Hatrack River Writers Workshop: Question about the "MICE Quotient"

This is topic Question about the "MICE Quotient" in forum Open Discussions About Writing at Hatrack River Writers Workshop.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/writers/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001893

Posted by cklabyrinth (Member # 2454) on :

I'm plotting a story I'm about to write, but I'm just wondering if a Character story can work out of the following scenario:

The protagonist sacrifices himself in order to let his friend live, and then the friend looks back at his life and sees the error of his ways and changes his life. He'll do this in honor of his friend, the protagonist, who, in the friend's eyes, lived a fulfilled life, while the friend lived a rather empty life.

Could this work? I don't remember reading that it was the protagonist who had to change by the end of the book... but then again, am I even identifying the right protagonist in my own story? It does seem like my protagonist would be the antagonist in the end, since he's the catalyst.

Thanks for any advice,
-ck

Posted by mikemunsil (Member # 2109) on :

quote:
Could this work? I don't remember reading that it was the protagonist who had to change by the end of the book... but then again, am I even identifying the right protagonist in my own story?

Yes, it could work, and it would be a character story, and yes, I think the 'friend' is the protagonist, not the other. After all, there is nothing in your synopsis to indicate that the person who sacrificed himself ever changed or grew as a person.

Posted by keldon02 (Member # 2398) on :

There is the potential of a lot of raw emotion in such a story, though it might be hard to control. Recall the wraparound cemetary scenes in the screenplay of "Saving Private Ryan".

Posted by HSO (Member # 2056) on :

Sounds like you've got the C and E in the MICE quotient fairly well worked out. Note: most stories use all of the factors in MICE.

The C, or Character Story, is the relationship between two friends.

The E, or Event, is the sacrifice.

It seems to me that the Idea, or I, is that someone who lived an empty life can change after all. For instance, like Scrooge changed his life after all he went through.

The M, Milieu, is just where all of this is going to take place. Is it present day? Is it in the future or past? Another world altogether?

That's all the MICE quotient is really about. It's not completely set in stone. You could write a pure Milieu story which has almost no character development (you'll need a little, though), and just take the reader on a tour of the world you created.

Hope this is helpful.

Posted by Christine (Member # 1646) on :

Ahh...HSO beat me to it.

Let me just reiterate....as much as this sounds like a deep character story, the *plot* sounds primarily like an event story. That is, there must be some significant series of events leading to this friend's sacrifice. In terms of MICE, you should probably start there, where the protagonist begins to get involved with the badness in the world. Then the end isn't when the world goes back to being right, it goes just past that to incorporate the significant and strong character coplot/subplot you mentioned...when the friend makes a change in his life.

Just my opiknion from what I gathered from your brief description.

Posted by cklabyrinth (Member # 2454) on :

I don't think there's much of an event story element in my outline yet.. no omnipotent evil that needs to be combatted has came into the world. But I may have the wrong definition of an event story; I read OSC's SF/F book in November and haven't really looked at it since.

-ck

Posted by Christine (Member # 1646) on :

Joe, I believe you do. An event can be far more subtle than that. The "world" can be something small -- a person's life and the evil can be proportionate.

A suspense story is an event story. They are usually classified with mystery so we don't think of them that way, but in a suspense story we know whodunit, we only want to know how they're going to get caught and if the protagonist will even live or succeed. The story is therefore an event. Person x (who we know) kill Person Y. This is a great evil that is wrong with the world. Our hero, the lawyer, policeman, or amateur detective, must right the world by bringing Person X to justice.

Earth shattering? No. Plenty of murderers escape all the time and the world still rotates on its axis ike always. But it's an event.

Card used epic fantasy as his example of an event story and that may have confused people. Don't forget those smaller events that only effect one or two people's lives.

Posted by HSO (Member # 2056) on :

Your event IS the sacrifice. It's the catalyst which drives the protag to change his ways.

How that sacrifice happens is up to you... but that is the Event as I would see it.

Posted by Christine (Member # 1646) on :

I read it slightly differently. I read the sacrifice as the climax of the event story and whatever necessitated that is the event. If we start with the sacrifice (which would presume a fairly straight-forward reason for it that does not necessitate buildup) then this is entirely a character story and the sacrifice is simply the catalyst for the change. But from what I read above, that scenario makes no sense since the protgaonist is the person who is sacrificed. If they die in chapter 1 they're not a protagonist.

