What are ways to represent the Objective Characters?

[Lime]

Hello All.

I’m reading through the Dramatica Theory book for myself, and I remembered seeing this graphic:

I found that it’s from the Dramatica Appendices.

I’m learning that the characters in the Objective Story are supposed to represent the basic functions of the Story Mind, its drives and considerations; that archetypes are the typical pairing of these elements while Complex Characters are more atypical groupings; and that either type of character works so long as those basic functions are represented. With this graphic, it turns out that the Archetypes extend to the whole Chart, not just the lower left (Future, Subconscious, Obtaining, Becoming).

So my question is, if I have a story in one of the other Concerns, let’s say, the upper right (Progress, Preconscious, Doing, Being), and I wanted to represent, say, the Protagonist (the mind’s initiative), would it be represented if I used Effect and Proven instead? Or would I have to use Pursuit and Consider?

[actingpower]

I’m of two minds about this. On the one hand, I like the idea of privileging Means of Evaluation in a top-right story. In some sense, these stories are about measuring the process of development and change, so if the Pursuit protagonist and the Proven protagonist are different characters, the Proven protagonist is more “important” in some way. They’re the one making sure the story moves towards the Proven result they want.

On the other hand, the difference between Motivation and the other groups is worth noting. When you look at the Purpose characters, they answer the question, “WHY are you doing this? WHY should the Goal succeed or fail?” The Means of Evaluation characters ask, “TO WHAT EXTENT are we doing this? TO WHAT EXTENT do we determine whether the Goal has succeeded or failed?” The Methodology characters ask, “WHAT are we doing? WHAT do we do to reach or frustrate the Goal?” But the Motivation characters are the one who ask, “HOW are we doing this? HOW do we relate to the Goal?”

So in that sense, the Motivation protagonist is the only of the 32 that specifically says, “I am Pursuing the Goal. I am the engine that drives us towards success.” Also, I think Melanie Anne Phillips agrees with this, because she calls the other 24 Archetypes something else, rather than folding them all into the Motivation Archetypes:

(This is from the Lost Theory Book. Also, these don’t map exactly 1:1.)

[Lime]

Hi actingpower. Thank you for responding.

Your response reminded me of this quote from the book:

“Most stories emphasize one dimension over the others. Character Motivations are often most prominent. Still, many stories compare the methods used by characters, question their purposes, or carry a message that a means of evaluation is actually the cause of the problem. Some characters become famous for characteristics other than Motivations, such as a notable detective who employs a methodology of Deduction.”

It told me that Motivations, while common, aren’t the only dimension that the OS can focus on. Your response told me they’re so common because they’re the most direct. I think Motivation is even supposed to be the root of action.

But now the quote has me thinking of degrees of this emphasis across the four dimensions, and after much, much, MUCH deliberation, I wondered about this: To represent the mind’s initiative and reticence, what if you made the Protagonist Proven and Effect, but made the Antagonist Avoid and Reconsider as usual? On the one hand, I don’t think this would work because only Unproven and Cause can balance out Proven and Effect. But on the other hand, you get a reticent feel, arguably the quintessential reticent feel, from the pairing of Avoid and Reconsider, and that could (in theory) balance out this sense of the mind’s initiative from Proven and Effect.

In short, is it more important to balance out initiative with reticence, regardless of dimension, or is it more important to balance Pursuit with Avoid in the OS? Does Proven and Effect have an initiative feel that can substitute Pursuit and Consider in the first place, or do they have some separate “Outcome-ness” or “Guesswork-ness”?

[actingpower]

I think… it’s interesting. The two characters will essentially act on different wavelengths until one of their actions impedes the other. I’m imagining a character who is a politician, the kind that hews closely to the party line and only does what has been Proven to be effective. If a new young upstart joins the party with the goal of destroying it from the inside, the rule-keeper might balk at this, but… the upstart IS following all the typical conventions. (In the Motivation quadrant, we might say they’re trapped in Logic, unable to shift over to Pursue.) In order for them to stop the upstart, they either need to wait for the upstart to make a mistake, do something Unproven that the rule-keeper can penalize… or they can finally step into Unproven territory and take the kind of risk they’ve never considered before. In the former, the status quo is maintained, but in the latter, they must on some level accept that Pursuing the party’s goals is something they sincerely believe in, and not simply something they do because it’s what’s safe.

(I think my explanation might drift a little between Proven and Accurate, but hopefully it makes sense. )