All is Right in the World--Inequity/equity and the Antagonist(s)

theory
#1

I understand that the act driver /inciting incident and the OS signpost coming on its heels need to be connected, for the protagonist’s beats.

But I suspect that the inequity caused by the inciting incident can be irrelevant to the antagonist who is just doing his thing. Or he could technically consider it an equity, because things are going his way.

So his responses might not be BECAUSE of inequity, driven not by this driver but by a different driver–the cause that brought him to that action, or the results in his own world.

2 Likes
#2

The Inciting Incident is not a part of Dramatica’s terminology, and I suggest not using it. It is not vigorously defined, and you could be talking about the First Driver or the Second Driver or even some event on page 10.

Anyway, that makes it hard to answer your question.

2 Likes
#3

I think it is an interesting observation.

I really love the Inciting Incident. There are so many different ideas about this concept that it requires you to really think about what it is, where it is, what’s going on with it, why it is happening, etc. In the end, I think that is a good thing, and it helps you understand the simplicity (and the ingenuity of) the Dramatica answer.

Here Dramatica refers to the Inciting Event/Initial Story Driver:

http://dramatica.com/questions/how-to-find-the-inciting-incident

H.R. D’Costa (full of great ideas when it comes to writing and a very nice person) describes a Proximal and Distal Inciting Incident to deal with the apparent contradiction of multiple Inciting Incidents. I don’t think that is as clean of a solution as Dramatica, but it deals with the confusion in some ways.

The Distal Inciting Incident, as she calls it, reminds me of the Inciting Event/Initial Story Driver in the above link. Why? Because, often you will have an Inciting Event/Initial Story Driver that doesn’t affect the MC directly.

To deal with this, she says that a Proximal Inciting Incident must be:

  • casually linked to the First-Act break…
  • passive (it happens to the protagonist, but it isn’t caused by him)…
  • personal (it affects him directly)…
  • disruptive (it changes the status quo).

I recently watched Shazam. The beginning sequence is purely OST. Also, it directly involves the Antagonist and – if he had his own story – it would be his Proximal Inciting Incident (I think).

This Inciting Event/First Story Driver doesn’t affect Billy Batson until the Wizard is forced to lower his standards (because the Antagonist finds a way back to his lair and frees the 7 Deadly Sins).

Some movies start this way (independent of the MC). This creates this need for Distal and Proximal Inciting Incidents if you don’t follow the Dramatica concept of the Inciting Event/Initial Story Driver.

This also creates the apparent disconnect between the Antagonist and Protagonist from the Inciting Incident. It is interesting to note, that many times, the Antagonist or the Protagonist are going to be present during the First Story Driver. It is probably going to be personal for one of the two. I find it interesting that the antagonist can be active in their role with the Inciting Event/First Story Driver (Jaws), but the Protagonist is going to be passive.

Anyway, I think your observation is great because – as you point out – it isn’t always personal. Or, at least, it is only personal to either the Antagonist or the Protagonist. I think that is worth thinking about. At some point, it becomes personal to the Antagonist (in the same way that a Distal Inciting Incident eventually becomes personal to the Protagonist).

Are there any movies where the Inciting Event/First Story Driver are immediately personal to the Antagonist and Protagonist? I can’t think of a specific movie, but wouldn’t a love story where a girl shows up and both the Antagonist and Protagonist see her at the exact same time be an example of this?

Thanks for your observation. I don’t think that Inciting Incident is a dirty word. In fact, I think it is pretty fascinating.

1 Like
#4

So @didomachiatto didn’t say it would be “personal” to the Antagonist and/or Protagonist. I can see why it matters to both, but personal is typically reserved for the IC and the MC.

But if you just want it to matter, then Star Wars. Possession of the plans changes the behavior of the antagonist and the protagonist.

Also, @didomachiatto, please note that even in the link @museful provides, it acknowledges that Dramatica doesn’t use the term, and then the answer doesn’t provide a direct answer–instead it says, “Hey, let’s look at drivers.”