Posted by cklabyrinth (Member # 2454) on :

That's what I was thinking, Christine, that my protagonist may actually be the antagonist. Thanks for the clarification, you two.

And by the way, who's Joe? ;o

-ck

Posted by Christine (Member # 1646) on :

Er...WHAT?

I never said that!

I said that if he dies in the first to chapters he can't be the protagonist. There are not only two kinds of character: protagonist and antagonist. A protagonist is the person whose deeds the story follows, usually the person you want to succeed but not always. (There's nothing saying a protagonist can't be evil and you want him to fail but you still enjoy watching the story.) An antagonist is simply the person who opposes the protgaonist.

So....now you've totally lost me. The friend who dies, unless we're actually following the exploits of his enemy, is not the antagonist.

Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :

He's using it in that goofy "antagonist is the person that forces the protagonist to grow and change" sense. I don't know where that started and I don't care, I just wish that people would stick to the original meaning.

The antagonist opposes the protagonist. Usually this opposition is part of what helps the character grow and change, but it is rarely the only thing. I think that it's stretching things a lot to redefine "antagonist" based on something that sometimes results from the actions of the antagonist.

Posted by dpatridge (Member # 2208) on :

sorry to hijack someone elses thread, but i have a question regarding protags and antags.

is it possible to have only one true antag, and that, not even humanoid?

what i really mean to ask, is that isn't it possible to have an everyone vs environment story?

Posted by Jaina (Member # 2387) on :

I think so, the antagonist just has to work against the protagonist(s). It doesn't necessarily have to be human, though it's easier on writers and readers alike if it is.

Didn't OSC talk about that in one of his books? I don't remember...

Posted by wbriggs (Member # 2267) on :

Here's one scheme I've heard:
* man against man
* man against nature
* man against supernature
* man against himself

There's certainly no requirement that all stories be interpersonal conflict. Although I'd have a hard time calling a blizzard, say, an "antagonist."

Posted by Christine (Member # 1646) on :

It does work that way, though. An antagonist is anyone or anything that opposes the protagonist. The *protagonist* is going to have to be sentient, consciouss, given human characteristics, etc. Otherwise we don't really care. But the antagonist can be anything at all.

Posted by goatboy (Member # 2062) on :

To that list I would add:

Man against machine.

Posted by Jaina (Member # 2387) on :

quote:
Although I'd have a hard time calling a blizzard, say, an "antagonist."

True, unless you personified the blizzard and made it seem as if it was truly working against the protagonist in a very major way. Then I could call the blizzard the antagonist. But it takes a very skilled writer to be able to turn a blizzard an antagonist.

Posted by rickfisher (Member # 1214) on :

Supernature?

Posted by HSO (Member # 2056) on :

I think he means "supernatural" or anything that is scientifically inexplicable. Ghosts, gods, psychic phenomena, et al.

[This message has been edited by HSO (edited April 03, 2005).]

Posted by Phanto (Member # 1619) on :

Just as a point of order, I must object to the usage of jargon such as MICE. Yes, it does nicely wrap up the general areas of story direction, yet I still can not resist objecting because it just seems like an overly simplistic approach, one that tries to put too much into too little.

But that's just pedantic, ol' me :P.

Posted by dpatridge (Member # 2208) on :

actually, Phanto, i feel quite differently about MICE. i've learned to use it as a complicated set of weights and measures. you balance the elements out on it and try to measure and figure out how to tell your story in a way that makes sense, without trying to do too much.

it is humanly impossible to write a story that uses every possible avenue of story direction and describe every single element of a scene: environment, character thoughts, etc... so we must choose and balance things out.

also, it is humanly impossible to conduct that balancing act using the raw data... we must use symbols much the same as we do for a Calculus math problem.

it is my opinion that when used as a complex balance symbol, MICE is an excellent tool. when used strictly it makes for poor writing.

Posted by Phanto (Member # 1619) on :

What does MICE mean anyway? When you use MICE what are you doing? So if you take a story without MICE what is it?

Posted by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (Member # 59) on :

Phanto, the way I like to use MICE is to use the way OSC describes it in his book, WRITING SCIENCE FICTION AND FANTASY, where he talks about story structure. Each kind of story starts a different way, with a different question and a corresponding "promise" from the author, so each kind of story requires a certain kind of resolution in order to "satisfy" most readers.

If you look at a story in terms of story structure, and ask yourself what you are trying to do in the story, MICE helps you to figure out if you are starting and ending the story in a way that will tend to be most satisfactory for the reader.