Crucial Element for Steadfast Personal Tragedy, in light of Jurassic Park

theory
#1

I read Melanie’s

“Since Dr. Grant contains the crucial element, we would expect him to intersect the Objective Story’s problem by representing Order or Chaos. Clearly the author intended him to represent Order. This means that he contains the Problem element (the inappropriate attitude or approach that is the underlying source of the Story’s troubles), rather than the Solution Element, and as such must Change in order to succeed.”
(http://dramatica.com/articles/building-a-better-dinosaur)
This was really helpful to see how it was broken.

Just want to clear up something-- in a success/bad/steadfast story is this true?

the MC holds the Symptom/Response element,
but the IC holds the Solution element for the story, proving he was right all along?

Right about what, exactly? That the MC should have changed?
What is the element I should be looking at for the BAD result? Bad because the MC was steadfast? Or Bad because they were off-focus?

#2

If you’re a Subtext user (I think you are?), I’m pretty sure the crucial element is baked into your premise, so you shouldn’t have to worry about it.

Maybe Jim or someone could correct me if I’m wrong.

I think with your dynamics it’s that the MC was right in applying their crucial element in the OS, because it brought about success, but by clinging to their element in the MC throughline, it has left them in a bad place. So, the IC’s approach was wrong in an objective context and right in a subjective context.

Does that feel right to you?

#3

No, at least not necessarily. In a steadfast story the MC will hold either the Symptom or Response as their Crucial Element, and the IC will hold the other of the two. Any OS character could hold the OS Solution element. (It is true that the IC will move to the same-named element as their IC Solution, but this is technically separate from the OS.)

#4

Okay. This is helpful. I can see that being what’s going on in my story. Yes, the premise has it, but only as “though tragic to the individual…” which I’m trying to understand.

In my case, MC holds Response. But @mlucas, what makes it bad? The MC does not get the Solution? Or getting the Solution is bad? I read somewhere (can’t find where) that said something like “proving the IC was right all along.” I’m trying to trace that line of reasoning for success/bad/steadfast.

#5

I think it helps to remember this is the author’s point of view. The MC has one perspective and the IC has a different one. So, the IC “being right” is you as an author saying, if the MC had adopted the IC perspective, they would have found peace personally.

Maybe if you posted the actual elements from your story folks good work up some examples to help clarify?

1 Like
#6

What makes it Bad is that the Story Judgment, which is most strongly communicated in the MC throughline, is Bad. The MC does not resolve their personal issues.

In your case they didn’t Change their perspective (remained Steadfast) and this is quite possibly a contributing factor in not resolving their personal issues. BUT you do not necessarily have to make it clear that Change would have resulted in a Good Judgment. You can hint that if you want, or not, it’s up to you – it’s not part of the storyform. (The storyform only argues for what it argues for.)

1 Like
#7

I guess I was being too linear in my interpretation.

So, the storyform isn’t arguing that changing would have resolved their issues, only that being steadfast definitely did not. Is that right?

1 Like
#8

Right. I do think it’s okay for you to hint at the “would have” stuff in the storytelling, but I think if you got too preachy about it, something would feel off.

1 Like
#9

I can totally see that. The reader/viewer probably makes those connections for themselves anyway. Thanks for the clarification. :+1:

#10

storyform.png1806×472 101 KB

So, as the first in a trilogy, her personal issues are not resolved as preparation for uncovering a huge conspiracy in the other books. She succeeds in blasting into OS Protection/Gathering Information/Strategy solution, to her own demise. The information she fought for and got in OS is horrible personally MC.

Her personal MC “solution” of Rejection can’t happen because of Preconditions. But probably most significantly, the IC impact (Protection) makes her miss the solution of Rejection. This choice she makes (unweighed Action based on her character) which ends in her MC bad judgment is important because the IC is the trilogy MC. (Don’t shoot me!).

I know those are weird elements, (Rejection, Protection, Repulsion) but as #1 of 3, and as part of the Trilogy storyform, especially w/the premises, this works.

From what I read, the Bad is just how I set it up. The dilemmas.

I’m not sure I want to do that. It’s actually an action she does, to be true to her character (steadfast) and there’s nothing else she could do at that point without changing her character. Saving his life keeps her in her predicament. The “would have” is subtext. (that’s a good little word, isn’t it?)

1 Like
#11

I am no Dramatica expert, but I seem to lean toward Steadfast stories. I constantly have to remind myself that Dramatica focuses on the source of the conflict. Good and Bad are not necessarily moral judgments, but rather judgments of how the story mind finds resolution. Simply ending the conflict may not be good.

