I have a question that is a bit more general. Let’s say you have an objective story domain of situation, and everybody is some way or another struggling with a particular situation. What if it becomes clear fairly early on (to both audience and characters) that the situation is permanent, no matter what the characters try? Is “dealing with the situation” still part of this story or would another story have to start, or is everything before this revelation “backstory” for the rest?
If a character has lost an arm, but the first part of the story is dedicated to raising money to buy a prosthesis (and getting by without an arm), and then the prosthesis factory burns down… that could all be part of the same story.
To expand on @MWollaeger 's points … I think that just because the situation becomes permanent it doesn’t mean the story is automatically over (nor does it mean it must end in Failure). Since finding a way to deal with the situation could be a perfectly valid way of solving the problem.
Like say your story is about crash-landing on some far-flung planet with no hope for rescue, and the first part of the story deals with trying to fix the ship so they can get off the planet. But then the ship blows up and there’s no way off anymore. As much as that sucks, maybe some characters have started to find things they enjoy about life on this planet, and by the end of the story they figure out how to live there and are able to secure a Future for themselves and their offspring…
So you can go from “we’re stuck in this bad situation” to “this situation ain’t so bad after all”, and then the Situation is no longer a source of conflict.
By the way, in my example, it’s always “permanent.” I think part of the aspect of a Situation is that it is permanent – at least for the duration of the story.
It just seems to me like switching from “getting out of this situation” to “accepting this situation” or “making the best out of this situation” isn’t just changing approaches, but changing what problems we’re trying to solve.
I suppose it depends on how it’s set up? If I spend all of the first act talking about how getting off this remote planet is the goal and what the options and consequences are, and so on, would the explosion of the ship feel more like a story outcome with everything else being its consequence, than if I simply described “getting off this planet” as the most viable and obvious option in trying to “secure a future for themselves and their offspring”?
Getting out of this situation – the Future
Accepting this situation – the Past or the Present
Making the Best out of this Situation - Progress (or How Things are Changing)
You need to look at in the context of the entire story-beginning, middle, and end. And how it relates to the Relationship Story, the Main Character, and Influence Character Throughlines.
Can’t say for sure whether spending the first Act talking about getting off a remote planet and then the ship explodes preventing that from ever happening – whether or not that indicates an entire situation until we know exactly how it all ends and what it is you’re trying to say with your story.
The source of the problem in your example is “being on this planet.” That doesn’t seem to be changing. When the ship explodes, the context of being on the planet changes, but the source is still the same.
BTW, the changing of context is one way that I look at what the various acts are.
- How does being stuck on this planet look, considering that I have a broken ship I can almost fix?
[boom] - How does being stuck on this planet look, considering that my ship is no longer an option?
[roar] - How does being stuck on this planet look, now that nightfall has brought out the carnivorous ice weasels?
[yum] - How does being stuck on this planet look, now that I know I can eat ice weasels and won’t starve to death any time soon?
[arrival of rescue ship] - How does being stuck on this planet look, now that I know there was a revolution back home and I am going to be enslaved in order to work off the cost of rescuing me?
etc…
2 Likes
Awesome. It’s almost as if you have intimate knowledge of a classic narrative with an Overall Story Throughline in Situation 
1 Like
You had me at carnivorous ice weasels. I want to watch this movie now! 
I think I understand the idea of shifting contexts…
I feel like I have to clarify something, though. In Lord of the Flies or The Martian the characters believe/hope that at some point they will be rescued. In my example, the broken ship was truly the only option of getting off the planet. There are no other ships in the universe. The characters will forever be stuck on the planet and they know that. There is no longer any solution to the problem of “being on this planet.” (Unless you count death, which, in this case, I would not).
Even if I were to make this story about “making the best out of this situation,” and the characters managed to do just that, it would still be a bit strange to call it a “Success” since they’re still stuck on that planet.
