My MC is so efficient she barely needs the IC to create any problems for her!

I have been having such a hard time with uncovering my IC, especially in relation to the MC. Then it dawned on me that my MC is doing all the problem creating work for herself - faulty reasoning/control issues etc.

My IC is driven by Support and I’m like, how is his Support creating problems for the MC? For the life of me, I can’t get a grip on the IC.

So, I’ve pitted the IC against the Antagonist - indirectly to help the MC — and that feels a little bit better. But I can’t flesh out his throughline because I just don’t get his general role.

With an IC Drive of Support, he thinks his support is helping MC but in reality causes her problems? Is that right?

2 Likes

Instead of thinking of the IC as causing the MC problems, think of the IC as influencing the MC to Change. (it helps if you have a good idea what your MC’s perspective is, so that you know what Change means)

For example, let’s assume your MC is a Be-er. Maybe the IC’s drive of Support is pushing her more towards Do-ing. Does that seem right?

This is good – this is the MC throughline. The MC’s perspective is problematic all on its own, without the IC (or OS or RS) getting involved.

So just think about that perspective, and then think about a force that influences the MC to change that perspective. That’s the IC’s role.

4 Likes

Thank you, @mlucas!!!

Taking what you said into account, how does this possible scene sound (IC Lies in regards to Past):

Kelly (MC) doesn’t know whether to see Heather or go back to work and forget about what just happened. Josh needs to keep Kelly (MC) away from her workplace (because he’ll be spying there). Josh urges Kelly to leave work for the day and go see Heather - not just to cover his ass but also because Kelly needs to find out what really happened.

@whitepaws have you read this article by @jhull?

I found this exercise to be extremely useful in figuring out how to illustrate the IC/MC conflict – however, I didn’t fully understand it until I saw @jassnip’s video on the same subject:

Worth a look if you have time.

6 Likes

Thank you, @Lakis!

kdjfadkfdagjdfgjfdj

1 Like

Oh, also this response from Chris to a question I had a while ago:

4 Likes

I think it sounds pretty good – Josh (IC) is getting Kelly to do something (talk to Heather, investigate what happened) instead of just going back to work and forgetting about it, which would be the more Be-er default behaviour. If this conversation happens when Kelly is frazzled and looking for someone to talk to, that need for support might be an illustration for the IC Drive of Support. Also, even though he’s lying, he sort of is still supporting (encouraging) her desire to find out what happened – especially if you see it that way.

I wonder, though, does the fact he lied to her somehow end up mattering later in the story? (i.e. comes between them, or has some consequence in the overall story.) A lie like that, between MC and IC, sort of feels like it has to. :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Yes, the IC is lying to her and it comes out later in the story and causes a rift between the friends. They will need to heal the rift to get to the Story Goal. It’s a pretty big lie too. He ends up putting his life on the line to help her out and prove she can trust him.

And yes, Kelly is frazzled at the start of this scene. So he gets to support her <3

I guess I did have it then! :blush:

I gotta stop questioning myself.

2 Likes

At least in this case questioning yourself led to getting more of an understanding and feeling for what the IC is doing in your story, which you can apply in ANY story you write.

P.S. Let us know if & when you need any beta readers!

3 Likes

Oooh - I shall bear that in mind!!! Just another month (or so) :wink:

3 Likes

It looks like Mike and Lakis really did a great job here.

I just wanted to add that if you wanted conflict for the MC it seems like you could just have her confronting Heather go poorly and make things worse for her.

Glad you got it figured out! :thumbsup:

2 Likes

Here’s how I put some things together to create an IC role. I think it’s all pretty sound.

The MC perspective will have built up justifications for having, say, a Mind problem. That just means that it has reasons for having chosen to view the problem as a Mind problem. The reasons/justifications are built up through backstory.

Ex. John loves to drive his old Firebird (Mind), but it has fallen into disrepair (Universe). John tried to spend the money to fix it up, but this often caused him and his wife to get into spats. In order to avoid getting into spats with his wife, John has justified that his love for driving the car is the true source of conflict and tries to deal with it accordingly.

In a Change story, those justifications are being torn down (John starts figuring the spats were a result of the pressure his wife feels at work and not a result of spending money on the car) while in a steadfast story they are being built up (John figures that if the spats continue, his wife will leave him).

The ICs role, then, is, as an analogy, to present the MC with a case for either abandoning old justifications or building up new ones in order to switch perspectives on the problem—in Johns case, to get John to stop seeing it as a Mind problem of loving to drive his car and to take up seeing it as a Universe problem of the car being in a state of disrepair.

There are many ways an IC can fulfill this role, some more direct than others. Ex. Harry has a broken body (Universe). Someone asks Harry, “You were on your way to being one of the greatest runners the world has ever seen before the car crash that left you in this state. How do you deal with abandoning your dreams of being a great runner?” And Harry answers “If I ever gave up on my hopes and dreams, I’d fall into depression and die. I’ll never do that. Instead, I’m going to go to physical therapy every day and work my butt off, no matter how painful, until I can fix my body and walk again”.

Now maybe John sees this and thinks to himself “you know, I shouldn’t give up on my hopes and dreams, either. I should drive that car again. I’m going to go out and fix up that Firebird just like Harry is fixing up his body. And just like Harry doesn’t care about how much pain he’s going to go through, I don’t care how much emotional pain (that is, spats with the wife) I have to go through. I need to get out and fix up that car!” Or maybe John sees this and thinks “Harry can deal with the pain, but I can’t. I’d rather give up my hopes and dreams.” Or it might be that John doesn’t see this event happen at all. Maybe Harry and the questioner-not John-are the only two to see it within the story world. Even so, the very fact that this scene appears in the story means that the Storymind has seen it. And since this scene is in the same story/Storymind as Johns story, that Storymind is still able to ‘transfer’ that influence across over to John.

In John’s case, assuming he starts thinking the pain of fixing up the car is worth it, what the audience sees will look like John deciding to deal with the pain of fixing up the car without being provoked in any way at all. But if the audience sees Harry’s answer and then sees John decide the spats with his wife are worth fixing up the car, then the audience should be able to feel that influence of Harry’s being transferred to John.

3 Likes