Here's an interesting challenge I'm coming across in the story I'm working on.
As I've posted here before, my protagonist is the Steadfast IC. My main character is for all intent and purposes the Change Sidekick.
The Sidekick main character's problem/solution is Protection/Inaction, and as I've also said before, that is perfect for what he must choose to do at the climax of the MC throughline (which also merges nicely with the OS climax). The GUARDIAN character argues in subtle ways through the story for "inaction" -- let it be, don't fix what ain't broke, that kind of thing -- and the IC-PROTAGONIST also argues "trust the process", which is a somewhat different kind of "let it be" argument against the MC's tendency toward Protection.
However, the IC is actually trying to move the MC toward a huge, stunning Proaction at the climax. At that moment, the MC must refuse and "let things be." The IC is horrified at that point and a huge row occurs. (The antagonist, it seems, is more of an antagonist to the IC and by extension the MC.)
Now, the IC and the Guardian are actually always at loggerheads with each other, and in other areas are constantly offering conflicting advice.
Well, now that I write all this out, I actually think it sounds pretty cool. I guess my concern is that at the climax, it looks more like the Guardian ended up being the IC than the IC did. Am I "weakening" the IC's role here by splitting the counter-argument (inaction) between the IC and the Guardian? Or, being the clever kid I am, can I make all this work through storyweaving?
(ps -- I know what I'm calling the Guardian actually sounds more like Reason, but these two have a lot of crossed-over characteristics.)
Come here to ask questions or give advice about the theory that forms the basis of Dramatica.
3 posts • Page 1 of 1
- Chris Huntley
- Site Admin
- Posts: 723
- Joined: Jan 25, 2008 5:19 pm
- Location: Glendale, CA USA
From what you have written, it seems like it may work fine. Whenever there is a question of what to do, look to the characters' duties/functions in the story. Those will help you keep them in line.
Thanks. After posting this I feel a little embarrassed. The counter-argument (in this case, inaction) can be presented in a hundred different ways from any character at all. But the impact character embodies it. The fact that he is lying (as I said, he's prepping the MC for Proaction) isn't relevant to the structure.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest