Everytime one looks at the moon, they become more determined…
That sentence is mixing pronouns. That is part of my issue. One is more determined. Perhaps the other is banging a hooker.
It reminds one of them of the other and their enemyship gets stronger…
Does it? We only know that the feelings of one of them. Maybe the other is moving on.
But we’re discussing what the RS is. That’s a different conversation from storyweaving.
Maybe I need to reread. If memory serves, I first responded to you to say that the RS wasn’t merely a series of interactions between MC and IC and didn’t require interactions. I gave an example of how the relationship can change without an interaction between MC and IC. I feel I’ve been extremely consistent in my message. I am not now saying that the RS is a series of interactions between MC and IC and I would still say my examples are in the RS.
I feel like I’m stalling out the conversation at this point rather than helping it progress, so I’ll back out for now.
Then it is just an arc. That’s all. Maybe it is an ebb and flow, but it probably takes care of itself without any tinkering.
I really want to find where Jim just said to forget about it.
Ahh, but we are discussing what the RS is in a thread about weaving.
True, this thread started out as a thread about weaving, but I’d argue it started to turn toward structure by your questions, and the answers made, in this post: How to Weave Throughlines Together to Create a Single Plot
If looking for a practical application, then this is usually the best way to start.
This actually gets at the heart of what I think a lot of people (including me) find difficult about the RS.
Actually, I asked something related about it just a few months ago:
And I’ll need to re-read everyone’s responses to see If I can articulate a better answer.
One thing to note: I think it’s particularly important in this case to use the Dramatica distinction between “character” and “player” when discussing this.
I forget, is character associated with function?
Jim’s response from that thread here. I think something like this is what all three of us are trying to get at.
I still have difficulty with this FYI.
Character is the perspective.
So the MC Character and the Protagonist (OS) Character may or may not exist in the same “Player”.
It was clear to me from Greg’s example that he meant both parties were seeing the posters (though at different times) and being reminded of the other. Same with the lovers, both were seeing the moon from time to time, and both becoming more determined to find each other again.
His example was not a story in itself – it was clear fact, from the Author’s point of view. That’s what makes the RS tricky sometimes – as Author you can make a statement like “RS Signpost 2: Memories – they both see the moon and it reminds them of that night on the beach”. And you know that’s what’s REALLY happening, regardless of what ends up in the book / screenplay / film.
But when you get to storyweaving and storytelling, what do you actually show? Maybe you’re writing a first-person, single POV novel, and can show only the MC seeing the moon and remembering. Is that enough to show the relationship? You have to decide. Maybe later in the story you’d have the IC’s friend tell the MC that she would often sit on the balcony looking at the moon.
It wasn’t clear to me. If you are talking about a note on my plot sheet, “both character’s resolve is strengthened to get back together by staring at the moon.” No problem. I see that.
In fact. I would say this is what caused my shift from just accepting that the RS is a shift from one state to another.
I guess I didn’t read it well enough.
Why do we go so far as to define a relationship as mentor/mentee (for example)? That gives the relationship a duality. Doesn’t it?
Thanks for the link to that discussion. It’s useful. But in the end, are we writing about gravity or are we writing about gravity between the Earth and the moon?
In that analogy, gravity is the Appreciation of the Relationship Story Throughline. Gravity between the Earth and the Moon is Storytelling.
We use terms like mentor/mentee because there usually aren’t words in the English language that accurately describe that kind of relationship. The duality is not part of the definition.
Strictly speaking, the Main Character and the Influence Character are not part of the Relationship Story Throughline (he said/she said encoding). The relationship is key—which is why it is always in flux. Either growing closer together or moving apart.
Linear thinkers like to think relationships are stable when they are static—they’re not. And when they do think this way, they usually get themselves into trouble. (I thought everything was fine!)
Although the relationship between the earth and the moon appears stable, it is constantly falling into the Earth—and imperceptibly moving away all at the same time.
The relationship expressed in the Relationship Story Throughline is the gravitational ebb and flow—not how the Moon feels about the Earth, or how the Earth thinks of the Moon.
What singleton name would you give such a relationship? There are only so many words in English that I can think of that consider a relationship as a separate thing: friendship, brotherhood, sisterhood, fraternity, rivalry, marriage, family, partnership, “enemyship”, “frenemyship”… (Notice how I had to start making them up?)
