How does the antagonist fit into the framework of a positive change arc?

Question

Here is what I have so far:

• At some point in the hero's past, the ghost happens, which leads to them believing a lie.
• Said lie leads to their life that they have when we meet them on page 1.
• When we meet the hero, we realize that they want something, but they are held back by their lie or the lie/ misbelief has created a lack of something that they wish to overcome (want) but the hero can't because she is clinging to the lie.
• The story soon presents an external event (ignition point) that forces them to face their lie or abandon their treasured misbelief, because the event tosses the hero into new circumstances, where the lie/ misbelief is no longer useful.
• These new circumstances somehow feature antagonistic forces and the opportunity to go after their want. But how are these things connected?

I have a few attempts at an answer:

• The new circumstances lead to a new story goal that is different from the old "want". The antagonistic force has a goal that opposes the hero's story goal and thus, they face off against each other. --> But where is the old want in this?
• The ignition point presents some sort of opportunity for the hero to pursue the want that she previously did not have. Maybe there are antagonists involved --> But this connection seems weak. "Suddenly she can go after what she wants, but who would have known it, there is the villain and things are not so easy as they seem!"

Does it have to do something with stakes? How does the concept of dramatic question fit into this? What is the framework of an archetypical positive change arc, that includes all the mentioned story elements (ghost, want, need, ignition point, villain, stakes, lie, truth, dramatic question, ...)?

Answer 1

Writing formulas without concrete examples are like recipes for food you've never tasted. Rote instructions do not explain the 'flavor' or even the goal. You need to apply the formula to works you already know.

Pick a concrete example – if the formula is supposedly 'universal' than literally every story ever written can be deconstructed to match it. In reality that formula is very University of California Film School so pick any mainstream film from the last 35 years.

I'll compare James Cameron's Titanic to your formula and see how it goes.

At some point in the hero's past, the ghost happens, which leads to them believing a lie.

Said lie leads to their life that they have when we meet them on page 1.

When we meet the hero, we realize that they want something, but they are held back by their lie or the lie/ misbelief has created a lack of something that they wish to overcome (want) but the hero can't because she is clinging to the lie.

The 'hero' protagonist is Rose, starting at rock bottom in a negative status quo because she has no control over her life. Her mother (an antagonist) has arranged marriage to a man Rose doesn't like (another antagonist). Rose is almost a blank slate for the audience to empathize with, so we don't get a backstory. Her antagonists are controlling, but not overtly abusive – and I think we're meant to infer that Rose has been conditioned to be obedient (her 'trauma' backstory is unremarkable). I assume this would be your 'ghost' as it's not explicit.

Her 'lie' is that she believes she has no path forward, so she decides to kill herself by jumping off the boat.

The story soon presents an external event (ignition point) that forces them to face their lie or abandon their treasured misbelief, because the event tosses the hero into new circumstances, where the lie/ misbelief is no longer useful.

As she's building up the nerve to jump, she's interrupted (not saved) by Jack. He distracts her long enough so that she decides to postpone killing herself and takes a tour of 3rd Class. She meets 'regular' people who have no reason to treat her any differently. She has a fun day in her anonymity, and no longer feels the need to kill herself. Her 'lie' doesn't mean anything here.

These new circumstances somehow feature antagonistic forces and the opportunity to go after their want. But how are these things connected?

Having seen Jack's world she wants to bring him into her own world, however her old antagonists are not having it. They need to keep Rose under control, and get rid of Jack. We see their darker sides because Rose's independence threatens their plans.

Whereas Jack could chaperone Rose in 3rd Class, Rose cannot shield Jack in 1st Class from her own antagonists. She has no power here. They easily frame Jack for something-or-other, raising the stakes for Rose. Not only have her antagonists prevented her 'want' but they've incarcerated Jack.

By now the ship has hit an iceberg and we all know how this ends. Coincidentally, Rose did some life-boat math earlier in the movie so she also (almost uniquely) knows how this is going to end. As Rose is being ushered to a lifeboat, her 'lie' comes back in full force – she's already decided that drowning in the sea is preferable to this.

Rose jumps out of line knowing it isn't likely she will get on another lifeboat, but first she has to rescue Jack to undo the damage she's caused him. From this point her character motivations turn direct: she is in control of her own life, and acting according to her moral compass. There is still story-tension because she has never done this before and is heading into danger. She has a much greater antagonist (the sinking ship) which makes her original antagonists seem irrelevant.

The new circumstances lead to a new story goal that is different from the old "want"... --> But where is the old want in this?

The irony is that she was planning to jump into the sea to fix her unsolvable problem. She's rejected that fate and has a reason to live, but now must do everything she can to not drown in the sea. Her 'lie' manifests as the final boss, and it's an unimaginably horrible death for everyone around her.

Another irony comes at the end. She takes Jack's last name in a symbolic marriage-of-choice, and realizes that the old Rose has been officially declared dead. That girl (symbolically) drowned in the sea after rejecting the life she could not live.

Voila, it works.

The script raises 'dramatic questions' which it rather nicely answers.

Obviously Rose didn't really want to die (that's why it's a 'lie'), but by contriving her interrupted suicide as the inciting incident (as opposed to the more obvious iceberg impact as the inciting incident) Rose is living on borrowed time. She uniquely in sync with the fate of the ship. She is a changed person from the moment she decided to kill herself (it's a misguided plan but it's the start of her independence), and it takes a while before she realizes her strength.

