At the core of a story’s message is a very simple issue – whether the author is telling us it is better to be like the main character or not.  This is usually thought of as the moral of the story and is proven to the readers or audience by how the main character fares after making a choice or taking a leap of faith at the climax.

For characters like Scrooge in  A Christmas Carol, the message is that it is better to change one’s attitude toward others and adopt a new way of thinking.  If you do, things will work out better.  But for other characters, such as in Field of Dreams or Rocky, the message is to stick by your beliefs because that’s the only way to solve your problems.

Sometimes change is good, as with Scrooge.  But imagine if Ray had given up on building the ball field or Rocky Balboa had determined there was no way to win and he shouldn’t continue to try.

Stories can be written about characters who change or about characters who don’t.  That’s the first part of the message.  The second part is what happens to the character in the end as a result of their choice to change or not.

This results in four possibilities:

1. The main character changes and things work out for the better.
2. The main character changes and things work out for the worse.
3. The main character remains steadfast and things work out for the better.
4. The main character remains steadfast and things work out for the worse.

Each of the four combinations provides a different kind of message about changing or sticking to your beliefs.  So far, so good.  But now you need to get that message across to your readers or audience.

The first part of conveying your message is to be clear about the nature of the human quality or thought pattern that your moral is about.  That aspect of your main character that defines him, just as Scrooge’s lack of concern for his fellow man is the issue at the heart of him.  How you do this can be subtle or straight out, but by the time the moment of choice is upon your main character, your audience or reader needs to absolutely and with total clarity know what that issue is or your message will be unclear.

The second part of conveying your message is to show that as a result of his or her choice, your main character is better off or worse off than they were.  This element of your message has two components:

1. Did they achieve the goal?
2. Are they in an emotionally better place than they were.

For example, suppose you have a story in which a character changes his beliefs, achieves the goal, and is elated.  That’s fine, and the message is that whatever his issue was, it was good he changed his point of view.  But change is not always good, so in another story a character might change his beliefs, still achieve the goal, but be miserable in the end because he hadn’t resolved his anguish or he had to take on an emotional burden to accomplish his quest.  For example, in Avengers: Infinity War, the villain Thanos has to kill the person he loves the most to accomplish his goal, and this leaves him logistically satisfied yet emotionally devastated.

On the opposite side, a character might remain steadfast in his beliefs, fail in the goal but find personal salvation or true happiness in the end.  Or a character might remain steadfast, succeed in the goal but be left personally raw.  An example of this last combination can be seen in Silence of the Lambs in which Clarice Starling is successful in saving the senator’s daughter, but could not let go of the screaming lambs in her memory, as pointed out in the end by Hannibal Lecter (“Tell me, Clarice,” are the lambs still screaming?”)  This is why the ending music over her graduation ceremony is so somber – she achieved the goal but could not let go of her angst.

And, of course, you can have the quintessential tragedy in which a change or a steadfast character fails and the goal and is miserable in the end, such as in Hamelt, or the penultimate feel good story in which a change or steadfast character both succeeds in the goal and find (or holds onto) great happiness, true love, etc., as in the original Star Wars movie (Episode IV)

The point here is that change, in and of itself, is neither good nor bad until you see the results of that change.  And also, a character does not have to change to grow, but can grow in his or her resolve.

And finally, the ramifications don’t have to be cut and dried: all good or all bad.  Rather, by treating the goal and the emotional outcome separately, you have the opportunity to temper your message with bitter sweet and sweet bitter endings as well, thereby creating a more complex message for your readers or viewers.

Also from the author of this article…

By Melanie Anne Phillips

Think of the large structural elements in a story as tectonic plates in geology that push against each other driven by an underlying force. In geology that force is generated by currents in the mantle. In stories, that force is created by the wound-up justifications of the main character that puts him or her in conflict with their world at the point the story begins.

Sometimes, in geology, this force gradually raises or lowers land in two adjacent plates. Other times it builds up pressure until things snap all at once in an earthquake. So too in story psychology, people are sometimes slowly changed by the gradual application of pressure as the main character’s justifications gradually unwind through experience. Other times the pressure applied structure just builds up until the character snaps in Leap Of Faith – that single “moment of truth” at the climax in which a character must decide either to change his ways (or outlook) or stick by his guns believing his current approach is stronger than the pressure bought to bear against him, believing he just has to outlast the forces against him to ultimately triumph.

All of these variations result in four basic kinds of growth arcs for your main character: A gradual change over time, a gradual strengthening of his resolve, an abrupt change in a leap of faith at the climax, an abrupt decision not to change.

Learn more at Storymind.com

Need personalized story development help?

Click below to learn about my story consulting service:

By Melanie Anne Phillips

The compilation video below (used in  my class on story structure and complied by Chris Huntley) really illustrates the philosophical conflict between the Main Character and the Influence Character, which is the heart of your story’s message.

