Another thought on the RS

[pattyloof]

@jhull

You see evidence of this relationship in the tides, but the tides do not describe gravity. They describe the effect of gravity, but they don’t address the relationship directly. Writing about the tides is akin to the “he said/she said” approach to illustrating the Relationship Story Throughline.

The work done with Dramatica is work far beneath the surface of your story—not the story itself. Write the Relationship in another document, fully formed, following the trajectory of the Storypoints identified in the Storyform. Knowing the direction of this growth as separate from your story keeps you from falling into the trap of blending perspectives.

This was seriously helpful, thank you.

[pattyloof]

@MWollaeger

Let’s say the OS is fixing the bathroom. Maybe the crumbled tile is a objective correlate for how their marriage is when the play starts (both are in bad shape) and at the end it’s ironic (the bathroom is fixed, and the relationship is over).

I would totally watch this movie.

[Flight]

Yes. Check the prologue story on This American Life this week, about relationship therapist Esther Perel and what she’s seeing in her online therapy with couples under lockdown: This American Life ep 701

[Flight]

The procedurals TV series I listed probably have one or both of the detective partners onscreen for 70% or more of the screen time, but most of that would be as OS, MC, or IC with the RS moments maybe a slender percentage, maybe just because they have a whole season to do an RS slowburn - but I love them because its those RS moments are so strong, that’s what I come away with. The movies I’ve listed I think the RS probably takes up more screen time.

I was thinking of adding In The Heat of the Night, The Shape of Water, ET (they become psychically bonded) - not for RS screentime, but as all having strong RS throughlines driving the story. True Detective Season One the RS is huge. The End of The F***ing World is practically a 2-hander in 20 minute episodes, RS is what half the camera shots are about.

@MWollaeger

Going back to the bathroom reno, a reason they might take on the project is “this will be good for our marriage”. What immediately happens then, in my head, is that “improving the marriage” becomes the OS and the RS becomes the physics of construction projects.

I flip back and forth on OS/RS all the time, drives me crazy. The way you’ve put it here is really clear - if the reason for doing the project is “This will be good for our marriage” then I think you’re right - that makes improving the marriage the OS goal. But if they’re doing it to get it done since they have the time, or because the half-finished bathroom is driving one or both of them crazy, and the RS difficulties enter into once they get started, would you see it then as OS Physics and and RS Psychology?

[MWollaeger]

@Flight

But if they’re doing it to get it done since they have the time, or because the half-finished bathroom is driving one or both of them crazy, and the RS difficulties enter into once they get started, would you see it then as OS Physics and and RS Psychology?

Yes. This is the other side of my flip.

It’s almost like, dun dun dun, a writer has to choose a POV!

[Flight]

Dang. Just can’t get out of it!
But your “This will be good for our marriage” = OS Fix the Marriage vs “Let’s get this reno done” = OS Fix the Bathroom is a great model for identifying that OS/RS choice. I hadn’t thought of it that way, it’s going to be extremely helpful. Thanks!

[Lakis]

@MWollaeger

Going back to the bathroom reno, a reason they might take on the project is “this will be good for our marriage”. What immediately happens then, in my head, is that “improving the marriage” becomes the OS and the RS becomes the physics of construction projects.

The minute you wrote that, that’s what I thought too, and this is usually the source of my confusion. The end result for me is that I’m afraid my outlines mix up the throughlines (especially the plot).

So, for example, in the middle of trying to replace the toilet together, a pipe bursts, completely flooding the basement, and the couple have a terrible fight, the worst ever.

Is the RS source of conflict here Doing (trying and failing to fix the toilet, which causes a fight)? Or maybe Doing is the OS (fixing the bathroom) and Being is the RS argument they always have (now in the middle of the flooding) about who is supposed to be the “handy” one in the relationship and therefore who is to blame for the fiasco?

Does Genre help? I’m not sure – you can find romances with OS of Physics and plenty of thrillers with an OS in Psychology.

What about the order of plot events and drivers? If the driver is connected to the OS (am I correct that Drivers are always connected only to the OS?) then if the first driver is that the toilet breaks, the OS is Physics. If, on the other hand, the driver is a decision that they will take on a home renovation project in order to improve their marriage, maybe the OS is in Psychology.

But reasoning that way still suggests that “motivation” is something that always happens in the OS, and I’m not sure that’s right.

[MWollaeger]

@Lakis

I correct that Drivers are always connected only to the OS?

