So I’m writing a story with a Steadfast MC (Success/Bad), and I just realized I don’t have a solid encoding of the the IC’s change (is it correct to call it an arc?).
Is this as simple as having the IC adopt her Solution element? If so, how does that impact the OS Solution?
Or does the Crucial Element come in somehow? I am noticing that the Crucial Element for the IC does not appear in the storypoints of her throughline, so I’m not sure how it plays in.
Great question - I’m not sure if there is one size fits all answer.
It’s better to ask what is the meaning of the Influence Character changing their perspective? Isn’t it more about confirming the Main Character’s approach (at least, in your case logistically (Success), emotionally, not so much (Bad).
The Influence Character is the not another Main Character. It’s a point of view specifically aimed at influence or impacting the Main Character’s point-of-view. That’s why the Crucial Element is always found in the Main Character’s Throughline – it’s always about the MC. (Pretty sure, that’s a rap lyric)
It can be as simple as adopting the Solution element. It can even be something we witness later as again, we’re talking about the Influence Character - the character we are not as Audience.
When answering any Dramatica question I always find it best to roll it back a bit and ask what is the meaning of the storypoint in question. That way it becomes more about a model of human psychology rather than about Dramatica the theory.
Thanks Jim.
Okay, so I think this relates to a question you answered about the Narrative Argument (which is still causing me some some confusion…). There were a couple of different encoding options and I’m not 100% settled, but here’s a close version that you helped me with:
“While tragic to the individual, ceasing to write a thesis for a despicable authority figure can keep you from working for a tyrant.”
So in my dystopian story, the farmer/researchers are trying to prove that their techniques will work to save the world from starvation (I use the word “prove” here but I could try to encode it more as theorizing). Unfortunately, doing this work is almost impossible because the farm is under the thumb of a local land baron/tyrant. So the solution to the story is to let go of the need to keep doing this work (theorizing). Through events that I won’t lay out here, “stopping theorizing” frees them from the land baron – though with tragic consequences.
Now my IC’s problem is Proven. So I am coming up with a bunch ways in which her need to prove things (having to prove things, etc.) is causing problems for her (e.g. she is compelled to verify the MC’s identity which causes problems, etc.).
Meanwhile, my MC’s problem (drive in this case) is Expectation. He really sees the potential for this sustainable farming stuff and believes the farm can make it happen – you can say he has very high expectations for it – but doesn’t care about proving anything to anybody, he just wants it to work.
So I’m circling around a climax for the story where (after many events) the IC realizes that the “proof” of their approach (maybe through an action or revelation from the MC?) is a lie. In response, she burns down the research barn (to destroy this evidence). This effectively frees them from the land baron – but it also destroys their farm.
So (assuming I go with this) does the IC’s final decision to reject Proven mean that she’s embracing Unproven? Or is she somehow adopting the MC’s approach of Expectation here (and I need to encode it that way?)
What is the Storymind trying to tell me?!
Would this work better if I tried to write a perspective without Dramatica terms?
I’m sure Jim will chime in with something more meaningful but:
Yes, definitely!
What is she thinking when she burns down the farm? What are they going to do now? It seems like a sort of dubious approach, so maybe you can find some aspect of embracing the untested and untried there, or afterward when she considers things. (IC Resolve can be shown anywhere, even in the very last scene, and often the actual moment of change – if there is one – is “off screen”.)
Yes, excellent! I admit I’m still thinking this through – I need to come up with more compelling reason why she feels that she needs to destroy this proof.
It takes a certain kind of stupid, or desperate, or unthinking, courage to try something that hasn’t been done before. I would ask, what theory are they testing out that is unproven? What result do they want to get, expect to get, are likely to get. Is it likely to end in disaster or success? How will the audience feel as they’re experiencing it? What could they have done instead and why didn’t they do it? And what’s their internal thinking or emotions that led them to the unproven course of action?
Not sure if this fits—but don’t forget the positive side of Unproven—my story hasn’t been written yet. That kind of thing.
I make little + or - signs to remind myself where the element is falling on the spectrum for me.
Here, I’m trying to express the idea the characters get into a deeper hole, but eventually things are okay. I use + - valence to show there’s ambiguity or balance in that element’s charge.
This is right on - what I need to think about. Especially the dilemma and what they could have done instead.
