Another thought on the RS

theory
#103

I’ve kept thinking about all this, and particularly about a question that came up in the thread about identifying the OS from the RS, like in the example of the couple who’s doing bathroom reno. :wink:

I think romance novels are examples of stories where the story goal is the relationship, and then there’s going to be some action, mystery or other subplot that serves to add depth and nuance, and essentially to convince us that yes, the relationship is strong and is going to work.

Now, it’s very rare to have either character consciously think “I want to end up with this other person” (when they do, it’s usually the wrong one!). So the goal is not consciously pursued by anybody. But, in effect, the argument the author is trying to make is about the relationship… And that’s also why people read them. They want to see two people overcome obstacles to be together. Whether they find a treasure on the way or reconcile with their estranged father is just a means to an end.

But does that mean you need to find another relationship to act as the RS throughline? Maybe one that involves what we commonly think as the subplot?

Or can they be somehow superimposed? Like, the OS would be the objective process of forming a couple, and the RS would be the actual, personal and subjective content of that relationship? Not asking for a friend…

Oh, and thank you, Mr. Hull!

#104

You can treat each Concern as the goal for its throughline. And you can emphasize any throughline you want. So in a romance, I’d still treat the story goal as the OS goal, but might place more emphasis on the RS Concern than the OS Concern in order to play up the romance.

But yes, you can have the OS be about different relationships so that your Os goal is maybe about people being married while the RS concern finds a marriage growing stronger over spending time together.

1 Like
#105

One of the interesting things about the RST beats (to me) is that I see them as a requirement, prerequisite, consequence, or a benefit within the the OST.

Depending on the importance attributed to the RST in the story, I almost want to say that the OST beats could serve the same functions within the RST.

I don’t know if that is Dramatica theory.

I often see a shift in a relationship is necessary to facilitate a new development in the OST. And sometimes I see a shift in the overall development to facilitate a new dynamic in the RST.

I like Greimas Squares. I think it should be pretty easy to understand the RST, because we already know three things that it isn’t.

#106

I guess I should add, I think all of the beats, regardless of the throughline, follow Aristotle’s advice.

They all must be causally related to one another as being either necessary or probable.

And the distinction between necessary and probable is a matter of cause and effect and context.

In terms of connectivity, I think of a linear progression of cause and effect (Ouroboros) or connectivity through context (theme).

I’m pretty sure Dramatica and Aristotle say almost the same thing.

#107

Aristotle also knew things fell to the ground, but he didn’t come up with gravity.

1 Like
#108

You’re absolutely correct!

Poetics is descriptive rather than prescriptive. That was his intent when he wrote it. It’s the millions of writers and theorists after him that have converted those obseervations into prescriptive applications.

Dramatica is also descriptive (Isn’t that what theory does, describe a phenomenon?). The struggle is in the prescriptive side of the theory.

Prescriptive theory is often based on descriptive theory. I’d venture to say that Subtext is trying to fill this void. Great!

Isn’t that the whole point of your thread about the RST? Aren’t you trying to find something specifically prescriptive based on something descriptive and general?

I’m not taking anything away from the incredible minds who wrote this theory. I’d classify it as brilliant, but it obviously has been influenced by earlier efforts. If you are going to write a theory about story, then you are probably going to look at the material out there. Melanie has called Aristotle a genius, and rightly so. Takes one to know one I guess.

For example, look at a few D. Swain quotes (also drawing greatly from Aristotle):

“Once you’ve gained sufficient skill, however, you can make the disaster potential and not actual.”

Goals are of two kinds: goals of achievement, and goals of resistance. The first is explicit, as in our examples; the second, implicit.

“The future should always hinge on each scene’s outcome—that is, its disaster.”

“Similarly, you can reverse the disaster, as it were. Instead of ending your scene on a down-beat note… you play the other side of the record and set him up to ride for a fall.”

“What is a feeling?.. It’s a subjective awareness of the ebb and flow of inner tensions, expressing itself in a reaction.”

The power of the subconscious is an amazing thing. We get ideas from so many different places. We find pieces of what we need and fill in the blanks for what wasn’t available.

He didn’t. He came up with Poetics.

Further, you could say the creators of Dramatica didnt come up with anything besides Dramatica. Both theories describe a process (storytelling) that existed before them.

So, could you elaborate on your point?

#109

My point is just that I disagree that they are saying remotely the same thing, even if they both talk about stories.

I’m sure you know that Aristotle came up with Poetics by looking at plays that worked and then finding similarities and honing in on what he thought were best practices. This is not remotely how Dramatica was put together, and why it’s so markedly different from The Hero’s Journey or Save the Cat.

1 Like
#110

If you could explain what you mean by “prescriptive” then I can answer. It’s a loaded word (to me), so I don’t want to overreact.

