Does changing Signpost Order in Story Weaving affect meaning?

writing
#1

I am writing a murder mystery for the stage. In my understanding of the theory, the Signpost Order as presented by the software follows the chronology of the story world, but is not necessarily the order in which the events are presented to the audience.

Because I want to intentionally hide some of the events from my audience until the investigation reveals them, I am planning to reorder the signposts in the storyweaving phase.

My question is: does doing so affect the story meaning?

My understanding is that it does not, but then I heard an older podcast episode of @jhull where Jim talks about the order of the arrival of the ghosts in A Christmas Carol, and how the software arranges them Future, Present, Past, and how that makes a stronger argument. In the traditional story, of course, they come Past, Present ,Future…but isn’t that simply how they are presented, i.e. just story weaving?

Any help clarifying how to change signpost order without changing meaning would be helpful.

#2

I remember that podcast, and here’s my understanding of what was going on.

In A Christmas Carol, the ghosts appear to Scrooge in the order of Marley (Progress), Past, Present, and Future, and actually represent those concerns of influence over Scrooge. For that story, it is not only a matter of presentation, but the chronological order of events and points made within the story. Changing the order of appearance of the ghosts to Scrooge (what Jim was doing*) is a structural change, not one of weaving.

However, if the events of the story are maintained in exactly the same chronological order, but only presented differently, then it would be a change in story weaving. That is, keep the order of the appearances of the ghosts to Scrooge as in the original (Marley, Past, Present, and Future). However, show us, as audience, Scrooge’s experience with Future before, say, his experience with Marley. Since Scrooge still sees the ghosts in the same order as in the original, their influence on him remains the same, as does the structure.

The story maintains the same internal order (structure), but the presentation (weaving) is given out of order.

*I think Jim did this because the software doesn’t allow an IC Signpost order of Progress, Past, Present, Future. Thus, the experiment was quite intentionally about changing the structure of the story, the actual, internal chronology of the appearances of the ghosts.

P.S. There is a movie constantly referred to on here that severely messes with the story weaving, but I don’t remember the title. I think it was either Momento or Pulp Fiction, but don’t quote me on that.

#3

No and yes. During the audience’s experience of the story, the meaning appears to be one thing based on the storyweaving. The plot reveals the true meaning of the storyform and the audience only has all the pieces AFTER experiencing the entirety of the story, which may change the meaning of the story for the audience if the plot proceeds in a different order than the order in which the storyweaving presents it.

#4

@Hunter, thanks! I thinks that makes sense: if we see the ghosts in the play comes as Progress, Past, Present, Future, but it is indicated to the audience that the Future ghost was a flashback to Scrooge’s first ghost, and the Past ghost was a flash-“forward” to his last ghost (in Scrooge’s timeline), then the story meaning would be unchanged.

Do I have that right?

#5

So, first things first. Always listen to @chuntley, when he gives his answers.
He helped create the theory; I’m only learning.

Second, based on your reply, I think you might have it backwards, but I’m not sure.
Let me see if I understand your description, and work from that.

This is the order in which the audience actually sees the ghosts, but with the flashes, the actual, internal, chronological appearance of the ghosts to Scrooge, in your version would be one of the following two: Future, Progress, Present, Past or Future, Present, Progress, Past. Based on this, the influence they impart on Scrooge is now a different order, and thus, a different structure.

Using your wording, it’s more like this:

The audience sees Scrooge’s experiences as Future, Progress, Present, Past. However, Future (the first scene in the play) is actually a flash-forward to the final ghost, and Past (the final scene in the play) is actually a flash-back to the second ghost. This would prevent changing the structure because of the ghosts still affect Scrooge in the original order of Progress, Past, Present, Future. It does, however, change the weaving, because the audience experiences time out of order.

(And, now I know what my first short stories on a new blog I’m going to create are going to be. Thank you.)

#6

That is correct.

If you think of the order of the ghosts as presented in A Christmas Carol (Progress, Past, Present, Future), placing Progress in Signpost 4 (storyform-wise) makes a stronger argument because Scrooge would have context to understand where his own spiritual encumbrance is (chain-wise), and the argument to change his heartless ways would fall on more fertile ground. Even if it may not change his future, it might lighten his load once he moves on.

1 Like