Dramaticapedia

A writer recently asked:

A writer asks:

Hello

I’m trying to write a novel and I have a quick question. I have my main character developed and some of the other characters. I want to know do I have to developed every single character in great detail like I did the main character?

Tony

Hi Tony

The Main Character is a special case.  As you may know, most characters are oriented to the plot (we call them “Objective Characters” in Dramatica because we identify them by function in the story).

But there are also two “Subjective Characters” – the Main Character and the Obstacle Character (also called the Impact or Influence Character).

The Main Character is special because he or she grapples with an inner dilemma that is at the heart of the story’s issues.  In fact, success or failure in the overal goal of the story depends upon how the Main Character decides in regard to that dilemma.  (Think of Scrooge in “A Christmas Carol” or Hamlet.)

This, however, does NOT mean that the Main Character has to be the Protagonist.  The Protagonist is the prime mover in the effort to achieve the goal – it represents our initiative and tenacity.  It is an Objective Character because it is identified by its function in the story/plot.

The  personal “subjective” internal struggles can be given to any one of the Objective Characters.  That character then becomes the Main Character by definition.  And, the character given the additional role of representing the opposite belief system or opposite attitude to that of the Main Character becomes the Obstacle Character.

Besides whatever role they have the plot, the Main and Obstacle Characters also have a story-long relationship battling over their ideals, with one ultimately prevailing in that realm.  And whichever one prevails (right or wrong) will be the key to achieving success or failure in the quest for the goal.

So, naturally, there is a lot more to explore in the Main Character – all its personal issues and its paradigm battle with the Obstacle Character.  And that means it needs to be developed in far more detail than any of the other Objective Characters just fulfilling their roles in the plot.

Want to know more?

Read all our most recent articles about the Main Character

A writer recently sent these questions.  First, their letter, then my response:

Kris:

I’ve been following Dramatica for almost a year now and when you think you’ve got everything sorted out, something comes along to make you question what you thought you knew!  In Dramatica some of the traits you have for the Main Character are :

• Critical Flaw
• Problem
• Symptom

The reason I’m lost is how does this relate to other theories talking about a main character just having a need and a want (aside from their external goal)? I get that the ‘need’ is Dramatica’s ‘solution’ but what is the ‘want”s (their superficial want right at the beginning of the story) equivalent in Dramatica’s terms? They talk about the ‘want’ as being something main characters usually overcome in realisation that they have a much deeper inner need which is fueling this ‘want’. I was thinking that Critical Flaw maybe this ‘want’ because it hinders their progress but main character’s don’t overcome their Critical Flaw do they? Otherwise you’d have a character who could overcome their external problem, internal problem AND critical flaw – that seems like too much of a stretch.

I guess what i’m asking is if you could help enlighten me on what a main character’s (external/superficia/what-they-think-will-solve-the-problem) ‘want’ is in Dramatica terms? Is it the Symptom? (If that’s the case then – e.g. in the Social Network, the main character’s ‘Symptom’ is to get into one of the elite Harvard clubs when you could argue his ‘Solution’ is to get back with his ex-girlfriend which he doesn’t seem to realize truly until the end of the film)

Any help would be greatly appreciated,
Kris

My response: 

The following  excerpt is taken from

The Dramatica Class Transcripts

Dramatica: As you know, there are two types of characters we see in Dramatica Theory. Subjective and Objective. Objective characters are seen from the position of a general on a hill, overlooking a battle. The general identifies the soldiers by their functions and positions, not by their names or personalities. In stories, most characters can be looked at by their dramatic function. But then, there is the point of view of the soldier in the trenches. The audience experiences the battle first hand through their eyes. This is the Main Character.

And coming toward them through the smoke of the battle is another soldier. The smoke is too thick to see if they are friend or foe, So the Main Character cannot tell if they are coming with a bayonet to kill them, or a friend coming to warn them they are about to walk into a mine field. Obstacle characters can be friend or foe, trying to help or hurt, but the M.C. only knows one thing: the Obstacle is standing in their path. The choice then becomes to keep going that way anyway, and run over the Obstacle character, or to veer off and heed the obstacle’s “warning”.

