STORY FORCES

 

It's time to revisit the most basic concepts behind successful stories—the forces that make stories work. There are more sophisticated ways of diagraming the above, just search Google images for "story through-lines."  If you follow this blog you've see the following more complex renditions of "The 13/20 Roller Coaster Beats," or posts on how to intertwine subplots so they support the same plot.  The BASICS never change as I've tried to diagram above:

• NOBLE (or villainous) VALUES always drive the
• Protagonist's or Hero's decisions and action, that are always obstructed by an
• Antagonistic or Villainous force, in an effort by the Protagonist or Hero to always achieve a
• NOBLE (or villainous) GOAL

NOT diagramed above are subtleties critical to a cathartic story structure:

• Noble Values always reflect NEEDS required for human survival.
• Ignoble Values always reflect WANTS that lead to human destruction.
• At first the protagonist is often motivated by a WANT but... 
• Close to the story's midpoint (The Moral Premise's "Moment of Grace") the protagonist comes to realize the difference between their WANT and their NEED.  
• The protagonist may be a heroic or a tragic character (but always opposite the antagonist).
• The antagonist may be a heroic or a tragic character (but always opposite the protagonist).

The above diagram relates the never changing forces of a successful story. The above diagram is the most simple illustration of the through-line, the plot, the backbone, the theme, or the moral premise. But there can be sub through-lines related to various subplots, and all tied together with supportive themes, and Nicomachean Moral Premises. (I've blog extensively about all this before.) A story becomes interesting when the through-lines, plots, and theme are imbued with irony, motifs, red-herrings, and secrets.

For example, there can be, in one story the:

• physical through-line of the main plot
• emotional through-line of the central protagonist
• symbolic through-line of various 3-beat motifs
• thematic (moral premise) through-line of the protagonist
• secret through-line of information held back from the audience

But in the end there ALWAYS must be:

VALUES that motivate the PROTAGONIST to battle the ANTAGONIST in order to achieve an GOAL.

In a redemptive story the value and goal are noble and focus on a NEED.

In a tragic story the value and goal are scandalous and focus on a WANT. 

The are almost 400 posts in this free blog that discuss these issues. My book, The Moral Premise sets forth the foundation for all successful stories. My free Storycraft Training series dives deep into these topics. And I'm sometimes available for story/screenplay consulting on specific projects. 

Hero vs. Protagonist

Thanks to Christopher Vogler for his contributions to this post.

What's the difference between a hero and protagonist; or for that matter the anti-hero, villain, antagonist, main character or POV character?  Like many concepts it's easy to lapse into equivocation because of the varied way these terms are used.

While I have no serious issue with using "hero" and "protagonist" interchangeably, it can make sense to use them differently. Below are a few suggestions for all these terms.

An underlying assumption (and a big one) is that the audience has a working moral compass and knows what behaviors are to be rooted for or deplored. This may not work in a morally ambiguous universe, but for general audiences that comprise a cross section of society, a movie's popularity will correlate to natural law, which is a fair basis for moral certainty.

MAIN (POV) CHARACTER...

...is the character with the most screen time. This may or may not be the hero, anti-hero, one of two kinds of protagonists, anti-hero, antagonist, or villain. It is almost always the Point of View (POV) character, or the perspective of the storyteller.

HERO... is the character that

• nearly epitomizes the virtues or strengths of the moral premise, but still 
• is subtly flawed. 
• will change (arc), but subtly and always in the same direction. The hero's values will not change direction or polarity, but at the Moment of Grace will get stronger and deeper. 
• actively pursues a physical and visible goal that audience can root for.
• will be a good guy with desirable traits.
• may often give up his life to achieve the goal.

Example: Captain Miller in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. See detailed post at link.

ANTI-HERO... is that character that:

• epitomizes the vices or weaknesses of the moral premise, and thus 
• is significantly flawed.
• will change (arc), but subtly and always in the same direction. That is, the anti-hero's values will not change direction or polarity, but at the Moment of Grace will get stronger and deeper. This is the same as the HERO.
• actively pursues a physical and visible goal that audience can root for, just like the HERO.
• will be a good guy with undesirable traits

Example: Travis Bickle in TAXI DRIVER

VILLAIN... is that character that:

• epitomizes the vices or weaknesses of the moral premise, and thus
• is significantly flawed
• will change (arc), but subtly and always more dark. 
• actively attempts to prevent the hero or protagonist from reaching the goal.
• will always be the bad guy.

Example: Hans Gruber in DIE HARD

PROTAGONIST (Redemptive)... is that character that:

• at first, embraces vices or weaknesses of the moral premise, and is therefore,
• clearly flawed, but
• will change (arc) clearly toward the virtue or strengths of the moral premise.
• actively pursues a physical and visible goal that audience roots for.
• is usually a good guy in the end.
• and lives to see another day, even better.

Example: Bob Parr in THE INCREDIBLES

PROTAGONIST (Tragic)... is that character that:

• at first, embraces vices or weaknesses of the moral premise, and is therefore 
• clearly flawed, but
• will change (arc) clearly toward darker vices or greater weaknesses of the moral premise.
• actively pursues a physical and visible goal that audience roots against
• is usually a bad guy in the end. 

Examples: Charles Foster Kane in CITIZEN KANE, and
Tony Soprano in THE SOPRANOS

Test Question: Do tragic protagonists always sit at table with a wine glass half-full, chin down, eyes up, and glare off screen camera right...."as if the answer to their dilemma were over there" (CV).

ANTAGONIST... is that character that:

• embraces either vices/weaknesses or (not both) virtues/strengths of the moral premise, and is therefore 
• clearly flawed, or clearly virtuous,
• may or may not (arc) clearly toward the opposing value, but if arc occurs will be cogent with the moral premise
• actively opposes the physical and visible goal of the hero, anti-hero, or protagonist becoming the catalyst for change (arc) in the hero, anti-hero or protagonist.   
• may be the good guy or the bad guy

Example: The Angels in "Touched By An Angel"

GONE WITH THE WIND: Her Own Worst Enemy

This is a blog post from Moral Premise Workshop attendee, Ed Godwin.

Her Own Worst Enemy
by Guest Blogger Ed Godwin

In the fall of 2012, I had the opportunity to hear Stan Williams give a luncheon speech at Rochester Writer's Conference in Michigan. I learned more about story structure in that hour than in all the advice columns and classes before and since. So when the opportunity arrived in April of this year for an all-day workshop, I jumped at the chance.

Listing the various key elements of a good story, he of course included the role of the antagonist, and how it was important that it be embodied in a person and not some vague concept. (Read his evaluation of CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE DAWN TREADER for a good example of this omission.)

Suddenly I was terrified that I might have to rewrite or abandon the story I'm currently working on. It didn't seem to have a clear antagonist, at least not at the beginning. So in an attempt to salvage my pride (a weakness nearly every writer has at some point), I searched my mind for an example of a successful story that had no clearly defined antagonist. And I found one--or I thought I did--in one of the most famous movies of all time: GONE WITH THE WIND.

I love stories with strong women, and Scarlett O'Hara of course is no exception. I find delicious irony in that her greatest asset, her will to persevere no matter what the cost, also blinds her to her ultimate goal of true love. But therein lies the clue to the dilemma. Who is her antagonist?

First, we have to realize that she has more than one goal: not only to (1) find true love, but to (2) save Tara and lift herself out of poverty by “beating [the Yankees] at their own game.”  The Yankees are a clear antagonist for the second goal, but this is a late subplot, starting with the defeat of Atlanta and the destruction of her way of life. Her desire to find love begins in the very first scene, and it isn't resolved until the very end.

So if finding true love is her main goal, who is her main antagonist? I first thought it was Ashley Wilkes. He's the one she's constantly pining after, yet his honor and fidelity always thwarts her devious schemes. But this goal is not a goal at all, it's an illusion. In a scene near the beginning, her father Gerald says "I want my girl to be happy. You'd not be happy with him." And like all good stories do, that sets up the main conflict right at the beginning: the pursuit of an impossible dream. I suppose even a false goal could have a “false antagonist”. But what she really desires is true love. She just doesn't realize it.

Is Rhett Butler her antagonist? In a minor way, yes. He comes and goes in various forms throughout the story, and is often the foil for her lesser schemes, such as paying the taxes on Tara. But in many ways he is as deluded as she is. He marries her, knowing her motivation is pure avarice, yet hopes she will eventually forget Ashley and love him instead. In that sense she is the clear antagonist for him, until his frustration drives him to seek comfort with Belle, the prostitute.

But Scarlett is so determined to win Ashley's love that it blinds her to the real thing, even when it's staring her in the face. It takes the tragedy of Melanie's death for her to realize she's been deluding herself all these years. If this is Scarlett's turn of events toward the truth of the moral premise, when she finally sees the truth, it is a complete departure from the recommendation that it should happen somewhere in the middle act. Any previous hint that she may be waking up to the truth is when Rhett carries her up the stairs for a night of passion, and she wakes up the next morning beaming with pleasure. But even that moment is less than thirty minutes from the end of a film nearly four hours long.