I often say that many characters come to the story to learn a lesson. Some come to teach a lesson. Steadfast characters are the teachers. It may help to think of the Steadfast character as the IC for everyone else. If he can force a resolution by holding onto his/her beliefs despite the challenges and the cost that must be paid, then he is personally justified regardless of the overall outcome.

4 Likes
#12

I think this is critical to remember – and something I’ve struggled with. Other paradigms talk about “negative character arcs” which I’ve associated with Dramatica’s Success/Bad.

But The Terminator and The Godfather are both Success/Bad. In the first case, Sarah Connor heads of to “prepare for the storm”. I don’t think that’s really a moral condemnation of her – what else was she supposed to do? She’s definitely not in a good place. But it doesn’t seem like a “negative character arc” to me.

But The Godfather definitely feels like a negative character arc.

2 Likes
#13

You’ll likely drive yourself crazy trying to figure out what the storyform is NOT arguing. Was the Influence Character right all along? Does this mean a Decision would have resulted in Success?

There is no symmetry in a storyform.

You’re looking at a biased and justified point-of-view–not one side of a universal understanding.

Just because someone makes the argument that Trust leads to Success DOES NOT mean they’re making the same argument that Test leads to Failure.

5 Likes
#14

Just want to really put a pin in this, because I feel like it’s important for understanding Dramatica and storyforming better.

The story is what happens in the story. Any thinking or speculation that falls outside of the scope of the story is not the story.

I feel like I’ve heard Chris Huntley and others say it a million times. I should probably get it tattooed somewhere.

4 Likes
#15

Jim, do you mean that a Judgment of Bad means the MC was not justified in their approach? If they succeed, in my case uncovering a mystery, and it was costly, bittersweet, but they are glad they succeeded, but are so sad about the cost, isn’t that judgment Bad? Good for the goal, bad for the MC?

Personally “justified” but costly does not seem like a Triumph. It seems like Personal tragedy. I believe it’s how we spin the ending that determines this.

Case in point, Gone with the Wind. Her statement at the end “tomorrow is another day” gives a bit of hope for a bad ending. Bittersweet, personal tragedy, but still she feels justified that she did the right thing. (We may debate that).

However, I can see it the other way. We, as the audience, see Scarlett as being a tragic antagonist to herself. By not changing, but standing her ground, she lost in the RS. Her goal was wrong. It should have been to love people rather than herself. (I don’t see Gone With the Wind in Dramatica or in an Analysis. Maybe it’s not an example of anything further than personal tragedy.)

#16

I think Jim is saying the storyform is a biased and justified point of view. It’s the argument you’re making as a storyteller.

The bad judgement is you as an author making a point about how the MC ended up at the end of the story.

So, turning it back. Do you think the MC is in a bad place at the end of the story and can you illustrate how so?

3 Likes
#17

Just to add to @glennbecker 's points, for a Judgment of Bad you should look for the MC and others left with angst, bitterness, regret, unresolved personal issues. They are not in a good place at the end of the story.

Dramatica has another story point, the Story Cost, which covers the sacrifices on the way to meeting the Goal. Some stories have a very high Cost (Braveheart is a good example), which can make the Success/Good ending feel more bittersweet.

Characters can end up sad (about Costs or other things) without being in a “bad place”, i.e. without having a Judgment of Bad.

1 Like
#18

I could be wrong, but if I understand it properly, I think Jim is not using the term ‘justified’ in a way that means the character was right or being reasonable in the actions they chose, but rather to refer to the process of winding up the storyform from the no-conflict, mind-at-ease Dramatica Table of Story Elements view to a storyform full of conflict that needs to be addressed view.

For instance-to steal a half remembered example from an article by Phillips-imagine a waiter with a handful of plates and an itchy nose. The waiter could deal with the itch (Universe) or decide they don’t mind the itchy nose (Mind) and go on. As soon as the waiter decides to scratch their nose, they’ve committed the first level of justification (out of, naturally, four levels) and the DTSE within the waiters mind has now twisted up a little. But now they have to figure out what to do with the plates they’re holding. And that becomes the second level of justification. And so on, and so on.

So a fully justified view, i take it, is one where the Storymind has decided that the conflict comes from one area (or one of the 32000+ storyforms) rather than another, and has essentially decided on a path to address the conflict.

3 Likes
#19

Teacher and Learner – very helpful way of saying it!

#20

Learning Heroes vs. Teaching Heroes - just be careful, not all “teachers” are teaching something good (think Leonard in Memento :))

1 Like