How to Weave Throughlines Together to Create a Single Plot

writing
#9

Thanks @Khodu.

Yes! I think that’s maybe a great way to think about this.

Yes, of course. So in my example, it wouldn’t work if I showed “running away” as the source of conflict for everyone rather than for just the RS, even though “running away” was “set up” by the previous events where the source of conflict was in the OS (Conceptualizing).

So my first thought upon reading this was “yes, of course.” But then I thought, how can that be possible – if you generate an event by using Conceptualizing as the source conflict, then isn’t that event by definition “in” whatever throughline Conceptualizing is in?

But maybe the answer still comes back to perspective – this is how you get multi-appreciation moments, where a problem that appears to spring from a Misunderstanding from the perspective of the (RS) is seen as coming from incorrect ideas (Conceiving) when looked at from a broader lens (OS).

4 Likes
#10

@Lakis

I think the most important thing to ask yourself after a scene or beat is:

  • What changed?
  • Who is affected by that change?
  • How will that change affect them?
  • Why does that change hold potential for conflict?
  • When will the change be realized in other throughlines?

Here are a few of my thoughts:

Scenes:

  • a scene has a specific POV

  • a scene creates changes in one of the four classes

  • change creates the potential for conflict

Beats:

  • a beat happens within a specific POV

  • a beat creates change in one of the four classes

  • change creates the potential for conflict

I think that bleed over from all throughlines is unavoidable. Like ripple out conflictanomics. None of the throughlines exist in a vacuum. They exist within a greater whole. I suspect consequences tie in with all of this as well.

I’d say that potential is reset or altered at anytime during a scene when a beat occurs. And, of course, it is changed at the conclusion of the scene. *Maybe any part of PRCO can be altered?

For example, If an IC realizes that the nature of his relationship (RS) with the MC has changed mid-scene (e.g., he finds a business card from an FBI agent – which could have been an earlier beat), he could choose to betray the MC. If the IC is oblivious to the change – everything might keep going along as normal albeit with reader tension.

I’ve become really interested in the RS as of late. While I understand that it is easiest to deal with the RS by placing it within an arc of change and labeling it something at the beginning (friends) and the end (lovers), I feel like there’s more there.

If that is all that an RS can be, then it will just be the result of the MC and IC interacting. We are going to make a judgement about the nature of the relationships during these interactions. The writer doesn’t really need to do anything.

However, I think that it is more than just an arc. I’ve kind of come to the conclusion that if you plugged any of the four throughlines into the MC spot of the Dramatica software (making your RS the MC), and you created a narrative argument – then you can create a robust and superior RS throughline by the additional information that you would get from it.

In fact, all throughlines could benefit from this as they are all MC in a different story. Think Guildenstern and Rosencrantz are Dead. I think that it will be illuminating, and I plan on exploring it in the future.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

6 Likes
#11

Definitely. And you can see that the analyses.

Hm, that sounds like an interesting experiment.

@museful do you use the PSR to generate scenes? My theory is that if you generate your storybeats using the “source-of-conflict to source-of-conflict” approach you automatically deal with those questions (it’s kind of built in). But I haven’t done it top-to-bottom for an entire story from scratch yet.

4 Likes
#12

That is some really cool insight! Seeing the RS through the lens of an “arc” makes a lot of sense to me, since the RS seems to be the most holistic of the four throughlines, and would therefore be understood best in terms of ebb and flow. It also reminds me of the four questions that @jhull advises authors to answer in defining the RS, especially the one about whether the relationship is growing or dissolving (link: https://narrativefirst.com/blog/2016/05/focusing-in-on-the-relationship-throughline).

Please do! I can’t wait to hear what you find out. :grinning:

2 Likes
#13

I think I see what Mike is saying, but i would say an event is ‘in’ a throughline based on it being an attempt to solve a problem from a given perspective, and that it could be in multiple throughlines as you describe. I’m Not necessarily disagreeing with Mike, there. Just, uh, seeing it from a different perspective, I guess.

I don’t think the relationship is just the interactions between characters. It’s the processes between them. Say you have two lovers parted somehow. But every time one looks at the moon and remembers that night when x happened, they become more determined to get back to the other. Or two enemies and every time one sees a campaign poster it reminds one of them of the other and their enemyship gets stronger. There’s no interactions between them, but there are processes and growth. And those are how I see the RS.

