![]() |
Re: Fatal Flaw?
Jim - I just read your linked website and I think I see why there is some confusion.
You define : "The Main Character is defined as the character through whose eyes we experience the story" That definition is just confusing. You could define it that way - just like a cooking expert could define: "Parmesan Cheese is defined as the topmost ingredient in a Lasagna" But would that definition help chefs (and potential chefs) to understand cooking? You could argue that the definition is true for most recipes - but then you'd get stuck with other dishes. You would argue that a given ingredient MUST be Parmesan cheese just because it is topmost on the dish ! It will just confuse chefs who already had a definition of 'Parmesan cheese'. Every movie goer already has an idea of what the 'Main Character' of a film means. Their definition may not always agree ... but it isn't going to help your discussion if you arbitrarily define 'The Viewpoint Character' as 'The Main Character'. Here's an example. Imagine if we filmed this anecdote: Quote:
There would be argument whether Tom's Leukemia was an antagonist, or whether his own insecurities were. Some people might argue that his love interest (who he eventually married) was the antagonist. But would there be any argument that Tom is the protagonist ? And - here is the real question - who is the Main Character? Ask any movie-goer. The options are: (1) Tom (2) The girl who sat in front of Tom - the one he eventually married (3) Mac H. - because he is the narrator and is the viewpoint character. Any movie-goer would answer (1). Can you think of anyone (who hadn't read your definition) who would answer (3) ???? Surely your definition just doesn't make sense. It might be true in many cases - but that doesn't make it a definition ! Using it as a definition just makes all conversations confusing. Why not just use the phrase 'Viewpoint character' ? Your opening post on this thread would also makes perfect sense if you did that ! Writing is about communicating. Your opening post in this thread failed to communicate because you had an odd definition of 'Main Character'. If you don't have the same definition as your readers then you simply can't communicate. Why not just use the same language as your readers and use the phrase 'Viewpoint Character' ? In fact - I urge everyone who can't make sense of Jim's arguments to go and re-read his original post - but replace the phrase 'Main Character' with 'Viewpoint Character'. It actually makes sense ! In fact, I'm going to repost it using the normal definitions of the words: Quote:
(I'm not sure I agree with every subtlety of it - but at least I can understand it well enough to have an opinion) Mac (PS: Jim - please don't force everyone who reads your posts to have a translation manual! It doesn't help the communication!) |
Re: Fatal Flaw?
I would be willing to use the term "Viewpoint Character" if it accurately communicated what is going on inside of stories. I don't think it does.
Every great story has a Main Character through which we the audience experience a story. They are more than simply a Narrator or Viewpoint Character as they have deep personal issues that are tied thematically to the problems everyone in the story deals with. Along comes another character, the Impact Character, who sees the world differently than them. They argue back and forth throughout the course of a story over the best way to solve the problems affecting everyone -- each thinking their way is the best (more or less). This argument represents the emotional center of the story. At the end of the story, the Main Character is offered a choice -- either keep doing things the way they always have, or change and adopt the Impact Character's way of doing things. Regardless of what decision they make the Impact Character will do the opposite. Sometimes this change resolves the greater problems affecting everyone, sometimes it doesn't. Likewise, not changing sometimes resolves the problems, and sometimes not changing leads to horrible failure. This is where the true meaning of what the author is trying to say lies. So when I define the Main Character that way, I am simply saying there is more to him than whether or not they are the one telling the story. I would say your short story example is an incomplete story as I have no idea whether the one telling the story is suffering from the same kind of avoidance issues as Tom. I also have no idea if his relationship with the girl is tied to these issues as well. It is implied but not explicit. This is another reason why loglines are insufficient when it comes to determining a story's true meaning. |
Re: Fatal Flaw?
Jim, you call Laszlo the Protagonist in Casablanca, because you say he is the character who pursues the Story Goal. In Casablanca, you then define the story goal as Laszlo and Ilsa's freedom.
Then, if I undersand you correctly, you define the story goal of any story as the goal the Protagonist seeks at or near the end of ACT 1. From my understanding of a story, this is when our Protagonist's world is so upset that he or she must act to bring it back into balance. True, Laszlo seeks his and Ilsa's freedom, but how can that be the story goal, if Laszlo had been seeking their freedom since this story began? |
Re: Fatal Flaw?
OK - I'm lost again. I thought I made sense of your system.
