Real Goal

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

Real Goal

Postby VTFischwire » Oct 21, 2009 11:14 pm

I have a story in which playing a role is the goal.
They are two political parties and a new third political party threatens to ruin them both by offering people a seemingly better system. The protagonist also the Impacpact Character, who doesn't care if his party's views are better and doesn't want people to change and like his party, but rather just play the role of party members.
In order to achieve this goal the protagonist concieves an idea, develops a plan, play's a role, and when all else fails realizes that the only way to succeed is to infiltrate the other party and change it from the inside to reflect his own.
It seems like changing one's nature should be the goal as it will solve the stories problem, but I think the real goal of the story is to get people to play a role. Is there something that same inorder for A. we need B.?

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

Re: Real Goal

Postby VTFischwire » Oct 22, 2009 11:22 pm

So in running this over in my head yesterday, I came to the conclusion that the goal is a seperate entity than how the goal is reached. So even if Changing the Nature of the system finally works, if the reason behind it all is playing a role than playing a role is still the goal of the story.
Is this close to accurate?
And also in a success story the goal is achieved, and in failure it is not. I also understand that a change character who changes for the better is a judgement of good, while a change character who should have remained steadfast is a judgement of bad. But what about a change character who changes too late? One who has remained steadfast though she should have changed only to finally make the change after it would do any good?

Graham
Published Writer
Posts: 31
Joined: Jun 07, 2008 5:47 pm

Re: Changing too late

Postby Graham » Oct 28, 2009 6:11 pm

VTFischwire wrote:I also understand that a change character who changes for the better is a judgement of good, while a change character who should have remained steadfast is a judgement of bad.


Yes, if when you say "better" you are referring to the resolution of the Main Character's personal problem, and not to the Overall Story Outcome.

VTFischwire wrote:But what about a change character who changes too late? One who has remained steadfast though she should have changed only to finally make the change after it would do any good?


So does she change too late to affect the Outcome (Overall Story) or the Judgment (Main Character)?

If she changes and the Overall Story does not end in Success, then it's a Failure story (even if the Outcome would have been Success had she changed sooner). But what if the Change lets the Main Character resolve her personal problem? If so, this mitigates the negative feeling of the Overall Story (Failure-Good). If not, it's tragic (Failure-Bad).

By the way, the order of exposition of the Outcome and the Resolve will significantly change how the audience experiences the end of the story. Perhaps the audience learns of the Failure when the Main Character does, feeling what's it's like to hope that there's still a chance, but then experiencing the crush of disappointment when she learns that she changed too late. Or maybe the audience learns of the failure before the Main Character does and then watches her as she naively tries to change and make things right, even though her chance is already gone.

Graham


Return to “Dramatica Theory”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest