Question about Building Greater Sources of Conflict

questions
#12

It might help to know which conventional storytelling/watching/reading genre you are going after, for the examples. From real life what just popped into my head was when I was working as a para-educator in special education, which ranged from physically handicapped to mental simplicity to very advanced intellect for age. Something that ran the gauntlet was one focused on watching out for the kids, while at the same time letting them interact with others (adults and kids) on their own. Being only a silent physical assist if needed, but not also a participant, was a factor in some of the assignments, even. The kids being allowed to make mistakes and learn from them by interacting with other kids and teachers was a whole focus.

But it might help “no idea how to illustrate” head scratching if known what kind (genre) of story you were going after. (mystery, romance, action, comedy, sci-fi, etc.)

1 Like
#13

I was actually just editing my post – I think your example works, I maybe just needed more detail to visualize it. Like maybe Alice is learning to drive, and Alice’s sister keeps telling her what to do from the back seat, and Alice explodes, saying “you have to let me learn from my mistakes!” so the sister doesn’t say anything as Alice runs the red light and causes an accident.

1 Like
#14

I suppose it’s comedy.

But using that RL example, say it’s part of the OS and the teacher is the protagonist. How would that play out in an illustration? Does the teacher pick a side? How is the opposite side conveyed?

Would it be something like “The teacher could either help Alice socialize (tell her what to do) or let Alice socialize on her own in order to learn from her own mistakes, so the teacher decides to let Alice socialize on her own.”?

#15

I think it’s best to stick with the correspondences. It’s probably okay to allow exceptions from time to time if they feel right to you. But I’ve found that the correspondence brings about more creative thinking, and makes me use a wider range of justifications.

Regarding your other questions, it may help to take a step back first and examine what we’re doing with this process. First you create a justification that matters to you and that you can represent through one or more characters in your story. That’s the first half. Then you write UNLESS and challenge that justification with another justification. (EDIT: same thing as what @Lakis said about true dilemma or “best bad choice”)

That’s it, really. Either side can be represented by any character or characters – no rules there. I’ve found it more common to use the same character on either side, simply because it’s easiest to challenge them that way. I’ve also used groups of characters (helps to write “we”).

This is where the correspondences help you see the true motivation for the justification. You could write something like:

Protagonist wants to intercede for Alice in order to be thought of as helpful UNLESS Protagonist shouldn’t intercede for Alice because Protagonist loves Alice like a daughter (and wants to let her learn from her own mistakes)

2 Likes
#16

But that leads to even more questions that clutter up my thinking and leave me unable to do anything. Like how do you know when to say “People need” vs “People want” etc. When is the tipping point to trusting feelings over correspondences? How do you take the Knowledge/Thought/Ability/Desire part and make something out of it (from this article: https://narrativefirst.com/articles/constructing-sources-of-conflict-for-your-story what does “be fulfilled” have to do with Ability, which corresponds to Need?)

1 Like
#17

If the correspondences don’t work for you, don’t worry about using them. But I think you should try to make the second part a knowledge, thought, ability, or desire.

Would it help to have more examples? I have a lot I could take from my current revision – scene level PRCO justifications. They’re not perfect, but they did help me. (Not sure if you saw this post, that was one example.)

Hmm, I thought “be fulfilled” represented Desire. Maybe i was wrong on that, as you’re right, Jim’s example in the article has it going with Need.

1 Like
#18

I just looked at the post, but I’ve never been able to understand PRCO and I don’t know how circuits work so the metaphor is lost on me. I can get the P and the O sort of (shouldn’t O be another conflict? I thought all story points were supposed to be conflicts, not fractions of a conflict), but C and R usually get lumped together at the PSR level and I just think of them as the main conflict stuff in the middle. In that thread, how would the justifications be turned into illustrations or does that not happen at scene level?

More examples would help. I’m struggling with Destiny and Fate. Like for Fate, I guess I could say “People need good luck in order to be able to succeed at attaining their desires UNLESS people don’t want good luck in order to be thought of as succeeding by their own merits.” But that 2nd justification doesn’t seem like a challenge to the first other than one’s about a positive aspect of good luck and the other about a negative aspect.

Do the characters ever reach that Zen item when doing these justifications at the PSR level?

Does it matter whether the storyform is Holistic or Linear?

#19

I could see parents learning their kids are growing up by witnessing the teacher do that. They hold back from rushing in (because the teacher doesn’t know what she’s doing … the kids need help!) and witness kids’ dealing with it. Or visa versa teacher learning from parents.

But for comedy, I’d pick a legal field example. Night Court and Benched come to mind. I’ll read through all this, again, tomorrow and see if you still want more feedback. Bedtime now.