#111

Science is to applied science as current RST theory is to “another tool.” When I say prescriptive, I mean a method of application.

I’d like to see someone write a story and completely eighty-six the RST. Just rip that inscrutable bastard out of there.

Maybe the question isn’t how do I use it, but what does it fix?

Personally, I think that it falls within the categories of preconditions, prerequisites, consequences, and benefits. Like a tumbler falling into place during a journey through cause and effect. But more than that. It also provides context, theme, and interspace.

Anyway, as you said, it is really easy to get theoretical. And that can be frustrating. You want techniques instead of theory.

#112

I think Nightmare before Christmas does this.

No, that is not the question.

Possibly. If anything (is this prescriptive?) my quest was to find access to the cause and effect chain that leads to said tumblr. If we can’t access it directly, what can we do to access it remotely? If our stories feel weak in their RST, how can we improve our RST?

1 Like
#113

I don’t know.

Here is some brainstorming (could be completely off base):

  • RST beats that are independent of other beats might create more intensity.

  • RST beats that are combined with other beats might create more connectiveness.

  • RST beats that shift gradually would feel more subtle (creating satisfaction by the audience from connecting the dots).

  • RST beats that shift suddenly would feel greater in terms of shock value.

  • RST beats that demonstrate a resistance to change, but succumb to change would feel satisfying or devastating depending on the judgement concerning that shift.

  • RST beats that seem to be hurdling towards a certain final beat, but subverts expectations at the very last moment might be satisfying or devastating depending on the judgement of that shift.

Am I allowed to do that? Am I allowed to ask what I want my audience to feel and then try to whammy them with the RST storyline?

And could someone explain what the subjective view of the subjective is? Wouldn’t that be the audiences’ view of the RST? Or would that be their view of the MC?

Lots of non-Dramatica stuff there I’m sure. I love the idea of syntax creating emotions in language. This kind of reminds me of that.

Probably a bunch of nonsense, but I like throwing stuff out there.

#114

These aren’t the kinds of things I’m going for in this thread. I don’t have any issue with them, and they’re good thoughts, but look at this one as an example:

How would you do that? It’s easy to imagine, but since everything is tied to everything else…

Are you allowed to ask yourself what you want your audience to feel? I think you are required to.

It’s all internal to the story itself, so it’s not your final two thoughts. As for the first question… I can’t explain it the way I would like to be able to.

#115

Maybe I should have said: RST beats that shift in an unexpected direction or with unexpected intensity (I can’t remember all the ideas that I wrote down, but maybe that wording is better).

This is about the whole build expectations and subverting them. We expect this intensity, direction, or reward(?). We get something else.

You are expecting a gradual shift (a look of protectiveness flashes across his face when he sees his handsy teammate talking to his girlfriend).

But, you get (he starts to follow his girlfriend into a bedroom, when two of his teammates shove past him and tell him to stay outside – and he does just that!).

There as a similar scene to this in a Netflix show. I can’t remember the name at the moment.

Also, could you use the justification process in the RST when dealing with two relationships that are incompatible with each other? Again… just running in whichever direction with my thoughts.

Everything is tied together, but you the ability to shift the order some. Doesn’t that give you a lot of options in regard to the function of the beat?

#116

I don’t want to be dismissive of what you’re saying, but you’re not really talking about what I was talking about, at least once we got into the bathroom reno.

Think about it this way. I am writing a story where I want two people to rekindle their love. So they obviously have to start “apart” and end “together”. What is the best way to do that so that their love feels impossibly lost at the beginning, and then like a sweeping epic at the end?

I have techniques to approach this kind of movement in every throughline except the RS.

2 Likes
#117

So what would be an example for how to handle this in another throughline?

#118

Misinformation? One was told the other was dead? A lot of movies use flashbacks.

#119

In certain ways, it comes back to agency. (This was not intentionally a callback to the first post.)

You can make a character want to act by building their backstory. You can heighten the tension by making their methodology insufficient. You can make an audience gasp by showing evaluation and purpose.

Less theoretical: stakes, conflict, obstacles…

Look at Star Wars. What makes this thrilling is the timing of the 4th Act, the. unlikelihood they’ll succeed, Luke’s brazenness (I can shoot womp rats…) and failure and then his risky change…

But do you feel nearly the thrill of that 4th Act when Obi Won sacrifices himself? Why or why not?

1 Like
#120

I once read that S curves are more powerful in the world of animation. I’ve always felt that this idea applies to the RST as well. A simple movement from apart to together would be far less emotionally engaging. A more complicated shape would be more so.

Part of my problem is that I already know the outcome in many movies. So…

#121

Who said anything about simple?

#122

Is this representative of your entire answer? That is, are stakes, conflict, and obstacles what create this movement in non RS throughlines?

Also, what you’re talking about, would you say it’s something found commonly in movies, or is this type of thing a rarity?