We love Scarlett. We also despise the scheming side of her (she treats criminals like slaves and her husbands like dirt), and at least partially applaud when Rhett walks away with his immortal "I don't give a damn." We love her and love to hate her at the same time because they both tie into the same moral premise in different ways, one of hope and perseverance (against poverty), the other of hope and perseverance taken to an extreme (her treatment of people and her obsessive infatuation). Scarlett O'Hara is her own worst enemy, both the hero and the villain, and therefore her own antagonist.

Margaret Mitchell only published one book during her lifetime. But what an impact that book made. All because she had the guts (or perhaps the sheer ignorance) to defy the rules and combine the antagonist and protagonist into one person. What resulted was one of the richest characters in literary history.

Ed Godwin

---

So readers what do you think? I've not studied GWTW, but one of these days I'll look at the movie and scan the book. Let's hear from you. GWTW appears to be a tragedy. Is it? Is this a valid moral premise statement for the movie and its main characters, one of which might be the Confederacy? 

Clinging to lost hope leads to poverty and lost identity; but

Advocating delusions leads to destitution and anonymity.

Stan Williams

Antagonists, Settings, Protagonists, and Environments

Theory: In successful stories Antagonists are the product of their environment or setting, while Protagonists are the change-agents of their environment or setting. IOW: Antagonists are the out growth of their own status quo, while Protagonists challenge the status quo of others. Is that a rule that is always true of successful stories?

Questions Answered about RomComs

Janet asked some questions in the previous post's com box. I'll answer them here.

Janet Asks: Do all the other main characters struggle with the same MP, but in regard to their own issues?

Answer: Yes. that is how the movie can have multiple story lines but still be about one thing. the principles are the same for a novel or a screenplay.

Janet Asks: I've just bought and read The Moral Premise and learned a huge amount from it. But I'm writing a short romance novel rather than a screenplay...The type of romance novel I'm writing needs two main characters (hero and heroine) but there's no room for an additional significant secondary characters or antagonist. (Each acts as the others' antagonist along with the characters' psychological flaws.) Both hero and heroine have different lessons to learn, so I'm struggling to form the vice and virtue sides of the moral premise.

Answer: Good romantic comedies have two protagonists, the man and woman, who are the antagonists for the other. But there are other characters. Each will have a "reflection" character, and each with have a "nemesis" character. These are like the good and bad angels on their shoulders creating scenes that push the characters one way or the other. Each of these minor characters will have arcs that deal with the same moral premise as the main characters do, but obviously just not in as much depth.

When you say the hero and heroine have different lessons to learn, if those lessons are different sets of virtue and vices, then you have two different stories. Your story will connect better with audiences if the virtue and vice set are along the same continuum for both. See the posts on this blog under the topic of "values" (below and to the right under the Movies & Topics list.)

It is not always possible to squeeze a moral premise into an existing story that violates some of the natural laws of storytelling. I frequently guide students to change their story so it's about one thing, and not dilute the core psychological and moral principle which the story is REALLY about.

Janet Asks: Both characters' lives are out of balance. The heroine focuses on work and has no social life, whereas the hero has made play his priority and isn't into serous relationships. (He's successful in his work so he has no lesson to learn about needing to work harder.) She needs to learn how to have fun while he needs to learn that fun flings won't make him happy. If the story was just the heroine's, then the moral premise would be easier, e.g.: A life totally focused on work brings yearning and and sadness but balancing work with fun brings fulfillment and happiness.' But this doesn't include the hero's issues.

Answer: For this to work, you need to change elements of your story. See the posts on Nicomachean Ethics — "Mean Virtue.  If your heroine is into work and not play, then the hero would be into play and not work. Don't make them too extreme in those areas, but the bias has thrown their lives (with everything in their lives) out of balance. The purpose of the antagonist in a story is to change the protagonist by obstructing the protagonist's goal. Thus your characters are like iron-sharping-iron.  

Janet Asks: Does the the moral premise in story with two main characters (who are both heading towards a happy ending) need to incorporate both arcs?--something along the lines of: 'Both an excessively serious approach to life and an excessively playful attitude lead to unhappiness, but a healthy balance between the two leads to fulfillment and happiness.' Often in romance novels the hero and heroine have similarly opposite flaws as the ones above such as Risk/caution/ or using others/helping others, so I'd love to be able to get the moral premise right for 2 protagonists dealing with opposite issues.

Answer: Yes, you got it. This is the Nicomachean Ethic post, precisely.