The Problem Solving Style of your Main Character can be more than just the last choice you make in a storyform. It can also be a strong indicator of how much power your Main Character has over the Objective Story.
Main Characters can solve problems either logically or holistically. While they can do both, one will stand out over the other as an innate trait of the Main Character. It’s the point where the Main Character begins her thought process. Some characters will prefer to solve problems one step at a time with their eyes focused on a prized goal. Others will prefer to balance problems as they focus on the connection between things.
Whichever one they “operate” from, Main Characters will be able to easily identify issues or problems in those who use the opposite method.
We’ve all known people who can seemingly pick apart our own personal issues with ease; they see things in ourselves that we never could. This happens because those insightful people are using the other operating system. An example of this can often be found by turning towards the significant other in your life. More often than not, we end up “hooking up” with someone who thinks quite differently from us.
The Objective Story Connection
The interesting part occurs when you match up the Main Character’s Problem-Solving Style with the Objective Story Domain:
-
A linear thinker is perfect for solving the problems of a Manipulation Story.
A holistic thinker is perfect for bringing back balance to an Activity Story.
Objective Stories of Manipulation exist because the characters in the story engage in problematic methods of manipulation like deceit or lying. As these people try to manipulate others, the Main Character can analyze step by step what they say they did.
A Main Character in this kind of story might say the following:
“Wait a second. You went home at 6pm and then took a stroll an hour later? Yet Mrs. Johnson said she called you shortly after 7. Something doesn’t follow here.”
A linear thinker can pick apart the deceits of a manipulator.
Holistic thinkers have the same sort of unique ability - only from a different direction.
Objective Stories of Activities exist because the characters in the story are engaging in problematic actions like stealing or fighting. As these people act against others, the Main Character can seek out why they are doing it and perhaps find a way to restore equity.
“Wait a second. Those retirement funds that were stolen…they’re all from families who one time or another lived on this particular street…the same street Mr. Roberts grew up on…the same street where he was ritually beaten by the neighborhood kids. Perhaps, Mr. Roberts is trying to collect on what he believes is a long overdue compensation package.”
So while sometimes the idea of the Main Character’s Problem-Solving Style can seem sort of ambigous and unnecessary, the above shows what a useful tool it can be. If you want your Main Character to have a significant impact on the Objective Story, make sure he or she has the right operating system to get the job done.
Share This
3 responses so far ↓
1 Chris Huntley // May 17, 2007 at 10:24 am
While I completely agree with your assertion that linear thinkers (male mental sex) can pick apart the justifications of holistic thinkers (female mental sex) and vice versa, I think connecting a character’s problem solving style to its effectiveness in the Overall Story is too limited. Sometimes characters “get it,” and some times they don’t.
Grand argument stories show us how to work through problems. Sometimes they show us how to do so successfully. Sometimes they show us what NOT to do. The choices an author makes determines how things work within the context of that specific story. Any combination of domain (activities, manipulation, etc.) is possible with the main character’s problem solving style and story outcome (success or failure). Though we may favor certain combinations over others based on a cultural bias, I don’t think that one problem-solving style is inherently more or less appropriate that the other in any given context. It’s up to the author to make that distinction by his or her storyforming choices.
2 J. Hull // May 17, 2007 at 11:29 am
I see what you’re saying. I guess my post was narrowing it down quite a bit (and assumed the Main Character was the Protagonist, and assumed an Outcome of Success and a Judgment of Good!).
I just found the concept of relating the Main Character’s Problem-Solving Style with the Objective Story fascinating - especially since I hadn’t really thought of it until the analysis of Laura. It’s so cool to me now to see that Det. McPherson’s ability to see through all the lies and deceits relied partly on his linear approach towards solving his investigation.
But that’s only one story.
It’s probably not so much about getting “the job done,†as it is an interesting consideration between two appreciations.
3 Chris Huntley // May 18, 2007 at 11:31 am
Absolutely. The effectiveness of the Main Character’s problem solving style is a key part to understanding how to solve problems within the specific context of a story.
For example, Rick’s linear thinking in Casablanca let’s him out fox the Germans and the police and is partially responsible for his resolving his unresolved feelings toward his ex-girlfriend. By contrast, Jake Gittes’ linear thinking in Chinatown doesn’t serve him nearly as well. He’s so hung up on connecting the dots that he doesn’t get the big picture or even look for the relationships between the players in the drama. He evenutally gets past his misunderstandings (”Bad for glass”) and figures out what is going on but is left angst-filled and bewildered at the end of the story…”Forget it, Jake. It’s Chinatown.”
Leave a Comment