Dramatica Definition: Outcome

Outcome • [Plot Dynamic] • a logistic assessment of how things ended up • When one is creating a story, one must consider how it all comes out. This will not just be a description of the situation but also of what potentials remain and how they have changed over the course of the story. Often, an author may wish to show the Outcome of a dramatic movement at the beginning or middle rather than the end. In this way the audience will focus more on how that eventuality came to be rather than trying to figure out what is going to happen.

From the Dramatica Dictionary

Character Elements in Wizard Of Oz

How do Dramatica’s sixteen character motivation elements show up in The Wizard Of Oz?

In Wizard Of Oz, Dorothy is both pursue and consideration. Toto is faith and support. The Cowardly Lion is clearly disbelief and oppose, and Glinda is conscience and help. But here is where breaking the Eight Archetypal Characters into 16 characteristics solves our previous problems.

Tin Man and Scarecrow Swap Meet

When we look at the Scarecrow he appears to exemplify logic but his approach, rather than being in control, is quite uncontrolled. Similarly, although the Tin Man is undoubtedly feeling, his demeanor is just as surely described by control.

Apparently, the Scarecrow and the Tin Man have swapped characteristics: logic goes with uncontrolled and feeling goes with control. In a sense, both of these Characters now contain two Elements that are at odds with each other. The Action Element does not reflect the Decision Element. This creates two very interesting Characters who have an additional degree of depth to them: an internal friction, inconsistency, or conflict. This is the kind of arrangement that begins to make characters more complex.

Witch and Wizard Ways

But what about the Witch and the Wizard? What is it that makes them diverge from the Archetypal molds? Could it be a similar “swapping” of Elements? As it turns out, it is a similar swapping, but not exactly the same. To be the Archetypal Contagonist, the Wizard would have to be temptation and hinder. To be the Antagonist, the Witch would have to be reconsideration and prevent. But rather than swapping an Action Element for another Action Element, the Witch ends up with both Action Elements and the Wizard with both Decision ones!

From the Dramatica Theory Book

Example Stories with Steadfast Main Characters

In some stories, the main character holds out against all attempts to change his attitude or behavior, remaining steadfast in his nature.

Here are examples of stories that illustrate this concept of the Steadfast Main Character:

A Clockwork Orange: Alex never willingly changes his roguish anti-social behavior, and when forced to do so, he prefers to die rather than give up that part of himself. Alex tries to hold out against the challenges to his self-authority: when his droogs begin to rebel, he teaches them a lesson; he skips school despite Mr. Deltoid’s efforts; he fights against the authorities during his interrogation; he tries to commit suicide rather than be forced to hate his individualism (represented by Beethoven’s 9th Symphony).

All That Jazz: In the opening scene, Joe asserts “To be on the wire is life: the rest is waiting” (Aurthur and Fosse 1). This statement sums up Joe’s credo, and because of it he remains steadfast in living the high life, despite the fact that it is literally killing him.

Amadeus: Once he declares his war, his intent to destroy Mozart, he remains steadfast to the end. He had offered to trade a recommendation to the Emperor on Mozart’s behalf if Constanze will have sex with him. After he declares his war, he isn’t interested. He tells us, “I wanted nothing petty…..My quarrel wasn’t with Mozart. It was through him! Through him to God, who loved him so.” As Salieri listens to the “Magic Flute,” he finds that a bit of pity might be entering his heart, but he resolves, “Never!” In the end, Salieri even attempts to take his own life to spite God’s punishment- that is, Salieri’s lack of recognition.

Being There: Chance remains steadfast in his desire to live in a home where he can work in a garden and watch television.

Braveheart: William steadfastly fights the English in spite of the odds. He neither yields to the persuasion of Robert the Bruce nor does he give in to Longshanks’ attempt to buy him off. And although eventually he has to change his attitude towards the Scottish nobles, his determination to get Scotland free of England remains as solid as a rock.

Candida: True to the Christian principles he preaches, Morell employs the virtue of patience and prepares for self sacrifice as he awaits the fate of his marriage.

Chinatown: Never one to leave things open-ended, Jake pursues the ‘answer’ to his questions relentlessly. Even after Evelyn is killed and Noah takes his granddaughter away, Jake’s inclination is to keep on going.

The Fugitive: Dr. Kimble maintains he is innocent, and does everything he can to prove it including consistently putting his life in jeopardy.