#20

It’s worked for me to just try out a few and then revise until they fit. I think the key is to find one that resonates with you.

I know how you feel–I always had the same problem. The Subtext instant scene has helped. But the main thing that’s helping me is to try to put it together as a little story, with cause and effect. § leads to ® which is made worse by ©, leading to (O) (which sets up the next scene).

I’ve always had blind spots on these and I still struggle with them. For the me the best way is to use one of the gists and try to forget about the definitions. But anyway I think:

is actually great. You just need to think of how to illustrate it in your story.

Alice has been wanting a promotion, but was just passed over for it by someone less qualified. She is depressed, and wishes evil on the person who was promoted–until she gets to work and hears that at the last minute the person couldn’t take the position for some reason (another accident?). Desperate, the boss calls Alice into the office. It’s her chance! But as she walks down the hallway she can feel her coworkers’ skeptical, resentful eyes on her. This promotion is her dream, but she doesn’t want to get it like this! She goes in, is offered the position–and says no.

2 Likes
#21

This is great. I think of it a little differently – § is the potential for conflict that exists at the start of the scene. ® is something that amplifies and/or reduces that potential, but most importantly, kicks it off and gets it flowing. This leads to © which is the back-and-forth flow of conflict, which leads to (O) which is the change in the story / world that provides potential for later scene(s). But yours is probably easier and just as useful @Lakis!

What I really like is the correlation to physics, like § = potential energy. Like say someone is standing on the edge of a cliff – they have piles of gravitational potential energy, but it doesn’t matter – nothing happens – unless you bring something else into it that makes things worse or better. An earthquake, or someone pushes them (worse). Or someone gives them a base jumping parachute, or someone convinces them to try out their superpowers (better).

@SharkCat if you’re not comfortable using PRCO then just think of it as four steps or beats. P leads to R leads to C leads to O.

This is interesting. I never used to see O as part of the conflict – it’s the resolution of the conflict, how things end up. For example, an Outcome of Trust: “Angie decides to trust the serial killer who’s just offered her a ride.” However, now that I’ve been using Justifications I can see the conflict that’s built into the Outcome too. It raises a dilemma and the real outcome of the scene tells you which side of the A UNLESS B wins out. So for Angie:

Angie should heed her dad’s advice not to trust strangers in order to feel safe UNLESS Angie needs to trust the harmless-looking guy in the Jetta in order to make it to Tulsa on time.

What I’ve found recently is that tiny little opposing Trust beat (the dad’s advice) brought in at the end of the scene can make the outcome Trust (going with the killer) a lot stronger. But it might just be subtext too.

I think if you are outlining your scene in detail you can use the justifications to build your outline. I’ve been finding the justifications themselves make things clear enough that I don’t need any more of an outline – but I’m also doing revision so a lot of the scene is already there. Sorry I don’t have any PSR-level examples.

1 Like
#22

Does this hold true if the storyform is Holistic?

#23

Hmm, good question! I wonder if @jassnip has any thoughts on that?

#24

On PRCO

The most recent subtext classes, especially the ones talking about illustrating a quad, have suggested that PRCO is not necessarily linear. In fact, I recall an article written by Melanie that has examples of non-linear PRCO scenes.

On Illustrating Justifications

The question of “how” is a creative question, and really depends on the person. There’s no one right answer. Here’s an example from my own work. It’s the development of a justification for Mind.

First, what are two Mind gists that work for me?

People should have their beliefs in order to ??? UNLESS People need a certain attitude in order to ???

Next, how can I make the first part feel true to me?

People should have their beliefs in order to preserve their cultural heritage UNLESS People need a certain attitude in order to ???

Then, how can I make the second part feel true to me, while it also goes against the first?

People should have their beliefs in order to preserve their cultural heritage UNLESS People need a certain attitude in order to protect their social standing.

Okay, that feels good, but I can’t write to it, yet.

People should commit to their beliefs in order to preserve their cultural heritage UNLESS People need to remain politically correct in order to protect their social standing within the group.

Now that’s the one!

This final form feels like an illustration. I may not know who will be doing what, but I can easily build this overall feeling into the world that I write.

That was at the Class level. I follow a similar process at each level where I feel the need. At the Element level, it might result in the following justfication:

People need to seek out the truth in order to strengthen their own spiritual insight
UNLESS
People should do what’s always been done in order protect the existing balance in society.

However, that doesn’t yet feel like an illustration. So, I ask the more creative questions.
These are questions that I’ve accepted Dramatica won’t answer! (Even if it does…)

  • Who’s dealing with this?
  • Where are they?
  • What’s going on?

When and Why, on a grand scale, have been answered by the justification. Once I have those answers, I have a general outline of the scene, one I can write to.

