This is Story Fanatic, a collection of articles covering story structure and analysis for creative writers. Published weekly.
Impact Character
The Impact Character within a complete story provides an alternative paradigm that challenges the Main Character to reexamine his or her own point-of-view. This can be, but most often isn’t, the Antagonist of a story. By the end of the story, either the Impact Character’s influence will have won out and the Main Character will alter their paradigm, or their influence will have strengthened the Main Character’s resolve and the Impact Character will alter their paradigm. Thus, this character is essential for a story to have meaning.
Four Throughlines
Every complete story consists of four throughlines. The Overall Story Throughline, which is an objective look at the problem affecting everyone in the story. The Main Character Throughline which obviously covers the central character with which the audience empathizes most with. The Impact Character Throughline who provides an alternate way of solving the problem at hand and a perspective different from the Main Character. Finally, there is the Subjective Story or Relationship Throughline – which covers the relationship between the Main Character and the Impact Character. Having all four of these in a story is required if the Author’s intention is to argue some greater meaning.
Steadfast Main Character
This central character is defined as Steadfast because during the moment of crisis, when their Resolve is most tested, they stick with their approach to solving the story’s problem. This perseverance in no way guarantees a successful outcome. It simply describes a character who maintains their tried and tested paradigm.
Change Main Character
This central character is defined as Change because during the moment of crisis, when their Resolve is most tested, they drop their approach to solving the story’s problems and adopt a new one. This change in no way guarantees a success. It simply describes a character who trades their old paradigm for a new one.
story outcome
The Story Outcome determines whether or not the Protagonist succeeded or failed in their attempts to resolve the central Story Goal. This bit of story structure focuses on the logistical “outcome” of the story. Combined with the Story Judgment, it helps to create the Meaningful Ending that every great Author aspires to.
Dramatica
Dramatica is the story theory to beat all other story theories. Based on the simple idea that every complete story is really an analogy to a single human mind trying to solve a problem, this revolutionary understanding explains what makes great stories so compelling. To learn more about this theory in detail, be sure to visit the Dramatica website.
Main Character Resolve
At the end of every complete story, the Main Character will be faced with an important decision: either continue to solve problems the way he or she always has, or change their approach and attempt to solve the problem differently. The Main Character Resolve determines what their answer will be. If they maintain their approach they are said to be Steadfast. If they adopt a new paradigm, they are said to be Change.
Personal Triumph
Personal triumphs are stories that explore what its like to feel good about losing out. While the efforts in the primary throughline may have failed, the Main Character has grown to a point where they have overcome their own personal angst. This is why these stories are often called “bittersweet” - the good guys may have lost, but the Main Character goes home happy.
Personal Tragedy
A personal tragedy exists when the Main Character is unable to resolve their own personal angst. Have they overcome that personal problem that was bugging them since the beginning? Or are they still haunted by the demons and issues that they began the story with? The latter is a personal tragedy; the former is not.
Overall Story
There are four major throughlines in every complete story. The Overall Story, or what is commonly referred to as the “A” story line or “headline,” often describes what the story is “all about.” It represents a very dispassionate view of the story’s problems as it steps back and looks at the characters as functions, almost like chess pieces on a board. From this perspective, names and personal problems are not as important as the character’s role and story function.
Main Character
The Main Character of a story represents the audience’s personal perspective into the story. Through this perspective, we the audience get to experience what it would be like personally to experience the story’s problems. The Main Character may or may not be the Protagonist. Protagonist describes a function, whereas the Main Character describes a perspective or point-of-view.
Protagonist
This is the character driving the story forward; the one leading the charge towards the Story Goal. This character may or may not be the Main Character of the story. Either way, the main function of the Protagonist is to Pursue.
Hero
When the Main Character of a story also happens to be the one driving the story forward (Protagonist), he or she is considered the Hero of the story. Many story theorists/gurus collapse the concept of MC, Protagonist and Hero all into one. While this works for most stories (particularly Western film), it tends to ignore those stories where the Main Character is “along for the ride.” Separating these concepts allows for greater accuracy in analyzing and developing a story.
Story Limit
Every complete story needs to signify to the audience when it will be done. Stories come to an end either because the characters run out of time, or because they run out of options.
Whether you find yourself barreling down an intergalactic trench at top speeds, or you find yourself twirling around and around and around in again in the hopes of measuring up to the stiffest competition around, the problem at the heart of your struggle may turn out to be the very same thing. For Luke Skywalker and Nina Sayers this possibility becomes a certainty. Their stories at large may be vastly different, but their internal struggles are one and the same.
Constructive criticism is hard to come by in the online world of film analysis. Most can tell when a story is in need of serious work, but often stammer and guess as to precisely what is wrong. The latest revenge thriller Hanna is one of those films. Using the Dramatica theory of story and its baseline that every complete story is based on the mechanism of the human mind, several decisive actions are outlined for improving the overall meaning of this film.
There are many who believe they don’t need story structure. They see it as something restrictive, something to hold a writer back from his true and artful potential. What many don’t realize is that by setting into motion a work of narrative fiction that means something, they have already engaged the gears of purpose.
In film schools across the country and in screenwriting books dating back to the previous century, the apparent inequity between what a hero wants and what he truly needs is held is held up as the standard for establishing a character’s motivation. The problem for the creative writer occurs when they actually try to put this concept into practice. How can an appreciation of a story’s meaning, one made after the fact by an Audience, become a useful tool for the working writer?
Not every Hero is created the same. While on the surface they may appear to be interchangeable passengers on the same transformational “journey”, the truth is that deep down, they carry their own unique set of circumstances and issues that differentiate themselves from each other. Stories are complicated yet sophisticated beasts, they deserve as much then in our understanding of them.
While the complaints concerning Avatar’s resemblance to Dances with Wolves and Pocahontas are abundant and well covered, there is one aspect of this story that is not covered in as much detail, and that is the problem with the Main Character, Jake Sully. A well-written Main Character is the key to bringing an audience into a story. Screw it up and you risk losing emotional involvement.
A beautifully well-structured story that effortlessly communicates a deeply meaningful argument about the issues facing the modern worker, Up In The Air is easily the best story of 2009. By analyzing why this film works so well, we can see how one can combine character, plot, theme and genre into a work of lasting value.
Everyone understands that Main Characters have their own personal issues to deal with. It’s why they are so crucial to a story’s meaning. Wouldn’t it be nice, then, to understand exactly what this problem is all about?