The Glass Menagerie: Laura exists in a fantasy world where her very own “gentleman caller” awaits her. Even after Jim informs her of his impending marriage and permanent departure, Laura maintains her fantasy more securely than before.

Klute: Klute’s not convinced that Tom’s disappearance is what it looks like to everyone else:

KLUTE: I don’t see it. Tom Grunemann. I’ve known him all my life. He wouldn’t just, you know, go.

AGENT: But he’s gone.

(Lewis & Lewis, p. 6)

Klute sticks with his belief in Tom, and sees “the girl” as the clue to solving the puzzle. He stays close to her, getting to know her more intimately–ultimately using her as bait to trap Tom’s suspected killer, Cable.

Rebel Without a Cause: Jim is steadfast in his desire to be part of a functional family.

Reservoir Dogs: Mr. White refuses to believe that Mr. Orange is the “rat,” even when all evidence points to him. When Mr. Orange confesses to him, he is anguished over the betrayal but remains true to his criminal nature and shoots him, at the cost of his own life.

Revenge of the Nerds: Lewis sticks to his original path of actively pursuing a great time in college. He faces the idea that he is a nerd, but he doesn’t let it dissuade him from any goals he has set for himself. Lewis emerges from the story with the same motivations with which he entered.

Romeo and Juliet: Romeo remains steadfast in his love for Juliet and desire to remain at her side–to the point of following his wife in death.

Searching for Bobby Fischer: Josh sticks to his own way of playing in tournaments. Although Bruce tries to convince Josh to adopt his personal views on winning (and whether or not he should play at all), ultimately Josh resolves his problems by own means, choosing at the end to offer his opponent a way out, before finally winning the game.

The Silence of the Lambs: Even after Lecter has killed more people in his escape from custody, Clarice still believes she was on the right track in getting his help. She heeds his advice and finds a vital clue in the case file, as Lecter suggested.

The Sun Also Rises: Jake remains steadfast in his desire for Brett.

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?: Rather than stopping the “game” by exposing the lie about their “son,” George continues to play within the rules and “kills” their son–GEORGE: “I have the right, Martha. We never spoke of it; that’s all. I could kill him any time I wanted to.”

The Wild Bunch: A person’s character is best defined by their deeds, not their words. Though Pike discusses changing his lawless, gunfighting ways, it’s the only lifestyle he knows and he hangs onto it, a dinosaur in changing times. He stands by his code of loyalty:

PIKE: We started together — we’ll end it together.

(Green and Peckinpah, p. 33)

–and finally refuses to leave Angel to die alone in Mapache’s hands, leading the Bunch in their final shootout.

X-Files: Beyond the Sea: In spite of Scully’s momentary belief in Boggs’ psychic abilities, she returns to her skeptical nature.

MULDER: Scully. . . after all you’ve told me. After all the evidence. . .

SCULLY: Because I’m afraid. . . I’m afraid to believe.

MULDER: You couldn’t face that fear? Even if it meant never knowing what your father was trying to tell you?

SCULLY: But I do know.

MULDER: How?

SCULLY: He was my father.

From Dramatica Pro Software

The Chemistry of Characters

Excerpt from an early, unpublished draft of the Dramatica Theory Book.   Many of these concepts were not included in the version eventually published:

To make an argument that a particular element is or is not a solution to a particular problem, Character make-up must remain consistent throughout the story.

In order for the argument of a story to be complete, all approaches to solving a problem must be represented. This is the purpose of Characters. Each Character illustrates one or more ways in which one might address a problem. These different approaches are commonly referred to as Character Traits. We call them Character Elements.

If we think of the traits as elements, we can imagine that the chemical compounds created by various combinations can lead to an extraordinary number of different “substances”, or personalities from a relatively small number of building blocks.

Picture the Author as Chemist, filling several jars with samples from a rack of elements. She might put a single element in one jar but a number of them in another. Depending upon the selections she makes, a given jar might grow cold or boil, turn red or blue, crystallize or form polymers.

Now suppose this Author/Chemist was operating under laboratory guidelines that she must use each chemical element off the shelf, but only once – in only one jar. It is conceivable she might put them all into a single jar, but what a mess it would be, trying to determine which element was responsible for which effect. The interactions would become muddled beyond understanding.

Certainly, in a story, such a hodgepodge would fail to fulfill the mandate of making a full and meaningful argument. No, if we are to cover the field, but not at the expense of clarity, we must examine the interactions of smaller groups of elements, which calls for several more jars.

