In the first draft of the story I write, I have about twenty characters with POV. This is because as a reader or movie watcher, there are often characters for whom I care much more than for the main protagonist or the main conflict. However, that's not really working for most other people, I'm afraid. So I thought about reducing it to four or five, or maybe two. Eventually I decided to try one character telling the story in 1st person. He's an honest man, an army veteran working for what he believes are the good guys. He's not a protagonist that drives the story forward, he mainly reacts and suffers. In the process, he has to find out what really happened and thus he is exploring the thoughts and motivations of the people in his own team as well as those of the opposition. Meanwhile, my main character is neither him nor one of the people who pull the strings, who use and abuse others to reach their evil or noble goals. It's a low ranked henchwomen hired by a villain. Unlike our narrator, she knows that she has no clue what's really going on. She doesn't know or care who the various factions are and what they want, she just tries to stay alive and out of prison. And while the narrator fails miserably and barely survives, her fight against suffering the typical fate of a low ranked henchperson gives the story it's twists and eventually solves the case.
I like the idea that the very essence of creativity as a phenomenon is the desire to achieve the impossible. So the need to solve a dilemma that cannot be solved is the core of any creative project. If you have found your dilemma, you have found the beating heart of the story.
Wow. I've never heard dilemma explained in such a relatable way. Who hasn't suffered the death of a dream, and had to accept the impossibility of a solution. Relationships, careers, lifestyles, status... The line between acceptance and despair is a truly frightening place.
shout out to karen worden, the co-founder of film courage - these videos are invaluable resources to us artists & they would not be the same without her! she is such an all-star interviewer: always has compelling questions, chooses great quotes and topics to explore, knows the content well, & has clearly has taken inspiration from all these years of studying storytellers & storytelling, by applying those tenets to her interviewing & editorial work. she balances complexity and simplicity well, makes difficult concepts easier to explore & understand, & can bring even the most difficult interview subjects down to a more human level with seemingly inexhaustible patience and diligence.
Many of the story structure books on the market either don't address the driver for the character's arc or do a poor job describing it. The arc is everything. Alan does the best job of any of the screenplay books in identifying that dilemma is the lynchpin for your story's arc. Without it, there is no story. Your character escapes from the dilemma by his/her transformation. If you don't have that in your screenplay, your screenplay will be lackluster.
For my story i keep going back to the villain; he isn't evil because he has vices and does horrible things; he's evil because he's a very thorough man who genuinely believes that what he's doing is necessary for the good of humanity. There are other villains who indulge and fuck about, and relish in cruelty and hypocrisy; but at every step I make the main villain the perfect steel-man of how the heroes might possibly be wrong. That's where a lot of modern writing loses me, is when they make the old white guy an asshole who's just evil because the script said so, and even when he raises a valid point it's disregarded out-of-hand because he's the "villain who couldn't possibly be correct". Nah. My villain is the guy who can in good faith and 100% honesty make a very compelling argument that forced lobotomy and slavery are good things _for everyone involved_ and get even the audience to question if rehabilitating his victims is really worth it. And then the story thoroughly dispeoves him and demonstrates how even in the best possible conditions with the right guy at the helm and years under his belt of genuinely impressive achievements that indirectly helped a lot of people, _even then_ he's just wrong about his worldview and it all crumbling under its own weight and the victims fighting back is nature running its course and rightfully rejecting his impositions for the poison they are. But none of that works if you strawman the guy first. Strawmanming is for the side villains; showing, yeah, lots of people will get in on it for the sex and money. But the main guy needs to be a fallen angel who's the logical extreme of a good plan with one fatal flaw. And this also makes him the perfect foil to the hero, because both of them their flaw is sacrificing their own soul to protect a greater good that isn't theirs to create.
Each main character should have a cause and the antagonist should have a cause. Robert McKee used to make this point before he became famous and becamse a big deal.
![Why 99% Of Stories Are Meaningless - Alan Watt [Founder of L.A. Writers' Lab]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/v4wkx8LBH_s/mqdefault.jpg)
![Why 99% Of Stories Are Meaningless - Alan Watt [Founder of L.A. Writers' Lab]](/img/tr.png)
![Stromae, Pomme - “Ma Meilleure Ennemie” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1F3OGIFnW1k/mqdefault.jpg)
Is this something you think about when you write?
Tension and dimension are what I think about when I write, and that about covers featuring at least one opposing argument.
In the first draft of the story I write, I have about twenty characters with POV. This is because as a reader or movie watcher, there are often characters for whom I care much more than for the main protagonist or the main conflict. However, that's not really working for most other people, I'm afraid. So I thought about reducing it to four or five, or maybe two.
Eventually I decided to try one character telling the story in 1st person. He's an honest man, an army veteran working for what he believes are the good guys. He's not a protagonist that drives the story forward, he mainly reacts and suffers. In the process, he has to find out what really happened and thus he is exploring the thoughts and motivations of the people in his own team as well as those of the opposition.
