Is it better for a protagonist to be motivated by action or dialogue?

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JimS2

Member
My story is a crime thriller set in modern times. The police interview a witness at the police station but it turns out that the witness's statement is not reliable. So the prosecutor is not going to use her. The main character cop then drives her home afterwards. On the way home she asks the cop if he wouldn't mind watching and protecting her for the night because she feels she is in danger in this case, now that she have given a statement. Even if she is considered unreliable, the villains do not know she is considered unreliable.

The cop refuses to protect her saying he cannot do that for the night, if he is not assigned to, and that would be breaking protocol. So as he drops her off, the villains then attack her house to silence her, but she manages to escape. After she escapes, she manages to call the police and the police then assign someone to protect her after. The main character cop then volunteers and they assign him. But this feels like a bit of a coincidence, since she originally wanted him to protect her, he refuses, and then all by small coincidence later he does, if that makes sense?

Or I could write it so that he is assigned to protect her in the first place, because the police predict that the villains will not know she is an unreliable witness, and the police are smart enough to assign protection in the first place. Then while he is protecting than the attack on her place happens. But in this scenario, they both escape, but there is no changed character action on the protagonists part as a result of the action sequence.

In one the protagonist is motivated by action, in the other by dialogue. But is one better than the other?
 
  • Like
Reactions: HKB
I think dialogue or action can be equally motivating. Though certainly nothing is more motivating than being ordered to do it.

I like her asking him for protection and then refusing, but later being assigned to do it. It complicates the ups and downs of the story and their emotional tension.

I wouldn't worry about the coincidence of him being assigned to her later. It's a much smaller coincidence than audiences often swallow
 
Oh okay thanks. It's just I read it's a bad idea to use more than one coincidence per story, and I already have a coincidence in the inciting incident to kick things off though. So therefore, is it bad to use another one?

I could have him ordered by his superiors to do it right from the beginning without her place being broken into first, if that's better?
 
If you count the number of coincidences in any movie or tv show...well, there are usually a lot. My general thinking is you don't want any coincidence so big that the viewer won't go along with it. But that takes a lot.

It was a coincidence that Jawas found R2D2 and C3P0 before they fell apart in the desert. It was a coincidence that they brought them to the Skywalkers for sale, and that they didn't manage to sell them to someone else first. It was a coincidence that the other R2 unit that Luke was going to buy broke down, and that it broke down right as he was buying it, so that he bought R2D2 instead. And those are all coincidences in the same act and the same subplot.

Narrative logic is like magnetism - the characters and actions pull themselves together like magic, or there would be no story.

But life happens like that too. It was a coincidence that my wife was working at the popcorn counter at the Angelika right when I went to see a movie. It was a coincidence that I decided to order popcorn, especially since I was dirt poor at the time. It was a coincidence that I was wearing a t-shirt with the name of my high school and that she used to live in that town and recognized the name and asked me about it, initiating our first conversation. But these items are only "coincidences" because we wound up together. In another universe, we never met. So, anything that happens and "works out" will inevitably be preceded by "coincidences".
 
I like the first scenario better. It doesn’t have to be coincidence that the officer that took her home is assigned. He could request it because he feels some guilt for not protecting her the first time out, even though he was following policy, and/or anger at a missed opportunity to tag the bad guys.
Adds to depth of character development. Motivated action is usually superior to coincidence.
What happens to the potential relationship between the cop and the protagonist? This gives a hook for deeper story development.
Unmotivated action is boring.
 
Oh okay thanks. The cop is the protagonist though, unless I made it seem confusing?

Also, if I go with the first scenario, should I write it so that after she escapes, when the cop calls it in, should he say that she needs protection and they just tell him to do it and assign him, or should he actually request himself do you think? I didn't think that the cop would do it it out of guilt, as long as someone else is assigned because then he would have piece of mind over that, unless I am wrong?

Another thing is, I was told by readers that the villains wouldn't attack her house if she was there alone. If no cop was there protecting her, they would just call her and threaten her to keep quiet and not actually attack. If this is true, then if I wanted an attack on her place, the cop would have to be there. So if that's the case, then should I write it so that he is not assigned to protect her but is dropping her off after an interview, but comes inside just to look around to make sure things are safe for her... but the villains think the cop is there to protect her, and therefore, are motivated to attack her place, since the do not want to call her to keep quiet with the cop in the house?
 
