In every scene of your novel, you have a lead character, and you can get inside this character’s head. But how do you handle the supporting characters? How do you work them into your scene?
Kyle posted this question on my “Ask A Question For My Blog” page:
I am a little confused with how non-POV characters are supposed to be properly included in the magical “motivation-reaction unit”. If the reaction part must include reaction from the POV character, where does a different character fit in? An antagonist character will fit in the motivation part, but what about a supporting character that is helping the POV character? I don’t want to swith point of view too rapidly for fear of confusing the reader, but I’d also like to include secondary characters in my scenes more often.
Randy sez: For those of you who are just joining us and aren’t sure what a “motivation-reaction unit” is, you can get up to speed instantly by reading my article, “Writing the Perfect Scene.”
Just to clarify Kyle’s question, the “reaction” part of the MRU is everything that the point-of-view (POV) character does, says, thinks, and feels. The “motivation” part of the MRU is everything else that any other character does or says and everything happening in the environment.
So both the antagonist and any other supporting characters are classified as part of the “motivation.”
This of course seems very weird, because aren’t motivations supposed to be thoughts of the POV character? The answer is yes, they are in a different context, which is why I’ve never liked the term “motivation-reaction unit.” The word “motivation” has multiple meanings, and in this context, it means “anything other than what the POV character does, says, thinks, or feels.”
My rule in writing is to show each character in a separate paragraph. If the paragraph is focusing on the POV character, then the paragraph is a “reaction”. If the paragraph focuses on anyone else or anything else, then it’s a “motivation.”
It really doesn’t matter whether a character is the antagonist or merely a supporting character. Either way, anything they say or do is a “motivation.”
Just as an example, let’s make up a few snippets of an imaginary scene involving three characters whom I’ll give the random names, Scarlett, Ashley, and Rhett:
Scarlett grabbed for Ashley’s hand, wondering how she could convince him. “Oh, Ashley, darling. If you marry me, I’ll be the happiest of women!”
Ashley stepped back. “No. I’ve told you a thousand times, I’m the wrong guy for you. You’re a miserable, greedy, grasping, selfish bitch, Scarlett! You deserve somebody like . . .”
“Like me,” Rhett said. “I’m a miserable, greedy, grasping, selfish jerk. Scarlett and I would be perfect together.”
Scarlett blushed scarlet. “Oh, no, Captain Butler! How could you say such a thing?”
Randy sez: Scarlett is the POV character. This is obvious from paragraph 1, where we hear her thoughts. The first and fourth paragraph are “reactions” because they focus on Scarlett.
It’s hard to say whether Ashley or Rhett is the antagonist in this scene, and it hardly matters. All that matters is that neither one is Scarlett. Paragraphs 2 and 3 are “motivations.” One focuses on Ashley, the other on Rhett. It’s quite fine to have two or more paragraphs of “motivation” in a sequence, each focusing on a different character.
Fiction is like a game of ping pong as seen from one side of the table. The action switches from the camera side (the POV character) to the opposite side (any of the other characters). When the ball is on the camera side of the net, we call that a “reaction.” When the ball is on the other side of the net, we call that a “motivation.” It really doesn’t matter how many players are on the other side of the net. All that matters is that the camera side only has one player — the POV character.
If you’ve got a question you’d like me to answer in public on this blog, hop on over to my “Ask A Question For My Blog” page and submit your question. I’ll answer them in the order they come in.
Note in the example that Scarlett initiated the action, so the POV character is not simply wandering around waiting for things to happen to him.
Poke a screwdriver in the TV and see what happens. Plenty of MRU on the backside. Your brother watching you will laugh his butt off — MRU.
This is something I hadn’t thought about before. But I have a question regarding the larger picture, where Scenes and Sequels alternate. In a Scene, I don’t have a problem with my POV having a goal and conflicts, whether protagonist or antagonist. But it’s the disaster that bothers me. If you want to end each Scene with a disaster for your POV, then your entire story has one big problem, and that’s that its centered completely around this POV and you’re not allowed to switch POV going from one scene to the next.
Example: protagonist is being constantly sabotaged by an antagonist while trying to achieve his main goal.
Scene with antagonist as POV:
– goal: Lure protagonist into a trap
– conflicts: it’s not as easy as it seemed
– disaster: it didn’t work?
As described in Writing the Perfect Scene, the disaster must be a disaster for the POV, but that can only mean that the trap luring didn’t work. In my opinion, having the POV (antagonist) in this example actually achieve his goal, spells disaster for our protagonist, and from there on a Sequel can start with our protagonist in POV and facing the situation of being lured into a trap with a reaction.
I propose this then: your POV in a Scene does not have to be the subject of this Disaster. In fact, there are probably other aspects of the Scene/Sequel that are open to some interpretation to fit the story.
I would really like to hear your thoughts on this, Randy.
Funny, I just used Rhett and Scarlett as examples in a post.
You have a nice blog. I look forward to reading more of your posts.