How much is not enough?

writing
#1

In another thread @chuntley made an interesting point:

I was wondering how much could you leave out of the story encoding before the audience would start to pick up that things are amiss. If we leave out one of the throughlines, we know that it would definitely hurt the story we are telling as there would be a missing perspective. But further down the levels, is there a point where the audience could work out the thematics without it being explicitly explored.

e.g. As a crude example, I could draw 3 sides of a square and others could infer the 4th side.

I guess the question is, how much and at what level could you start to intentionally leave it to the audience to work out, knowing that they will “get it” and not experience the missing story element as a plot/logic hole?

#2

Good question. For a non Dramatica look that touches upon some Dramatica fundamentals, you might want to check out Lisa Cron’s Wired for Story: The Writer’s Guide to Using Brain Science to Hook Readers from the Very First Sentence.

The book makes an argument that the answer to your question is ultimately imperative to creating page-turning narratives.

1 Like
#3

I think the answer to your question is dependent on how you encode and weave your story and who your audience is. If you know your audience you may leave out a lot more than would work for more general audiences. For example, though I think there is a lack of a complete storyform in The Passion of the Christ, I believe knowledgable Christians filled in many more of the gaps than did those less familiar with the story. In fact, there is a whole historical context that provides insight into why the Romans and Jewish Pharisees behaved the way they did that was not explicated in the film. So some audience members filled in ALL the blanks (and then some), while others filled them in differently and were offended, and still others saw an incomplete story that did not make a lot of sense and seemed to be overly sadistic for no apparent reason.

Also, some audience members are willing to give more to a story – to do the author’s work for the author – than others.

That said, leaving stuff out on purpose has some real benefits as JBarker points out.

2 Likes
#4

Thanks for the responses. @JBarker - thanks for the link to the book. I think I will need to ask Santa for that one. Thanks @chuntley for your response. It always fascinates me how films resolve in the space between the screen and the audience.

#5

This year I was a reader for a prominent screenwriting competition. My absolute favorite script in the hundred that I evaluated made me ponder this very question. The script was extremely powerful and meaningful to me, and I noticed that it went on to place high in the competition.

The script employed a Hero (Protag + MC) who spent the course of the story planning and pursuing a horrible terrorist act. While there were character elements of hindering and deflection at play in the story, this Hero more or less proceeded along his path with little impedence. Specifically there was no clear Antagonist elements represented, nor was there an Impact Character.

Because of these important and seemingly missing elements in the narrative, I assumed per Dramatica that this was simply a Tale.

However, the story resonated deeply and left quite a strong and meaningful impression. In other words, it felt like a full meal – more than just a Tale, at least.

So it got me thinking along the lines of this thread’s question. This screenplay left some major structural and thematic pieces out, but still managed to work. Did I fill the missing pieces? Did I draw the “fourth side of the square”?

Because of the horrific terroristic pursuit of this Hero I was on the edge of my seat while reading, effectively screaming at the page for him to stop and for him to change. In other words, I as the reader was (trying to) act in the capacity of both an Antagonist and an Impact Character. Of course, I was entirely feckless in these roles because I was the audience, I was on the outside of the story, unable to impact, unable to prevent – so the Hero of course remained Steadfast (to my frustration) in his evil pursuit.

Not sure if this writer knew Dramatica or not, but he seemed to have strong command of his craft and must have known he was manipulating craft conventions.

#6

Thanks @aytee - that was fascinating reading. Definitely interesting what you suggest, that the audience could possibly fill in the 4th side - but obviously the “impact” of that throughline would not be felt by the MC. I would also wonder how well a film would travel, as different audience members would have different responses to what they see on screen. If the audience were 100% in agreement with the MC then you would lose the IC story completely.

I think it would be a dangerous road to leave out a whole throughline on the hope that the audience will fill it in for themselves. And to be honest, the second you lose the IC throughline - you would, by necessity, lose the MC/IC relationship throughline as well - so I guess there would be about 1/2 the story missing.

Thought provoking nevertheless

1 Like
#7

If you know your audience well, this is how it works. In other words, since you – as the screenplay’s audience – are predisposed against the MC/protagonist’s efforts, you already know (or can postulate) the arguments against the “hero’s journey.”

Imagine if you are in complete agreement with the MC and his actions. You may find it interesting but perhaps not compelling.

This is why many life and death stories (or genres) don’t suffer nearly as much as other stories when they don’t have a grand argument story at their centers. Providing the characters act within the expectations of each’s nature, the audience will forgive a lot in that context. Unless you have a lot of time to think about it or others to reflect on it, looking for “meaning” is a luxury when you’re busy trying to keep from dying.

1 Like