Obviously, if we used a separate jar for each element, nothing would react at all, which means to an author that virtually all of the conflict within Characters would be lost with only the potential of conflict between Characters remaining. Certainly each element could be fully understood, and indeed, from time to time, an author may find good reason to keep a few Character elements solo, so that they might be absolutely defined. More often, however, it serves the story better to combine more than one element in more than one jar.

In this way, very specific combinations can be fully explored, and not at the expense of clarity.

Each of the Character Elements must be employed in one character or another. None must be left out. Otherwise the argument of the story will have a hole in it. None must be represented in more than one Character, otherwise the argument will be redundant, confusing, and become less interesting.

Even within these guidelines, a huge number of different types of Characters can be created. Yet, in many stories, we see the same Characters appearing over and over again. Characters like the Hero and the Villain and the Sidekick recur in a plethora of stories in a multitude of genres. This is not necessarily due to a lack of creativity by these authors. Rather, of all the elements, there is one central arrangement that is something like an alignment of the planets. It is a point of balance where each Character looks exactly like the others, only seen through a filter – or with different shading.

Characters made in this special alignment are called Archetypal. Out of all the myriad of ways in which Elements could be arranged, there is only one arrangement that is Archetypal. Is this good or is this bad? For the author who wants to explore Character nuances, Archetypal Characters are probably a poor choice. But for the author who wants to concentrate on Action, it may be a very prudent choice.

It should be noted that just because a Character is Archetypal, does not mean she is a stick figure. Archetypal Characters contain the full complement of elements that any other Character might have. It is the arrangement of these so that all Elements of a like kind make up a single Character that simplifies the complexity of the interactions between Characters. This un-clutters the field and allows for more attention to be paid to other areas such as action, if that is the Author’s intent.

In our example of the Author/Chemist, the jars she uses fulfill an essential purpose: they keep the Chemical compounds separate from one another. That is the function and definition of Character:

A Character is a unique arrangement of solely possessed elements that does not vary over the course of the story.

The last few words above are italicized because the stability of the arrangement of elements is essential to identifying a Character. If elements could swap around from Character to Character, the story would lose its strength of argument, since an approach begun by one Character might only be shown to succeed or fail in another.

When we, as audience, watch a story, we hope to learn that we should or should not use a particular approach, so that we may grow from that experience in our own lives. But how can that point be made if a Character does not finish what she starts. We may see the element as failing, but the argument is left open that perhaps if only the Character who started with that element had stuck with it she would have succeeded.

Players

 

What about Jekyl and Hyde? Is that not an inconsistent Character? Yes, it is not. This is because Jekyl and Hyde are two different Characters. Two Characters in a single body? Exactly.

There is a great difference between a Character and the body it inhabits. We have all seen stories about spiritual possession, split personalities, or Sci-Fi personality transfers. In each of these instances, different Characters successively occupy the same body or physical host. We call these hosts Players.

A Player is a host in which a Character Resides

 

A Player does not have to be a person. It can be an animal, spiritual force, a car, a toy – anything that can be shown to possess a personality. Character is the personality, Player is where it resides. So, Jekyl and Hyde are two separate Characters who vie for the same Player’s body.

Conclusion to Objective Characters

 

We have now defined all of the elements or traits that can be combined to create Characters. We have also arranged these traits in meaningful groupings. We have described methods and rules governing the combining process. And, we have related each aspect of the Character Structure concept to the other aspects.

But something is missing. So far we have created a Structure, but it is a static Structure. We have not at all discussed the manner in which Characters interrelate and conflict. In effect, we have not created a set of Dynamics to drive the Structure.

As you may have noted, the Section headings of this book are divided into Structure and Dynamics, indicating that all Structural considerations will be explored before they are put into motion. There is a reason for this. When we had first completed discovering the sixty-four elements of Character, and had arranged them in the Author’s perspective, we thought that Character conflict would be the next door that opened to us. It was not. Try as we might, we could not perceive any kind of definable pattern that governed the interactions among Characters or even Character traits.

Instead, we found something most unexpected: that there was a definitive relationship among the structures of Character, Theme, Genre, and Plot. In fact, Plot did not just describe the Dynamics of Character, but Theme and Genre as well. So to see the Plot operation of Character conflict, Theme progression, and Genre perspectives, we first needed to finish our Structural model of Story, by building a Structure for Theme and Genre as well. Once this was accomplished we would then be able to discern and quantify the functioning of story Dynamics.