6 Likes
#14

[quote=“Greg, post:13, topic:2318”]
I don’t think the relationship is just the interactions between characters. It’s the processes between them. Say you have two lovers parted somehow. But every time one looks at the moon and remembers that night when x happened, they become more determined to get back to the other.[/quote]

A relationship for sure, but is it the RST? Is the lover influencing and challenging the modus operandi of the MC? The scenario that you described could very well be consequence (stakes) as opposed to RST.

Also, I’d be wary to label this as memory as opposed to the past.

Dramatica dictionary (Memory):

The Past is an objective look at what has happened. In contrast, Memories are a subjective look at what has happened.

It isn’t really a lack of interaction; but rather, a question of when the interaction in question occurred. If it is a memory, then it would be subjective and not part of the RST(technically).

Greg:

Or two enemies and every time one sees a campaign poster it reminds one of them of the other and their enemyship gets stronger. There’s no interactions between them, but there are processes and growth.

Once again, this could be the IC, but this example doesn’t necessarily have to be. Does this interaction by proxy (the poster) change or challenge how the MC goes about solving the problem in question. Is this the Antagonist or the IC? Or both? Or neither?

Working in Subtext, I have already decided that I want to place additional beats for all the relationships within my story; however, they aren’t really RST material. As writers, we can do whatever we want.

I guess what I really wonder is… can the RS do something that any ordinary relationship couldn’t do? The RS could allow you to make a contrast or comparison of two people (the MC and IC) that is independent of the OS cast list. If that is so, it offers three unique perspectives within that scope: MC, IC, and objective. Unfortunately, I always see the word objective bandied about along with passionate (oddly). Perhaps it is intentional, because the throughline is a dichotomy (MC; IC) as well as a objective thing (RS)

I am slowly reconciling and plugging in aspects of Dramatica to my plotting process. I haven’t conquered the PSR as of yet.

1 Like
#15

No. There’s no influencing meant to be there. I just tossed out a quick example that maybe could have been expounded upon, but the idea was supposed to be that one character has a low resolve to return to the other because the relationship isn’t strong, but every time they look at the moon that relationship between them pulls a little tighter-like gravity getting stronger-and has the one character wanting to get back to the other.

I wouldn’t label it anything yet. Not enough context.

Doesn’t have anything to do with the interaction. Change ‘looks at the moon and remembers the time x happened’ to ‘looks at the moon and is reminded of x’s face’. It’s not the ineraction that happened in the past making the relationship tug at them in the present, it’s looking at the moon that does it.

5 Likes
#16

So my understanding of this (someone will hopefully correct me if I’m wrong), is that all of the relationships addressed outside of the RS happen in the context of the Overall Story. Using the assigned character elements, you can see how each player may come into conflict with its dynamic pair, or be amplified or contrasted with companion or dependent pairs. (Again, Armando has a great chapter the explains how to do this in depth, using more “ordinary” language). It’s possible though that this is planning overkill and better left to intuition, depending on the writer.

The RS will do something other relationships don’t do by virtue of its position in the storyform. So in an OS Physics/Doing story, all of the OS character relationships happen in the context of a Goal of Doing, while the RS happens in the context of Psychology/Being.

For example, various takes on everyone fighting each other in Romeo and Juliet and “Doing” all kinds of other things describes Mercutio/Romeo, Mercutio/Tybalt, Juliet and her parents, Romeo and the priest (“do not be hasty!”) etc.

But the RS of Romeo and Juliet is all about Psychology/Being – why do we have to play this role of Montague and Capulet? Does a rose by any other name … (etc.) I don’t remember any other relationship in the story that takes that perspective – everyone else is just concerned with fighting each other (or stopping the fighting, etc.).

2 Likes
#17

My point is – if it is subjective, then it has nothing to do with the RST (unless these references to the RST being objective are clarified to include multiple scopes – which might be how I decide to use the RST regardless of how the theory is written – I personally think that it is too limiting).

Also, if the other character in question isn’t the IC, then it has nothing to do with the RST according to the definition that I understand.

Also, from the Dramatica dictionary (Process):

A Process is a series of interactions that create results.

I didn’t really understand what you mean by processes and growth.

Growth is about steadfast or change. It is about changing in a certain way to resolve the inequity? How does a relationship do this? This is one of the problem areas for me. If we say that the two people involved have a common goal… but we are kind of bleeding over into the MC and IC now. I can see concern/goal for all three throughlines. I can’t see it for the RST unless there are two unnamed functions that exist in the RST (antagonist, protagonist, sidekick, logic, etc.).

