Characters respond to Obstacle

questions
#1

A quote from “How to write a damn good novel” by James N. Frey (page 28)

Suppose three soldiers on patrol come to a cold stream, which they must cross. It’s November and there’s a chill wind. Not a good day to go wading. The sergeant grants them a ten-minute rest. One soldier wades into the stream and takes his rest on the other side, preferring to get it over with. Another soldier chooses to spend his rest period walking upstream to a shallower spot, foregoing the rest, but avoiding at least some of the cold water. The sergeant rests on the near side of the stream and waits until the end of the rest period to cross.

I was wondering if one could take these three responses to the given obstacle and take character elements out of this.

Let’s call the first soldier, who prefers to get unpleasantness over with, A; the second soldier, who will go out of his way to avoid unpleasantness, B; and the seargant, who will put off unpleasantness as long as possible, C.
A and C seem to be diametrically opposed. On the variation level you could see their responses as representations of Choice and Delay, respectively. But I’d rather stay on the Element level.
Are they Pursuit/Avoid, Conscience/Temptation, Proaction/Reaction, Result/Process, Ending/Unending…?

Is this an appropriate use of the Elements, and if so, which Elements represent these responses best?

#2

I don’t believe there is enough context here to make a solid choice here.

For instance:
is A showing support – indirectly demonstrating to C that it’s not so bad to just do it? Is he opposing the Sergeant by acting in a contradictory manner to him? Or maybe he’s demonstrating disbelief that the river is really all that bad? Or showing Faith that it’s better to just deal with problems head on? Or perhaps Temptation, believing that the benefits of being across the river outweigh the benefits of waiting?

The main thing here is that you are definitely showing us some character traits, but how do they tie into a broad argument?

#3

As far as broad argument and context goes, this is the entire example from the book, making a point about how different characters should respond differently to obstacles to show their individuality.

It is interesting that you can interpret A showing opposing elements in different contexts. I wouldn’t say that A is trying to oppose the Seargant, though. I would assume that these characters would do what they do even if nobody else was around.

What kind of context or broad argument are you looking for?

#4

Dramatica is specifically about conflict. Where is the conflict in the above example? There is none. (They all even cross the river.) That’s why I can – though I didn’t really share it – make up a situation where the Sergeant says something like, “Everyone better follow my lead.” His soldiers don’t, and that could be seen as opposition.

So the question to ask about moments in a story are “how is this creating friction? How is this creating conflict?” Characters having individual characteristics make stories interesting for lots of reasons, but it isn’t always because it has to do with the Grand Argument.

#5

Thanks, that makes it clearer.

In my head, I imagined this scenario as a sort of low-tension, low-to-no-conflict introduction of these characters’ traits, which would then be repeated in scenes with higher tension and conflict. But I can see what you mean. Although I do see some conflict/friction here. C crosses the river and has time to rest afterwards, presumably being able to get somewhat warm and dry before moving on. B keeps on moving till he finds a way to cross a shallower spot, so he’s unrested when he meets up with the others. And A will still be cold and wet right when they want to move on.

If we imagine that the sergeant told them to follow his lead before telling them to rest and then cross the river, then wouldn’t B and A’s responses, while both opposing in a way, still be rather different? I could imagine one of their approaches having a positive result and the other a negative one, even though they both annoy C. So, for example, could they both represent oppose (maybe that’s the os problem/focus/direction/solution?) while A represents conscience (get wet now so you’re good later) and B represents temptation (avoid problems now despite being unrested later)? Another Soldier, D, would maybe stand by the sergeant, and represent support. Maybe the “point” of the scene could be about support/oppose while A and B could have a small argument about conscience/temptation?

On the other hand, if this is about oppose, and we assume that objective characters keep their elements from beginning to end, and they happened to come across another situation like this, would A and B take a rest simply to oppose the sergeant, if he said to cross the river now and take a rest after? Or would they take the same approaches they did before, never mind what the sergeant said (in which case A does what he’s told, and B opposes the sergeant)?

Another way of looking at this…
C says to follow his lead and rest now. D listens. A and B do their thing.

  • A, C and D arrive at the other side safely, while B gets lost and dies.
    Scenario is not about support/oppose, but A/B contrast and A 'wins’
  • B, C and D arrive at the other side safely, while A gets dragged down by the stream and dies.
    Scenario is not about support/oppose, but A/B contrast and B 'wins’
  • C and D arrive at the other side safely, while A and B both die somehow.
    Scenario is about support/oppose, and support 'wins’
  • A and B arrive at the other side safely, while C and D both die somehow.
    Scenario is about support/oppose, and oppose 'wins’

Does this make any sense or am I totally off base?

#6

I think this is a valuable thought exercise, because you are experimenting with thinking about Dramatica. And I think what you are saying makes sense, and it’s right – but (bear with me) this situation is too small to be relevant.

In other words, the “river” is much stronger than support or oppose.

The best example I can pull out right now is Dead Poets Society. The whole movie is an essay on conformity and self-expression. The fact that it’s making a larger statement makes it relevant to see how people navigate the waters of finding their own voice. But the river isn’t part of a larger context here – it’s just one event. If this was part of a war movie, and an essay on listening to your superiors, then this could have some bearing.

Most important, you would need to define what is being talked about and what perspectives were being taken. This river moment is devoid of all of that.

Other people may have better takes on this, btw. I tend to be most comfortable when I can see both the big picture (“This guy is the son of a Colonel”) and the details (“He hates being pushed around by his father, but agrees with the need for a hierarchy.”) Anything that gets too simple is only good as a starting point, and then it needs to be used as a way in to deeper stories.

#7

I think I understand.
And I suppose that this river scenario could be taken rather differently if the “essay” was about pursuing the enemy at any cost rather than an essay on listening to your superiors.

My question would be, if we assumed this was, using your example, part of a war movie, and an essay on listening to your superiors would we still see a distinction between A and B’s responses from a Dramatica-perspective. Maybe as I suggested with Conscience/Temptation?

#8

I think you’d have to define the actual conflict before you can decide. You have to know what they are going for and how this works within that framework. Because conflicts and tensions are between things.