Meanwhile, my main character is neither him nor one of the people who pull the strings, who use and abuse others to reach their evil or noble goals. It's a low ranked henchwomen hired by a villain. Unlike our narrator, she knows that she has no clue what's really going on. She doesn't know or care who the various factions are and what they want, she just tries to stay alive and out of prison.
And while the narrator fails miserably and barely survives, her fight against suffering the typical fate of a low ranked henchperson gives the story it's twists and eventually solves the case.
Constantly
I think it comes through subconsciously. Regardless, we all argue with ourselves. It's why we write---to answer a question.
I like the idea that the very essence of creativity as a phenomenon is the desire to achieve the impossible. So the need to solve a dilemma that cannot be solved is the core of any creative project. If you have found your dilemma, you have found the beating heart of the story.
Wow. I've never heard dilemma explained in such a relatable way. Who hasn't suffered the death of a dream, and had to accept the impossibility of a solution. Relationships, careers, lifestyles, status... The line between acceptance and despair is a truly frightening place.
shout out to karen worden, the co-founder of film courage - these videos are invaluable resources to us artists & they would not be the same without her! she is such an all-star interviewer: always has compelling questions, chooses great quotes and topics to explore, knows the content well, & has clearly has taken inspiration from all these years of studying storytellers & storytelling, by applying those tenets to her interviewing & editorial work. she balances complexity and simplicity well, makes difficult concepts easier to explore & understand, & can bring even the most difficult interview subjects down to a more human level with seemingly inexhaustible patience and diligence.
Wow. Alan is so much better than my marriage counselor ever was. 😮
Wow, what he said at the end for me was everything 💯💯🔥❤️ 9:07
Ooo...I should write. I argue with myself all the time.
😂😂😂 hurry up
Many of the story structure books on the market either don't address the driver for the character's arc or do a poor job describing it. The arc is everything. Alan does the best job of any of the screenplay books in identifying that dilemma is the lynchpin for your story's arc. Without it, there is no story. Your character escapes from the dilemma by his/her transformation. If you don't have that in your screenplay, your screenplay will be lackluster.
holding two ideas simultaneously is yin and yang ☯️
This! ☝️
The perfect shortcut and the master definition of this video title .❤
it’s also called Cognitive Dissonance UNLESS one has the maturity or intelligence to reconcile the opposing views
He was also quoted saying "you never wrestle with a pig you get dirty and the pig likes it"
GBS?
For my story i keep going back to the villain; he isn't evil because he has vices and does horrible things; he's evil because he's a very thorough man who genuinely believes that what he's doing is necessary for the good of humanity.
There are other villains who indulge and fuck about, and relish in cruelty and hypocrisy; but at every step I make the main villain the perfect steel-man of how the heroes might possibly be wrong.
That's where a lot of modern writing loses me, is when they make the old white guy an asshole who's just evil because the script said so, and even when he raises a valid point it's disregarded out-of-hand because he's the "villain who couldn't possibly be correct".
Nah. My villain is the guy who can in good faith and 100% honesty make a very compelling argument that forced lobotomy and slavery are good things _for everyone involved_ and get even the audience to question if rehabilitating his victims is really worth it.
And then the story thoroughly dispeoves him and demonstrates how even in the best possible conditions with the right guy at the helm and years under his belt of genuinely impressive achievements that indirectly helped a lot of people, _even then_ he's just wrong about his worldview and it all crumbling under its own weight and the victims fighting back is nature running its course and rightfully rejecting his impositions for the poison they are.
But none of that works if you strawman the guy first. Strawmanming is for the side villains; showing, yeah, lots of people will get in on it for the sex and money. But the main guy needs to be a fallen angel who's the logical extreme of a good plan with one fatal flaw.
And this also makes him the perfect foil to the hero, because both of them their flaw is sacrificing their own soul to protect a greater good that isn't theirs to create.
A very, very important bit of interview!
so far in the book there is
Need
Problem
dilemma
Character
Theme
Arc
Plot
Structure
Conflict
transformation
resolution
beats
just bloody confusing !
Each main character should have a cause and the antagonist should have a cause. Robert McKee used to make this point before he became famous and becamse a big deal.
this channel is so, so special to me. i love you guys for real 🙏
More Alan Watt, please. 😊
We are still working on this interview but here is everything we have published to date including our last full interview with Alan - bit.ly/2DXA6Yx
Excellent explanation of dilemma v problem
seems like he’s talking about how to reconcile a character’s Cognitive Dissonance in a intelligent an interesting way
Return of the Writer Whisperer!
Brilliant!!!
Thank you! 🌞👍
This is a really good one!
Wow. Thanks.
very good
Dope.
May the best idea win
1:08 true
Damn that’s deep
stay safe reed
and hetes another term 'Argument'
I never did enjoy taking tests so imagine me in the universe
cool
Screen play ⏯️
I simultaneously believe cats are better than dogs and dogs are inferior to cats.
I too am manipulated by Big Feline