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.