Now, that “warning” is about a particular issue in stories. There is a central issue that is the source of the Main Character’s drive. In Dramatica, this is the “crucial” element. The software calls it the “problem” element, because it is this drive that makes the story’s problem an issue. Now, it might be best for the M.C. to change paths OR it might be best for them to keep on the way they were going. The general can tell from up above, but the soldier cannot. The soldier is like us in real life: they haven’t got a clue! So, there is a relationship between what the general sees is the best thing to do and what the soldier thinks is the best thing to do, because both are using different standards of measurement but about the same battle. Success or failure hinges on the soldier’s choice for the general. Personal fulfillment or continued angst are the stakes for the Main Character.

It turns out, that there is a relationship between the nature of the Main Characters Drive (Main Character problem element) and the cause of the story’s difficulties at large – (the Objective Story problem element). If the soldier decides to stick with their drive and it leads to success and fulfillment, then they made a pretty good choice, but any combination of Success or Failure and Good or Bad can result from Change or Steadfast depending upon what the author is trying to prove.

Now, this soldier not only has their internal personal drive (or problem element) but they also have a function in the battle plan, as seen by the general. So, in a sense, they do double duty. All the functions of all the soldiers in the battle are represented by the elements in the Build Characters window. This is where you build your Objective Characters. But the “player” or “body” that you choose as your Main Character must also have an objective element attached to them as well. So that the “player” has both an objective and subjective role within them. It turns out, that in some cases both the objective story and the Main Character are “driven” by the same element in other cases, the Main and Objective story are related so that the Main Character is driven by one thing personally, but represents the opposite element (solution element) objectively, or vice versa.

But problem and solution are not all. The “quad” of elements that contains the problem and solution also contains two other elements. The Focus and Direction.

Think of it this way: If Problem is seen as the disease, Solution is the Cure but Focus is the primary Symptom of the disease, and Direction, the treatment for that symptom. Sometimes a body (the story as a whole) can only be cured by finding the exact cure to the disease. But sometimes, no direct cure really exists. In that case, you might be able to treat the symptom until the body regains enough strength to heal itself. Often, the body (story) can heal itself if you just take the pressure of the symptom off long enough.

So, that is the choice of Change or Steadfast for the Main Character. Do they remain steadfast trying to treat the symptom or change and try to find the cure? This will affect Build Characters as follows: In a change story, the Main Character and Obstacle Character will each represent objectively, either the problem or solution element in the objective story as well. In a steadfast story, the Main and Obstacle will be on either the Focus or Direction, in Build Characters. This means that as characters, they are diametrically opposed in either case, but in one kind of story, the audience attention is on what is driving the Main Character and in the other kind, it is on the Main Character’s response to the problem. Or in other words, what the Main Character’s drive cause them to do, by means of approach.

The following  excerpt is taken from

The Dramatica Class Transcripts

Dramatica: Okay, we move on to Mental Sex…

This question is not about the gender of the main Character. And, it is not about their sexual preferences, AND, it is not about masculine or feminine. It is about problem solving techniques,linear, or holistic. More often than not, if you have a male gender, they are male mental sex, and female gender is female mental sex. Sometimes this is not true. Ripley, in the original Alien, was male mental sex. In fact, the part was written for a man,they just changed the names and gender references, but kept the problem solving techniques intact.

That’s why it is so odd when she goes back for the cat! Not that a man wouldn’t go back, but just that they had not given male reasons to, they just assumed she was a woman, so she would go back,but they had created her as male mental sex.

Now, men or women can easily learn to respond in the opposite sex techniques, but underneath it all is a tendency or bias to adopt either spatial or temporal problem solving techniques.

Clarisse Starling in Silence of the Lambs is another male mental sex character, whereas, Tom Wingo, the Nick Nolte character in Prince of Tides, is Female mental sex. Again, most often, go with what you expect.

PGThomas : Wasn’t Ripey saving the cat meant to build horror suspense, regardless of “mental sex”?

Dramatica : But be aware that it will have an influence on the way your main character goes about solving the problem, not the conclusions they come to.

PGThomas : How could they have established that action for Ripley?

Dramatica : Yes, PG, that is the author’s intent, but if the action is out of place to the established character, even though it may build tension, it rings untrue.

Dan Steele : how do linear/holistic relate to spatial/temporal? not clear.

