Influence Character becomes Main Character?

questions
#1

I have a subplot MC who will die, and I want the IC to take his place, but I am unsure of a few things:

Since it’s a subplot, does the IC-turned-MC now require an IC to finish out that Throughline, or should the IC finish his Throughline before taking the previous MC’s unfinished Throughline?

Also, how do these MC and IC resolves work? I currently have the MC as “Change”, so does that MC have to change BEFORE the IC takes his role as MC, or can the IC take over that role and Change himself while the previous MC remains steadfast?

And lastly, pertaining to Approach, the MC is a Be-er, while the IC is a Do-er - will the IC suddenly become a Do-er when taking over the MC Throughline (which has a Resolve of Change)?

Hopefully these questions didn’t turn your brains into jelly.

Thanks!

#2

Cool questions! Waiting, here, with bated breath…

#3

Too late! (I was actually reading your post thinking, “I need an exploding brain emoji…” :slight_smile: )

I’m not sure I could offer much help. Is all the stuff you mentioned (MC, IC, resolve, etc.) specifically part of the subplot? And you have a main plot that has its own storyform?

Is it possible the subplot story could finish (come to a resolution) around when the MC dies? That way, the manner of the MC’s death can demonstrate their Resolve. And since the subplot story would be coming to an end, you wouldn’t need any of those complicated ways to keep the throughlines going.

If not, at which point in the story (which Act / signpost) does the MC need to die?

#4

I wanted really badly to say “no, this doesn’t work,” but then I remembered I have an idea that involves the MC dying and being replaced by the IC two-thirds of the way through the story, so… this deserves better thought. :sweat:

I would say the most basic resolution to your question is to recall that when Dramatica says “Character,” it doesn’t necessarily mean “a given person with a given perspective.” It really just means that perspective, which can move and shift between players. So when MC Player 1 (MC-1) dies prematurely, the Main Character perspective needs to transfer over to the IC/MC-2 without any change in the arc. Which… I think means MC-2 needs to change to MC-1’s Element, only to then change back… :confused: Also, yes, the IC perspective needs to jump from IC-1 to some IC-2, for the same reason.

The biggest problem I had with this idea is that the IC is initially set up as a distant “other,” so jumping into their perspective suddenly would probably confuse readers. I think it would probably make sense to put story 1 entirely in MC-1’s perspective, then have a new story complete the arc with MC-2. Either that, or reframe the story so that MC-2 is always the Main Character, and MC-1 is always the Influence Character (or some other, non-MC role, like the Guardian).

#5

I could almost see this working in an alternate version of The Matrix:

  • Neo gets killed halfway through the film, maybe on the way to visit the Oracle or something.
  • Morpheus is so affected by Neo’s death that he loses all faith in the prophecy of the One. But at the same time, another character, say Trinity, somehow becomes utterly convinced that the prophecy is right and that Neo’s death was necessary.
  • Morpheus’s disbelief now causes him personal problems (he gives up his ship, becomes a recluse or a drunk). He tells anyone who will listen that he was wrong, that humanity has no future.
  • Somehow Trinity has to influence Morpheus towards the idea that all is not lost, that the prophecy is still valid.
  • At the climax, Morpheus is the one to stand his ground in the subway tunnel. He comes to believe that he is the One, and was all along.

It seems like it could sort of work, but wouldn’t audiences be left wondering “what the hell was the point of that Neo guy?”

1 Like
#6

I’m afraid I’m a little lost here.

You said the MC who dies is just the MC of a subplot, but the way you’re describing it makes it sound like you have a complete storyform for this “subplot” already selected, which makes me wonder whether it actually is a “subplot,” or is simply a separate story that’s been tacked on to the main storyform.

If it is a complete storyform unto itself, then I would caution you against changing the MC and IC halfway through. Handling a major character death is already complicated enough without switching perspectives along the way.

