Character Sketch: Jacob Fraser

Jacob is around 29 years of age, average height and build.  He is good looking but a little but intense and controlled.  He could dress well but somehow never does.  He is the younger brother of William Fraser, a petty criminal and wannabe crime mastermind.  Although more intelligent than William, he is happy to be in the subservient position, because of an incident that happened when he was a late teenager that resulted in a death at his hands.

He was clever in school, but because of his brother's reputation, was forced to participate in disruptive behaviour, so left with little in the way of qualifications.  His parents died during this time, and he was basically brought up by William who was forced to make ends meet by criminal activity to support them both.

He used to be partners with Katie, who was his childhood sweetheart.  She dumped him when his inability to react properly to situations and his acceptance of the position with William, made her become frustrated with the same mental block which prevents him growing.  He now lives with Elaine, who is also frustrated with him, but only on a superficial basis of lack of success.  She criticises him, rather than encourages.

Jacob is the main character of the story, and his story is one of learning to trust himself and unleash something he has been repressing for years.  He accidentally unleashes Fiend on the world, and now he must stop being the repressed fearful character he has become, in order to stop him. In doing so, he lets go of the past and grows up.


Recap of Character Dimensions

Motivational	Considers courses of action, Pursues it once chosen
Purpose	Desires change, seeks equity and fairness in the situation
Methodology	Finds course of action by ruling out impossible, doesn't act until it manifests
Evaluation	Doesn't trust his thinking, and fears things ending

Reasons for each of these

Considers courses of action - When younger, he allowed himself to go too far in a fight with someone, and ended up killing them.  Since then, he has controlled himself ruthlessly, and never acts on impulse.

Pursues it once chosen - Although he is hesitant is go with his gut reaction, he is still driven and decisive once he has started down a route.  This comes from the fact that he and William had been without parents since childhood and they have had to become tough and resilient.

Desires change - He knows that living with constant second-guessing of his behaviour is stagnating his life in more ways than one.  He wishes that he could regain some of his freedom but fears releasing his inner demon again.  He wants a way to do this.

Seeks equity and fairness in the situation - Jake was bullied.  As such he cannot stand the idea of unfairness.  Although he is engaged in criminal activity,  he sees that as part of a game, they are the good guys, they never hurt anyone who doesn't deserve it.

Finds course of action by ruling out impossible - Jake has a quick mind, brought up to be quick and alert by his upbringing, and because of his fears, he is good at looking at possible scenarios in order to eliminate the ones where danger lurks.

Doesn't act until it manifests - his fear holds his back.  Due to one case where he acted with his heart rather than his head, he is unwilling to make pre-emptive action when threatened.  He waits until the last possible moment, and beyond.

Doesn't trust his thinking - again, this huge mental block from the incident colours all his decision making.  He second-guesses himself all the time, assuming his first instinct his going to lead him to disaster again.

Fears things ending - this comes from his parents dying at an early age.  The sense of insecurity in his upbringing has led to him being risk-averse and hangs onto things and relationships that he should really move on from.  But he doesn't like to think of anything ending.


My thoughts about Jacob at the start of the story

I like him, but it's a pity rather than a respect.  He wants to do the right thing, but because he can't trust himself, he ends up hesitating or dithering and bad things happen because of it.  He's had a bad life, but is still a good guy.  He's wracked with self-doubt, and puts up with things which aren't great simply because he doesn't trust his instinct, and fears things ending  He needs to change.  Luckily he knows this, but he has no idea how to go about it.


My thoughts about Jacob by the end of the story

He's opened up,  he now knows how to take risks.  His demons have been slain, he knows the circumstances around his previous killing and forgives himself.  He still has a seam of sadness in his character, but is infinitely stronger and is able to make the life choices he wants.

The Chessboard of Life

Introduction

In the previous long-winded posts, I have taken us painfully through all four dimensions, and considered each of the sixteen elements contained in each one of those dimensions.  Dramatica makes us do all this legwork so that we have considered every aspect that a Story Mind needs in order to make a story, and the quads method means we have spread these necessary items around our characters.

By the end of this activity we should hopefully have some very complex and rounded characters which may have surprised even ourselves.  Now it's time to pluck the low-hanging fruit from this labour and make our characters real.


The Chessboard

Let's start by looking at what we have done so far, by putting all the dimensions together into what Dramatica calls the Character Chessboard.

