How do I program my objective characters to pass a reader’s Turing test without ending up like Nathan and Caleb from Ex Machina when I screenwrite?
Artificial Subjective Intelligence
@MWollaeger, here is the thread I was hoping you and @jhull can help me process. (I figured out how to quote on an iPad ). Also, I hope we can celebrate when I clear this goal because My Narrative First Mentorship started in 2016 after Melanie’s quad theory class and this question is the last theory question I haven’t resolved, yet.
Ironically, this is the very first question I asked that night. But, back then, film school teachers asked us to use pivotal triangles where one character locks the other two In conflict and Melanie showed me splays and displays.
In film school, they had us use protagonist, antagonist, and pivotal character subjectively for any character we wanted to develop. But, the BS grad school definition of conflict was “somebody wants something badly and someone is trying to stop them from getting it”. I even tried asking Aaron Sorkin this question over email after a interview at our school because he uses the same BS definition for conflict.
(Dramatica has the best definition for conflict by far of any lit theory, in my opinion)
My Current Approach
Jim taught me to use the goal and give each person an element as an approach to solve the OS problem. Chris got me one step closer in DUG by realizing they need a Social Role, too.
The words in quotes mean I don’t know what to call it, but this is the closest word to what I know in Dramatica.
Is this Social Role just a “purpose”?
Is the Objective element a “method” to solve the problem given the goal?
Is there a “motive” or is that just the focus/direction or the Problem/solution?
Is the ”problem solving style” the means of “Evaluation”?
I just mean this loosely so I don’t mean these would go with the PEMM element choices at all. I just want to overcome the BS of ‘every character is a main character’ or ‘every character is their own protagonist’ from film school.
I’m trying to get a clear handle on Objective Character function. Is it as @actingpower Describes where a character seems to be a guardian and is really a contagonist because of who knows what when:
I’m specifically interested in reducing a sub story to two objective characters or producing a sub story for two objective characters I want to escalate to their own overlapping GAS.
Faux Arcs for Objective Characters
(is there a Dramatica term for this so I can quit using “air quotes” on abused terms?)
I’m trying to clean up my own technical debt for theory application. I asked this question differently in 2017 using Hero Journey terms. I just realized I have a book that shows how transactions between characters works for that. But, I would rather do it right in Dramatica before going there:
To summarize, I would love to be able to get into a character’s “head/heart” as I write them. And, be able to step into the OS view, too.
I want to make 4-D complex characters that feel like they “grow” even though I know they don’t grow. Is there anyway to uses growth as a metaphor like Melanie does when she talks about a “Do-er” vs a “Be-er” for objective characters?
No need to explain that characters don’t grow and don’t have subjective perspectives. I get that. I just want to write better objective characters that I can manipulate like NPCs, but I need to occupy them long enough to think through what they’re concerned about.
As a movie example, I really liked how Little Miss Sunshine gave every Objective Character, in the family, a concern. So, when I say feel like they “grow” or “arc” as characters, this is a great example of what I want to do.
@mlucas I would imagine you know how to do this as a novelist.
In an Ideal world, I would treat this like Rifts RPG or DND and create characters with personality profiles. (Someone asked about enneagram archetypes on the Dramatica site). But, I would rather write complex characters and use the MBTI/Socionics with Dramatica.
Also, if I need to go read something and come back, I will do it. I have Melanie’s expanded theory books and they make sense conceptually. But, I don’t feel like I have mastery when I try to apply it.
I realize this long, even for me. But, I would really appreciate the help as it Is the last thing on my list to understand before moving forward with writing.
Finally, I believe resolving this post for me will lead to distinguishing A story from a story with a substory. Ideally, I wouldn’t have to wait for @chuntley to tell me how many stories are in a Movie before I analyze the storyform for each.
During the DUG for The Help, where I saw three when there were two stories and this left me confusing Physics for Mind, and The Accountant, where I saw one story when there were two and it caused me to pick the wrong concerns.
This probably should be it’s own thread, but I don’t know how to change it if I can despite trying… Actually, I think this thread is perfect because all the other posts were the lead up questions I had on my way to Dramatica. All that Want/Need stuff is programmed subjectively using a Triangle for each Want and Need separately.
Melanie seemed to think those two triangles made a quad. But, I don’t think the subjective want and need work with the OS elements based on everything we always say about the OS elements being approaches to problem solving. Also, does this mean these characters justify or problem solve since they don’t change their elements. If there is a distinction between building up and tearing down the OS justifications, Does this change at all in a failure story? I know the OS is justified differently from the subjective characters. But, that seems like a much deeper dive than needed to woo a reader.