Dramatica : Well, Dan, female mental sex tries to hold it all together, male tries to pull it all together, female tries to “tune-up” the situation with leverage,male determines steps that lead to the desired outcome. And so on, women look at things holistically, because they think with the time side, men look at things in sequence, because they are using the space side to think with.

PG, all they would have needed to do, is to have Ripley have said to Jonesy, the cat, at some earlier time, that no matter what, she would never leave him.

PGThomas : Gotcha

Dramatica : Then, she would have made a commitment, and that is a male contract.

PGThomas : “Commitment” a male contract? Don’t tell my girlfriend that!

Dan Steele : But there are time sequences ie., do a then b then c; and men do that.

Dramatica : Yes, men stand on space to see time, women stand on time to see space.

William S1 : What?

Dramatica : It all goes back to inside the womb in the 12th to14th week of pregnancy…There is a flush of testosterone or estrogen over the brain of the developing fetus. Testosterone boosts serotonin, the neurotransmitter that is an exciter. Estrogen boosts dopamine, the neurotransmitter that inhibits. This does not affect the body, which is controlled by XX and XY chromosomes, but just the foundation upon which the mind is built.

Dan Steele : hmm, going to run into my resistance on these views of male/female intelligences, but not going to make issue.

PGThomas : Does this flush determine the sex of the baby, or vice versa?

Dan Steele : The stand on space to see time thing versus time to see space is too vague for me without clarification, can’t buy it

Dramatica : One sees easily the arrangement of things, and works to figure out how things are going (paths). That’s seeing logic and figuring the emotions. The other sees emotions clearly, which give meaning, but need to work to see what the mechanism is. Again, its only an influence, and training can counteract it, though not eliminate it.

PGThomas : So a male baby could conceivably get an estrogen flush? And vice versa?

Dramatica : Yes, PG, that is true.

Dan Steele : are you saying that basic difference this theory builds on is that men see objects, logic, order, and women see emotion, reasons?

Dramatica : More precisely, Dan, that is just an aspect of the theory, only one of perhaps 80 questions, and it is not exclusive, it says men see linear logic more clearly, and women see holistic logic more clearly, and they lead to different approaches to problem solving. This is always the controversial question, but we found it in our model and can’t deny it.

Dan Steele : Am still bothered by definition of “holistic logic” and the contrast. Is stereotyping people too much I think. But dropping issue now so we can move along.

William S1 : Relax… for the most part males think in male patterns, and females think in female.

Dramatica : Tell ya what Dan, I’ll email you a whole article I wrote on the subject for our newsletter, that can go into more detail than I can here.

Dan Steele : Sure, helpful.

Dramatica : How about an easy question?

PGThomas : Is it possible to have a character equally male AND female mental sex?

Dramatica : PG, when a character switches between the two, they move from problem solving to justification, And that is, in fact what hides problems from the main character, creates a blind spot, and winds up the engine of potential. Its not a sex issue at that point, just like saying things are rotten now, but the reward is worth it, or I don’t care if this leads anywhere, I’m having fun.

William S1 : Don’t we all think in some parts male and female?

Dan Steele : Ah – men tackle problems head-on, women work around them. Confrontational versus nurturing.

Dramatica : There are four levels of the mind, and this only affects one of them. The other three questions about the Main Character, create dynamics for the other three levels. What’s nice is, once you answer enough questions to determine the shape of the message your working toward, Dramatica, the software, starts to see that pattern, and limit out choices that would no longer be consistent with the direction you have chosen. Eventually, it fills in the rest of the blanks, and tells you things about your story you didn’t tell it, and the things “feel” right! This could be formula,but you can start with any question and take any path through them, so there is no bias built into the software at all.

Dramatica : Okay, time for us to move on to Do-er or Be-er…Dan, you won’t need Dramatica to answer any of these questions, though the software does employ them to “calculate” dramatics. Is your Main Character a Do-er or Be-er? This doesn’t mean active and passive. It doesn’t mean male or femaleIt means, does the Main Character PREFER to work things out through actions or through mental or emotional work?

Be-ers have a bad name in our society. They appear often as victims. But, for example, a mother who must hold on to an appearance for the sake or her children, is doing as much work internally, as someone climbing a mountain. Look at the Dad in the original “Bethoven”, He had this dog tearing apart his house, but he tried to hold it all inside until the problem went away. That’s why it is so powerful when he hits the evil vet! It’s completely unlike him.