Yes, exactly - there something there but I’m not sure what it is. But this is what I’m looking for. Something like she accepts her responsibility as a leader even though she is unproven (but that’s still a little vague).
Perhaps make it concrete, not just a vague, she accepts her role, but now she has to lead people over that damn hill and she’s not sure if you can. Or maybe she is sure she can, but nobody else is.
Maybe she is unproven in her personal history but she knows her ideas are better than the guy who was there before her. So she’s confident and rightly so.
Maybe she’s completely confident, maybe she personifies the battle in front of her as thinking it can beat her but as far as she’s concerned, it’s faith in itself is unproven, and she intends to keep it that way. If she were them, she wouldn’t be so brimming with confidence. Their ability to defeat her is unproven.
I like both of these ideas, but here’s where I start questioning myself – what is the difference, in Dramatica terms (in this context) between Unproven, Trust and Faith? I feel like a lot my ideas start leaning toward the latter terms as I understand them. Does that matter?
For what it’s worth, the OS issue in this story is Wisdom.
Here I must bow to wiser heads and DSEs
Faith is more about belief, though it can be difficult to differentiate from Trust a lot of the time. However, since it’s in a different area of the model (Faith & Trust would never show up in the same story), you don’t usually need to worry about differentiating them!
I think Jim groks Unproven a lot better but to me it’s different from Trust because the emphasis is on the untried nature of the thing – either as the drive (“yeah I’m a rookie but I’m gonna be awesome, just you wait”) or as a boon (“it’ll work because it’s never been tried before”) or on the negative side, something dubious or untried (“these recruits are too green”).
Whereas with Trust the emphasis is on the trust itself, on accepting implicitly something that you didn’t or can’t verify. The emphasis is on the “giving over” or “letting go” of the need to verify – sometimes that’s good (“trust the Force, Luke”), sometimes not (murdered wife, I bet the husband did it).
Here’s the important thing though – any one instance (event, beat, line of dialogue, whatever) – could be many of these things. Obi-wan saying “trust the Force” and Luke switching off his targeting computer could’ve been Faith, or Unproven – if the rest of the story supported those things. But in Star Wars, because of the context that the rest of the story gives, it’s obvious that it’s Trust.
So don’t worry too much if you have one instance that looks or sounds more like Faith or Trust than Unproven – as long as you the Author understand why it works for Unproven, and the rest of the story is working on Proven & Unproven, that’s good enough for the Audience to appreciate it properly, IMO.
Thanks @mlucas. I realize there’s an irony my not having enough faith (or trust?) in myself to just go forward with it.
After all this, I’m circling around an idea in which she doubts herself (and is doubted by others) because she is not a Proven quantity (e.g. she doesn’t have the education and experience the others have etc.). By the end though, when everything had gone to hell, she’s the only one left to lead (thanks @GetSchwifty) and so has to trust herself to do so even though she’s an Unproven quantitly.
I think Unproven is quite rational and literal: something is proven or unproven by external tests. You Don’t Know if it will work. Trust etc is about feelings.
I don’t know, I feel like there are a lot of cases where a character’s Unproven drive is very much about feelings. Think of the new athlete who’s just joined the team, desperate to make something of himself… Or have you seen Whiplash? The main character there is driven by Unproven to the point that he drums until his hands bleed …
But that’s mixing up two ideas: being unproven, vs your anxieties around that, your trust in yourself, self-awareness, etc. At least that’s my current level of understanding, as a newbie. Every post or opinion I have should be labeled in red BUT I COULD BE WRONG because there seems to a definite part of the theory which is specific and doesn’t have to do with opinion of the theory-user, although there also seems to be some part that is subjective. Any thoughts on where that line is?
Regarding Unproven, I think we may be saying the same thing with different words. If you can watch a movie like Whiplash or Eddie the Eagle and see how the MC is driven by Unproven, you got it.
The theory itself is completely objective, but it relies on subjective “measurements” by humans. That’s why “calibrating your instruments” (watching lots of movies and trying to get an understanding and feeling for the various appreciations and elements) is so important. Also why group consensus is so important during analysis – comparing the results of several instruments whose accuracy is difficult to verify individually.
as an addition to your question …and as it relates to post from @chuntley earlier
To see the difference between elements, you can put the elements in context with the issue:
Here some ideas and examples for the three elements:
Faith as in…
Trust as in…
Unproven as in…