You can, of course, write whatever you want. It’s your story, after all. And if you just mean to create a fun subplot where interesting things happen, I’d say don’t worry about it at all. But if you are trying to tell a story that makes an argument about how to resolve a particular inequity, doing what you’ve described will muddy the argument and weaken whatever point you are trying to make. The MC and IC throughlines are more than just characters. They are perspectives on an inequity. They need to remain consistent, or your audience will have a very hard time determining what problem they’re looking at.

Is there any particular reason this story needs to unfold this way? Could the character you’ve initially identified as the MC actually be the IC the entire time, albeit one we’re particularly close to?

If the subplot is actually a subplot, not a complete storyform unto itself, then what you described in your post would be more doable. But in that case, worrying about who changes/ who’s a do-er and who’s a be-er is likely irrelevant. You’re just throwing in an extra few chapters for color, excitement, and pathos, which is relatively low-risk. Provided it doesn’t weaken the main storyform, then do whatever you like!

Best of luck,

~Audrey

3 Likes
#7

I’m curious if you’ve made any choices in the last couple of days since asking the question.

Here are my approaches to this:
• make sure you’re not putting theory before practice. In other words, if you are having trouble figuring out how this will work with the theory, then I would put the theory aside and write it because if it works, then it works, and if it doesn’t then at least you have probably isolated a more specific question.
• If this is a subplot, then maybe none of this matters. Like @Audz says, just have fun with this.
• You may not need to resolve anything. Have you seen The Dark Knight? It opens with a pretty well defined story involving a love triangle between Harvey Dent, Bruce Wayne and Rachel Dawes. That frames the drama, but then just trickles away when the major story takes over.
• Another suggestion: have the surviving characters make lots of references to the other character. As in, “I’m acting the way John used to act… just think, yesterday I probably would have …” so that you keep the perspectives alive. This will allow you to wrap up anything you didn’t actually wrap up.
• Treat them both like MCs the whole time. In Episode 3 (?) of The Wire, one of the characters gets treated like an MC, and it’s early enough that I thought they were introducing a new Story, but they don’t. I feel like the end of Season 1 of Stranger Things gives Jim Hopper an unexpected MC moment (that they’ve laid the tracks for) and it works, but they never worry about making him an MC that is part of an argument. He’s just an MC in that we get into his skin.

Have fun!

1 Like
#8

This was the case in Tarzan when the Samuel Jackson character jumped into the trees following Tarzan and the people of the jungle. For that scene he was definitely the main character and we were definitely experiencing the moment with him.

#9

I feel like this question could be academic if you aren’t careful. You can do just about anything that you want with Dramatica by bending the rules. It is malleable enough. But, unless the bending serves your story idea – there’s really no point. It doesn’t matter if it is perfectly formed. It doesn’t matter if it allows for an Oscar-worthy performance.

If you start with your story idea as the noumenon, then you find a Storyform – you will end up with a Grand Argument Story (GAS): the phenomenon. Admittedly, you can reframe the Storyform as the noumenon, then find a story – which leads to a GAS: the phenomenon. All roads lead to Rome.

Regardless of your creative process, Storyform will sometimes fight the phenomenon that you want to create. This is where the Substory comes in to play. The Substory malleates the Storyform to fit your noumenal (ontic) vision.

While the function of a Substory is to malleate the Storyform, the methodology of the Substory is context (vividness). Context is created by additional data. Data can be created by a number of processes: contrast, comparison, manipulation, amplification, etc.

Whereas a Substory’s form is malleable, its function is not. Substory function is demanded by and subservient to the needs of the Storyform (which is demanded by and subservient to the needs of your story idea).

Thinking about Substories and Storyforms, an analogy of WordPress themes and plugins popped into my head.

  • Noumenon is the idea.

  • Dramatica is Wordpress.

  • Storyform is your Wordpress theme.

  • Plugins are your Substories.

  • Website is your GAS.

The plugin/Substory does nothing by itself. But that doesn’t mean that Substories cannot be powerful a la the butterfly effect. A Substory might justify a single character action or it might completely reframe a story through context:

Caveat Emptor: I merely muse. I make no claims as to the veracity of my statements.