Let me use an example to illustrate my two questions re: midpoints:
A pair of private investigators are hired to find out who's been stealing top secrets from a high-tech company.
Even with them on the case, the stealing goes on. Finally they think they might be on the right trail but they are fired because of the lack of success up to this point.
The hero has a lack of confidence problem and is a former alcoholic. The firing just confirms his lack of confidence problem and he starts drinking again because the firing bothers him more than he realizes.
This is his low point in the story.
But then his partner is killed, probably by the thieves, for maybe knowing too much.
He gets mad, gets back on the case (on his own since he was fired), and finds the bad guys, etc. etc.
Question 1 - the stuff that I've read all these years is that the midpoint changes the story dramatically and where the hero is at his lowest point. But it doesn't change the goal, right? In this case, it just puts the goal on hold for a little while until the hero jumps back into the case - is this still considered the midpoint?
Question 2 - the midpoint is supposed to wake the audience up. In this case, I don't think so. To me, this is just a continuation of trying to find the thieves, there's no abrupt "detour" as some would suggest the midpoint to be. Do you agree?
Any ideas on how to make this more interesting? This is part of an actual script that I'm reading that I'm supposed to give notes on (we swap scripts within our group for feedback). Thanks.
A pair of private investigators are hired to find out who's been stealing top secrets from a high-tech company.
Even with them on the case, the stealing goes on. Finally they think they might be on the right trail but they are fired because of the lack of success up to this point.
The hero has a lack of confidence problem and is a former alcoholic. The firing just confirms his lack of confidence problem and he starts drinking again because the firing bothers him more than he realizes.
This is his low point in the story.
But then his partner is killed, probably by the thieves, for maybe knowing too much.
He gets mad, gets back on the case (on his own since he was fired), and finds the bad guys, etc. etc.
Question 1 - the stuff that I've read all these years is that the midpoint changes the story dramatically and where the hero is at his lowest point. But it doesn't change the goal, right? In this case, it just puts the goal on hold for a little while until the hero jumps back into the case - is this still considered the midpoint?
Question 2 - the midpoint is supposed to wake the audience up. In this case, I don't think so. To me, this is just a continuation of trying to find the thieves, there's no abrupt "detour" as some would suggest the midpoint to be. Do you agree?
Any ideas on how to make this more interesting? This is part of an actual script that I'm reading that I'm supposed to give notes on (we swap scripts within our group for feedback). Thanks.
Comment