I have an MC who is a linear problem solver and who possesses the element of inequity in the OS. It seems like thinking of problems in terms of balance/imbalance is more of a holistic trait than a linear one. Any advice on how to approach the storytelling so that the MC’s reasoning in maintaining a particular inequity in the OS seems sufficiently linear?
1 Like
Does your MC player have to solve problems the same way within both throughlines since they’re really two different perspectives? Could I and WE be more linear while YOU and _THEY_are more holistic? Might be something to look into.
The problem elements aren’t themselves holistic or linear, nor do they lend themselves to being one or the other. Try to avoid thinking of them that way. Holistic and Linear aren’t describing the problem itself, but the approach to solving the problem. You can write two different stories where both MCs share the exact same problem of Inequity but each approaches that problem with a different problem-solving style.
Care to hint at what the Inequity is? Or just give an example?
Probably not a great example, but say your MC is driven by the unfair sentencing of pipe weed users (I’m apparently also assuming s/he is a wizard or a hobbit). Maybe the linear MC looks to overturn ones sentence through legal procedure. But maybe the holistic MC looks to change everyones opinion on pipe weed use so that its eventually so widely accepted that everyone thinks it’s ridiculous that anyone could be locked up for using it, so they let all the pipe weed users out of jail. Both MCs have the same problem but solve it differently.
Yeah, I can elaborate more.
I understand that the elements themselves are not linear/holistic, I guess it just feels like writing a linear MC with a purpose of Inequity in the OS will be tricky to do accurately, since possessing that element makes her concerned with achieving a particular balance w/r/t the central inequity of the OS, which sounds a lot like how Dramatica describes Holistic thinkers as operating: “They get a sense of the way they want things to be, determine how things need to be balanced to bring about those changes, then make adjustments to create that balance.”
I guess the answer is that she wants to achieve a particular balance in the OS, but that doesn’t determine HOW she goes about achieving it.
Anyway, my MC is a ghost that becomes trapped in a house, and the OS revolves around the other characters trying to bring her back to their world/the way she used to be. She, however, is intent on maintaining the inequity that got her trapped in the first place (rejection of a magical marriage contract) b/c she feels it is her moral duty to do so and because she hates the person she’s been bound to (the IC).
I get what you mean when you talk about an MC in the OS, but because I know it will come up, let’s get it out of the way. There is no MC in the OS throughline. There is a character/player that is your MC character that also has a role within the OS. Because it’s two different roles and two different perspectives, I think it’s probably okay if this player acts differently depending on which throughline they’re representing at the moment (though i’m interested in how others see this because i really don’t know if that’s accurate).
That’s how I’m seeing it. As a linear problem solver, if i find out that someone else is getting paid more than I am to do the same job, and they have no more seniority than I do, I will absolutely let that imbalance/unfairness be the source of a problem for me. From there, though, i can attack the problem by taking a straight, linear path, or I can attack it by determining how things need to be balanced.
What I’m getting at, i think, is that we need to keep the problem of balance separate from a problem-solving method of looking for balance.
Awesome! I love ghost stories!
So your original question (Any advice on how to approach the storytelling so that the MC’s reasoning in maintaining a particular inequity in the OS seems sufficiently linear?) asks about linear reasoning for the player representing Inequity. I don’t know that I could speak to reasoning, exactly, since I’m arguing that linear and holistic are approaches to problem solving rather than reasoning for problem solving, if that makes sense. But to keep your Inequity player firmly rooted in Linear problem solving, I think it is just a matter of what they do to keep that inequity there.
Without knowing the entirety of your story, i’ll suggest that disrupting the seance or destroying the magical artifact that would bring her back seem like very linear approaches to me. Or maybe refusing to sign, or somehow destroying the contract could be linear ways to maintain this particular inequity.
I’m not sure I could counter with a Holistic approach just to show an example of the difference because i’m not a very Holistic minded person, but I’d be interested to see you or others offer a holistic approach to maintaining this particular inequity.
Anyway, is any of that helpful? I’m still hoping others will jump in, too, just to get another view on all of it.
1 Like
I’m not great at holistic, but here goes:
If the people trying to bring her back are couple A and couple B, maybe the ghost starts haunting their love lives, dredging up old secrets, desires and jealousies between them. Anything could happen (wife A sleeps with husband B, someone finds out about an old affair and goes crazy, whatever) but the ghost isn’t aiming for any particular thing, just trying to shift the balance and shake things up.
