The Influence of the Influence Character Symptom and Response

[mlucas]

The most important function of the Influence Character’s story points is that they influence others (esp. the MC) in those areas, causing conflict. For example, while an IC with in Situation will usually be in some problematic situation themselves, the most important aspect of that story point is their influence on the MC – either the MC’s own situation(s), or through the conflict generated by the IC’s situation.

A good example of this is the analysis of Ex Machine, both the Youtube video (I think there is a point where Chris Huntley explains this very thing) and the Narrative First article, which states:

But it’s not her Past, or her Predictions, or her Desires that these story points reflect. To think so would be to inaccurately use Dramatica’s story points for storytelling. Instead, they identify why she has influence over Caleb. In fact, for most of these story points these points of narrative find themselves attached to her, not coming from her.

Now I’d like to take a more thorough look at this:

• I can understand how it works for IC Domain, Concern, Issue, Problem. As these story points are all just different zoom levels of a problem, all of these work the same way, influencing others (esp. the MC) in those areas.
• The IC Signposts are pretty much the same. During the specified portion of the story’s “plot”, something related to the IC will influence others in those areas, causing conflict. An IC Signpost of The Past will impact others in some way related to their pasts (or anything in the past), etc. Perfect.
• The IC Solution is a bit different.
  • For a Steadfast IC it is their “demotivator” which reduces their drive. Thus it would indirectly reduce their influence for a time, whenever their drive is reduced.
  • For a Change IC it is the element they embrace as part of changing their perspective and thus resolving their throughline. Again, I think embracing this indirectly reduces their influence, and once embraced fully, their influence on the MC is gone (because they’ve shifted to the MC’s point-of-view).
• The IC Benchmark is best seen as a way of measuring the IC’s impact / influence on others. So that works.
• The IC Unique Ability gives them a unique capability of influencing the MC. Check. (but see note below under Critical Flaw)
• The IC Critical Flaw somehow reduces the IC’s influence on the MC. Unlike the Solution/Demotivator, it does so without sapping their drive and without shifting their point-of-view. (It gets in the way of the IC’s influence rather than attacking the source of that influence.)
  • Note that the Unique Ability and Critical Flaw do not have to stem directly from, or be attached directly to, the IC. As long as it’s something in the story that affects the IC’s influence on the MC, it works. For example, an IC Critical Flaw of Denial might be the MC rejecting the IC (Pitch Perfect was a good example), or the IC rejecting the MC’s mom, or anyone denying anything as long as it reduces the IC’s influence on the MC.

But what about IC Symptom and Response? (this is what prompted me to make this post!)
The IC Symptom is defined by:

The Influence Character concentrates his attention where he thinks his problem lies. … The Symptom Element describes the nature of how the problem appears to the Influence Character from his subjective point of view.

This makes sense, but how do we make that apply to the Main Character or others? Is it only how the IC sees the problem? Or does it also influence the MC to see problems in this area? e.g. For an IC Symptom of Inequity (like Ava in Ex Machina), does this influence the MC to see injustice and unfairness as problems? (That certainly seemed to be the case with Caleb in Ex Machina)

In fact, with Ex Machina I’d even go a step further and say something like: Through his desire for her, Ava influences Caleb to see the problems of injustice inherent in her situation, as evidenced by treatment of past androids, and to predict that Ava would meet similar injustice. You can see IC Domain, Concern, Issue, Problem, and Symptom all working together in that one sentence!

And what about the IC Response? Is it merely “the direction of the Influence Character’s efforts” or can it also be seen as the direction that the MC is influenced towards?

(Please feel free to comment on any of the above, or to challenge what I’ve said. I wrote some of it in an authoritative way but I’m open to other ideas for sure! Thanks. )

[mlucas]

So I’m going to be Mr. Annoying and try to answer my own question. (It happens a lot when you think enough to post intelligently, you come up with some more ideas!) Please don’t let this stifle discussion!

Anyway, I think the answer lies in what @jhull and @chuntley have been talking a lot about lately, that each throughline represents a perspective – a point of view in regard to a problem or issues.

If you think about all the IC Story Points as a representation of the IC or “you” perspective, and how that perspective influences others, it makes it easier to understand what’s going on.

So, I think what happens is simply that the IC, along with influencing the MC to see their perspective, might also influence the MC to see problems of the same nature that they do – i.e. see the same types of symptoms (IC Symptom). They might also influence the MC to respond to those problems in the same direction they do – the IC response.

However, I don’t think this is necessarily true for all complete stories. Dramatica encompasses all complete narratives, and it’s enough that a story show the IC perspective influencing the MC’s perspective. The MC doesn’t specifically have to adopt the IC Symptom and Response at any time.

What do you think?

[Greg]

Great post, Mike. I’ve been working through an IC Throughline over the last couple of days and going over all of these same thoughts.

@mlucas

The IC Solution is a bit different.
For a Steadfast IC it is their “demotivator” which reduces their drive. Thus it would indirectly reduce their influence for a time, whenever their drive is reduced.
For a Change IC it is the element they embrace as part of changing their perspective and thus resolving their throughline. Again, I think embracing this indirectly reduces their influence, and once embraced fully, their influence on the MC is gone (because they’ve shifted to the MC’s point-of-view).

This specifically. Does the act of embracing a solution by a Changed IC, itself, have an influence on the MC? Is the influence that it has only that it ends the ICs influence on the MC? If the MC throughline is about how the MC sees their problems, and the IC throughline is about their influence on the MC, and the IC changes, then who influences the Influence Character?