Therefore, we move on to the next set of bricks in our DRAMATICA Structure, edging ever closer to that elusive overview.

Dramatica Definitions: Order

Order • [Element] • dyn.pr. Chaos<–>Order • a patterned arrangment • The character containing the Order characteristic is concerned with keeping things organized. Change is not a problem as long as it is orderly. However, sometimes you can’t get there from here and the whole system has to be blown apart to rebuild from the ground up. Sometimes a little chaos needs to reign so that a log jam can be broken or a process speeded up. The character representing Order is an organization fiend. • syn. structure, patterned arrangement, organization, patterned formation, formation, configuration, patterned sequence

From the Dramatica Dictionary

Character Elements in Star Wars

How do Dramatica’s sixteen character motivation elements show up in Star Wars (Episode IV: A New Hope)?

As Protagonist, Luke does indeed seem to be both the pursuing character and the one who urges all to consider the need to achieve the goal (“We’ve got to help the Princess!”). The Empire definitely wants to prevent Luke from succeeding, and urges him and all others to reconsider the propriety of his actions – reconsider or you will die. Obi Wan provides a sense of conscience, at the same time helping Luke when he gets into trouble. Darth, on the other hand, clearly represents the tempting “Dark side of the Force,” as well as hindering Luke’s progress, the Rebel’s progress, and even hindering progress by the Empire itself!

R2D2 and C3PO are ever faithful and supportive, and Han is the perennial disbeliever and opposer. Chewbacca acts on his feelings and behaves in an uncontrolled way, and Leia is extremely controlled and driven by logic.

Charted out, the assignment of characteristics to the various characters has a good feel to it.

Character Quads with Elements

Driver Quad

Passenger Quad

From the Dramatica Theory Book

Example Stories with Change Characters

Some stories  that have a Main Character who Changes his or her attitude or nature by the end of the story:

A Doll’s House: Once it is clear that Torvald puts himself and his reputation before his wife, Nora realizes she is no longer in love with him, gives her wedding ring back, and prepares to leave him.

The Age of Innocence: Newland is a man who considers himself intellectually above his peers, a person open to new possibilities.

NARRATOR: On the whole Archer was amused by the smooth hypocrisy of his peers […] Archer enjoyed such challenges to convention. He questioned conformity in private, but in public he upheld family and tradition.

Slowly Newland becomes more dissatisfied with the narrow-minded pursuits of his world. Then Ellen comes along, a kindred spirit, who speaks her mind. She becomes a beacon of enlightenment and change. Newland follows her light and moves toward changing the way he acts, not just the way he thinks. Finally, when he realizes he’s about to lose Ellen for good, he tries to speak out, ready to give up everything he has represented in society to follow her to Europe.

All About Eve: Margo changes from a jealous, age-obsessed actress to a woman who has accepted herself at age forty, and is getting married to the younger man she’s refused until now. She wanted to play a woman of twenty in Lloyd’s new play, but changes her mind:

MARGO: But not for me any more — not a four-square, upright, downright, forthright married lady. . . It means I’ve finally got a life to live! I don’t have to play parts I’m too old for — Just because I’ve got nothing to do with my nights!

Apt Pupil: Todd has changed from hiding his true nature as a killer, behind his mask of a golden child, when he embarks on a shooting spree above the freeway.

Barefoot in the Park: When faced with the prospect of divorce, Paul loses control by becoming intoxicated. As an illustration of his resolve to change, he acts on Corie’s whimsy–regardless of its foolishness.

Blade Runner: When Deckard is told a replicant is bad and to retire it, that’s just what he does, no questions asked. But when he’s told to retire Rachael, his love for her overcomes his duty and he escapes with her.

Body Heat: Throughout the story, Ned pursues Mattie and her interests regardless of the danger or costs. At the end, however, he approaches the boat house and, sensing a booby trap, changes his mind and asks her to go into the boat house. This risks the very thing (Mattie) that he has so single-mindedly been pursuing.

Boyz N The Hood: It is in Tre’s nature to look for the easy way out; his decision not to seek revenge against the gang members that wasted Ricky is indicative of his resolve to change.