There are a great many reasons to use Inciting Incidents but not in a way that ties into signposts or anything structural in Dramatica.

2 Likes
#5

Yes.

I think the question is a result of not sufficiently separating:

  • Protagonist and MC
  • Initial Story Driver/Inciting Event and “Inciting Incident”

I still think it is an interesting way to categorize stories:

  • the inequity is created by an action performed by the Antagonist (and, therefore, not relevant/personal; not an inequity)
  • the inequity is irrelevant (not personal) to the Antagonist, but created by an outside force
  • the inequity is relevant (personal) to the Antagonist and created by an outside force

It seems that the same rule probably applies to the AatMC (Antagonist as the MC) as it does to the PatMC (Protagonist as the MC). For an inequity to be relevant (personal), it must happen to them rather than be caused by them.

Anyway, I know that the Antagonist isn’t an MC:

  • except in their hypothetical, personal story or…
  • if the writer chooses to make the MC the Antagonist or…
  • if you have two MCs and one is the Antagonist and the other is the Protagonist

http://forums.screenplay.com/viewtopic.php?t=1306

And, if the Antagonist can be an MC or is hypothetically viewed as the MC, then relevant/personal could be explored.

In regard to personal… I think personal is a fair synonym for relevant.

Also interesting:

http://dramatica.com/questions/within-the-context-of-story-structure-what-is-an-inequity

#6

by this I mean the initial inequity caused by the initial (inciting) driver

#7

In my WIP, Trilogy, the Book One (ahem!) “Initial story driver” is a run of the mill action on the antagonist’s agenda. But it hits “the wrong person” in other words, it hits a girl who becomes a protagonist. Because of what he started, by his agenda, she makes a decision (Decision driver). The decision is what propels her journey, though the Action did not physically affect her.

In Subtext we are encouraged to use the antagonist in the OS, tied to the initial story driver, along the same signposts as the OS/Protagonist. But as the theory shows, the inciting incident leads directly to the first beat (for the Protagonist).

My question is tied to the first beat under the antagonist.

If I’m an antagonist–and don’t know I’ve created an enemy because I’m just happy I’m getting what I want, as always–the inciting initial act driver is not life-changing.

BUT…if it must do something to him OR his people, it does. It changes the IC, who his his right hand man (think Darth Vader). But he’s even unaware of that big impact on the IC.

He’s on his merry way Obtaining. But of course he’s the Trilogy Antagonist (think the Emperor). (Maybe I’ve answered my own question here)

#8

This sounds a lot like an Action driver – an action that forces or causes your protagonist girl’s decision. Can you share a few more details? (@MWollaeger is really good with drivers.)

Regarding the Antagonist and how involved or not involved he is in the Initial Story Driver, I think you can do whatever you want, whatever works for your story. The key thing is that the Initial Story Driver sets up an imbalance or inequity, which creates the need for the Story Goal* as a way resolving that inequity. The Antagonist is on the side of reticence, the “nah, things will be better without that Story Goal” side.

* in the Storymind. It’s not required that any characters know or conceive of the Story Goal at this point.

#9

I don’t see a question there. :grin:

Technically, the Antagonist’s function is reconsider/avoid. His function is to make the Protagonist’s life hard. You’re right, in another story he could be on his merry way Obtaining… but not this story. In this story, he is reconsider/avoid.

I agree with @mlucas that starting with an OS sequence is common but not required.

I also agree with @MWollaeger that using the drivers and signposts and avoiding the Inciting Incident is a less confusing process. I think that Dramatica does this part better (and many other parts) better than anyone else.

I recently ask myself, by spending the time to answer a question or studying this facet of storytelling, does it help me develop a better process? If I can’t say yes, I avoid thinking about it too much because… it is just procrastination in disguise.

It’s just like buying 500 books on writing theory. In end, it is just procrastination. You are either writing or you are being a student of theory.