While the iceberg is not Rose's fault, her 'lie' of drowning herself comes back to strip everything away, inverting her intent. In another story she might have triggered this disaster and been forced to suffer the consequences, here Rose uniquely echoes the disaster or even foreshadows it. Meanwhile the plot manages to move her (and Jack) through every relevant part of the ship from bow to cargohold, something that would be very unlikely to happen (indeed no other Titanic story attempts to give any one protagonist the 'grand tour').

There's obviously a lot more that happens in that script, a lot of corn and melodrama and even some mustache twirling from an antagonist turned cartoon villain. These things are definitely NOT what we'd call 'good writing' but they undoubtedly contributed to Titanic's massive box office.

Notice also the protagonist's character arc I've deconstructed to match your formula –– what we'd consider actually 'good writing' –– is probably unnoticed by 95% of the audience. Rose has a heroic character arc with universal appeal (better to die free than live someone else's life). It also pays off with several poetic ironies that seem better on paper than what we get from the film. But is this what anyone remembers about the movie?

FWIW, the formula 'works' – or rather Titanic's script is 'formulaic' by design – our protagonist is hitting her heroic beats, but... there's a lot more going on in the script that might be just as (if not more) important. I think it's reductive to cherrypick contrived character beats and feel that is the 'universal' story.

I love this example because Rose is a made-up character, ret-conned into a real-life disaster which has no narrative moral lesson. All of her character beats are contrived to help history fit Hollywood story conventions. Rose is THE protagonist because her character arc uniquely fits with the sinking-ship antagonist. Only Rose needs to learn the (patently obvious) moral lesson: living is good; drowning is bad.

Answer 2

As has been mentioned here already, understanding a system or format of explanation is best done with examples from existing works of fiction. Here are two resources on character arcs and story structure that do just that (and the site has many other articles as well, usually with several examples from books, films, or TV shows you may know or otherwise should check out):

• The Secrets of Story Structure (Complete Series)
• How to Write Character Arcs

To answer some of your questions:

How does the antagonist fit into the framework of a positive change arc?

The antagonist is the opposition to the Truth or the supporter of the Lie or both.

Since a protagonist in a positive change arc goes from believing in the Lie to believing in the Truth the antagonist can start out as a friend or helper and end up as an opposition character.

The Lie usually comes from the protagonist's emotional wound or Ghost, as you write in your question. The truth is usually a healthy alternative to the Lie (duh!).

What Lie and what Truth you decide to explore in the story will usually contribute to the Theme of the story. You don't have to worry too much about the theme just yet though. Write the first draft, do some editing, then see what pops out as a theme and edit to strengthen that theme some. If you start out with a Theme you risk doing soapbox writing, which will not be entertaining to the reader... Think of Theme as seasoning.

Well-executed stories have two parallel stories in one, the outer story or conflict and the inner story/conflict taking place inside the protagonist.

The outer story (usually implemented as the "Story Structure") could be a simple competition or confrontation while the inner story (the Character Change Arc) is usually about the protagonist's belief in the Lie. The character wins the inner battle by rejecting the Lie and believing in the Truth instead.

The inner and outer could be connected in such a way that the character can only win the outer battle by winning the inner. But this is not always the case. They will usually be connected via Theme, however. Not to mention that they should share many of the story's plot points (i.e. the plot points should, if possible, be about both the inner and outer conflict).

The antagonist is the opposition in one or both of these battles. Usually, more than one antagonist (or antagonistic helpers) fights the battle on several fronts. It could be anything from a competitor in a sport to the protagonist's mom telling them they aren't good enough.

How does the concept of dramatic question fit into this?

The dramatic question is simply a "will the protagonist make it"-type of question, but while it's as simple as that, it still should be prevalent in the story. It should be something the reader asks themselves in almost every scene. It should definitely be the question on everybody's minds when we get to the final battle of the story (the climactic moment).

In a positive change arc, the dramatic question should be based on the battle between the Truth and the Lie. It should be about the inner conflict. Maybe as simple as "will the protagonist be able to resist [Insert Lie here] and embrace [Insert Truth here]", or some combination of that. To make the story more external/active, you could find an action that shows belief in the Truth (saving the princess from the dragon) and use it in the dramatic question.

What is the framework of an archetypical positive change arc, that includes all the mentioned story elements (ghost, want, need, ignition point, villain, stakes, lie, truth, dramatic question, ...)?

A well-written story?

Well, check out the links at the top of the answer. I think they describe a framework as good as any. The author of that site is to some extent inspired by Dramatica. If you want to go really deep into the forest with a framework, that's probably the one...

As has been mentioned on this site before, in order to learn something new you need to start simple and then increase the complexity. A lot of the advice you get in books and online will describe a simplified or even dumbed-down version of fiction. They all have a hidden assumption that you'll read a lot of fiction (and some texts on writing) and realize that every hard rule has a number of exceptions to it and then gradually figure out how to successfully break these rules yourself. (Not to mention how impossible it is to fit everything you know about a question or topic into a properly sized article on a web page...)

But I wouldn't say there is such a thing as "a framework for archetypal positive change arcs".

Think of writing as trying as best as you can to fit together pieces of a puzzle, small and large from many different sources, into a readworthy whole.

I'd even contend that "puzzling" a text together will make it way more alive and organic than forcing it into some kind of Fiction Architecture. (I've been there and tried that and every time the text gave me the finger and slithered away and did its own thing anyway...)