Bringing Up Baby: The change David ultimately makes doesn’t happen in a leap of faith, but gradually, over the course of the entire film. In the opening shot of the film, David is sitting in his “Thinker” pose, with his attention entirely on his work. At the end, after Alice has left and Susan shows up at the museum, David doesn’t seem to care that she has found the bone and is giving him the million dollars inherited from Aunt Elizabeth. In fact he says that he’s been giving it a lot of thought and the day he spent with her was the best day he’d ever had in his whole life. (nb: in a scene that was ultimately left on the cutting room floor, Alice tells David “…since your experience with that girl you’ve been a changed person. And I don’t appreciate the change.”) A more subtle, visual clue is that in the beginning, David is always wearing glasses (despite the fact that Susan tells him he’s so good looking without them), and at the end he is working on his dinosaur without glasses.

Bull Durham: When Crash makes Annie aware that she has been focusing more on her own needs than on Nuke’s pitching (as she claims), she breaks her hard-and-fast rule of “one player per season,” and admits that she wants Crash. At the very end of the film, Crash tells her that he doesn’t want to think about baseball or quantum physics or anything. “I just want to be,” he says. And Annie, who has been the consummate Do-er throughout the film, says, “I can do that too.”

Casablanca: Rick changes from self-centered and controlling to emotionally confident and selfless. Early on, he repeatedly emphasizes that:

RICK: I stick my neck out for nobody.

But at the moment of truth he risks everything to help Laszlo escape with Ilsa, and takes up his personal fight for what’s right.

Charlotte’s Web: Instead of acting frenzied (as usual) when faced with a crisis, as Charlotte’s health declines, Wilbur takes charge and carries out her last wishes:

Wilbur was in a panic. He raced round and round the pen. Suddenly he had an idea-he thought of the egg sac and the five hundred and fourteen little spiders that would hatch in the spring. If Charlotte herself was unable to go home to the barn, at least he must take her children along. (White, 1952, p. 166)

The Client: Reggie starts out as unable to let things go even after they have been taken away from her (e.g. her children). By the end of the story, Reggie is instrumental in enrolling Marcus and his family into the Witness Protection Program (which means she expects never to see him again).

The Crucible: He progresses . . . from shame to renewed assurance. For a time his humility as an adulterer disposes him to accept the greater humiliation of confessing to witchcraft; since he has already blackened his “good name” by succumbing to and then publicly admitting lechery, he is tempted to save at least his life. Indignation, however, compels him to salvage self-respect. “How may I live without my name?” . . . (Moss 42)

El Mariachi: El Mariachi changes from a soft-spoken musician in search of love and luck, to a cold blooded killer, gunning down Moco for revenge.

Four Weddings And A Funeral: Charles changes from disbelieving he will ever be able to make a lifelong commitment with anyone, to finally stepping out on faith and asking Carrie to spend the rest of her life with him.

The Godfather: Michael changes from believing what his family does is wrong to believing that his family’s crimes are a necessary evil. He begins by insisting that his family’s crimes belong to his family, not to him. In the end, he is organizing the execution of these crimes as the family’s new Don, having reasoned they are necessary.

The Graduate: Everyone thinks that Ben is absolutely on the right track and if he continues as such, he’ll be assured success. But Ben changes. His change is not a leap of faith, but one that is gradual and inexorable–resulting in him getting the girl, but also disappointing everyone he knows.

The Great Gatsby: Nick Carraway was raised to be tolerant of other’s moral shortcomings. The events that occurred in the summer of ’22, however, gave him an aversion to the ways of the corrupt and dissolute, and his essential nature changed:

“In my younger and more vulnerable years my father gave me some advice that I’ve been turning over in mind ever since. ‘Whenever you feel like criticizing any one,’ he told me, ‘just remember that all the people in this world haven’t had the advantages that you’ve had.’ In consequence, I’m inclined to reserve all judgmentsÉ Reserving judgments is a matter of infinite hope. I am still a little afraid of missing something if I forget that, as my father snobbishly suggested, and I snobbishly repeat, a sense of the fundamental decencies is parceled out unequally at birth. And, after boasting this way of my tolerance, I come to the admission that it has a limit. Conduct may be founded on the hard rock or the wet marshes, but after a certain point I don’t care what it’s founded on.”

Hamlet: Hamlet stops contemplating Claudius’ lies and treacheries and accepts the knowledge that Claudius is responsible for his father and mother’s (and his own) deaths.

Harold and Maude: Through Maude’s influence, Harold loses his obsession with death and destruction and embraces life–driving his hearse (without him inside of it) over a cliff.