Motivation Dimension Consider Jacob Logic Bobby Pursuit Jacob Control Thomas Feeling Thomas Reconsider Fiend Uncontrolled William Avoid Fiend Faith Peter Conscience Elaine Support Peter Help Katie Temptation Katie Disbelief William Hinder Elaine Oppose Bobby	Purpose Dimension Knowledge Thomas Ability William Actuality Katie Aware Peter Desire Jake Thought Katie Self Aware Fiend Perception Peter Order Thomas Equity Jake Inertia Elaine Projection Fiend Inequity Elaine Chaos Bobby Speculation William Change Bobby
Certainty Peter Probability Thomas Proaction Fiend Inaction Elaine Possibility William Potentiality Fiend Protection Bobby Reaction Jake Deduction Thomas Reduction William Acceptance Peter Evaluation Katie Production Jake Induction Katie Reevaluation Bobby Nonacceptance Elaine Methodology Dimension	Proven Thomas Theory Katie Effect Elaine Trust William Hunch Fiend Unproven Bobby Test Thomas Cause Peter Accurate Fiend Expectation Elaine Result Bobby Ending Jake  Determination Katie  Non-accurate Jake Unending William Process Peter Evaluation Dimension

As you can tell from the number of posts which went into producing it, there is a lot of work and detail in this chessboard.  At this point it would be possible to move some of them around, although I'm happy with where I put them for now.


Spread them around

Another important point to note is that I have spread my characters around evenly, choosing two elements per dimension for each of my characters.  But this is not absolutely necessary.  Dramatica only says that ALL of the 64 elements above must be represented somewhere in the character set.  It could be that one of your character has many of them, and some only one or two from the entire set.

It could be that some of your characters are not represented in some of the dimensions, making them appear more mysterious or less well-rounded - now and again a melodramatic baddie is all you want, and you have no desire to know about his complex internal states.  It's up to the writer to decide how many elements go where.


Three pairs

We've touched on it briefly, but the arrangements of the elements within each dimension is not accidental.  They contain pairs of elements which also display a level of relationship, as follows:

• Diagonal pairs
  These are called Dynamic Pairs, and show characters who are in greatest opposition with each other. So, for example, Pursuit and Avoid in the Motivation dimension are diagonally opposite, therefore the characters sitting in those positions are also in story opposition.  In the case of Fiend, this means that Jacob and Fiend have the greatest opposition on this pair of elements.
• Side by side pairs
  These are called Companion Pairs, and show characters who are most compatible with each other.  They will share resources but sometimes get in each other's way.  For example, Hinder and Oppose from the Motivation dimension are side by side, and obviously share similar outlooks on the main story. In Fiend this means that Elaine and Bobby are most compatible when it comes to Hindering and Opposing and a collaboration is suggested.
• Up and down pairs
  These are called Dependent Pairs, and show characters which are complementary to the other, in that they provide skills or experience that the other requires, and can compensate for their weaknesses.  When combined they can make a formidable team, or in the case of co-dependency, one requires the other to act in order to proceed.  For example, this could be Help and Oppose on the Motivation dimension. In Fiend, this would mean that Katie and Bobby need each other in order to do something.

In the next section

That has been quite a lot of theory to be going on with, so I thought I'd break out of the traditional Dramatica narrative at this point, and start to round out the characters that we have defined so far.  This will be more fun, and by bringing together all of the elements from the dimensions, we will start to get an idea of the sorts of people that are going to populate the story.

Completing the Square

A bit of a pause

I've been busy lately so I haven't been able to progress this as much as I had hoped.  In the last post, I introduced the Dramatica concept of Evaluation, which is the way a character perceived progress in a task and arrival at a goal. Like I did with the other three, I'm going to apply these sixteen elements to my Fiend story.  So to recap, here are the sixteen elements in summary:

Proven	Needs full supporting evidence.
Theory	Constructs model of cause and effect.
Effect	Concentrates on outcomes not reasons.
Trust	Belief without verifying things.
Hunch	Going on intuition or guesswork.
Unproven	Acting as if evidence is shaky.
Test	Always checks things work first.
Cause	Concentrates on the why, not the what.
Accurate	Goes with the best performing theory, even if imperfect.
Expectation	Extrapolates into the future outcomes.
Result	Focussed on the outcome of the future action.
Ending	Assumes everything must end.
Determination	Calculating the causing facts and predicting the future.
Non-accurate	Concentrates on the flaws of a plan.
Unending	Believes nothing will ever end.
Process	Concerned with the link of facts and methods not outcomes.

