The Main Character theme follows many of the same guidelines as the Overall Story theme. In fact, the basic approaches of illustrating the conflict by indirect means are good rules of thumb for all four throughlines. We do this by calling on the other two Variations in the thematic quad and having the balance between Issue and counterpoint shift back and forth. The principal difference in theme encoding from one throughline to another is where you direct the conflict.

For the Main Character Throughline, only the Main Character will be aware of the thematic conflict in that Throughline. It might still be illustrated by contrasts between incidental characters or in non-essential actions or events, but no one will notice but the Main Character. For example, our Main Character in a motion picture might be sitting in a diner and look out the window to see a hungry man sifting through a trash can for some food. The focus shifts (as the Main Character ostensibly shifts his attention) to bring to clarity another man sitting in front of the window getting up to leave from his plate of half-eaten food. No one else is able to see this except our Main Character (and through him, the audience).

The example would be a subtle beginning of an argument about Morality vs. Self-Interest. In and of itself, there is not enough to say which is the Issue and which is the counterpoint. Also, this example merely sets up the haves and have-nots, but does not yet place a value judgment, for we do not even know which of the two men represents Morality and which represents Self-Interest.

An interesting turn would be to have a Maitre d' notice our Main Character looking at the hungry man through the window and run over to say, "I'm sorry, Monsieur, I'll have my waiter tell him to leave." Our Main Character says, "No, wait..." He reaches into his pocket, pulls out his last hundred francs and, giving it to the Maitre d' says, "Bring him some food instead."

Still watching from the window, our Main Character sees the waiter taking a plate of food to the hungry man. As soon as he arrives, the hungry man beats the waiter over the head, takes his wallet, and runs off. The food has fallen into the garbage. Now, what have we said through our encoding about the relative value of Morality vs. Self-Interest as experienced by the Main Character? Also, which one is the Issue?

In our Main Character example, we did not feel like we were judging the Main Character himself because of the results of his actions. Rather, we were judging the relative value of Morality and Self-Interest. In contrast, the Impact Character theme encoding is designed to place a value judgment on the Impact Character himself.

Impact Characters are looked AT, not from. We want to evaluate the appropriateness of their actions. Part of this is performed by showing whether the Impact Character's influence on the balance between Issue and counterpoint results in positive or negative changes.

Suppose we keep everything from our Main Character example in the diner the same, except we substitute the Impact Character instead. All the events would happen in the same order, but our point of view as an audience would have to shift. The question for the audience would no longer be, "How am I going to respond in this situation?" but would become, "How is he going to respond in this situation?"

If this is a film, the point of view shot through the window might no longer be appropriate. Instead, we might shoot from over the shoulder of the Impact Character. Further, we would want to make sure the audience does not get too drawn in toward the Impact point of view. So, we might have another customer watching the whole thing. Or, we might simply choose camera positions outside the diner to show what happens, rather than staying in the whole time looking out as we did with the Main Character.

Novels, stage plays, and all different media and formats present their own unique strengths, weaknesses, and conventions in how one can suitably encode a given throughline. Knowing which ones to use and inventing new ones never used before comprises a large part of the craft and art of storytelling.

Finally, let us briefly address thematic encoding for the Subjective Story Throughline. Theme in the Subjective Story Throughline describes the meaning of the relationship between the Main and Impact Characters. There are two distinct ways to evaluate everything that goes on in the relationship and these two ways don't lead to the same conclusions. The thematic Issue and counterpoint reflect these two different means of evaluation.

In most relationships, everyone involved has an opinion about what's best to do. That's the way it always is in a story. As the Impact Character Throughline and the Main Character Throughline have an impact on each other, so do the Overall and Subjective Story Throughlines. Therefore, both Objective and Subjective Characters will have opinions to express about how the relationship between the Main and Impact Characters is going. Remember, it's this relationship that makes the Subjective Story.

The variety of places to find opinions about the Subjective Story relationship means the Issue and Counterpoint in the Subjective Story need not come only from the Main and Impact Characters. They can be brought up and argued without the presence of either the Main Character or Impact Character.

Of course, these two characters will be involved at some point as well. When they're together, they're likely to be arguing the two sides of the Subjective Story's Thematic issue and providing the Thematic Conflict. When they do, however, it is a good idea to avoid just giving one character the Issue and the other character the Counterpoint. That would lead to a simple face off over the issues without exploring them. Instead, have them swap arguments, each using the Issue, then the Counterpoint as their weapon. Neither of them is solely a villain or a good guy from this personal point of view.

Giving your Overall Story Characters conversations about this relationship is a good way to express Issue vs. Counterpoint without involving the Main or Impact Characters. This will help avoid unintentionally biasing the audience against either of them.

The real issue is, which is the best way to look at the relationship?

We all know stories involving newlyweds where the father of the bride argues that his daughter's fiancé is not good enough for her since the boy has neither job nor means to provide for her. In these stories, the mother will often counter the father's argument by saying the two kids love each other, so what could be better?

In that example, father and mother may be Overall Story Characters arguing about the best way to look at the Subjective Story between the Main and Impact Characters (the daughter and son-in-law). In the end, one way of seeing the kids' romance will prove to be the better way of evaluating the relationship.

The thematic resolution may be that the Subjective Story relationship appears terrible from one standard of evaluation and only poor from the other, in which case these people haven't got much of a relationship. Or, a relationship may appear mundanely workable from one standard and thrilling from the other. Or, one may see it as highly negative and the other sees it as highly positive. These are all potential conflicting points of view about a relationship and these differences give the Subjective Story theme its depth.

The important job of the writer is to balance the argument so there is a real question about which way of seeing the relationship is using the best standard of evaluation. Don't' sell the audience a biased bill of goods. Present them a much more realistic tableau.