Instant Dramatica
Musings from Armando Saldaņa
Mora
The Objective Throughline
is a Battlefield
In a post called "Objective throughline" Kay asked:
"...I'm struggling to write a novel with the objective domain of mind. Do all
the objective character's have to agree with the fixed attitude...?"
No, not at all. But all of them must be involved and have a point of view towards that
fixed attitude.
You asked about the story of the crippled boy and the town that rejected him. The fixed
attitude here was a reaction of disgust that was unavoidable for the town people, and that
reaction troubled the boy and kept him locked inside his house. If that idea were to be
developed, it would need some town people characters that struggle to stop that reaction,
some that were in favor ("that boy is a product of evil!") and some that were
troubled thinking which side to take.
If you're working with archetypal characters -- or doing the very recommended technique
of developing a character as an archetype and then "swapping elements" in order
to make her a complex character -- here are the basic views about the central issue of the
objective throughline:
- Protagonist: Is in favor or against that issue (or maybe isn't completely sure about his
position) but he's leading all the actions for -- or against -- the issue.
- Antagonist: Is diametrically opposed to the Protagonist (If the protagonist is in favor,
he's against and viceversa) and he does anything in his power to stop all the actions the
protagonist's leading.
- Guardian: She tries to shed the light of conscience and show the "true way"
about that issue.
- Contagonist: He's tempting everyone out of his paths. And bringing other issues -or
additional information about the same issue- just to confuse.
- Sidekick: She supports one side completely. Be it the protagonist's or the antagonist's.
- Skeptic: He doubts both sides. He's his own man.
- Emotion: Basically has no reasons for or against the issue, but strong emotional
conflict for or against it.
- Reason: Analyses the issue in a dispassionate way. Takes a side as long as it's
rational.
So, briefly, using your example of "The end justifies the means" in a story
of, say, a nuclear power plant (the cheap energy justifies the nuclear waste) in which the
protagonist is against that power plant:
- The Protagonist tries to make everyone conscious of the dangers of the plant (the
means).
- The Antagonist tries to stop the protagonist campaign so the town keeps agreeing about
the cheap energy (end) issue.
- The Guardian agrees with the protagonist, since she has conscience about the dangers,
but tries to make the protagonist seek better ways of making the people conscious.
- The Contagonist tries to seduce the protagonist out of her quest (offers her a good
public relations job at the plant), so he goes along with the "means justifies
ends" issue.
- The Sidekick supports the (let's say) Antagonist, (he's some kind of super loyal plant
employee), he also goes along.
- The Skeptic doesn't think the plant (means) is good, but doesn't want a raise on the
electric bill either (end). He's against all.
- Emotion supports the protagonist in this case (she's some kind of emotional hippie
protester) but makes trouble at all protests.
- Reason is a scientist researching about sun energy. The protagonist tries to support her
efforts.
So, as you can see, you can play with your characters for or against the issue as much
as you want. But, in order to have conflict, you must have at least one character
disagreeing with the others.