Again, this is a matter of juggling the ideas and trying them against the characters, rearranging them and swapping them until a satisfying arrangement is made.


How this affects Jake and Fiend

Jake, because he's continually second-guessing his actions for fear of losing control, believes that nothing is set in stone.  He doesn't have a philosophy in life that works in all circumstances, he muddles along.  He is a follower of the Non-Accurate school of thought.  He lives in fear of the small amount of stability he has managed to muster coming to an end, so he is always fearing the Ending.

Fiend is more of a seat-of-the-pants kind of guy.  While he does have a plan, he plays it more off the cuff.  He goes on his intuition a lot, so he uses Hunch.  He also makes the best of any situation so works with a philosophy that what he is doing can be made to work, it's good enough.  This falls under the Accurate evaluation.

Let's put them on the graph.

Proven	Theory	Effect	Trust
Hunch Fiend	Unproven	Test	Cause
Accurate Fiend	Expectation	Result	Ending Jake
Determination	Non-accurate Jake	Unending	Process

Guardian and Contagonist

Katie is the brains of the operation.  Where she excels is in the creation of hypotheses, so she falls under the Theory evaluation.  But she's careful as well as clever.  She loks at what has gone on and plots her way through to possible future outcomes, this is under Determination.

Elaine is the opposite of Katie in some of the other dimensions, and here it is true also.  She sees what is happening with Fiend and William and likes the success.  Although sceptical, she is more concerned with the Effects or what is going on and not the ethics of it.   She looks at what is available and has an Expectation of what could be coming their way in future.

Let's put them on the graph.

Proven	Theory Katie	Effect Elaine	Trust
Hunch Fiend	Unproven	Test	Cause
Accurate Fiend	Expectation Elaine	Result	Ending Jake
Determination Katie	Non-accurate Jake	Unending	Process

Reason and Emotion

William is the slightly naïve brother.  When he gets in with Fiend and his increasing circle of violence and chaos, he Trusts him, he needs no other indication of success.  he also has a childlike inability to see that the path he is on must come to an end, he follows the Unending philosophy.

Thomas is the methodical one.  He has a long experience of what works and what doesn't.  He's gained this knowledge by trial and error, so is always prone to Test a theory before trusting it.  He wants to make sure a method is tried and tested, and Proven before using it.

Let's put them on the graph.

Proven Thomas	Theory Katie	Effect Elaine	Trust William
Hunch Fiend	Unproven	Test Thomas	Cause
Accurate Fiend	Expectation Elaine	Result	Ending Jake
Determination Katie	Non-accurate Jake	Unending William	Process

Skeptic and Sidekick

Bobby is the naysayer, the one person with actual knowledge of the previous encounter with Fiend. He knows that the current method is Unproven.  He has seen the previous Result of action, and so is concerned this time it won't work.

Peter is a networker, he knows his limitations. His job as he sees it, is as enabler, he is the person who understands Process and how to keep things running smoothly.  He is more concerned with what Causes things than how to deal with it.

Let's complete the graph.

Proven Thomas	Theory Katie	Effect Elaine	Trust William
Hunch Fiend	Unproven Bobby	Test Thomas	Cause Peter
Accurate Fiend	Expectation Elaine	Result Bobby	Ending Jake
Determination Katie	Non-accurate Jake	Unending William	Process Peter

Conclusion

Already this suggests some great opposition scenes, such as where Elaine and Katie square off over realism versus expectation, or where brothers Jake and William are opposed on the ideas behind Ending and Unending situations.  We'll go into these more later.

That's us done all four dimensions and in the next post I'll look at what all this (hard!) work has gotten us.

That'll do for this post.

The Value of Nothing

Where we're up to

In the previous posts I've looked in detail at three of the four major character dimensions presented by Dramatica.  First there was the Motivations set, where we looked at the dispositions of the characters.  Then the Purpose set, where we looked a what sorts of things the character is seeking.  In the last couple of posts, I've been looking at the Methodology set, which looks at how each character will approach attaining the goals.  This seems a bit technical and un-creative at the moment, but there's only one more, so let's get it done.


Evaluation

So what is this fourth dimension?  The first three give us the attitude, goals and methods that a character uses to move through the narrative.  There is one final dimension which Dramatica proposes to completely explain a character.  This is concerned with how the character judges their progress, and realises that they have arrived at the goal.  This is called Evaluation.  Again it falls into sixteen elements.

