I have a question on how best to interpret the signposts on the IC Throughline. I understand that the IC only exists to influence the MC to either change or remain steadfast, but I’m stumbling on how that is supposed to be illustrated.
Let’s say that my IC Throughline is in Physics, and that the first signpost is Understanding. Should I interpret that as:
A) My IC does something related to Understanding that evokes a reaction from my MC? Or,
B) My IC does something that causes a reaction from my MC related to Understanding?
Basically, the question is, which viewpoint does the signpost refer to, because I’ve seen it described both ways in different places. (Notably, the Dramatica book itself seems to say it’s B, but almost everything else I’ve seen feels to me like it leans toward A.)
Both are the same. Both show the influence, whether direct or indirect, of a problematic personal perspective.
The book was written prior to practical application of the theory, and therefore doesn’t cover all the bases when it comes to putting Dramatica into practice.
So, as long as the IC evokes some kind of response or consideration from (or even just conflict with?) the MC (via whatever means, direct or indirect), and the cause or effect is somewhere within the realm of the process of Understanding (or Doing, or whatever), then I’m OK? That definitely opens up the range of possibilities… Not that it makes it any easier… lol
The answer to all your questions is yes…yes, as long as its in the realm of possibilities of a process of Understanding (or Doing) you are good, yes, it opens up a huge range of possibilities (with some specific guidance), and yes – Dramatica does not make things any easier.
Harder on some things, easier on others. Even the basic understanding that I have gotten to this point has helped me unlock things that I just couldn’t figure out in the story that’s been stuck in my head for about a year now.