I think there could be plenty of other ways to successfully deal with that seemingly-bad situation, depending on the story you want to tell. (Like learning to enjoy the taste of ice weasels.) The characters don’t have to know the Goal in the first Act. What if the planet turns out to be a better place to live than wherever they came from? Couldn’t that be a Success?
On the other hand, if we make the example “this planet sucks no matter what, and there’s no hope of rescue, so when their ship explodes, they’re doomed” – you’re right that sure sounds like Failure is going to be the Outcome. But that’s because of the particular story being told. “This planet sucks no matter what and there’s no hope of rescue” are the author’s ideas for the story, and definitely feed into the Outcome.
Hey Bob,
We’ve been talking a lot about the ship crashing on the planet example but that was actually something I brought up. I went back and re-read your original post (the one Jim split off from the other thread). Are you thinking of a specific story idea where
[quote=“bobRaskoph, post:1, topic:741”]
it becomes clear fairly early on (to both audience and characters) that the situation is permanent, no matter what the characters try?
[/quote]
And when you say permanent, I’m starting to get the sense you mean like, not worth exploring any more in the story. I wonder if the idea you’re thinking of actually doesn’t have an Overall Story in Situation. If there’s nothing left to resolve regarding the situation, then it’s not a source of conflict anymore, and either the story is over (as you suggested), or the OS is actually in another domain.
Or maybe I’m just reading way too much into your question … 
I also mentioned that my question was more general. It applied to a few ideas I had before, and I had just decided to not engage with it until I had a better understanding of the theory. But then I simply wondered what other people thought, so here we are. Your “remote planet” idea was simply a good example to use.
I can imagine this scenario with a few other premises:
- Something like Children of Men: A bunch of people (less than 20) are the last humans on Earth; they try to reproduce in the first act, but it doesn’t work and they find out that they’re infertile. The source of conflict would still come from them being the last humans on Earth.
- Something like Freaky Friday or Big: The switch/transformation happens and the characters try to figure out a way to switch/transform back in the first act, but realize that it’s impossible. The source of conflict would still come from them being in the wrong body/ies.
- Finding out that everyone involved got an incurable (but not necessarily lethal) physical disease.
In my examples, the new planet would definitely not turn out to be better place to live than wherever they came from (for most of the characters at least; some might enjoy it more). For the majority, this new situation is clearly a step down, even if they make the best of it. I wouldn’t go so far as to say, “this planet sucks no matter what” or anything like that, but if the old situation was at least a 7/10, then the new situation will never reach higher than 6/10.
If they want to get off the planet and don’t, then yes, it’s a Failure. But it can still be Failure/Good, and that “Good” doesn’t have to apply solely to the MC. It can apply to everyone. Also, think about Dividends. You can make a failure story feel pretty “up” if that is what you, as the author, want to do.
If the characters, instead, have a Goal of Survival, and their first effort – their first Option in the Optionlock – is to get off the planet on the ship fails, this still leaves the story open for a Success ending. It really depends on how you set the Goal up.
Just to clarify a point about LOTF, only Ralph and Piggy think about getting off the island. As early as chapter three, Jack has to struggle to remember what “rescue” means. Also, it’s Success/Bad just to drive home the idea that getting what one wants doesn’t necessarily lead to a happy ending.
I don’t have a big enough mental database to draw on, but I can’t think of a story where the Outcome is determined really early. I feel like it must come after the Climax, or what’s the point of the Climax? Even if the characters have a Goal (get off the planet) and then change the Goal (make the best of this)… you’re not necessarily in need of a new story or storyform. Think of it again as an Option that doesn’t work out. The author probably knows the OS Goal better than the characters in the story in this case.
3 Likes
I think this is similar to what I suggested in this post. I will have to sleep on all of this, but I think I get it.
Thank you all for trying to answer my questions.
You certainly were circling the same idea, but there is a relevant difference. You were speaking of “getting off the planet” like it was a Goal, so assumed you meant the OS Goal. Thinking of the “at the moment” Goal of the characters as Options changes the perspective, and will hopefully open the story up without demanding a new storyform.
1 Like