Clint Eastwood likes to play both kinds of characters. Dirty Harry is clearly a do-er…act first, think later. But William Muney (in Unforgiven) is a be-er He only kills the young boy to put him out of his misery. When beaten up, he doesn’t respond. (A victim again!) Caine in the original Kung-fu was a be-er. But in our western cultures ideals, he usually just holds out until there is no other way, then beats the tar out of the bad guy. But be-ers can be just as strong. And not resort to the physical. Any more on that question or move on? Move on, I guess!

William S1 : Musn’t one be before one can do? Then one is be-ing and do-ing.

DKahane : Any examples of strong Be-ers?

Dramatica : William, how about when one acts from instinct? Also, when one acts from conditioning. The conditioning is just the network of responses, but does not require conscious consideration. The be-er character must make a conscious effort to resolve the problem by copping an attitude, or by pretending to feel a certain way.

William S1 : Okay.

Dramatica : Passive-aggressive personalities are of this type. And as for a strong be-er, how about Hamlet? All he does is think and try to come to terms!

The following  excerpt is taken from

The Dramatica Class Transcripts

Dramatica: Talking about the Main character, last week we asked two important questions… Does the Main Character change or remain steadfast, by the end of the story. In a “leap of faith” story, the Main Character will have to make a conscious choice to change, like Scrooge does, or to remain steadfast like Dr. Richard Kimble or Job, in the Bible. In a non-leap of faith story, the character will find themselves at the end of the story, in a situation similar to one at the beginning, and the audience will be able to see by their response, if they have been changed by their experiences or not.

There is no big choice by the Main Character in this kind of story, but the audience still gets to see the results of the drama on the character. The second question we asked was…Does the Main Character have to grow by starting something or stopping something. We have all seen stories in which the Main Character is the cause of the problem, and if they would just stop, things would be okay.

We have also seen stories in which the Main Character holds the solution, and if they would just start using it, everything would be okay. This is for a character that changes. For a steadfast character, its a bit different. Since the audience is not focusing on the character to change, they look at the plot situation instead. For the steadfast character, they must grow in their resolve to hold out or work for something to start or something to stop. Either way, change or steadfast, the character must grow.

So the notion that a character must change to grow is not accurate, as some characters must grow in their resolve. Finally, last week, we talked about the limit that draws a story to a close. Why does it end? Because the characters either run out of time, or run out of options. 48 hours is obviously a time lock. Remains of the Day is an option lock. Any questions on this before we jump into some new material? No?

Okay…Let’s put these questions into perspective…Dramatica theory has MANY questions from which to approach a story. But out of all of them, there are 12 that get right to the heart of a drama (or comedy). We call them (rather pretentiously) the 12 Essential Questions! You have just heard 3 of them. In fact, they break into three groups of four questions. The first group pertains to the Main Character. The second group to the plot. And the third group to the theme. Genre is the relationship created between character, plot and theme.

The four Main character questions are: Resolve: change or steadfast? Direction of growth: start or stop. Approach: Do-er or Be-er? Mental Sex: Male or Female (more on this later!) The four plot questions are: Work: action or decision? Limit: timelock or optionlock? Outcome: Success or Failure? Judgment: Good or Bad? The four Theme Questions are more structurally based, and we’ll deal with them when we get therein a later class… Any questions before we finish up the remaining two character questions we need to discuss? Well, either you’re all logging and in the other room, or I’m doing a heck of a job explaining it!

Dan Steele : I’m here.

Dramatica : Ah, that’s sweet!

Pdmedia : Me, too

DC Finley : Woof.

RDCvr : Me, too.

Dramatica : By the way, I’m Melanie Anne Phillips, the gal from the theory book!

William S1 : Nice to meet you. It just seems most of this is in the manual.

Dramatica : Yes, most of this is in the book, just explained more conversationally. That’s why I’m MORE than happy to answer questions!

Dan Steele : What theory book, by the way? The manual for Dramatica? Or do you explain the theory in a separate book?

Dramatica : Dan, there is a theory book that comes along with the software, and we will also be marketing it by itself soon.

Dan Steele : Okay.