Jim would say yes. I am not so decided, neither have I put in as much time thinking about this. I see them as part of the Story, associated with the “landscape” and dynamics.

@Lakis

…then if the first driver is that the toilet breaks, the OS is Physics

Either way, I don’t think this is right. It implies a Psychology story could never have a Decision Driver.

[jhull]

@MWollaeger

Jim would say yes. I am not so decided, neither have I put in as much time thinking about this. I see them as part of the Story, associated with the “landscape” and dynamics.

Dramatica would say yes.

The Story Drivers dictate the order of Signposts in the Overall Story Throughline.

Tying the Story Drivers to the MC, IC, or RS Throughlines is equivalent to:

• the MC is always the Protagonist
• the RS is always between the IC and the MC
• the IC’s “problem-solving style” is always the inverse of the MC
• the MC’s Resolve causes the Overall Story to Fail or Succeed
• the MC always “adopts” the IC’s Domain when the Resolve is Changed
• the IC’s “growth” is the inverse of the MC
• in a MC Growth of Stop story, the Consequence is already in place…

All of these are assumptions that many make while working with Dramatica, particularly those in the West, because of the preference for opposites and 1:1 balance. There’s nothing “wrong” with following the above, just know that it’s a process of induction in relation to Dramatica, not deduction (which is what is driving most of the replies here…).

[MWollaeger]

It’s strange to me that most of the things are limits we impose on Dramatica, but aren’t necessary: they are restrictions, but the OS/Driver connection is a restriction.

Also, this isn’t what I’m suggesting, just in case that wasn’t clear:

@jhull

Tying the Story Drivers to the MC, IC, or RS Throughlines

@jhull

There’s nothing “wrong” with following the above, just know that it’s a process of induction in relation to Dramatica, not deduction (which is what is driving most of the replies here…).

I don’t know what this means.

[jhull]

In other words, the driving thread of this post is deducing agency for the Relationship Story Throughline. The current model of Dramatica relegates the Relationship Story to the role of “slave” to the Overall Story, i.e. it’s an after-thought to the bias of the current model. Trying to figure out what drives the Relationship Story Throughline, in the same manner that the Story Drivers drives the OS will end up fruitless as there is no answer from this point-of-view.

I might have misunderstood by what you said by “Jim would say yes,” thinking it meant that there are other implications of the Story Driver beyond its attachment to the OS. Following that line is inductive (what else could the Drivers possibly be) as opposed to coming up with examples and deducing patterns.

[MWollaeger]

I don’t think that’s what we’re trying to do, though seeing the RS as a slave to the OS explains why it’s hard or impossible to find agency in the RS.

What I think this thread is about is find a way to master the RS.

[mlucas]

@MWollaeger

What I think this thread is about is find a way to master the RS.

To add to this, the last few years have seen a massively improved understanding of the RS, a lot of it spearheaded by @jhull. Getting away from “main vs. impact”, treating the relationship as a character on its own, recognizing how multiple different relationships in the same story can represent the RS perspective.

But it’s difficult to take those improved understandings of theory and analysis and translate them to the actual writing. Yes, treating the relationship as a character helps at the outline level – illustrating story points or story beats. But what about when you’re actually writing a scene?

I have found Dramatica can help immensely when I take my concept for a character and their motivations, and see how the story points apply. How is Help (OS Problem) a motivation for my antagonist, and how is it causing problems for everyone? How do he and others around him focus on Logic (OS Symptom)? Not just at the outline level, but asking this at different points in the story, as I’m writing different scenes. I only do it purposely when I’m stuck or unsure; but I think I’m doing it subconsciously a lot more than I’m aware. Especially for the scene’s POV character.

But trying to do something similar for the RS at this level is weird. The relationship is never going to be the POV character! In a scene that you know touches on the relationship, it can maybe help to picture a third character in the room, invisible and hovering there like a ghost. That’s the relationship, and it’s motivated by, focused on, etc. the RS story points. When one character asks, “What are we, anyway?” it’s not just the character talking, the ghost is talking too, and pushing its motivation/problem of Consider (RS Problem). Same with another scene where a third party says “You two are so wrong for each other.”

[LunarDynasty]

Imagining the RS POV as an actual third character (unseen and unheard, but felt – i.e. a ghost) in the space really clicks for me. Thank you! Somehow the recent development of “picture the RS as a character” hadn’t struck me this way, despite that it says it right there on the tin, but you calling it a ghost completed the thought.

[Prish]

@mlucas

ghost

Hmmm…what about a guardian angel?