Last edited:
One thing that may help clarify your decisions is this: the protagonist must not be passive. As soon as possible, establish a clear desire. The rest of the movie is the protagonist trying to reach that goal. Place ever-more-formidable obstacles between the hero and the goal, so that the hero keeps failing and has to keep trying greater and greater ways (because it is human nature [and perfectly logical] to use the least effort you think necessary to achieve something), until he is forced to try the ultimate strategy for achieving the goal.

It sounds like right now you are wrestling with police procedure, realistic protocols, etc. That is good. In fact Aaron Sorkin recommends heavy research in this area, to see how such-and-such professional is actually in real life trained to handle such-and-such scenario. He says that often the reality is cooler than any false protocol you could come up with. (For example, a student was working on a script about a possible bomb in an airplane restroom. Sorkin asked her, have you researched what the flight crew actually does in this scenario, because I bet it's pretty interesting.)

Anyway, back to my original advice, which I heard from Sorkin and David Mamet (as well as several books). I watched both of them on masterclass.com and it was amazing how similar their advice was: give the hero a goal, raise the stakes to life-or-death level (as opposed to might-lose-a-few-bucks level), throw obstacles at the hero to keep him from achieving said goal.
 
Oh okay thanks. Well so far the hero is a man on a mission type, in which he is motivated by his superiors who give him a mission and then he goes that mission. Kind of like James Bond accepting an assignment or a private eye taking an assignment. So the protagonist's goals are business rather than personal, until halfway through the script where tragedy strikes, and then things are personal for him. But is that bad if his goal is business driven for the first half?
 
Maybe a question worth exploring is what about his character and backstory led him to be mission-driven
 
Oh okay, well the way I wrote it is that it's kind of like a movie like Bullitt (1968) for example, where a cop is given an assignment and he does it. They don't go into background over his character. But is that bad?
 
You don't have to show their background but it may be worth it for you to think about as it informs other decisions you make about the character
 
Oh okay sure, thanks. I can think about the character's background, for sure. What about what reader said that they would not attack her house unless she thought she had police protection? Otherwise they would just threaten her. However, if it's best for an attack on her house to motivate the cop more, and motivate the police to assign her protection more, what if the cop drops her off, after an interview, but checks the house, and the villains see him go in with her and close the drapes, and then they think she has protection and decide to attack, even though he was just leaving? Would that be best?
 
They may want to kill her even if she has no protection. But certainly they could misconstrue his presence to indicate that she is protected
 
Oh okay, I was just told they would threaten her if she was alone, and it reads like a plot hole if they try to kill her since it seems like overkill for a witness that can just be threatened, if that's true?
 
I'm not a close student of mob history.

My feeling is their decision turns on a calculation of how likely she is to talk under threat and how likely they can get away with her murder.

That calculation turns on what they can threaten her with - her life, her child's life. It also turns on the odds of getting away with murder. Some people might be easier to kill and get away with it; some cities are too overrun by crime to investigate every murder thoroughly. Some countries have many unsolved murders every day.

And your movie has its own reality. Is it a well ordered society with low crime and functional police? Or is it like Gotham?

Certainly I would not stop watching if they tried to kill her and not just threaten. But even if a policeman is with her, they can find a way to just threaten her. By text for example. I'm not so sure there's a right or wrong answer. I would choose the most interesting dramatic possibility. Which seems like attack while she is alone.

Personally I think they would be less likely to attack if a cop is there. Murders of policemen are heavily investigated. But then, in central America the police are sadly murdered without consequence every day, off-duty or on.
 
Oh okay thanks. Do you think that if the cop is worth they would try to take her and the cop captive, to find out what she told the police specifically, before deciding whether till kill or not, as oppose to straight out trying to kill the cop?

I guess the way I see it while getting inside my villains heads is, is that if she is alone they will think, that she must not be a very reliable witness if the police are not protecting and thus, maybe we shouldn't risk murder over her... but if a cop goes in the house with her, even if he is not there to protect, I can see the villains being much more worried over this, that it looks like she has protection and thus must be more of a threat. Unless that's wrong, and they would still kill her if she is alone more likely?
 
Last edited:
First off, my comment about "developing plot from character or character from plot" in your other thread applies here, too. But a few things in this thread I'd like to address:


JimS2 said:
In one the protagonist is motivated by action, in the other by dialogue. But is one better than the other?
Click to expand...

Yes, but it has nothing to do with action vs dialog. It's because, as you said, "in this scenario, they both escape, but there is no changed character action on the protagonists part as a result of the action sequence."

