IC Growth?

Come here to ask questions or give advice about the theory that forms the basis of Dramatica.
ogdencl
Writer
Posts: 11
Joined: Apr 21, 2008 3:05 pm

IC Growth?

Postby ogdencl » May 11, 2009 7:46 pm

Is there any benefit to thinking about "IC Growth", and its relation to MC Growth? The documentation says that IC Resolve and IC Approach are the opposite of MC Resolve and MC Approach, and I think I understand the theoretical reasons for both of those rules. But MC Start implies both (1) that the MC Problem and MC Symptom are dependent pairs, and (2) that the IC Problem and the IC Symptom are dependent pairs. Therefore, would MC Growth and IC Growth be the same? Or maybe it doesn't matter, but I'm working on a storyform that doesn't really make sense if MC Growth and IC Growth are different.

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

Re: IC Growth?

Postby Chris Huntley » Jun 17, 2009 1:36 pm

MC Growth and IC Growth are different inherently because one character is a Change character, while the other is Steadfast.

Change characters grow away from the distraction of the Symptom/Response toward the Problem/Solution, and eventually adopt the Solution over the Response. Since it is the character that changes, the growth feels like it is turned inward. As such, STOP feels like the character has a chip on the shoulder, while START feels like the character has a hole in the heart. Only after the character grows can it truly Change and adopt the Solution element.

Steadfast characters grow away from the Problem/Solution toward the Symptom/Response, and eventually adopt the Response over the Solution. Since it is the environment that changes, the growth feels like it is turned outward. As such, STOP feels like the character is waiting for something to end, while START feels like the character is waiting for something to begin. Only after the charcter grows by shoring up its resolve against the external forces can it truly remain Steadfast and adopt the Response element.
Chris Huntley
Write Brothers Inc.
http://dramatica.com/
http://screenplay.com/

ogdencl
Writer
Posts: 11
Joined: Apr 21, 2008 3:05 pm

Re: IC Growth?

Postby ogdencl » Jun 21, 2009 7:44 pm

I don't quite understand how that follows, though, because there doesn't seem to be any reason why an MC Steadfast Start character could not be in the same story as an IC Change Start character. The MC could be waiting for something to begin, while the IC has a hole in his heart.

The reason I think MC and IC Growth might be the same is that the choice of MC Growth implies whether MC Problem and MC Response are either dependent or companion pairs--but IC Problem and IC Response will have the same relationship.

For example, suppose, in an MC Steadfast Start story, the MC Problem is Inertia, and the MC Response is Knowledge. MC is waiting for Inertia in his environment to Start, and he responds by promoting Knowledge. In that story, the IC Problem is Order, and the IC Response is Equity. If the IC Symptom is Inequity and the Response is Equity, does it make more sense that Order manifests itself as a deficiency (hole in her heart), or an overabundance (chip on her shoulder)? I think the former makes more sense. In other words, driven by a lack of Order in her character, she thinks the problem is Inequity, and she thinks the solution is Equity. If her problem were an overabundance of Order, this wouldn't make much sense. If she were driven by too much Order, why would she think her problem was Inequity?

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

Re: IC Growth?

Postby Chris Huntley » Jun 30, 2009 2:35 pm

I guess the prudent response for me is to say that we have not developed the theory beyond the Main Character Growth, whether it is a Change/Steadfast character, or the growth is Stop or Start. While the Impact Character may seem to grow one way or another, our theory development hasn't grown to cover it yet. So, go with what seems or feels right and you're likely to have it work for your story.

NOTE: I caution against assuming or inferring anything about the Impact Character's development, especially as it relates to the Main Character development. The methods we used to determine the MC Growth specifically are measured against the MC element quad (problem/solution/symptom/response), and its connection to the other throughlines. It is not safe to assume that those relationships are portable to the Impact Character throughline. The shift in context might have unforseen effects on currently undefined story points, such as the Impact Character Growth.

But heck, if it works for you and it works in the story, then go for it.
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 2 guests