John Vorhaus and levels of Conflict

Again, I was listening to On the Page podcast. This time to episode 423 released October 16, 2015. Pilar Alessandra interviews John Vorhaus. In his book The Little Book of Sitcom he writes that there are 3 levels of conflict.

Global Conflict
Local Conflict
Inner Conflict

If I may, I assume:
Global Conflict = Overall Story Conflict
Local/Interpersonal Conflict = Relationship Story Conflict
Inner Conflict = Main Character Conflict

Vorhaus is only missing one piece. What do you think he would call the Influence Character conflict?

The External Conflict? I guess this points out for me my lack of insight with the obstacle/influence character throughline. I’ve always struggled with wrapping my head around the “YOU” perspective and separating it from the Relationship/subjective throughline/conflict.

External conflict might be good. The other perspective throughline. It’s a throughline that is not experienced by the MC but IMPACTS the MC in some way. But, where is the conflict experienced in this throughline?

The Relationship throughline is experienced by the MC and the Impact/Influence/Obstacle Character together. Do we observe it or experience it subjectively? (That’s the heart of the story-the one that pulls on our heartstrings) but the OTHER throughline is observed by the MC (or sometimes it is pushed in the MC’s face or blocks the MC’s path) but that OTHER conflict is the other way the MC could go but does not.
How (or maybe where) does the OTHER’s throughline/conflict affect the MC. Does it undermine his Unique Ability? Does it fix his critical flaw? Does it make the MC call into question his/her purpose/goal or inner/personal external conflict thus leading to change or rejecting it and staying steadfast?

This seems obvious to us but I wonder why non-Dramatica folk don’t see this yet, this fourth conflict, this fourth throughline.

Sounds similar to Robert McKee’s Inner Conflict (MC), Personal Conflict (RS), and Extra-Personal Conflict (OS).

And I don’t think that people are necessarily not seeing the IC Conflict, but rather that is mostly seen as a sort of subplot/supporting plot, giving the foil (which I think people would think of if you explained the IC to them) a plot of their own.

You see people talking about writing interesting villains (which may or may not be antagonists and impact characters) and they tend to talk about their struggles and doubts which don’t necessarily get as much screentime as the main character’s, or if they do, then we might actually root for the “bad guy” to win.

Splitting it the way Vorhaus has is a blended view. It doesn’t leave room for the IC.

Dramatica breaks it into Objective vs. Subjective and Internal vs. External.

  • Objective/External is the Overall Story (THEY) perspective
  • Subjective/Internal is the Main Character (I) perspective
  • Objective/Internal is the Influence Character (YOU) perspective**
  • Subjective/External is the MC/IC Relationship (WE) perspective**

** There are valid arguments for swapping the IC and RS perspective assignments. It’s all a matter of the context you choose, meaning how you DEFINE objective, subjective, internal, and external. This comes from the fact that we cannot truly be objective (or subjective) about all four perspectives at the same time – except within the artificial construct of a grand argument story.

However, breaking them out into these four combinations gets you away from the blended “middle view” that Vorhaus’ “Local Conflict” employs.

3 Likes

I think the IC storyline is about Ideas. OC is about events, MC about character, RS about setting and identity (social setting).

The IC throughline presents an idea applicable to everyone, but each character including the MC have different subjective reactions to that Idea. For example in a murder mystery the Idea causes only one character to murder or one or several be murdered. The Idea is personal but affects everyone in the story in different personal ways. The IC embodies, is representative or is the source of the Idea, and the MC either has the best or worst subjective response to it.

While that is an interesting way to look at the four throughlines, it is inaccurate. You could just as easily swap around those associations and it would be just as valid (and limited) a view of the throughlines.

In point of fact, EACH of those throughlines is ALL of those things (and more). You, as author, may CHOOSE to emphasize (and deemphasize) aspects of the throughlines as you relate them to your audience. Please do not mistake that the author’s choice to do so is indicative of the throughline’s purpose or nature – it is not.

1 Like