“Mentorship”? Maybe, but that sounds too close to me like “internship,” which is not a relationship, but a role. It’s why I’m really glad I know some of the Japanese suffixes, such as: -sama, -san, -kun, -chan, -sensei, -senpai, and a few others. The relationship becomes inherent in the speech. Moreover, there are the plain and polite forms of speech, among others. And, which one is allowable changes based on the relationship between speaker and listener. If the relationship changes, then the speech is likely to change. (Now, that’s overly simplified, but hopefully illustrates the point.)
Mentor/Mentee, Teacher/Student, and similar are about the only ways certain relationships can be said in English. If you can find a way to use a singular noun to describe such a relationship, then I suspect that would likely give more insight into the relationship.
I guess I just repeated what Jim said without seeing it first…
Though, I appreciate the expounding on the analogy with gravity.
Then the purpose of the RS is to say that things change? No more that that?
That fits with my initial assessment. It’s just about the arc (ebb and flow to avoid sounding linear).
But can’t the relationship change because the Earth and moon are changed by outside forces?
How does that relate to a passionate argument?
Isn’t closer and farther apart imprecise? I assume we choose this because it is easier to write about.
If that is the case, then they change whether or not we tinker with the RS. Right?
Do you happen to recall where you advocate disregarding the RS (for screenwriters)?
I definitely would NOT advocate that. In fact, that’s usually the biggest problem in most screenplays.
I think what you’re referring to is my recommendation for screenwriters to stick with the Signposts of the Relationship Story Throughline, and not break those down into smaller Storybeats.
For screenplays I would say MC, IC, and RS stick with just the Signposts. For the OS I would break those down.
This gives you: 3x4 = 12, 5x1(drivers), and 11 for the OS. Total of 28 Storybeats give or take. Most end up between 28-32.
As usual, Jim explains it best.
I did want to go back to this:
I may be misunderstanding what you mean here, so I’m going to draw out the Romeo and Juliet example (hoping I remember the plot correctly – at least I’m now spelling Juliet’s name right 
).
So when Romeo and Juliet first meet at the masquerade ball, neither of them knows who the other is. The audience, however, does know – looking at it from the outside (objectively) we can see immediately that this love-at-first-sight relationship is going to have major problems because of the respective “roles” (Concern of Being) of it’s players as heirs to the two feuding families. This gap between what the audience and the characters know presents us with classic dramatic irony–irony that is reinforced by the fact that they are literally “playing roles” at a masquerade ball.
Of course they soon do so learn. Then you get the famous speech:
Deny thy father and refuse thy name.
Or if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love
And I’ll no longer be a Capulet.
‘Tis but thy name that is my enemy:
Which captures both the RS Concern of Being (what’s in a name anyway) and RS Signpost 1 of Conceptualizing how a relationship is even possible (either you give up your name, or I’ll give up mine).
But you could easily imagine a story in which one or both of the main players is kept in the dark for a long time about who they really are and why this is a problem. But the Concern would still be Being.
Great! And keep in mind that everything in Dramatica is about the notes on your plot sheet. (Or the notes in your head, if you’re the type of writer who doesn’t write things like that down.) NOT the final story – at least, not directly.
When we do an analysis of a story, what we’re really doing is reverse-engineering those plot sheet notes from the final story. That’s why it’s so hard sometimes!
Now, to take it a step further, the power of the RS comes from being able to write on your plot sheet “the relationship’s resolve to get back together is strengthened.” This lets you see that it’s not required for both players to see the moon for this Memories signpost to work – one will do just fine. Now you can apply the story points from your storyform in the right place: the relationship itself.
This is also what lets you create something freaking amazing, like a powerful RS in which the two players never actually meet. (see The Lives of Others)
Or, less amazing but still cool, in a story I worked on the main conflict in the RS had to do with a secret only the IC player knew: the terrible thing he’d done to his previous apprentices. The MC, his newest apprentice, doesn’t find out until the end of the story – but that secret affects their relationship from the get-go.
For some reason, this reminded me of one of the more interesting relationships I’ve seen.
The relationship was that of two lovers destined to meet, but unaware of each other. The way it was executed within the story was rather interesting. They did not meet until the end of the story. But, the tension between whether they would or would not, especially with the characters completely unaware, gave a real interesting feel. It was very much a romance story.
I know people are going to ask where I saw this. Unfortunately, I have no clue. I just remember it; it was that powerful. (And, yes Armando has something similar in an example in his book, but that’s not what I’m refering to here.)