JimS2 said:
I read it's a bad idea to use more than one coincidence per story
Click to expand...

Coincidence that works against the protag is usually fine. To trailer onto ahalpert's Star Wars example: this is why we readily accept the coincidence that the Jawas find R2D2 (it works against the protag in this sequence), but it doesn't play as well when the other R2 unit coincidentally breaks down (which works in R2D2's favor). (Or could have played better had R2D2 done something to convince Luke to pick him, instead. Although, it's not a huge deal because at this point, neither R2D2, Luke or the audience knows about the connection to Old Ben/Obiwan. We only know that it's extremely unlikely that the Jawas will get R2D2 to Obiwan. So it appears to be a little in R2D2's favor, but not as much as it turns out to be in hindsight.)

JimS2 said:
The cop is the protagonist though, unless I made it seem confusing?
Click to expand...

This is another reason the second option plays better -- in the first option, the witness is the protag during the attack; the cop isn't even there! Now, this isn't a huge issue -- just like R2D2 is the protag in the Jawa sequence -- but since you're comparing two options, one of which includes the overall protag and one that doesn't...

I didn't think that the cop would do it it out of guilt, as long as someone else is assigned because then he would have piece of mind over that, unless I am wrong?
Click to expand...

This is where designing character from plot comes in: you have a plot and you need a character who will be motivated to take a specific action. So design that character! A couple of archetypes off the top of my head:

He's Martin F-ing Riggs, former badass Special Forces soldier. He's got better things to do than babysit this chick who's probably lying anyway. But then she's actually attacked, and barely survives. So now he understandably feels guilty. And now being badass Martin F-ing Riggs works for you because he's not gonna let some average Joe beat cop protect her.

Or he's Roger "I'm too old for this s*%t" Murtaugh who just wants to make it to retirement, so instead of putting himself in a potentially dangerous situation protecting a witness, he goes home to his wife. Then he hears about the attack. So now he understandably feels guilty. Maybe even have the witness remind him of his daughter to turn up the guilt factor even more!

ahalpert said:
I'm not a close student of mob history.

My feeling is their decision turns on a calculation of how likely she is to talk under threat and how likely they can get away with her murder.
Click to expand...

To expand on that -- it's a cost/benefit risk/reward analysis. i.e. what is the cost of the witness testifying? And how much are they willing to risk to prevent her testimony? So if you want it not read like a plot hole/overkill if they try to kill her, make the cost to the antagonist high enough to justify that amount of risk.
 
Yes, but it has nothing to do with action vs dialog. It's because, as you said, "in this scenario, they both escape, but there is no changed character action on the protagonists part as a result of the action sequence."
Click to expand...

Oh well, what I meant was, is that the character is still changed motivated by dialog since his superior, would have given him the assignment to watch her beforehand. So his motivation still comes from dialogue if that makes sense?


This is another reason the second option plays better -- in the first option, the witness is the protag during the attack; the cop isn't even there! Now, this isn't a huge issue -- just like R2D2 is the protag in the Jawa sequence -- but since you're comparing two options, one of which includes the overall protag and one that doesn't...
Click to expand...

Is it bad if the cop is not there in one, compared to the other?

This is where designing character from plot comes in: you have a plot and you need a character who will be motivated to take a specific action. So design that character! A couple of archetypes off the top of my head:

He's Martin F-ing Riggs, former badass Special Forces soldier. He's got better things to do than babysit this chick who's probably lying anyway. But then she's actually attacked, and barely survives. So now he understandably feels guilty. And now being badass Martin F-ing Riggs works for you because he's not gonna let some average Joe beat cop protect her.

Or he's Roger "I'm too old for this s*%t" Murtaugh who just wants to make it to retirement, so instead of putting himself in a potentially dangerous situation protecting a witness, he goes home to his wife. Then he hears about the attack. So now he understandably feels guilty. Maybe even have the witness remind him of his daughter to turn up the guilt factor even more!
Click to expand...

Well it's just I was told by readers, that my cop character is not that type, and my character is a more realistic type in the sense that he will only take the assignment if ordered to. Do my readers have a point, and perhaps my character is just not Riggs or Murtaugh?
 
It's your job to know your character better than anyone else. They can be however you want them to be. They are probably not riggs or murtaugh. Those are only 2 characters out of an infinite possibility, and they are archetypes as mentioned and thus not super realistic. But your character could be an archetype too. Your character could be super by-the-book. What do you think?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top