When I work through a story idea with Dramatica I’m always amazed by how many new ways I find various story points fitting together and tying in to the rest of the storyform. Then I remember that the Dramatica storyform is a linear look at a narrative from a holistic idea (or something like that), and then I wonder if a more Holistic Problem Solver would wonder why I’m so amazed as they see it all as being obviously connected. Would it be appropriate to create a meme with a picture of Morpheus that says, “What if I told you that everything in Dramatica was connected to EVERYTHING IN DRAMATICA?”

Generally I think the answer is to remember that while you have various players and characters and perspectives in a story, it’s really all about just the one story mind. While the narrative yarn you’re spinning shows one character influencing another, Dramatica says that it’s really all one mind trying to decide between logic and desirability. What looks like two people in a story battling over Situations and Fixed Attitudes, and maybe even thinking they are working on two separate problems, is really just one mind trying to decide how to see one problem.

@mlucas

So, I think what happens is simply that the IC, along with influencing the MC to see their perspective, might also influence the MC to see problems of the same nature that they do – i.e. see the same types of symptoms (IC Symptom). They might also influence the MC to respond to those problems in the same direction they do – the IC response.

I think this is it exactly. My (limited and shallow) understanding is that the MC is essentially saying, “This problem is best seen as an external process” while the IC is replying with “No, it would be better to see it as an internal process”. Same goes for all levels. The MC is saying “I have a problem of Proaction, but it looks to me like a problem of Protection” while the IC argues “no, you have a problem of Probabilities and you need to see it as a problem of Reevaluation”. It’s not just two separate perspectives trying to solve two separate problems. It’s a battle over which type of problem the two perspectives are going to agree to see the problem as.

[Greg]

I went back and looked at how I encoded my IC Symptom and Response. The Symptom of Reevaluation seems to be all about how the IC thinks others need to reevaluate things. The Response, then, is about her trying to get others to evaluate their current situations/circumstances, which I think fits pretty well with everything said above. That is, her symptom and response are about getting others “to see problems of the same nature that [she does]”.

The main problem I remember having is trying to make sure the IC was trying to influence the MC while the Steadfast MC focused not on influencing the Changed IC, but her own problems. It seemed for a bit that my Steadfast MC was trying too hard to be an IC. Since it’s an argument, it seems necessary that the MC influence the IC to change, I guess, but maybe it’s more subtle than the ICs influence on the MC? That’s where I’m getting stuck anyway.

[mlucas]

Hey cool, I was just about to reply to your first post and now I realize my reply is even more fitting!!

I would highly recommend to watch The Lives of Others if you haven’t seen it. The subtle way the MC, IC and RS throughlines are handled in that film is incredible.

To answer your question above (one of them anyway):

@Gregolas

If the MC throughline is about how the MC sees their problems, and the IC throughline is about their influence on the MC, and the IC changes, then who influences the Influence Character?

My feeling is that the “you” perspective of the IC throughline has a certain “unknowability” inherent in it, so that in many stories with a Steadfast MC you may not be able to dissect the IC’s Change to understand exactly what influenced it. Perhaps it was the MC, perhaps it was the events of the story as a whole. At least that’s my take.

Regarding your own story, I think I can see where you might be getting stuck:

@Gregolas

Since it’s an argument, it seems necessary that the MC influence the IC to change, I guess, but maybe it’s more subtle than the ICs influence on the MC? That’s where I’m getting stuck anyway.

I would try to forget about the whole idea of an “argument” between the MC and IC. Yes in some stories they will argue, but it many stories they won’t argue at all, perhaps they won’t even meet! So yeah, if it felt like your MC was trying to hard to be an IC, she probably was.

And I don’t think it’s necessary at all to show the MC influencing the IC to change, not directly anyway. Yes you can have arguments between them that show their different viewpoints, but the storyform will still take care of things if you don’t.

[Greg]

Thanks Mike. I was referring more to the metaphorical argument of “this is the better path to take” implicit in the storyform rather than a literal argument between characters seen directly in the story. In that sense, you can’t abandon the idea of an argument.

I’m sure you’re right in that the IC reason for change doesn’t need to be explored as much as whether or not the MC changes and why, but to have the IC change without some kind of explanation–even if just a hint of what caused the change, whether the MCs argument or the events of the story in general or whatever–seems like it would feel like a hole in the story. I’m okay with the idea that you don’t have to see any influence on the influence character, but have a hard time accepting a change without a hint of a reason for why it took place.

The good news is that after considering all of this stuff all day, I think I’ve figured out what’s got me stuck. And it’s thanks to this comment:

@mlucas

while an IC with in Situation will usually be in some problematic situation themselves, the most important aspect of that story point is their influence on the MC – either the MC’s own situation(s), or through the conflict generated by the IC’s situation.

I’ve been trying really hard to give the IC her own separate problems that are hers alone but that still influence the MC and that can be resolved at the end. Perhaps I’m just not skilled enough to do it right, but it’s left at least this story feeling overstuffed to me. From the beginning this was supposed to be a story that felt like it was all about the MC. I think if I go back and rewrite the IC info to look only at the influence on the MC (in this case that means the IC looking at Probability as it relates to the MC and not at Probability as it relates to her own personal issue) it will remove a lot of the extra stuffing without really removing any of the meat or meaning of the story leaving the story all the better for it.

[mlucas]

Oh sorry, my bad. I didn’t realize you meant argument that way – the “A” in GAS, lol. Totally agree that the IC’s change has to make sense and feel natural within the context of the story.

Yeah it’s very possible that your IC’s issues ended up too personal, or something else about them made the story feel overstuffed and detracted from you vision of the story. Definitely go with your gut on that, especially if it’s telling you to take something out.