I think that writing is a crappy experience. Ninety percent of the time, I don’t know why I try to do it. Maybe it gets easier for more experienced writers, but I hate it so far. But I’m not going to quit.

When I wrote screenplays, I hated it (I still write screenplays to use as a first draft for books; I still hate writing them), but I write 300 stinking words a night. It ain’t much, but it is what I can do working 70 hour weeks.

#10

Yeah, so this isn’t a definition I’ve ever heard anyone use. One of the many gifts of Dramatica is a shared vocabulary–having been in a lot of conversations with writers, I can’t believe how much this is overlooked.

Anyway, back to your initial question. Drivers are frameworks for stories, of which the antagonist is a part. We need to understand the Antagonist and their actions, and that probably comes from backstory and goals. But those are not Drivers, they’re motivations and purposes.

But, if you want to think about them like Drivers, there is probably no harm in it.

#11

There is a lot in my story about living with the results of other people’s decisions. This is a decision driver.

The PRO makes a (bad) moral decision, gets a punishment, and as she’s enduring that (in a hidden location), there is an attack and her family is abducted. She decides (again) not to rush out of hiding and join them/rescue them. What makes her the protagonist is these two decisions of her own. If she decides to join them, the story is over there. But we still have the Action driver of the attacks that had nothing to do with her decision.

What she is not aware of is that her father made a daring decision earlier in the day (into gear from a safe neutral) that resulted in his being finally located, then the attack/abduction.

The PRO notices her father and mother arguing about “something” but doesn’t give it much thought until later.

As far as I understand, as long as the sequence is right, the Mind will make sense of this DRIVER when the MC/PRO finds out or reconsiders that argument later. It looks like an action forcing decisions except the story keeps moving toward a series of decisions propelling the story’s actions.

#12

If those decisions you mentioned (the Protag’s bad moral decision, and the father’s daring decision) weren’t precipitated by Acions, sounds like your story could definitely have Decision as the Story Driver.

However, even when you get most of the drivers right, it’s possible to mess one up. You might want to revisit the one you mentioned earlier as your First Driver (Antagonist’s action causes Protagonist to make a decision) and see if you can make that decision unforced. Or find another decision that spawns the whole thing.

I’ve been toying with the idea that you shouldn’t be able to add the word “so” in front of the First Driver and have it make sense.

I would be careful about assuming that a story’s driver type tells you what it assigns more meaning to. Action stories can be about, say, the terrible choices people make to survive, or to get ahead, etc.

Yes, this is correct, good call.

2 Likes
#13

I don’t want to push for this driver if the story is not actually Decision, but my hang-up is that all actions are precipitated by thought and choice.

So the way I’m starting to see it is this.

  • Decision driver: internal compulsion of the will causing decisive (daring) decisions to act (Freewill)

“I’m gonna” —> X

  • Action driver: external propulsion resulting in reactive decisions of others (Determinism)

X --> “Now I’ve gotta…”

The story will move forward with this same logic, pivoting at the ACT DRIVERS --where this kind of moment turns everything around, nothing is as it was before.

#14

I’m not sure this is correct – especially the part about an action driver being external – but I want to know from others, because Drivers are a huge blind spot for me.

Based on recent posts here and conversations in the Writer’s Room, my understanding is that Decision drivers require deliberation, yes, but also choice – a clearly delineated fork in the road, or some kind of selection process.

So (as I think @jhull said in a recent writer’s room meeting) “I decided to shoot him” is probably actually an Action driver.

2 Likes
#15

Okay. The fog is lifting.

@Jhull wrote to me that “It’s not a decision that comes after an action, but rather a decision that is forced by the action.”

So for Action Driver [quote=“didomachiatto, post:13, topic:2518”]
resulting in reactive decisions of others (Determinism)
[/quote]

He added “You need to make the direct cause and effect association otherwise it doesn’t work as a driver.”

