Examples of Sources of Conflicts

[jhull]

Looking for some feedback on this new initiative throughout Subtext:

Instead of just a block of text describing a Main Character’s rendezvous with a Storypoint (a Main Character Concern of Past here), I’m going to go through and present inequities to help writers understand how to write Appreciations as processes of conflict (Methods) and to get away from the idea that the characters are somewhat “aware” of these things.

My question is what is most helpful for you as you cycle through a bunch of examples:

1. as it is above, with the classic “People can/want/need/should blah blah blah in order to blah blah blah UNLESS …”
2. “Beating yourself up for something you did wrong lets other know how sorry you are, unless leaving the past behind opens you up to be loved again”
3. some other variation

Open to suggestions because this is really about deciding on what is most helpful.

The idea would be to add a copy/paste button there, so when you come across something you like, you tap the button, that inequity is added to your story, and then you can make any adjustments to it that you like.

[jassnip]

Ugh. That’s a really hard choice. The more structured format is more helpful in learning how to construct a conflict. The simpler format is better for recognizing how something might occur to you more naturally. Is there a voting option for both?

[jhull]

No!

That would be like asking to stop counting while simultaneously asking to recount…choose one!

Also this:

Better for the “We can…” or is it better that:

2. A relationship can figure out where it fits in order to feel that anticipation of excitement again, unless it shouldn’t imagine far-fetched scenarios in order not to be distracted by impossibilities

To me, it’s easier to read (and write) the “we …” but I get that some prefer the other way…

So this is all about what everyone else wants

[jassnip]

We vs Relationship

• We
• The Relationship

And

Structured vs Natual

• Structured
• Natural
• Some other variant (enter in a comment blow)

[Hunter]

First, I’ll say I put in my vote in the polls posted above.

My opinion:

I think the Structured version makes sense if you know something about Dramatica. (It’s an “advanced” version.) But, I also think it might be a bit cerebral, and confusing without that knowledge. I suspect the Natural version would make the intent clearer when taking a practical approach.

I’d argue for having the Natural version as a default and the Structured version hidden under the settings, like with other structure information. Barring that possibility, I’d say go for the Structured version anyway. (But, also keep in mind I’m one of the people that likes minutia.)

[Lakis]

I’m leaning slightly toward the natural version:

@jassnip

The simpler format is better for recognizing how something might occur to you more naturally.

The structured version is very useful for learning if you’re working out something specific on your own. But if you’re cycling through examples, I think it’s more useful to have a bunch that are more natural and intuitive to jump off from.

[jhull]

So maybe something like this?

[Lakis]

I think that one is great – a lot more user-friendly.

[mlucas]

@jhull

That would be like asking to stop counting while simultaneously asking to recount…choose one!

LOL

@jhull

To me, it’s easier to read (and write) the “we …” but I get that some prefer the other way…

Not only is we more natural, I think it’s important for people to learn to picture the relationship “speaking” when they see we in the context of RS. When you write “we” you are speaking from the perspective of the relationship.

For the other choice, I voted for the more natural option. I do think the structured approach is helpful when initially formulating the justifications. It would be nice to learn how to seamlessly go from structured to natural, actually!

[jhull]

Recorded a video, much easier than screencaps and blogging

Writing Sources of Conflict in Subtext