Proven	Theory	Effect	Trust
Hunch	Unproven	Test	Cause
Accurate	Expectation	Result	Ending
Determination	Non-accurate	Unending	Process

These are again arranged in pairs of opposing Evaluations.  Dramatica says that each of your characters need to have at least one of these Evaluations, but can have combinations. 

Let's have a look at what each of these sixteen Evaluations mean.

Proven	The evaluation of looking for corroborating evidence to support a view.  Basing a belief about a situation on evidence.  Once proven, this sort of character can sometimes stop looking or ignore evidence which goes against it.
Theory	The finding of a chain of causes and effects to allow the character to develop a model of the situation.  Allows this character to predict based on previous experience, but sometimes stops them from seeing obvious links because of this.
Effect	Concentrating on the apparent outcomes of a mechanism as a measure of success.  This can sometimes mean that coincidental outcomes can be misunderstood, and other effects which are not good can be ignored or treated as cost of success.
Trust	The character believes the success of the outcome without verifying it.  This sometimes allows them to carry on without excessive nitpicking, but also makes them vulnerable to deception by those they trust.
Hunch	Acting on circumstantial evidence of badly understood patterns.  Characters who act on hunches behave as if the fact is proven, and this leaves them vulnerable to self-deception and making mistakes based on personal experience.
Unproven	Using knowledge with the understanding that it is not complete and may be overthrown by subsequent facts.  This character is unwilling to trust a theory, or jump to any conclusions based on it until it is a proven fact.
Test	A character who evaluates with Test always wants to check something actually works before using it.  This can eliminate faulty paths early on, but is also potentially a waste of time, especially in time-dependent situations.
Cause	Wanting to find out the specific circumstances that lead to an outcome.  This can sometimes lead straight to the source of the problem, but by ignoring effects which can have multiple causes, it can mean things are missed, or effects ignored.
Accurate	A character is happy to run with the path which is not completely proven, but which has proved mostly useful in the past.  This character may take calculated risks, but sometimes this means they can fall victim to exceptions proving them wrong.
Expectation	Where a character has extrapolated a theory into the future and evaluates the possible outcomes.  This character can anticipate problems in advance, and plans for them.  If the facts change under him, this character sometimes struggles.
Result	This character considers all of the eventual ramifications of a course of action in advance.  This means they can anticipate unexpected outcomes and avoid side-effects, but it can also lead to decision freeze as all details are considered.
Ending	This character assumes all things must stop at some point, and plans accordingly for that moment.  This can make them predict and plan for things ending, but at the same time make mistakes on things which do not end as expected.
Determination	A conclusion on the causes behind an effect.  A character with this trait can work out from an effect what forces caused it and predict into the future.  Mistakes can be made, however, but the determined has a plan and is sticking with it.
Non-accurate	When a course of action is perceived as broken, or will not work.  Even if the plan has some immediate benefit, the non-accuracy character will discard it.  This character finds flaws in plans and is unable to accept even minor drawbacks.
Unending	This character thinks nothing will ever come to an end, and makes provisions based on this assumption.  This character stays motivated in the face of adversity but also sometimes takes things for granted through not understanding they may end.
Process	The understanding of the series of actions and causes and effects which lead to an outcome.  This character will keep things running smoothly, but sometimes forgets to see where they are going.

Again this is a bit much to take in

I'll leave it there for now and we can see how this applies to Fiend in the next post.

Applying Methodology to Fiend

In the last episode

So now we have the third dimension of Methodology to play with, so let's look at each of the characters of Fiend and see if we can place them on this grid.  To start off with, and for reference, let's summarise what the sixteen methodologies actually do:

Certainty	Waits until all facts are known.
Probability	Goes with the most likely.
Proaction	Self-starter.
Inaction	Dragging of feet.
Possibility	Not picking a likely outcome.
Potentiality	Only looks at the gain.
Protection	Resists threats.
Reaction	Acting only when something happens.
Deduction	Eliminates competing theories until one remains.
Reduction	Ranks competing theories according to their likelihood.
Acceptance	Doesn't oppose what's coming.
Evaluation	Finds connections between facts.
Production	Choose a path of action by eliminating impossible ones.
Induction	Links together facts in a causal chain of events.
Reevaluation	Looks at previous theories in light of new facts.
Nonacceptance	Opposes a course of action..