Anyway, I agree with Greg that you can definitely have a character driven by Inequity but still approach it in a linear fashion. It seems like you have a really good sense of this character and the story as a whole, so perhaps if you are finding it hard to make her act linearly, you actually have a Holistic MC?
1 Like
I think the mantra for linear is “cause / effect.” My amateur interpretation is that this implies a tendency for:
- “one step at a time” or “every step matters” more than leaps or cutting to the (apparent) chase
- direct more than networked; defeat the existing paradigm rather than change the paradigm
- “start with details then generalize” more than “establish the big picture then get the details”
- initially think of present/past experience (what is/has been) more than think of future possibilities (could be)
- literal more than figurative
- practical more than imaginative
- concrete senses more than vibes
- state / snapshot rather than trends
3 Likes
I like the premise of the story! Super cool.
Let me see if I understand it with sufficient clarity:
A ghost is stuck in our world, in a specific house, because she was wronged – but ultimately wants to maintain that wronging because it is the moral thing to do. Ultimately, this will prevent her from being freed from the house, so the OS solution also requires the MC to Change. So, for the length of the movie (before the change) the ghost is trying to come to terms with being stuck in the house.
I’m making some assumptions, but I have the MC dealing with Desire/Ability as her Symptom/Response.
Making her Caspar, the friendly ghost, as a linear character would have her trying to cope with the fact that she’s been cast off (Desire) by focusing on things she can do (Ability) by doing things like beautifying the house with her supernatural powers or entertaining the people who live there. If I make people smile, Then I will like being here.
But her problem of Inequity (Time moves at a different rate for her) produces problems because the children she loves grow up and move out in the blink of an eye, so it always feels like people are being ripped out of her life. Eventually, she has to accept that she’s suffer less if she goes to a place where everyone is like her (Equity).
This requires the Protagonist, who is busy trying to Understand why the house is haunted, to get the ghost to learn. Meanwhile, the house is in Chaos because the ghost is always holistically creating a lousy environment by leaving dead flowers all over the place (though, in her world, they are fresh and new – it’s the time thing causing this).
I know this was a bit rambly. I was thinking about @Gregolas and the idea that the same ghost can be holistic and linear. But I hope the part I bolded helps out with your specific question.
2 Likes
For linear you might want to add…
want-get
(get one thing- moving on)
I struggle with the new dvr recording machine/cloud, working to get them to improve, correct and/or change so many bad things and visuals in their new system. The husband got to record 6 things at once, and for him it is perfect, no matter what he has to endure. I keep thinking this has to be a holistic vs linear going on.
You’re pretty close!
It turns out (though this isn’t clear from the summary that I provided) that the central issue in the Story is Perception/Actuality. Because the ghost . . . isn’t really a ghost. She just looks like one to those around her. She has not actually died, but, for complicated reasons, she wants to maintain the image that she has.
The MC is dealing with self-aware vs aware as her symptom and response. The OS is in Mind: everyone believes the MC is a ghost, when in reality, she’s something else they’re not even willing to consider. The MC is trying to maintain this inequity (between perception and actuality) in the face of the other characters who are all chasing after the story goal of Memory; they all want to revive the version of the MC that they remember: i.e. the version that existed before she “died.”
Yeah, this was very helpful! And I’ll think about letting the character behave more holistically in her other throughlines. My only concern is whether doing so will make the character seem too inconsistent to the reader, but probably the only thing to do is run it up the flagpole and see if it flies!
1 Like
Problem-solving style is a preference, so it can be inconsistent. Also, the MC isn’t the OS Character, so they can behave differently.
In Ixcanul the Mom (IC) contradicts herself in the same scene.
1 Like
Also, thought I’d throw this gem out there that I found in Middlemarch, describing the very linear Tertius Lydgate, a doctor who never considers that he might seek to live within smaller means so as avoid becoming indebted:
“It is true Lydgate was constantly visiting the homes of the poor and adjusting his prescriptions of diet to their small means; but, dear me! has it not by this time ceased to be remarkable—is it not rather that we expect in men, that they should have numerous strands of experience lying side by side and never compare them with each other?”
1 Like