Let's look at something very simple - perhaps one of the old Sherlock Holmes stories. The viewpoint/narrator character is Dr Watson. The Protagonist is Sherlock Holmes. To quote: Quote:
1. Dr Watson must have a deep personal issue that is tied thematically to the puzzle in the story -or- 2. Sherlock Holmes stories are not great stories -- I can see that having the Viewpoint/narrator character having a deep personal issue that is tied thematically to the issues of the story is a powerful technique. But you seem to be arguing that since, in your belief, this technique *MUST* be used for the story to be classified as 'great', you define the 'Main Character' as being the viewpoint character by definition ! This makes no sense. Imagine if I argue that all great cars are rear wheel drive, so I choose to define 'drive wheels' to be 'rear wheels' for all cars - no matter how the car is configured. Could you imagine me having sensible conversations about all cars? Look at the silly snippet I suggested. As you point out, if you are in a meeting and starting to talk about stories, you can't use basic phrases like 'Main Character' until the script is entirely finished with all themes worked out! You have to have everything basically complete before you can decide who the 'Main Character' is !? So I can't see how this naming convention or technique could be useful for developing stories. Just to explain it .. can you show us one of your scripts (or just point me to the DVD) that you've developed using this system? Maybe then I'll be able to understand it. Mac (PS: And you haven't answered the most basic point - you are using a phrase that is already commonly used and giving it a different hamster. If you have a new hamster , then give it a new name.) (PPS: According to my definition, 'Hamster' is a word for a concept very similar to 'meaning'. I hope this shows how confusing these conversations about the hamsters of words can be!) (PPS: On a serious note, one interesting thing that struck me while trying to understand your system is that having the viewpoint & protagonist character as being separate used to be the norm - look at Sherlock Holmes for example. Much of the literature from that period was from the POV of some mundane clerk who happened to witness something mysterious happening to SOMEONE ELSE. Instead of inviting the reader/viewer to imagine being the hero, they were basically inviting the reader/viewer to imagine being the boring sidekick ! It's definitely an different literature style.) |
Re: Fatal Flaw?
I was wondering when the "what have you written" question was going to come up. I have sold something, but I don't think that kind of accomplishment has anything to do with whether or not someone truly understands story structure. There could very well be someone on this messageboard who knows more than I about how to write complete stories, yet hasn't sold a thing. Likewise, there are those who have sold plenty, yet still write stories that simply don't work.
When I speak of great stories, I'm talking about complete stories -- stories where the author is using the form of narrative fiction to communicate a universal meaning that they hold true. These are the stories that you can watch or read over and over again because they are giving you something you can't get in real life: meaning. In regards to Sherlock Holmes, yes I would say that quite often Watson is the Main Character and Holmes is the Protagonist - the one driving the efforts to solve the mystery. Some Sherlock Holmes' stories are complete, some are not. I would venture to guess that those that stick with you years after you have read them are complete stories (#1 in your example). As far as answering the basic point. I'm not sure how classifying an animal as a hamster is similar to determining whether or not a story has true meaning. The current definition of protagonist is inaccurate because it can often come in conflict with a writer's intuition. The OP felt compelled to write a story where the character we experience the story through was not the one driving the efforts to resolve the problems affecting everyone. In clarifying the distinction between the two terms I only wanted to show that there was nothing wrong with his instinct. |
Re: Fatal Flaw?
Quote:
Quote:
That would be the Protagonist. So really, once we correct the misuse of terminology there, we are left with a Protagonist pitted against an Antagonist, with no need for a Main Character fulfilling some separate story function. There are many movies where the Antagonist masquerades as a good guy. That deception does not actually affect their story role. |
Re: Fatal Flaw?
Quote:
That's my quibble with the Dramatica Theory Of Script Deconstruction - used descriptively, whatever. Call a plot a soundtrack. Who cares? But when people try to use it prescriptively, it's a mess. From everything I've read and seen, you're forced into artificial decisions so that the script fits into the paradigm. If Shawshank had actually been written with the method, and care had been taken to keep from emotionally connecting with Andy, and instead connecting with Red... Well, we wouldn't be talking about that movie today. |
Re: Fatal Flaw?
Quote:
When Andy says, She was beautiful. God I loved her. I just didn't know how to show it, that's all. I killed her, Red. I didn't pull the trigger, but I drove her away. And that's why she died, because of me. (but Red did pull the trigger) Red comes back with, That don't make you a murderer. Bad husband, maybe. Feel bad about it if you want. But you didn't pull the trigger Andy, No. I didn't. Someone else did, and I wound up here. Bad luck, I guess. Bad luck? Jesus. Andy, It floats around. Has to land on somebody. Say a storm comes through. Some folks sit in their living rooms and enjoy the rain. The house next door gets torn out of the ground and smashed flat. It was my turn, that's all. I was in the path of the tornado. I just had no idea the storm would go on as long as it has. I see this scene in two ways, one it changes Red's POV; he finally takes responsibilty for the murder he commited years before, and Red is us-the audience-saying to Andy 'we still believe you're innocent. BTW: Frank Darabont and Stephen King are graduates of the Dramatica Center For Kids Who Can't Read Good And Wanna Learn To Do Other Stuff Good Too! |
Re: Fatal Flaw?
Quote:
But I simply can't make sense of your system. I thought I found a way of understanding it, but it turns out that it isn't right either. I don't expect to agree entirely with any system - the world is always much more complicated than simple models, but those models are still really useful. But I can't figure out someone could use the system to develop a story. Because that is what I'm interested in. If you can't point to one of your stories that was developed using this system, can you point to any others? Quote:
So why start renaming the viewpoint/experience character ? If you didn't do this your attempt to explain and communicate would have been a lot easier! If you start your explanation by explaining that the true Main Character of the Sherlock Holmes story was Watson you are just going to get dismissed as a bizarre crank - just because you are using words in non-standard ways. Mac |
Re: Fatal Flaw?
Quote:
Wow! There is so much truth in this post. I believe SAVE THE CAT, breeds mediocrity. I am not saying it can't be helpful for some. But man, the greats like Christopher Nolan, Peter Jackson, Tony Gilroy, care about stories. Which is a forgotten art in Hollywood. I think people spend way too much time on concept, before asking themselves can this be a great story. Epic post. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:35 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Done Deal Pro