How this affects Jake and Fiend

I have certain problems with Jake in particular as a character, which probably contributed to me abandoning the story originally.  They always say you cannot have a passive main character, yet Jake holds back from doing things, until late on in the story.  Now I have read entire trilogies of books where the main character holds back from doing the right thing (The Stephen Donaldson 'The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant' set, for instance) - and this holding back is one of the main tensions in the story.

In order to avoid Jake coming across as passive and weak, I need to make it a struggle for him to control what he fears is his real nature, so I am thinking when he's presented with a decision, he imagines what he would do in that situation and immediately suspects he would do something terrible.  I think this falls under Production, the elimination of all other courses of action that he believes are not possible or desirable.  I also believe this makes him Reactive, because most things he cannot plan in advance and has to control himself at the time of the encounter.

Fiend, on the other hand, is the exact opposite.  And I feel this is the very dimension where it is advisable to have the antagonist on the opposite pair of at least one of the characteristics.  Fiend is very Proactive, he initiates activities and is the one striving for outcomes.  In terms of the other attribute, he is not the opposite of Jake (which would be Reduction) - I feel he is more about widening possibilities and person gain, which would fall under Potentiality.

Let's put those on the graph.

Certainty	Probability	Proaction Fiend	Inaction
Possibility	Potentiality Fiend	Protection	Reaction Jake
Deduction	Reduction	Acceptance	Evaluation
Production Jake	Induction	Reevaluation	Nonacceptance

Guardian and Contagonist

Katie and Elaine are already opposites of each other, in terms of the remnants of their archetypal roles, and also because of the status of their relationships with Jake.

Katie was identified as Thought and Actuality in the Purpose set, and as Help and Temptation in the Motivations set.   I think she is good at Evaluation of facts, and see connections where Jake cannot, and I suspect she thinks more in stories so is more comfortable with the Induction mode of thinking through scenarios.

Elaine was identified as Inertia and Inequity in the Purpose set, and as the Hinders and Conscience in the Motivations set.  She personifies Nonacceptance and intransigence.  I think she will not do anything where there is any danger of risk, so I think she falls under Inaction as well.

So let's put them on the graph.

Certainty	Probability	Proaction Fiend	Inaction Elaine
Possibility	Potentiality Fiend	Protection	Reaction Jake
Deduction	Reduction	Acceptance	Evaluation Katie
Production Jake	Induction Katie	Reevaluation	Nonacceptance Elaine

Reason and Emotion

William is the brother is who is easily led.  He is excited by the Possibilities presented by Fiend without recourse to the likelihood of them being realized or the damage they might cause.  I need him to be the opposite of Jake in one respect, so that puts him in the Reductionist frame of mind, again good with him considering all possibilities.

Thomas is calm and controlled by still enjoys feelings. He is led by knowledge and order.  It makes sense that he uses Deduction to make his decisions, like a detective.  He needs to oppose William on at least one characteristic, so we will make him go with probability, again this suits his scheming and careful nature.

Let's put them on the graph.

Certainty	Probability Thomas	Proaction Fiend	Inaction Elaine
Possibility William	Potentiality Fiend	Protection	Reaction Jake
Deduction Thomas	Reduction William	Acceptance	Evaluation Katie
Production Jake	Induction Katie	Reevaluation	Nonacceptance Elaine

Skeptic and Sidekick

Bobby is the reluctant survivor of a previous encounter with Fiend.  He is skeptical, it cannot be done.  He uses logic to prove this.  He embodies fear of Chaos and acceptance of Change.  He must have Re-Evaluated the situation, and he has built a wall around his theory, so is Protectionist.

Peter is left with the remaining two, but it seems to fit.  As his main friend and ally, Peter is Accepting of everything Jake suggests, and has an innocent Certainty that things will work out for them.

Let's complete the graph.

Certainty Peter	Probability Thomas	Proaction Fiend	Inaction Elaine
Possibility William	Potentiality Fiend	Protection Bobby	Reaction Jake
Deduction Thomas	Reduction William	Acceptance Peter	Evaluation Katie
Production Jake	Induction Katie	Reevaluation Bobby	Nonacceptance Elaine

So what has this done?

I know this seems a bit arbitrary at the moment, but bear with me.  We have completed all the required Methodology elements by applying each of them to a Fiend character.

Again some interesting oppositions become apparent, and these will be explored later.

All for now.