Brainwashing

Come here to ask questions or give advice about the theory that forms the basis of Dramatica.
VTFischwire
Published Writer
Posts: 30
Joined: Mar 26, 2008 11:24 pm
Location: Moscow, Russia

Brainwashing

Postby VTFischwire » May 06, 2009 9:44 pm

I have a story where the protagonist (akso the IC) is concerned with having people say they follow his code of morals. He isn't really concerned about whether his ideas are good or bad, or if they help people who stick to his code of morals live better lives. He actually isn't even concerned if people do believe and follow his moral code he just wants people to put on the face that they do.
In order to get this done he sets about, deceiving and lying to people (MANIPULATION) and pretty much brainwashing them (but not in the SCI-FI Zombie Machine way, more in the religous cult kind of way) which I believe to be PLAYING A ROLE.

I guess my two main concerns or questions are
1.) Is brainwashing a goal of playing a role?
2.)Is it normal or even justifiable to have a MC(sidekick) and an IC(Protagonist)?

User avatar
Chris Huntley
Site Admin
Posts: 722
Joined: Jan 25, 2008 5:19 pm
Location: Glendale, CA USA
Contact:

Re: Brainwashing

Postby Chris Huntley » May 11, 2009 2:50 pm

1. I'd say Playing a Role can be associated with brainwashing if illustrated properly. Your example should fall into that easily.

2. Yes, it is normal, and yes it is justifiable to have the MC be the sidekick and the IC act as protagonist.
Chris Huntley
Write Brothers Inc.
http://dramatica.com/
http://screenplay.com/

VTFischwire
Published Writer
Posts: 30
Joined: Mar 26, 2008 11:24 pm
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Brainwashing

Postby VTFischwire » May 11, 2009 8:47 pm

Thanks for the quick answer. Another quick question, though. If my IC is the protagonist than he is ties together the OS and the SS. So should his problem/solution be the same as the OS problem/solution.
Also the story is a failure as both the MC and the IC learn that people can't be manipulated (well at least not in the way that they are trying to do it) but while the IC remains steadfast in his fixed attitude that he is correct and that people must be manipulated the MC seeing him go to a very dark place changes and feels not good but better at the end than the beginning.
To make a long story short, if my story is a failure is it because my MC changes when she should have remained steadfast, or can she make the right choice but make it too late to save the story?

User avatar
Chris Huntley
Site Admin
Posts: 722
Joined: Jan 25, 2008 5:19 pm
Location: Glendale, CA USA
Contact:

Re: Brainwashing

Postby Chris Huntley » Jun 17, 2009 1:44 pm

The MC only shares the Problem/Solution elements with the Overall Story throughline if he is a Change character. If he is a Steadfast MC, he shares the Symptom/Response elements with the OS.

If the MC's personal angst is gone by the end of the story, then the Judgment is Good. If it is still hanging on to the MC, then the Judgment is Bad. The degree to which it is good or bad is not relevant to this choice (though it may be to you as the author).

Your story is a Failure story because you chose it to be that way. There is no single causal reltionship between the MC's Resolve of Change or Steadfast and the Story Outcome. That is why every combination of the story dynamics is valid. In other words, there is no guarantee that the story would have ended up Success if the MC is Steadfast.

All storyform choices indicate what IS, not what could, should, or would be if something was different.
Chris Huntley
Write Brothers Inc.
http://dramatica.com/
http://screenplay.com/


Return to “Dramatica Theory”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests