By Melanie Anne Phillips Some stories introduce characters as people and then let the reader/audience discover their roles and relationships afterward. This tends to help an audience identify with the characters.
Other stories put roles first, so that we know about the person by their function and/or job, then get closer to them as the act progresses. This tends to make the reader/audience pigeon-hole the characters by stereotype, and then draw them into learning more about the actual people behind the masks.
Finally, there are stories that introduce character relationships, either situational, structural, or emotional, at the beginning. This causes the audience to see the problems among the characters but not take sides as strongly until they can learn about the people on each side of the relationship, and the roles that constrain them.
Of course, you do not have to treat these introductions equally for all characters and relationships. For example, you might introduce on character as a person, then introduce their relationship with another character, then divulge the constraints the other character is under due to role, then revel the other character as a person.
This approach would initially cast sympathy (or derision) at the first character, temper it by showing a relationship with which he or she must contend, then temper that relationship by showing the constraints of the other character, and finally humanize that other character so a true objective balance can be formed by the reader/audience.
Don’t forget that first impressions stick in our minds, and it is much easier to judge someone initially than to change that judgment later. Use this trait of audiences to quickly identify important characters up front, or to put their complete situations later, thereby forcing the reader/audience to reconsider its attitudes, and thereby learn and grow.
No matter what approach you take, you have the opportunity to weave a complex experience for your reader/audience, blending factual, logistic information about your characters with the reader/audience emotional experience in discovering this information.
Need personalized story development help?
Click below to learn about my story consulting service:
Over the course of the story, your reader/audience has come to know your characters and to feel for them. The story doesn’t end when your characters and their relationships reach a climax. Rather, the reader/audience will want to know the aftermath – how it turned out for each character and each relationship. In addition, the audience needs a little time to say goodbye – to let the character walk off into the sunset or to mourn for them before the story ends.
This is in effect the conclusion, the wrap-up. After everything has happened to your characters, after the final showdown with their respective demons, what are they like? How have they changed? If a character began the story as a skeptic, does it now have faith? If they began the story full of hatred for a mother that abandoned them, have they now made revelations to the effect that she was forced to do this, and now they no longer hate? This is what you have to tell the audience, how their journeys changed them, have the resolved their problems, or not?
And in the end, this constitutes a large part of your story’s message. It is not enough to know if a story ends in success or failure, but also if the characters are better off emotionally or plagued with even greater demons, regardless of whether or not the goal was achieved.
You can show what happens to your characters directly, through a conversation by others about them, or even in a post-script on each that appears after the story is over or in the ending credits of a movie.
How you do this is limited only by your creative inspiration, but make sure you review each character and each relationship and provide at least a minimal dismissal for each.
Need personalized story development help?
Click below to learn about my story consulting service:
All too often in stories, relationships and interchanges between characters of different sexes come off stilted, unbelievable, or contrived. In fact, since the author is writing from the perspective of only one of the two sexes, characters of the opposite sex often play more as one sex’s view of the opposite sex, rather than as truly being a character OF the opposite sex. This is because the author is looking AT the opposite sex, not FROM its point of view.
By exploring the differences in how each sex sees the world, we can more easily create believable characters of both sexes. To that end, I offer the following incident.
I was at lunch with Chris (Co-creator of Dramatica) some time ago. I had ordered some garlic bread and could not finish it. I asked the waitress if she would put it in a box to take home, and she did. On the way past the cashier, I realized that I had forgotten to take the box from the table. I said, “Rats! I forgot the bread!”
Chris said, “Go ahead and get it, we’ll wait.”
I thought for a moment and said, “No, it’s not that important.” and started to walk out.
Chris: “It’ll only take a moment.”
Me: “Yes, but I have to go all the way back, and I probably won’t eat it anyway, and it probably won’t reheat very well, and…”
Chris then said in jest, “Sounds like a bunch of excuses to me.”
In fact, they really did sound like excuses to him. But to me, the reasons I had presented to him for not going back for the bread were not rationalizations, but actually legitimate concerns.
At the heart of this difference in perspective is the difference in the way female and male brains are “soft wired”. As a result, neither women nor men can see into the heart of the other without finding a lack of coherence.
Here is a line-by-line comparison of the steps leading from having too much bread to the differing interpretations of my response to forgetting the box.
Melanie thinks:
That’s good bread, but I’m full. I might take it home, but I’m not convinced it will reheat. Also, I’ve really eaten too many calories in the last few days, I’m two pounds over where I want to be and I have a hair appointment on Wednesday and a dinner date on the weekend with a new friend I want to impress, so maybe I shouldn’t eat anymore. The kids won’t want it, but I could give it to the dog, and if I get hungry myself, I’ll have it there (even though I shouldn’t eat it if I want to lose that two pounds!) So, I guess it’s better to take it than to leave it.
Melanie says:
“Waitress, can I have a box to take the bread home?”
Chris understands Melanie to mean:
I want to take the bread home.
The balance sheet:
To me there was only a tendency toward bringing the bread home, and barely enough to justify the effort. To Chris it was a binary decision: I wanted to bring it home or not.
Melanie says:
“Rats! I forgot to bring the bread!”
Chris says:
“Go ahead and get it, we’ll wait.”
The balance sheet:
I’m thinking, “How does this change the way I feel about the situation?” Chris is thinking, “How can she solve this problem.”
Melanie thinks:
Well, I really don’t want to be tempted by it, this unexpected turn makes it easier to lose the weight. If I go back I’ll be tempted or give it to the dog. If I don’t go back I won’t be tempted, which is good because I know I usually give in to such temptations. Of course, the dog loses out, but we just bought some special treats for the dog so she won’t miss what she wasn’t expecting. All in all, the effort of going around two corners while everyone waits just so I can get an extra doggie treat and lead myself into temptation isn’t worth it.
Melanie says:
“No, its not that important.”
Chris says:
“It’ll only take a moment.”
The balance sheet:
I’m thinking that since I was right on the edge of not wanting to take it in the first place, even this little extra necessary effort is enough inconvenience to make it not a positive thing but an irritation, so I’ll just drop it and not pay even the minor price. Chris is thinking that since I made up my mind to take the bread in the first place, how is it that this little inconvenience could change my mind 180 degrees. I must be lazy or embarrassed because I forgot it.
Melanie says:
“Yes, but I have to go all the way back, and I probably won’t eat it anyway, and it probably won’t reheat very well, and…”
Chris says:
“Sounds like a bunch of excuses to me.”
The balance sheet:
I’m trying to convey about a thousand petty concerns that went into my emotional assessment that it was no longer worth going back for. Chris just hears a bunch of trumped up reasons, none of which are sufficient to change one’s plans.
I operated according to an emotional tendency to bring the bread home that was just barely sufficient to generate even the slightest degree of motivation. Chris doesn’t naturally assume motivation has a degree, thinking that as a rule you’re either motivated or you are not.
The differences between the way women and men evaluate problems lead them to see justifications in the others methods.
Making sense of each other:
Now, what does all this mean? When men look at problems, they see a single item that is a specific irritation and seek to correct it. When they look at inequities, they see a number of problems interrelated. Women look at single problems the same way, but sense inequities from a completely emotional standpoint, measuring them on a sliding scale of tendencies to respond in certain ways.
Imagine an old balance scale – the kind they used to weigh gold. On one side, you put the desire to solve the problem. That has a specific weight. On the other side you have a whole bag of things that taken altogether outweigh the desire to solve the problem. But, you can’t fit the bag on the scale (which is the same as not being able to share your whole mind with a man) so you open the bag and start to haul out the reasons – biggest one’s first.
Well, it turns out the first reason by itself is much lighter that the desire to solve the problem, so it isn’t sufficient. You pull out the next one, which is even smaller, and together they aren’t enough to tip the scales. So, you keep pulling one more reason after another out of the bag until the man stops you saying, “Sounds like a bunch of excuses to me.”
To the man, it becomes quickly obvious that there aren’t enough reasonably sized pieces in that bag to make the difference, and anything smaller than a certain point is inconsequential anyway, so what’s holding her back from solving the problem?
But the woman knows that there may be only a few big chunks, but the rest of the bag is full of sand. And all those little pieces together outweigh the desire to solve the problem. If she went ahead and solved it anyway, everything in that bag would suffer to some degree, and the overall result would be less happiness in her consciousness rather than more.
This is why it is so easy for one sex to manipulate the other: each isn’t looking at part of the picture that the other one sees. For a man to manipulate a woman, all he has to do is give her enough sand to keep the balance slightly on her side and then he can weigh her down with all kinds of negative big things because it still comes out positive overall. For a woman to manipulate a man, all she has to do is give him a few positive chunks and then fill his bag full of sand with the things she wants. He’ll never even notice.
Of course if you push too far from either side it tips the balance and all hell breaks loose. So for a more loving and compassionate approach, the key is not to get as much as you can, but to maximize the happiness of both with the smallest cost to each.
All too often, one sex will deny what the other sex once to gain leverage or to use compliance as a bargaining chip. That kind of adversarial relationship is doomed to keep both sides miserable, as long as it lasts.
But if each side gives to the other sex what is important to to the other but unimportant to themselves, they’ll make each other very happy at very little cost.
Need personalized story development help?
Click below to learn about my story consulting service:
This article is excerpted from text I wrote in Dramatica Story Structure Software. It describes one of key story structure choices you need to make if your Main Character is to ring true at a fundamental level. Here’s the excerpt:
Every Main Character should have a Problem-Solving Style.Whether your Main Character is a horse, a house, a person, or an alien, the audience will not be able to empathize with it unless that character possesses a Linear or Holistic mind.If you want your Main Character to tend to look for linear solutions to his problems, choose Linear Problem-Solving Style.If you want your Main Character to tend to look for holistic solutions to his problems, choose holistic problem-solving style.
THEORY:Much of what we are as individuals is learned behavior.Yet, the basic operating system of the mind is cast biologically before birth as being more sensitive to space or time.We all have a sense of how things are arranged (space) and how things are going (time), but which one filters our thinking determines our Problem-Solving Style as being Linear or Holistic respectively.
Linear Problem-Solving Style describes spatial thinkers who tend to use linear problem solving as their method of choice.They set a specific Goal, determine the steps necessary to achieve that Goal, then embark on the effort to accomplish those steps.
Holistic Problem-Solving Style describes temporal thinkers who tend to use holistic problem solving as their method of choice.They get a sense of the way they want things to be, determine how things need to be balanced to bring about those changes, then make adjustments to create that balance.
To be sure, we can go a long way toward counter-balancing those sensitivities, yet underneath all our experience and training, the tendency to see things more in terms of space or time still remains.In dealing with the psychology of Main Characters, it is essential to understand the foundation upon which their experience rests.
USAGE:How can we illustrate the Problem-Solving Style of our Main Character?The following point by point comparison provides some clues:
Holistic Problem-Solving Style:looks at motivations
Linear Problem-Solving Style:looks at purposes
Holistic Problem-Solving Style:tries to see connections
Linear Problem-Solving Style:tries to gather evidence
Holistic Problem-Solving Style:sets up conditions
Linear Problem-Solving Style:sets up requirements
Holistic Problem-Solving Style:determines the leverage points that can restore balance
Linear Problem-Solving Style:breaks a job into steps
Holistic Problem-Solving Style:seeks fulfillment
Linear Problem-Solving Style:seeks satisfaction
Holistic Problem-Solving Style:concentrates on “Why” and “When”
Linear Problem-Solving Style:concentrates on “How” and “What”
Holistic Problem-Solving Style:puts the issues in context
Linear Problem-Solving Style:argues the issues
Holistic Problem-Solving Style:tries to hold it all together
Linear Problem-Solving Style:tries to pull it all together
Historically, more often than not, males characters are given a Linear problem solving approach. Female characters are given a holistic problem solving style. This matches traditional cultural expectations. But, culture continues to evolve and these days, more and more often, gender and Problem-Solving Style are cross-matched compared to historical norms to create more interesting characters that reflect today’s expectations.
For example, Ripley in Alien and Clarice Starling in The Silence of the Lambs are Linear Problem-Solving Style characters.Tom Wingo in The Prince of Tides and Jack Ryan in The Hunt for Red October are Holistic Problem-Solving Style characters.In most episodes of The X Files, Scully (the female F.B.I. agent) uses a Linear Problem-Solving Style and Mulder (the male F.B.I. agent) uses a Holistic Problem-Solving Style, which was part of the series’ unusual feel for its time.
Note that Problem-Solving Style has nothing to do with a character’s sexual preferences or tendency toward being masculine or feminine.
Need personalized story development help?
Click below to learn about my story consulting service:
Although a personal goal for each character is not absolutely essential, at some point your readers or audience is going to wonder what is driving each character to brave the trials and obstacles. If you haven’t supplied a believable motivation, it will stand out as a story hole.
What is the reason a character becomes involved in the quest? Do they simply believe in the cause, or is there something close to their hearts that is unique to them and can only be satisfied if the goal is achieved (or thwarted)?
Personal goals can range from through a whole range of issues such as improving social status, resolving a past inequity, proving something to someone, proving something to oneself, protecting a loved one, finding the truth, recapturing the thrill of past quests, completing a checklist, finding illumination and many more.
In fact, any goal you can think of could be used as either the common goal or a personal goal, depending upon whether all the characters are trying to achieve it or if it is the goal of just one character alone that achievement of the common goal will satisfy.
If your story has a common goal but no personal goals, consider adding more humanity and individuality to your characters by giving each of them a personal reason to participate in the overall quest.
Need personalized story development help?
Click below to learn about my story consulting service:
The protagonist and antagonist may not be who you think they are. For one thing, a protagonist is not necessarily the hero of a story. Structurally speaking, the protagonist is the one who shakes up the status quo – that’s the “pro” part, while the antagonist is the one who tries to stop that effort or put it back the way it was.
In a James Bond film, for example, it is often the bad guy who begins an evil process that James Bond is called upon to thwart. This makes the bad guy the protagonist even though he is the villain, and James the antagonist even though he is the hero.
In practice, a true hero is a protagonist who is also the main character (we identify with him) and is also a good guy. A villain is an antagonist who is also the influence character (he has an opposing life philosophy or morality to that of the main character) and is also a bad guy.
But these traits can be mixed and matched between the two characters creating, for example, anti heroes and sympathetic villains.
The main point here is to stop thinking of protagonist and antagonist as hero and villain but as structural functions – to begin a quest or to try and stop a quest. Then, you can have some fun as an author determining which of these is the good guy and bad guy and with which one you wish your readers or audience to identify.
Over the course of your story, the Main Character will either grow out of something or grow into something. Authors show their audiences how to view this development of a Main Character by indicating the direction of Growth by the Main Character.
If the story concerns a Main Character who Changes, he will come to believe he is the cause of his own problems (that’s why he eventually changes). If he grows out of an old attitude or approach (e.g. loses the chip on his shoulder), then he is a Stop character. If he grows into a new way of being (e.g. fills a hole in his heart), then he is a Start character.
If the story concerns a Main Character who Remains Steadfast, something in the world around him will appear to be the cause of his troubles. If he tries to hold out long enough for something to stop bothering him, then he is a Stop character. If he tries to hold out long enough for something to begin, then he is a Start character.
If you want the emphasis in your story to be on the source of the troubles which has to stop, choose “Stop.” If you want to emphasize that the remedy to the problems has to begin, choose “Start.”
Need personalized story development help?
Click below to learn about my story consulting service:
Some stories introduce characters as people and then let the reader/audience discover their roles and relationships afterward. This tends to help an audience identify with the characters.
All too often in stories, relationships and interchanges between characters of different sexes come off stilted, unbelievable, or contrived. In fact, since the author is writing from the perspective of only one of the two sexes, characters of the opposite sex often play more as one sex’s view of the opposite sex, rather than as truly being a character OF the opposite sex. This is because the author is looking AT the opposite sex, not FROM its point of view.
Although a personal goal for each character is not absolutely essential, at some point your readers or audience is going to wonder what is driving each character to brave the trials and obstacles. If you haven’t supplied a believable motivation, it will stand out as a story hole.
You must be logged in to post a comment.