What’s the point of the RST? How is the RST tied to the passionate argument of the story if any old relationship will do?

#18

That makes sense to me. It allows us to utilize the fourth class. Other than that, I don’t quite see the point. Perhaps that is enough.

#19

I agree with Greg here. Once you have a handle on what the relationship is, it’s actually pretty simple – anything in the story that affects that relationship is part of the RS.

“Affects the relationship” can be bringing them closer together or farther apart, creating tension in the relationship, creating conflict, causing them to see the relationship differently, etc.

4 Likes
#20

I think that’s the entire point! It’s using all the classes that makes the story feel full (i.e. “complete”). But also the relationship between the classes that for some weird reason just seems to work.

1 Like
#21

When I initially wrote my response, I was in agreement. However, as I wrote it, I saw how most of those concepts easily fall within the MC or IC throughlines.

In short, I don’t know. Nothing exists in a vacuum and bleed over from the OST, MCT, and ICT is expected.

There are certain things that I think would be helpful.

  • steadfast or change (Together forever! vs Nothing lasts forever!)
  • critical flaw and a unique ability (We always argue! vs We make people feel good!)
  • problem (People expect us to be perfect!)
  • consequences, costs, and dividends (sad, no freedom, great sex)

I will say, it is interesting that the RS is defined as an objective view when one component of it is subjective (MC) and the other is objective (IC). In my opinion, it can’t quite be objective. It is Yin and Yang.

As the audience, we feel it (MC), see someone feel it (IC), and understand it (RS).

But the way it is written in multiple articles, it isn’t supposed to be subjective. I’ll probably end up using it in a subjective manner though.

I just quoted my own unpublished response. Sigh. :grimacing:

1 Like
#22

Why are you saying the RS is defined as an objective view? I haven’t seen that anywhere. To me, it’s the most subjective of the four throughlines, and I think it was originally called the “SS” (Subjective Story).

2 Likes
#23

Everything affects the relationship. The chaotic OS will affect the RS (think Speed). The personal goal of the IC will affect the RS. The Goal of the MC will affect the RS. Like I said, lots of bleed over.

But once again, other than forcing it to be in a particular class, not sure entirely what the point is. Plenty of relationships in a story.

2 Likes
#24

Warning, this explanation of Subjective and the RS is likely to be clumsier than what I’ve said above! But here’s how I understand it. The whole storyform is itself an objective look at conflict in the story. So when a storyform places the RS in Psychology, it’s saying that the relationship objectively is dealing with issues of Psychology.

But the RS is also the ‘subjective view of subjectivity’ not as part of the storyform, but as a perspective. While the OS is about the conflict everyone has objectively(what are THEY going through), the RS, as a perspective (what are WE going through) is, by its nature a more subjective view of the problem because it’s not a distant outside view but a view from within the relationship, of that makes sense. So the RS is objective as part of the storyform, but subjective as a perspective on a problem.

Sorry, ignore processes and growth and replace with dynamics. I can explain that further later today, maybe, if you would like.

2 Likes
#25

Does this explanation form the A Beautiful Mind thread make sense on how a relationship in the RS is different from one in the OS?

3 Likes
#26

Well if it is subjective and objective and there is a duality, then I understand it perfectly.

But, blurbs like this throw me off of my initial instincts:

http://dramatica.com/dictionary/relationship-story-throughline

But, I love the idea of a complex duality that exists within the RS. That’s what my instincts tell me, but what I see written kind of squashes my instincts.

#27

I think that relationships shouldn’t be limited to a particular class. That might be restrictive or boring. I can accept that they heavily favor a class or are defined largely by it.

In the end, I guess I can accept that the RS serves purely as a mechanism to force you into a particular class.

#28

I find the “I, You, They, We” language to be a little more useful

i.e.

I = MC
You = IC
They = OS
We = RS

Here’s how I understand that passage:

The RS is experienced as the passionate heart of the story. But if you try to figure that out by asking Romeo and Juliette how they feel about their relationship, you might get the wrong answer (from an “objective” Dramatica perspective). Romeo and Juliette may or may not have any idea that the real source of their relationship trouble comes from the roles they are forced to play in their families. But if the author does his job, the audience will get it.

I think this get back to the idea that these aren’t really people but parts of the storymind. You could encode different relationships (different “players”) in the RS, but I have a feeling that’s where it could get repetitive or confusing because they would all be saying/exploring the same thing.

3 Likes