though the MC changing means they will see the problem from a Physics perspective in the end?

Or B. Give your MC a Physics throughline because, as the IC, you know what the problem is and you need the MC to see it the same way you do to solve it?

I guess another simpler way to ask this would be, do you solve a problem by realizing where the source of the problem is so you can attack it properly(B) or do you solve a problem by moving away from the source of the problem(A)?

I realize the realistic answer is probably C. Abandon this experiment because you clearly don’t know enough about Dramatica and don’t want to cause irreparable damage to your audiences ability to deal with the problem. But since it’s hypothetical, let’s not go with that one.

#2

I have no wisdom only more complications. I claim no expertise, but I think all combinations can work. One thought I had was I suspect the risk of preachiness might be highest with a change MC as your “target” rather than a change IC as the target.

Said another way, I tend to enjoy change IC / steadfast MC movies specifically because they are somewhat unexpected. That is, the typical mantra is that the “MC must change,” so it’s unexpectedly delightful when:

  1. the MC is already a good example
  2. you feel tense as the climax nears because it’s likely that the MC will change away from this good path (since it’s likely that the MC will change because mantra)
  3. but then yay the IC changes & the good example of the steadfast MC is affirmed.

I’m thinking Whale Rider, Bobby Fischer, Rocky, Back to the Future, and perhaps Little Miss Sunshine if Richard is IC.

It’s not the only way to do it, but I suspect it decreases the risk of “you need to change like Scrooge” overt messaging in a change MC. Plus, the viewer can spend a lot of time with your argument as represented by the MC which has the advantage of increased audience empathy with that perspective via more screen time & POV techniques.

2 Likes
#3

It’s definitely option A. Star Wars and The Matrix teach you to stop whining about your own personal Universe and embrace the power of the Mind. Finding Nemo, Collateral and Pitch Perfect teach you to give up a fixed mindset and embrace your awesome Universe. etc.

Unless of course you mess with the ending, especially making the Judgment Bad, then you would send the opposite message.

I agree with @HaroldLloyd that Steadfast MC is also a great way to get your message across. e.g. Breaking Away teaches you the benefit of sticking with your crazy Activities.

I assume you’re focusing on the MC Throughline because you’re focusing on the audience’s personal problems. I suppose you could twist it more to be about their overall, objective psychology problem(s) and use the OS throughline…

2 Likes
#4

Re-reading your question I think I see where you went wrong with Option B.

The IC Throughline is about the type of impact the IC has on the MC, not about where the IC knows the problem is. In your example you want to influence the audience members through Physics, so it’s appropriate to have an IC Throughline in Physics (Option A).

3 Likes
#5

Ooh! I know the answer to this one!

It’s option A. The storyform represents the AUTHOR’s view of the inequity at hand, not the character’s views of their problems. If you want that kind of subjective info, check out the PSR.

A word of caution, though, especially if you are a novelist (like myself): make sure that what you are encoding in your choices of domains for your storyform are which behaviors/attitudes/actions/situations are causing the problems in the here-and-now, NOT what may have led up to them.

To give you an example, I struggled with identifying the appropriate domains for the throughlines in my latest novel for MONTHS. My initial inclination was that my MC should be in Situation, given that she viewed the source of her problems as stemming entirely from her arranged marriage contract. Only when I learned more about Dramatica did I figure out that the storyform shouldn’t represent HER view of her problems, but MY view of her problems, which had much more to do with her avoidance of her marriage contract than the contract itself.

But that solution led to another conundrum. Was her problem within the narrative her ACTIONS in attempting to escape her contract, OR was her problem more to do with her manner of thinking about the contract which was then leading her to act in self-destructive ways. Surely it was the latter, right?

Nope! It’s her ACTIONS that are causing trouble here. How do I know? Because even if her manner of thinking never changed, provided she changed what she was DOING, the inequity in her throughline would be resolved. As a novelist, I’m so inclined to look at the motivations behind people’s actions, the causes behind causes so to speak, that it made it hard to look at the story objectively and just ask myself: what is ACTUALLY making trouble for this character in the here-and-now, not which situations/attitudes/mindsets/activities might have led her to this point.

Hope that helps!

4 Likes
#6

I think the answer is in here: http://dramatica.com/theory/book/story-reception

1 Like
#7

Thanks for the replies, everyone. All very good answers and, honestly, inline with what I would have said.

@mlucas, you might be right, but I’m not sure that’s quite right (as in I’m not sure that’s quite where I’m going wrong, I think your info is accurate).

What’s bugging me is this flip at the Domain level (from Psychology to Physics) and the message the MC is getting from the IC. I understand it’s about the ICs influence on the MC. I’m mostly thinking in terms of the example of the soldiers in battle and the IC saying “follow me, take this path” so the language is reflecting that, I think.

Anyway, where I feel like I’m getting mixed up (not for sure about this, though, really, and I’m certainly not confidant I can express it properly) is that the story is metaphorically saying “this is the best way to solve this problem” (I’m assuming a Success/Good). If the Storymind knows the problem for the MC is a Psychology problem, why would it suggest that the best way to handle that is to look at it as a Physics problem? Is it because Physics solves Psychology problems? Is it because the Storymind is saying “this is the best way to solve the problem” and not “this is the best way to view your problem”?

Now that I’ve typed it out, I feel like that last part probably answers the question, but I really don’t know.

#8

Similar to Mike’s link above about Audience Reception and Propaganda, the section on Main Character Resolve also (surprisingly) has some stuff related to your question: http://dramatica.com/questions/what-is-the-main-character-resolve

Similar to Harold’s response above, it recommends using a Steadfast MC to accomplish what you’re talking about (although it doesn’t say that’s the only way to do it, just one way).

Regarding your other questions, I think you might be jumping over some things. Having an MC Throughline Domain of Psychology isn’t really the same as “the Storymind knows the problem for the MC is a Psychology problem”. It’s more like, because of the MC’s justifications and worldview, when the story kicks off they have issues stemming from Psychology. And it’s not that “the best way to handle that is to look at it as a Physics problem”, it’s more “hey boy here comes some Physics up your ass, that oughta help tear down your damn justifications”.

So it’s more like the Storymind is saying, “this is how you need to view the world to resolve these types of personal issues”. It’s not saying to look at it as a “Physics problem”, because viewed from that other perspective, the MC’s problem likely isn’t a problem at all.

Regarding the Domain flip, I have a question of my own … I’m not sure that the “flip” that a Change character undergoes always has the same cause and effect relationship with solving their personal issues. Do they solve their personal problems because they adopt the IC’s perspective, or do they adopt the IC’s perspective because they solve their personal problems? I think it depends on the story?

2 Likes
#9

Yes.

No temporal cause and effect with the storyform.

It just is.

2 Likes