A Man of Excellent Character

Where we got to...

In the last post, we looked through the rough story outline I'd written for the Fiend story, and decided on a Story Mind for it.  We decided that as well as the Fiend being defeated by the main character in the end, the actual crux of the story argument was more about the way the main character was suppressing his anger because of an earlier trauma, and in releasing this block the outcome of the story was achieved.


So have we decided in which throughline the argument is made?

We immediately dismissed making the argument in the Overall Story Throughline, and I although the story is provisionally titled 'Fiend', I don't think I want to make him the focus of the story, I want him not to change very much throughout the story, so I don't think we will be making an argument in the Impact Character Throughline.

The main decision is between making it in the Main Character Throughline or the Subjective Story Throughline.  In simpler terms, is the argument proved in the way the main character changes, or in the way the relationship between the main character and the impact character changes?

I think it's obvious that it's the Main Character who has the block, and it's him who changes.  The relationship between him and Fiend does change throughout the story, but the argument isn't about a relationship, it's about a change of mind in the main character.

So in this 'spin of the model' the Story Mind is proved in the Main Character Throughline.


Let's take a breather and consider the options

We've come some way towards giving the story some depth, but before we commit too much to it, we should really stop and consider alternatives.   Perhaps some other arrangement would make a better story?

What if we made the brother the main character, the protagonist the impact character, and Fiend just a normal supporting character?

We'd now have a story where you are this small-time criminal, who has been carrying your sissy brother for years because you felt sorry for him after a bad thing happened.  You meet this amazing Fiend guy who shows you how to move your operations into the big time.  Just as this happens, and you start to have some success, your nit-wit brother starts telling you it's all bad, and you need to ditch your new friend.  Your friend Fiend tries to win your younger brother over, but the more he tries the more your brother starts acting up.  Maybe you should have listened to your brother, because Fiend gets you killed in the end.

Not too bad at all.  The story would be about a declining relationship between brothers.  The Story Mind would be proved in the Subjective Story Throughline, and the Story mind argument might be something like "always trust your brother, or things will turn out bad for you".  We lose the Fiend being defeated, because  the brother dies before then, so the story ends.  Do we need to kill him off in this version of the story?  Interesting ideas.

Let's 'spin' again.  What if we made the Fiend the main character? 

To get this one to work, we'd need to do a little more thinking.  Who could be Fiend's impact character?  Which one of the brothers would influence change in Fiend the most?  Well, in the original premise, I didn't really want Fiend to change much once he was released - this is OK for a main character - he is allowed to choose to stay the same.  I suppose it makes sense that our original protagonist is the impact character - he is the one who releases Fiend, who nourishes him then turns against him and ultimately defeats him.  The brother is just a pawn, to be discarded at a suitable point.

Not too shabby either, but it seems a little weak.  The Story Mind would be in either the Main Character Throughline, or if we want to place more emphasis on Fiend's fascination with the protagonist, in the Subjective Story Throughline.  The Story Mind argument might be "worshipping evil and chaos leads to a grim ending" or something along those lines.

Part of the problem is that Fiend will be an interesting, yet unsympathetic character.  It would be hard to have him as the main point of view for the whole story.  In explaining his thinking too much, we'd lose a bit of the mystery about him.  I like the idea of ambiguity about Fiend, is he supernatural or just an evil man?  With him as the main character, you'd lose that.

You can continue spinning as often as you like.  I only have three fleshed-out characters in my outline, so the options are limited, at the moment.  Out of the ones I have tried, I prefer my original one, but it's always worth considering the alternatives.


A man of impeccable character

Dramatica has a lot to say about characters, but it splits them into two types to start with:  Overall Story Characters and Subjective Characters.  You'll note these are the same names as two of the perspective throughlines, and they serve the same function. 

Subjective Characters are the main character and the impact character.  They are involved in looking at both sides of the Story Mind argument, and they define the Subjective Story Throughline. You get to examine the problem from both of their perspectives.

Overall Story Characters are everybody else.  They do things and talk, but the reader never sees the main problem of the story through their eyes, only observes what they say and do.

In our story, the protagonist (I'll need to name him soon!) and Fiend are the Subjective Characters.  The brother, and all the un-named others who will be our story, are Overall Story Characters.


Archetypal Characters

Dramatica observes that in fiction there are a set of characters who almost always appear, or appear with regularity.  It calls them Archetypal Characters.

1. Protagonist

The protagonist is the main driver of the story, he is the person pursuing the story goal or solving the problem presented by the Story Mind.  He is sometimes, but not always, combined with the Main Character.  When he is, he's known as the Hero.  

2. Antagonist

The antagonist is the other character in the story who tries to prevent the protagonist from achieving his goals.  Sometimes the antagonist has the plan, and it's up to the protagonist to stop him. He is sometimes combined with the Impact Character.

3. Reason and Emotion

This pair of characters are there to demonstrate different ways of thinking about the problem.  In the movie Jaws, the part of reason is taken by the research scientist Hooper, whilst Quint just hates sharks emotionally.  Hooper has modern gizmos to hunt the sharks and is organised, Quint has a ramshackle boat and faulty equipment.

4. Guardian and Contagonist

This pair of characters are there to help and hinder the main character.  In Star Wars, Obi Wan Kenobi is the guardian who teaches and encourages Luke, whilst Darth Vader is the contagonist, who tries to tempt him to the dark side and puts things in Luke's way.

5. Sidekick and Skeptic

This pair of characters represent the struggle between confidence and doubt.  A Sidekick always has faith in the actions of the Main Character or other characters, and a Skeptic always doubts they will work.  In Star Wars, Han Solo is the eternal skeptic, but C3PO is the cheerleader for Luke's actions.


Now we have the players

As well as splitting them into Subjective and Overall Story character types, Dramatica further splits them into two groups of four - Driver Characters and Passenger Characters.

Driver Characters - Protagonist, Antagonist, Guardian, Contagonist
Passenger Characters - Reason, Emotion, Skeptic, Sidekick

The Driver characters are the ones who push the story on, make the decisions.  The Passenger characters observe and comment, allowing the reader to see all the pro and con arguments in the courses of action taken by the Driver characters.

These eight character archetypes are well known and used in many stories, but although Dramatica acknowledges them, it also points out that they make for simple characters, and are not very useful for complex storytelling.  This is where Dramatica gets right down to the nitty-gritty.


Enough for now

Although we haven't done a lot on Fiend today, there was quite a bit of theory to get through.  if you think Dramatica is all lists and theory, you ain't seen nothing yet.  The next part will confuse you and blow you away.