So I think, regarding Decision Driver:

And yet I agree with… [quote=“Lakis, post:14, topic:2518”]
I’m not sure this is correct – especially the part about an action driver being external
[/quote]

As I’m working through this…

  • the Action to kill is decisive. (I hate the guy)

  • The Decision to kill would be a dilemma. (Whom do you kick out of the lifeboat?)

  • Action to go (I’m hungry)
  • Decision to go (if I don’t risk my neck, the kid will die of hunger)
  • Action to escape (I’ve gotta get out of here)
  • Decision to escape (If I stay, I can help the other prisoners. If I escape, I can for sure live).
  • Action to eat (It’s dinner time)
  • Decision to eat (I’m giving up my hunger strike)

I’m not sure if the actions above are good examples of ‘drivers’ though. There’s tension missing. Let’s say…

Action to go, the antagonist has to find out where I went. When I see him I duck behind a dumpster…
Action to escape, the antagonist has to stop me. When I fall down the hill escaping, I have to now avoid the antagonist and limp toward freedom on a broken ankle …
Action to eat, the antagonist waits for the sedative to put me to sleep, then he abducts me. When I wake up, I think through my options and bribe the guard.

vs

Decision to go, since I risked my neck, the antagonist gets a free shot at me from the tower and I have to decide how to survive his bullets
Decision to escape, since I didn’t help the other prisoners, the antagonist kills them and I have to decide how to get revenge
Decision to eat, since I gave up my hunger strike, the antagonist can no longer manipulate the President with the strike and instead he tries to get his way kidnaps Tiffany, so I have to decide if following him is more important than protecting the rest of the children

Is this the difference?

1 Like
#16

I was following you, until your detailed examples. The best way to make something a clear Driver is to make sure it forces events of the opposite type (Action Driver, Actions force Decisions; Decision driver, Decisions force Actions). So:

Action to eat, a hungry dragon swoops down to attack me, and I just manage to duck into a cave to avoid it. But now it’s getting dark and I know there are Night Ghouls in this part of the wilderness. I’m not sure if the dragon is still out there, so I have to decide whether to venture out and risk the dragon, or stay in the cave and risk the ghouls. Neither choice is one I would’ve made if not for the dragon’s attack. (Or maybe I choose a separate option – send my pet hamster out to flush out the dragon…)

Decision to eat, I decide to give up my hunger strike, so my fellow hunger strikers are forced to lock me in my room without food, to keep me from breaking the strike.

5 Likes
How you define the Story Driver if it has already happened
#17

Okay, so the Action driver in this case is the antagonist, and the responder is the protagonist.

I see. This is very helpful

I’m beginning to understand. Force. Forced.

edited after I thought it over.

1 Like
#18

Now, can anyone illustrate or show an example of a completely internalized decision that acts as a driver?

For some reason, I always imagine the decision as needing to be externalized for it to work.

Maybe just stating the obvious?

Or maybe, there are some examples of non-externalized decision drivers:

  • The IC knows the MC won’t let it go so the take an action based on this predicted decision?

I’m not sure. Maybe that wouldn’t count.

Less obvious Decisions
#19

And further, can an action indicate a decision?

David decided to sign the treaty that would change so many lives. He reached for the pen.

Tommy pulled a gun out of his jacket and pointed it at David. “Bad Decision.”

Is that a decision driver?

#20

I went through my story, listing all of the BIG DECISIONS that happen, pushing the plot forward. There are a lot of decisions. But most of them are not “dilemmas.” In fact, most of them are the only reasonable option. Pushing for it to always be a dilemma, even though MC is mind, ma

Sometimes they are caused by something the PRO/someone sees, Sometimes by a way someone feels after some else does something, Sometimes they are brought to light because of natural disasters.

But in rethinking the BIG DECISIONS, it appears that they are responsive. If the story needs to be patterned according to the driver, it seems that decisions are responsive and not even considered except for the action that stirred up the emotions.

2 Likes