I’m in a bit of a conflict between my writer’s instincts and my (possibly too narrow) understanding of the Sequences in the Impact Character Throughline EDIT: meant the Sequences in the PSR
What I’m not sure about is this: are all of the Sequences meant to show the various ways of the IC pushing the MC toward change, or can they also show the IC losing influence without the IC turning into a sort of second Main Character? In my story, there seems to be a kind of low point in the IC Throughline in the middle of the story, after which the IC gains momentum before a grand impact at the end, pushing the MC to change. Here’s how it goes:
In the second act of the IC Throughline, my IC is taking on an identity (Being) with the Sequences being: Truth, Evidence, Suspicion, and Falsehood; with his identity, the IC first demonstrates the truth of his way of thinking established in the first act. But then, evidence and suspicion bring about a falshood in his views, making even the IC himself doubtful of his views. This feels right with the third act beginning with Closure and ending in the IC’s very adamant Denial of having been wrong.
Intuitively, this feels like it works awesomely. But… if the IC’s Sequences are meant to show the IC’s ways of impacting the MC in the POSITIVE, can it be right? Or am I somehow confusing the Sequences with the IC Critical Flaw?