Working backwards from the opposite premise

theory
#1

If you know the premise that is what the mind thinks about the OS/IC (as in the failing premise of the antagonist), how can you back hack that to find the story premise?

For example, if the reader comments afterwards that the book’s message is “ultimate power corrupts absolutely,” be it with a 1) OS failure/MC antagonist, or a 2) OS success/MC protagonist IC antagonist, how would you find the possible premises for the MC?

I’m guessing you choose which ending, then you put that as the IC problem. Or would it be issue?

I’ve seen that generally the premise ends up as Issue vs Consequence (for fail success).

I’m also guessing one of the throughlines needs to be Control.

What options do you see for this as the bad guy failure lesson?

#2

Not sure I understand exactly what your looking for, but:

  1. do you need a different premise for Os and MC? Wouldn’t you look for one premise that describes the entire story?
  2. I’m not sure that “ultimate power corrupts absolutely” is necessarily enough to start building a storyform.
#3

I guess it makes sense to me that if the IC changes, then they’ve learned a lesson (or the reader learns a lesson)–and it’s not necessarily the same lesson that the story is about. If they fail, they seem to have an inverse premise, which would be the story if they had been the MC. (As they say, everyone is the MC of their own story).

For the storymind, when we say that IC way is not the good way, we are also saying their premise is not the good one.

@jhull 's truism generator…

People need to ___ in order to ____
unless ____________

kind of hints at it. (https://narrativefirst.com/articles/a-method-for-generating-conflict).

I’m thinking the Newton’s third law as applied to Dramatica “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

#4

This seems like a view from within the story, or a look at the storytelling rather than storyform. For instance, every complete person is the MC of their own story, sure, but IC is not a complete person. They are an analogy for one of four perspectives that the human mind can take. So thinking of the IC as the MC of their own story, structurally speaking, is stepping outside the perspective of the storyform at hand. Structurally, I wouldn’t think you’d want to think of them as learning the opposite lesson as the MC, but simply as changing perspectives, or as learning that perspectives portion of the overall lesson. So when the IC changes and the story judgment is good, the message isnt saying this way is good and that way is bad. It’s only sayin that if you take this specific perspective you will judge it as being good.

All that said, it’s great to know what the statement of each throughline is, but even with “ultimate powers corrupts absolutely” combined with either 1) OS failure/MC antagonist, or a 2) OS success/MC protagonist IC antagonist, I think you can still move those around pretty much how you want depending on what it is you want to say regarding ultimate power corrupting absolutely.

1 Like
#5

I want to answer my own question. In case it helps others here.

My WIP IC is actually the MC of a redemption story trilogy. He is the antagonist, and represents the larger antagonistic society, but the impact of the MC in the three books enables his change. (see: http://dramatica.com/questions/how-can-i-use-dramatica-to-help-structure-a-massive-trilogy for the Combination Trilogy)

I demanded of myself (this time/finally) to find a premise that doesn’t just “work” but is my POINT. Both for the Tr-OS and the first book. I started in Dramatica with the consequences then the focus. In the first book that would be failure, the consequence was the unfortunate but “good” result. I had to press for this, looking at the different slants for the words, but wanting an accurate premise in light of the whole, and for the first book as part the whole.

AFTERWARDS, to make sure it was working for the development of the IC, I switched the MC and IC roles for the first book in Dramatica, to see how the same storyform affected him. (Answering the question, ‘What if he were the MC?’) EXACTLY THE SAME concern, elements and variations.

THEN, in Dramatica, I changed the consequence/judgment to his perspective. Strangely, though the MC is steadfast in the original, and the IC is the one who changes, when I flipped it, he remains steadfast (!)–which actually is what needs to happen in the trilogy. He budges on one significant point, but in NOT ENOUGH. He’s still steadfast in the long run. (note: other aspects of the OS/RS changed, and they also accurately reflected HIS perspective of what was going on in the world and relationship).

…and I uploaded that into Subtext to see how it would sound there…

It was exactly the point I needed to make for him in Book One!!

I sigh, thinking this is meaningful.

2 Likes