Heavenly Creatures: Experiencing adolescence and the possibility of other worlds shown to her by Juliet, Pauline changes from a dull, obedient daughter with straight-A grades to an imaginative person with a purpose:

PAULINE (Diary V.O.): Anger against Mother boiled up inside me as it is she who is one of the main obstacles in my path. Suddenly a means of ridding myself of this occurred to me. If she were to die…

(Walsh & Jackson, p. 208)

I Love Lucy: Lucy changes from attempting to tell Ricky the news about the baby in a private moment, to allowing him to find out during his nightclub act.

Lawrence of Arabia: An expert on the region, Lawrence volunteers to be sent to Arabia, a country he comes to love even more as he adopts its customs and dress. But after experiencing the desert’s brutality firsthand, and realizing the futility of trying to change the Arabs’ squabbling nature, he abandons it:

LAWRENCE: I pray I may never see the desert again. Hear me God.

(Bolt and Wilson, p. II-112)

Lolita: In recounting his relations with Lolita, Humbert gradually moves from feeling only blind lust for the twelve-year-old “nymphet” girl, to genuine and everlasting love for a worn-out, old-before-her-time adult woman. During the two years they live together, “The sensualist in me (a great and insane monster . . .”) (Nabokov 115), and (my) “monstrous appetite” puts in motion the “the writhing of desire again” (Nabokov 129). ” . . . Ready to repent, all at once, ironically, horribly, lust would swell again” (Nabokov 260). In the ensuing three years that Lolita is missing, Humbert comes to see that although his “accursed nature could not change” (Nabokov 234), his love for her did. Although Humbert’s physiological lust for young preadolescent girls remains with him, when he finally meets Lolita again, he sees her “ruined looks and her adult, roped-veined narrow hands . . . unkempt armpits . . . hopelessly worn out at seventeen . . . [I] knew . . . that I loved her more than anything I had ever seen or imagined on earth, or hoped for anywhere else” (Nabokov 253). Earlier in the book, Humbert had had nothing but contempt and revulsion for the older high school and college girls as well as adult women. Now, he states: “She (Lolita) was only the faint violet whiff and dead leaf echo of the nymphet . . . but thank God it was not that echo alone that I worshipped” (Nabokov 253). Although Humbert has no remorse for killing Quilty, neither does the reader. The reader abhors Humbert’s lust, and using of Lolita, but can empathize with his constant guilt over his physiological addiction. In the end, the reader can feel comfortable with the idea of an emotionally changed Humbert, and believes him when he says that in spite of her ruined looks he loves her still. “I loved my Lolita this Lolita, pale and polluted, and big with another’s child . . . ” (Nabokov 253).

Othello: Othello changes from a noble and just groom who declares, “But that I love the gentle Desdemona,” (I,ii,27) to a foul-minded, irrational husband who vows, “I’ll tear her to pieces.” (III,iii,483) He changes from treating her gently to striking her in public, calling her a whore, and murdering her in an unfounded jealous rage.

The Philadelphia Story: Tracy is accused throughout the story (by Dexter, Seth, and George) of being “a goddess.” By the end of the story she has stepped off of her pedestal and has become more forgiving of human frailties.

The Piano Lesson: Berniece refuses to play the piano because she’s afraid to wake the spirits of her ancestors. However, when Boy Willie is attacked by Sutter’s evil ghost, she uses the piano to release those spirits to save her brother.

Platoon: When Chris Taylor first arrives in Vietnam, he is basically a naive, idealistic, young man who has dropped out of college to enlist in the military–he’s signed up for infantry and combat. He’s done so with the hope of finding himself and what he’s really about, and to discover something he can be proud of:

CHRIS (V.0.): …Course Mom and Dad didn’t want me to come, they wanted me to be just like them–respectable, hard-working, making $200 a week, a little house, a family. They drove me crazy with their goddamn world, Grandma, you know Mom, I don’t want to be a white boy on Wall Street, I don’t want my whole life to be predetermined by them.

…I guess having always been sheltered and special, I just want to be anonymous. Like everybody else. Do my share for my country. Live up to what Grandpa did in the First War and Dad the Second.

…Maybe I’ve finally found it, way down here in the mud. Maybe from down here I can start up again,… be something I can be proud of and not have to fake it–be a fake human being. Maybe I can see something I don’t yet see, or learn something I don’t yet know… (Stone, p.14)

However, by the end of the film, we sense that Chris doesn’t still hold to the same basic ideals as when he first arrived in Vietnam.