[Greg]

Just playing around in this post with how the RS might look different from other throughlines by giving the same storytelling for each throughline. Is there anything wrong with or missing from this description of an RS?

OS-an ominous black obelisk appears in the neighborhood and They start trying to murder each other.

MC-an ominous black obelisk appears in the neighborhood and they start trying to murder Me/I.

IC-an ominous black obelisk appears in the neighborhood and they start trying to murder You. This influences Me toward or away from changing world views/perspectives.

RS-an ominous black obelisk appears in the neighborhood and Marsha starts trying to murder John. This pushes Us/John and Marsha from neighbors/acquaintances to falling deeply in love.

[Lakis]

@Greg

RS-an ominous black obelisk appears in the neighborhood and Marsha starts trying to murder John. This pushes Us/John and Marsha from neighbors/acquaintances to falling deeply in love.

At first glance, this doesn’t seem to work as RS because the source of conflict is external to the relationship – it sounds too OS.

It might work better though if you did all four throughlines at once to make it clear.

So start with a central event: mysterious obelisk makes people want to kill each other. What are the different throughline perspectives on this?

If you say the OS problem is “people trying to kill each other” (Physics) then maybe John and Marsha’s relationship is built around the “craziness” of the relationship (but how to illustrate that?)

If the OS is about the way the obelisk manipulates people, then … you can’t really have John and Marsha’s problem be the same, can you? It seems like it would work better if John and Marsha grow closer together as they are forced to work as a team to uncover/learn about/fight/destroy the obelisk.

Or maybe the obelisk manipulates everyone to do bad things, but in John and Marsha’s case the thing is murder (Physics)?

[Greg]

@Lakis

this doesn’t seem to work as RS because the source of conflict is external to the relationship

So my counter to this would be that there are at least two official analyses that describe the RS as something like “their homes are situated near each other’s” (The Great Gatsby and To Kill A Mockingbird).

Would you say this is because of the old ways of thinking about the RS? Or would you see this as internal to the relationship?

[Greg]

@Lakis

it sounds too OS.

Also, in this hypothetical RS, I suppose that I am assuming that 1. John and Marsha live in the neighborhood where the obelisk appears and 2. no characters outside of John and Marsha experience conflict from the appearance of the obelisk, but that all characters-along with John and Marsha-are experiencing conflict from whatever is dynamically opposed to the sudden appearance of an obelisk.

[Lakis]

@Greg

at least two official analyses that describe the RS as something like “their homes are situated near each other’s”

Okay, so I’m really just thinking aloud here, so bear with me.

I’m not sure about those examples–but I didn’t mean that the RS conflict can’t be external (Universe or Physics). There are obviously tons of examples of this.

My question is more, what is the nature of the RS that distinguishes it from the OS, with respect to those story points? Specifically, is there a way to talk about it that makes it easier to come up with story points that don’t feel too “OS”? It seems really easy, when writing, to think up encodings/illustrations that feel more OS than RS. (Or for that matter MC).

It’s easy enough to see how the RS works in existing stories. In Beauty and the Beast, the RS Concern is Obtaining. Clearly, this refers to Belle’s capture, imprisonment, escape, etc. – ultimately who is in (physical) control of the relationship. But that still feels somehow different from your obelisk example.

Yes, you could certainly tell a story in which the problem in the relationship is that an obelisk is causing Marsha to try and kill John, who at the same time live in a town where everyone is really concerned about the upcoming play they’re going to put on. We’ve already postulated many times that it’s not structurally necessary for the different throughlines to have any storytelling connection (though I’m still a little skeptical of this–you still have the Crucial Element after all).

But in my favorite stories, the beauty lies in how tightly woven the storytelling of the throughlines are while simultaneously being distinct.

---

I am thinking more and more that @Gernot might be onto something with the idea of having the RS “look” a the events of the OS from a different perspective (or vice versa).

So in Beauty and the Beast, the capture, escape etc. of Belle looks like Obtaining from the perspective of the RS. The same thing looks like Becoming from the perspective of the OS (the Beast has to get Belle to fall in love with him or everyone will be stuck in their transformed state).

In Romeo and Juliet, feuding families is, from the OS perspective, a problem of everyone fighting. But from the RS perspective, it’s a question of what roles those in the relationship are forced to play in the world.

Can you get to this point by illustrating the throughlines as separate “stories” the way Jim usually suggests and then trying to weave them together? Does @Gernot’s alternative approach work?