Once you have viewed the video, note that one says “we’re just alike” and the other says, “we’re nothing alike.” How can they be so blind to the other character’s point of view? Because it is like one saying, “we’re alike because we are both fruit” and the other saying, “we’re nothing alike because you are an apple and I am an orange.”

You see, they are BOTH right, depending on the context. So the real philosophical argument is actually over which of the two contexts is the most truthful or the best way of looking at their relationship and by extension of looking at life. THAT is the theme of the whole story, and the message is which way you, the author, “proves” is best.

Like this article?  Try my story consultation service!

All about the 8 Essential Archetypal Characters…

A writer just asked, “Can I make my main character an Antagonist instead of the Protagonist?”

My reply:

The main character is the one through whose eyes the reader or audience experiences the story. It is the one around whom the personal issue or problem of the story seems to revolve. The main character is, essentially, the “first person” point of view in the story. It is through them we most passionately experience the story first hand by identifying with them.

Protagonist and antagonist are not point of view characters but are character functions. The protagonist is the one who is the prime mover of the effort to achieve the goal. The antagonist is all about preventing the protagonist from achieving the goal. In our own minds, protagonist represents our initiative – the motivation to affect change. Antagonist is our reticence – the motivation to maintain the status quo, or at least to return to it.

So, any character in a story can be the main character, not just protagonist or antagonist. it could be a by stander, simply providing a passionate point of view on the plot, just as if the story were a football game, the main character doesn’t have to be the quarterback (protagonist) or opposing quarterback (antagonist) but could be the half back or any of the linesmen, or ever then water boy. But, whomever is your main character, it is they who grapple with the underlying moral issue of the story, it is they who are brought to a point where they must either stick by their guns or change their ways in regard to some philosophical or moral point of view or manner. It is the main character who must make a leap of faith. And, their connection to the story at large is that as a result of their decision on the central message issue, either the protagonist or antagonist will succeed.

When you select one of your players as a protagonist and also as the main character you get the stereotypical hero – a character who grapples with the moral issue, represents the reader/audience point of view, and is also leading the charge in the logistics of the plot. But, the main character can be anyone. For example, in most James Bond movies, Bond is a main character antagonist – not a protagonist – because it is the villain who is affecting change due due their evil scheme, making them the protagonist, and it is Bond who seeks to prevent that change or return things to the status quo, even though we see things through Bond’s eyes, making him the main character with whom the reader/audience identifies. And what of Bond doing the other main character job of grappling with a moral issue? In a few movies he does, but the moral issue is actually a personal battle over what is proper between the main character and the influence character who represents the opposing moral viewpoint. They thrash out the message of the story between them, independent of whether either of them is a protagonist or antagonist. So, in bond films, he almost always remains steadfast on that issue, while it is the influence character who is changed in their moral point of view by Bond’s intransigence.

In the Dramatica software, you can assign the main character view and Influence character view to any of your characters in the Build Characters window.

Hope this helps.

Melanie
Storymind

One of my writing students just asked, “What do I need to develop about a character’s background story even though that character is not the main character?”

My reply:

For characters other than the main character, a background story is more about how they came to be where and who they are today. No development of personal issues is needed. But, a story can be enhanced by giving each of the principal characters a true back story, even if it is sketchy, showing that each character has his own path that created a central potential for change within them. Then, as main character in their own sub story, each character may change (or not) in regard to their personal issue, adding interest and detail to the work as a whole. In addition, characters may be so wrapped up in their personal stories that they will choose to act against their type in the main story because of strong personal needs. For example, in the original Star Wars movie, Han Solo agrees to help rescue the princess from the detention block. This is completely against his character type (the skeptic) in the movie as a whole (out for himself, doesn’t believe in the force, etc.). Why? because Luke says, “She’s rich…” and Han needs to pay back Jabba the Hut to get the bounty hunters off his back – his personal sub-story.

To summarize – characters other than the main character need only a thin description of how they came to be who and what they are when the story begins, and this can be dropped as additional interesting exposition to humanize them over the flow of the story. But giving them a complete sub-story, even if loosely drawn, will show how their motivations were developed, providing reasons for the drives they exhibit in the story and also giving them the opportunity to grow and change.

Read more of my tips for story development at http://storymind.com

A writer asked me today, “Can a protagonist get so angry he threatens the sidekick??

My response…

Sure. Objective characters are defined by how they function, not how they feel about each other. So, the Protagonist (our initiative) will seek to evoke change, often in the form of seeking to achieve a goal. The Sidekick (our self confidence) contains the objective elements of faith and support, making him the faithful supporter. He supports everybody – has hope that even the villain will see the error of his ways. The sidekick does not have to be attached to the protagonist. He can be a free floater or even be attached to the antagonist – think Renfield in Dracula. How he feels about the other characters is all storytelling. But, no matter how he feels, the sidekick must exhibit faith and support. So, while the protagonist may threaten the sidekick, the sidekick might respond with, “You’ve really hurt me and really crossed the line. But I’m still behind you, though my heart won’t be in it any more.”

Hope this helps.

Melanie