MC and IC: Dancing toward neutral ground?

questions
#1

I’m sorry if this has been asked before. I used the search function but could find nothing about it.

In “Dramatica, A New Theory Of Story, Special Tenth Anniversary Edition,” page 88, it says:

Dancing Toward Neutral Ground

The story unfolds as the Main and Impact Characters argue over direct vs. indirect, repetition vs. framework, strategy vs. analysis, and problem solving vs. justification. As the story progresses, it is the Impact Character’s function to force the Main Character through all four of these conflicts.

Can anyone please explain to me what in the world that means? It seems like very important information, but I’ve struggled to understand it and am clueless. Thank you.

#2

“direct vs. indirect” might be about problem-solving styles (direct is linear, and indirect is holistic), and “problem-solving vs. justification” sounds like MC vs. IC resolves (Change is justification, Steadfast is problem-solving). The other two might be related to Approach (Do-er/Be-er) and Growth (Start/Stop). But I’m just guessing, I have no idea what it means either.

#3

Your ideas are very Interesting. Now I’m wondering if Main and Impact MUST (i.e. are required to) be opposites in those areas you mentioned (if Main is a Doer, then Impact MUST be a be-er; if Main’s problem-solving style is logical, then Impact’s MUST be intuitive, etc.)

I’d never thought of that before in reading through the theory. If true, I wonder how deep the rabbit hole goes. That is, must Main and Impact be opposite in EVERY possible way?

I just don’t understand why such a seemingly brilliant theory is explained so abstrusely. It’s ridiculous.

#4

Not really. Usually, since the IC Throughline will be either in an External or Internal Domain, it does make sense that he’ll be either Do-er or Be-er. It’s usually recommended to do that. As for Problem-solving style, it isn’t necessary to do it (both characters can be Linear for example) but might make your story more nuanced and their interactions more interesting.

Though I don’t think MC and IC must be opposites in every way, they still do share the same kind of problems after all (MC in Universe and IC in Mind will both be stuck, one externally, the other internally).

I agree with you here, a lot of things aren’t very much detailed and we’re left with a lot of questions at the end of the Theory book. But I guess it is so complex it might be hard to just tell everything about it. And there’s the forum to answer these questions anyway.

#5

Welcome. It’s so very productive to hear your feedback.

Part of the brilliance of the theory is the sensation one feels when they complain about it being explained “abstrusely”. Once you understand the theory more, you won’t feel this and in fact, when you look back, you’ll notice that there was nothing wrong with the way it is presented.

The concepts of Main Character and Influence Character–and the difference between them–are the basic foundations of the Dramatica theory of story. The passage you quote is simply showing the differences between the two and how they’re not exact binary opposites.

In the upper right hand corner you’ll see a magnifying glass - this icon indicates a search feature. If you click it, and then type in either “Main Character” or “Influence Character” you should finds hundreds and hundreds of entries that answer this question for you.

#6

Thanks for the scolding. You obviously don’t have any clue what that passage means, either. LOL

#7

The “Neutral Ground” must be referring back to “This kind of dynamic context requires that something be seen as false as often as it has been seen as true in order to arrive even at a neutral point where one perspective is not held more strongly than the other” in the “Context is a Sneaky Thing” paragraph.

I’m not sure if direct VS indirect, etc appear in the form of any storypoints. Are they related to the Signposts?

I think winding up with lots of questions (like “must Main and Impact be opposite in EVERY possible way?”) after reading something abstract like that is common and can easily lead to frustration. I’m not sure if an argument is brewing, but perhaps louistimm was venting frustration but jhull took his comment as dismissing Dramatica and louistimm just wanted a concise answer to his question. I often wish for more-concrete examples, but sometimes the abstract stuff makes more sense later, like jhull said.

#8

Argument, SharkCat, about what? I just want to know what “direct vs. indirect, repetition vs. framework, strategy vs. analysis” means. I find it odd that nobody here seems to have the vaguest clue. I was frankly shocked that a so-called “Dramatica Story Expert” reacted in such a bizarre manner to what I thought was a very straight-forward question. I certainly won’t be engaging him again in the future, in any way whatsoever.

#9

It was more about your “ridiculous” comment. Super non-productive. Referring to me as a “so-called” Dramatica Story Expert only confirms your level of ignorance.

And it’s true you won’t be engaging me again in the future. At least, not on this board.