Distinguishing between IC and RS throughlines?

questions
#1

I’m sure this has been answered a thousand times, but I’m wondering if anyone can point to resources to distinguish between the IC throughline and the RS throughline. Because the IC character is there for the influence on the MC, most of the story points I’m coming up with feel like they could either be “relationship” points or “influence” points.

I also wonder how much of the IC throughline can or should be “offscreen?” After all, we’re following the MC through the story. But if the IC is offscreen too much, it’s hard to see how to fit in all the storypoints from his througline.

Or maybe I’m spending too much time under the hood and I need to just write the damn thing :slight_smile:

#2

I’ve struggled with this distinction in the past as well. I’m not sure if this is helpful, but here are a couple of things I’ve gleaned from many chats with @jhull over the past couple of years:

  1. Instead of thinking of the relationship as the interactions between two characters, think of the relationship as if it were a character itself. In other words, don’t think of it as “Jane and Karen are arguing about whether it’s better to be loyal or to stand up for yourself” and instead of “The relationship of two sisters is being pulled apart (or brought together) by the tension between loyalty versus standing up for oneself.” If that sounds too obscure, consider trying to work out the events in the relationship not in terms of dialogue but rather in terms of actions. I find when I force myself to structure those elements in terms of actions people take and how that action affects the relationship, then the distinction comes more naturally to me.
  2. Instead of thinking of the IC has a character like the MC, I find it easier to think of the IC as a series of actions or events (or even statements) that challenge the MC’s approach. Yes, the IC is ultimately a character themselves, but the IC throughline is about their effect on the MC. So even when the IC is not on screen at all, something they’ve done or said can be affecting the MC – forcing them to worry or reconsider their path.
  3. A third aspect to the IC that Jim and I once discussed was whether the IC had to themselves be the avatar of the opposing approach or simply its focal point. It’s probably easiest to illustrate this by example. When we think of a story in which the MC’s approach of openness (let’s say, being open to new immigrants) and thus the opposing viewpoint is preconception (e.g. the conviction that immigrants are dangerous), you would think that the IC must be someone espousing that point of view – arguing with the MC about the danger of open borders or whatever. But that would screw up a story in which the RS – the heart of the story – is between the MC and a new immigrant and the friendship between them. However the two aren’t incompatible: other people’s views and actions with regards to the IC in this case can be what creates the problems for the MC and challenges their approach. So in this case the IC is the focal point of this opposing approach, rather than being the person espousing it.

Not sure if that’s helpful, but these are the ways of looking at the IC and RS that help me to deal with them. Hopefully someone else can chime in if I’ve said something that violates the model.

11 Likes
IC Missing until Act 2 = Broken story form?
#3

Thanks so much … that’s extremely helpful though it might take some unpacking …

Okay thinking aloud: I have a point in my story where my two recently orphaned teenagers (sister and brother, MC and IC) are about to kicked out of their unstable and dangerous benefactor’s home. The storyform’s RS issue at this point is Worry, counterpoint Confidence. So the way I kind of have it now is that the MC is so worried about what will become of them that she is willing to sacrifice principles (and lie) to stay with the benefactor, whereas the IC is suggesting that she should have the confidence to stand up for truth and principle.

So you could say “the relationship between brother and sister is threatened by the tension between worry and confidence.” And actually, when I put it that way, it wouldn’t necessarily have to be about worry about leaving vs confidence about leaving, it could be where do you put your worry or confidence? (staying vs. leaving).

Meanwhile at around the same point, I have an IC story point of Understanding as Relates to Destiny. So here I’ve written "Mubin (the IC) says to her: “Don’t you understand? Everything has changed for us, no matter how much we want it to be the same.”

But couldn’t those two points just be rephrased and reversed? ie “their relationship is threatened by their different understanding of their destiny” and "Mubin says to her, ‘you have too much confidence in staying, but that’s what you should be worried about.’

Sorry if I’m being unclear. And actually, I like all of those points I just wrote – I could put them all in! – but I’m just afraid I’m missing something crucial in the distinction.

This is brilliant – I’ll need to post that to my wall or something to remember.

#4

IC worries about her getting into trouble for lying, and MC is confident that’s the way for their safety?

#5

More like (maybe) IC worries about what they will by giving up by lying to stay–freedom, integrity, honor–whereas the MC worries what will happen if they if they don’t lie (cop to something they didn’t do) and are kicked out and on the street (this is a dystopian setting where being on the street is terrible). But if I frame it that way I’m not sure where confidence comes in.

#6

Who has the confidence in the storyform?

1 Like
#7

Perhaps you could think of it like this. The IC’s throughline is all about how the IC affects the MC. It’s like a diode: the influence builds up in the IC and travels down to the MC. The RS, however, is about how the two affect each other. So you could think of that more like a… hydraulic press, maybe? Each character puts energy into the relationship, and then the relationship changes and radiates back out into the characters.

I just rewatched The Emperor’s New Groove the other day, which is one of my favorite Disney movies (massively underrated!). The MC is Emperor Kuzco, a self-absorbed young prince who is turned into a llama by his scheming vizier (vizieress?). The IC is Pacha, a noble village elder whose village Kuzco intends to destroy as soon as he regains his empire. The IC Throughline is all about honor and self-sacrifice, which Kuzco does slowly learn throughout the story. What helps him to understand this ideal, however, is their Relationship as it slowly goes from “reluctantly working together” to “best friends.” Pacha’s influence is what causes Kuzco to change, but the Relationship affects both of them. Pacha at first despises Kuzco and only decides to work with Kuzco with a promise forcing Kuzco to stop his project, but as their relationship progresses, he cheerfully helps Kuzco despite the latter’s promise to go through with his plans no matter what. He realizes the good in Kuzco, and he recognizes that the best way to bring that good out is to exemplify it through his own behavior.

Do you see the difference? Pacha’s influential behavior goes one way, from him to Kuzco. But their relationship affects Pacha just as much as it affects Kuzco. It breaks Kuzco’s selfish demeanor and softens Pacha’s reluctance. It doesn’t cause Pacha to fundamentally change his nature, but it does help him see through Kuzco’s bluster and re-evaluate his appraisal of Kuzco and his choice of tactics to make Kuzco reconsider his plans.

4 Likes
#8

The relationship has the confidence (as relates to memories).

#9

Okay, that’s useful, thanks. (I’ll have to watch that movie at some point I guess!). I’ll have to think some more about how it applies in my story.

#10

That’s kind of a cool writing tool…confidence grows if they are working things out…crumbles if they are not. Memories, flashback time! Thousands of options no doubt.

1 Like
I always confuse IC and M/I