The war forced Chris to experience and do things that he’s not proud of at all, like his platoon’s involvement in the My-Lai-esque pillage and destruction of a Vietnamese village, and the climatic murder of Sgt. Barnes. Chris thought the war would mold him into the type of man he would be proud of, instead it has dehumanized him to the point where he is willing and able to commit the murder of his commanding officer in an act of revenge. He is no longer a naive, idealistic, young boy who was looking for a great adventure to make him a man, he has come to realize, and take part of, the atrocities and numbing reality of the Vietnam War.

Pride and Prejudice: Elizabeth firmly believes Mr. Darcy is the last man in the world she would ever marry. Her change of heart is illustrated when he proposes for the second time:

“If your feelings are still what they were last April, tell me so at once. My affections and wishes are unchanged, but one word from you will silence me on this subject forever.” Elizabeth . . . gave him to understand that her sentiments had undergone so material a change, since the period to which he alluded, as to make her receive with gratitude and pleasure his present assurances. (Austen 305)

Quills: Abbe de Coulmier changes from an administrator in the asylum to an inmate:

Dr. Royer-Collard: Circumstances have turned you surly. Interred too long with the beast, you’ve now become one. (Wright 75)

Rain Man: Charlie is most concerned with making fast money and guarding his emotions. He works hard to close the car deal and make a profit with just “a few phone calls.” He argues with Susanna when she wants him to share his thoughts, however, because he does change he is able to reconcile with her. After the road trip with Raymond, Charlie turns down Dr. Bruner’s offer of $250,000 to release his brother:

CHARLIE: It’s funny, I just realized I’m not pissed off any more that my father cut me out of his will. […] It’s not about the money anymore. […] Why didn’t anyone ever tell me I had a brother. Because it would have been nice to know him for more than just the past six days.

Later, at the hearing with the doctors, Charlie says he connected with Raymond during the trip and values him as family:

CHARLIE: I had a father I hardly knew. A mother I didn’t know at all. I found out a few days ago that I have a brother and I want to be with him.

Rear Window: We first see Jeff’s fiancŽe, Lisa, in a negative light, literally, as a negative image on a slide viewer. This symbolizes the negative feelings Jeff has about the state of matrimony. But as he watches the marriage and courtship rituals of his neighbors, and those who suffer the perils of loneliness, Jeff’s distaste for married life dissipates and he grows more amenable toward the issue of marriage.

Rosemary’s Baby: Rosemary changes in her feelings toward Guy (evidenced by spitting on him), and in her refusal to accept that anything is wrong with her child. Her ambivalent feelings about Catholicism are resolved as well. At the climax of the story, Rosemary overcomes her revulsion to the baby and chooses to be a mother to him, despite the fact that Satan is the father.

The Simpsons Christmas Special: Homer believes the only way to make his family happy on Christmas is to provide packages under the tree. When he brings home “Santa’s Little Helper,” he discovers it’s the love his family shares that is important.

All Good Things (Star Trek: The Next Generation): Picard is thrown willy-nilly through time, trying to understand why. At first he is at the whim of the time-shifting. He then realizes that he can use the time-shifting to his advantage in solving the problem of the paradox. He is therefore able to turn the chaos into order.

Star Wars: After years of following other people’s advice, Luke finally decides to ignore his superior’s commands to use the targeting computer and does it the way he (and Obi Wan) thinks is best.

Sula: Nel lets go of her hatred for Sula; the oppression she has allowed herself to live with is lifted.

Sunset Boulevard: Joe wants to be a Hollywood screenwriter, so he accepts the expensive gifts and lavish lifestyle Norma offers him, hoping to continue his “career.” Later, through Betty’s influence, he quits stringing Norma along and living high on her money. He decides to give up his bid for Hollywood success. Acting upon the little decency he has left, he packs only his old belongings, and takes off the gold watch Norma’s given him:

GILLIS: The rest of the jewelry is in the top drawer.

NORMA: It’s yours, Joe. I gave it to you.

GILLIS: And I’d take it in a second, Norma–only it’s a little too dressy for sitting behind the copy desk in Dayton, Ohio.

Taxi Driver: Travis achieves some catharsis through the purging of criminals’ blood in the climactic slaughter scene. Though he remains a loner with psychopathic tendencies, he’s no longer obsessed with the details of the immoral activities on the street, and he’s able to interact with Betsy without stalking her. Whereas earlier he complains:

TRAVIS V.O.: Twelve hours of work and I still cannot sleep.

At story’s end, he tells Betsy:

TRAVIS: I just sleep more, that’s all.

His infamy has changed him from a misfit into a media darling and hero.

To Kill a Mockingbird: Scout changes when she realizes Boo Radley has saved Jem’s and her life, and he is a man who is a friend, not a man to fear.

Tootsie: At first Michael is an uncooperative, opinionated, self-involved actor who has alienated producers on both coasts. Through his experiences as Dorothy Michaels, he changes into an understanding person who can see the “other side” of issues.

Toy Story: Woody’s resolve to maintain his status as “Andy’s Favorite Toy” is unraveled throughout the course of the story, until by the end he concedes that status to Buzz. At the moment of greatest crisis (right before the rocket explodes), Woody lets someone else be in charge for once, allowing himself to be literally taken under Buzz’s wings. From the experience of his separation from Andy, Woody comes to believe his own words, “It doesn’t matter how much we’re played with–what matters is that we’re here for Andy when he needs us.” In the final scene we see Woody loosened up and dancing, satisfied to be part of the group rather than its leader; he’s more comfortable with himself, more chummy to Buzz, and more accessible to Bo Peep’s advances.

A NOTE ABOUT OBSTACLE CHARACTER: Even though Buzz Lightyear appears to make a change (when he comes to see himself as Andy’s Toy rather than a Space Ranger), in terms of his IMPACT upon Woody and the others, he is a Steadfast Obstacle Character. His presence forces Woody to confront his personal issues, and that impact remains constant until Woody’s own “change” resolves the inequity between them. [Please see the “Story Comments” field for more info.]

Unforgiven: For eleven years William Munny has been a family man, relinquishing his hard-drinking, man-killing ways. Financially desperate, he’s drawn back to killing for money and when his partner Ned’s killed, he hits the trigger and the bottle again.

The Verdict: In the courtroom, after all his evidence has been disallowed, Frank reaches deep into himself and banishes his Disbelief. He musters a new Faith in the judicial system as a whole, telling the jury that THEY are the law, and no matter what forces work against the truth, he has faith they will do the right thing.

Washington Square: Catherine begins as the victim of what is almost a system of inverted family relations . . . and not until Townsend crudely deserts her, and the egoism of her father and aunt is inescapable, does she exhibit any signs of independence, and even then it is partly the independence of a person intent on simple survival. Catherine is far from the transfigured victims, the Strethers and Milly Theales, in the later [James’] novels. Yet she has something in common with them. She is not, at the end, merely an old maid enveloped in the pathos of her unhappy memories. A small but real triumph has been hers: she has survived and become a person without recourse to the selfishness of her tormentors. Between victim and victimizer there is a human middle ground which Catherine makes her own. (Dupee 65)

When Harry Met Sally: Harry changes his outlook on men and women’s relationships when he realizes people of the opposite sex can be friends as well as lovers.

Witness: Rachel is curious about life outside of her Amish world, and is determined to explore it with the possibility of starting a new life among the English. She is attracted to John Book, but comes to realize the violent and volatile world he inhabits is not one to make a life for her son and for herself. Rachel eventually reconciles to the Amish ways, and stays to settle down with Daniel.

 From Dramatica Pro Software

Writing from a Character’s Point of View

Perhaps the best way to instill real feelings in a character is to stand in his or her shoes and write from the character’s point of view. Unfortunately, this method also holds the greatest danger of undermining the meaning of a story.

As an example, suppose we have two characters, Joe and Tom, who are business competitors. Joe hates Tom and Tom hates Joe. We sit down to write an argument between them. First, we stand in Joe’s shoes and speak vehemently of Tom’s transgressions. Then, we stand in Tom’s shoes and pontificate on Joe’s aggressions. By adopting the character point of view, we have constructed an exchange of honest and powerful emotions. We have also undermined the meaning of our story because Joe and Tom have come across as being virtually the same.

A story might have a Protagonist and an Antagonist, but between Joe and Tom, who is who? Each sees himself as the Protagonist and the other as the Antagonist. If we simply write the argument from each point of view, the audience has no idea which is REALLY which.

The opposite problem occurs if you stand back from your characters and assign roles as Protagonist and Antagonist without considering the characters’ points of view. In such a case, the character clearly establish the story’s meaning, but they seem to be “walking through” the story, hitting the marks, and never really expressing themselves as actual human beings.

The solution, of course, is to explore both approaches. You need to know what role each character is to play in the story’s overall meaning – the big picture. But, you also must stand in their shoes and write with passion to make them human.

Melanie Anne Phillips
Co-creator, Dramatica