3 Likes
#25

Amazing post @Hunter. I think you pointed some aspects of my own process that I didn’t realize I was doing! The “make it feel true for me” is super important.

Note that true doesn’t necessarily mean that YOU would take that justified view. More that you can imagine someone (a character in your story) taking it, under the right circumstances.

Although maybe that’s the same thing as saying you would adopt that justification given all the right circumstances – i.e. if you were that character. Wow, Justifications also help us get into our characters’ heads… :slight_smile:

3 Likes
#26

I don’t know why holistic or linear would make a difference in PRCO. I can’t think of one.

It should only make a difference on content, prco is underlying structure.

So for example:

Scenario in which characters are lost

P Taking a wrong turn puts characters in unfamiliar part of town
R (Amplify or diminish) someone starts chasing them
C they’re in the middle of a turf-war
O They find someplace to hole up

To me linear or holistic would happen in between each of those

So for example being in an unfamiliar part of town a linear person would look at a map or for a gas station or known landmarks, or try and back track. Oddly, linear people will almost NEVER straight-up ask for directions.

Whereas a holistic person would notice there were no people out, or go into a diner and order a meal, or look for someone to connect to, or help someone before asking for help for themselves.

Does that make sense?

2 Likes
#27

Shouldn’t R be “amplify” for making things worse? When would you use “diminish”?

How would you take an event like “Taking a wrong turn puts characters in unfamiliar part of town” and turn it into a justification vs justification?

#28

No. They are sources of conflict. Conflict is incompatibility. To have conflict, you have to have something that is incompatible with something. Two somethings with incompatibility or dissonance between them. These justification exercises are showing how a storypoint creates-or is the source of-that incompatibility.

In the Toby Maguire Spider-Man (the first one?), there’s a scene where Green Goblin tosses both MJ and a cable car full of innocent bystanders off a bridge. One to each side of the bridge. This is to set up a conflict for Spider-Man. He should save the cable car full of passengers in order to save the greatest number of lives UNLESS he needs to save MJ in order to spend his life with her. So “saving people” is supposed to have become a source of conflict for Spider-Man. He needs to save two different sets of people in order to bring about two different contexts, and being able to save one person/group is supposed to be incompatible with saving the other person/group.

However, since this is a movie about Spider-Man, he won’t let anyone die and luckily is able to save them both proving it was never really a conflict for him to begin with. But imagine a movie where the superhero is forced to save one or the other.

Luckily, you don’t actually have to imagine that. It happens in The Dark Knight. Batman can save either Harvey Dent or Rachel Dawes. He goes for Rachel, but ends up saving Harvey and has to deal with the consequences of that decision. In that movie, that particular conflict lasts for a scene, maybe an act. I don’t really know. But hopefully you could see how that same set up could describe an entire movie or even just a single quick event in a scene.

  • I would’ve just started with the Batman example if only I had thought of it before writing about Spider-Man. Haha.
3 Likes
#29

Just to add to your questioning repertoire, I find the most useful questions to be how questions because how gives you actions.[quote=“Hunter, post:24, topic:2921”]
People need to seek out the truth in order to strengthen their own spiritual insight
UNLESS
People should do what’s always been done in order protect the existing balance in society.
[/quote]

How did the need for spiritual insight arise?
How is the group protected or harmed by doing what’s always been done?
How does someone abandon, transform or continue traditions?
How are characters harmed by falsehoods? How are they protected by falsehoods?

Anyway just my .02

4 Likes
#30

Think about areas in a story where the mood is extremely tense, and people are ready to blow: There’s a high potential for conflict, but something happens that relieves the tension without actually removing the source. Later that conflict blows like crazy when other things are added on top.

That reduction of tension would be R that diminishes the conflict. So, in essence, one reason you might use R to diminish the problem is to delay the results.

As it is, you can’t. There’s absolutely no problem or conflict with “taking a wrong turn and ending up in an unfamiliar part of town.” E.g. People do this all the time during a Sunday drive, and it doesn’t matter in that context. Now, if you also

  • need to get to an appointment elsewhere, OR
  • won’t ask for directions, OR
  • etc,

such that you have reason to be elsewhere, it then becomes a problem.

Justifications are meant to present that extra piece. “Taking a wrong turn and ending up in an unfamiliar part of town” will be part of a full justification. Otherwise, it’ll never be a problem. For example:

I can take a wrong turn and end up in an unfamiliar part of town in order to have a relaxing time UNLESS I should be driving streets I know while running my errands in order to finish my work quickly.

This is excellent insight!!! I default to asking How, so I ended up not putting on the list. :sweat:
Thanks!

3 Likes
#31

I left that vague on purpose. If someone chases you and is shooting at you. that makes being lost worse.
If someone is chasing you to tell you to get the hell off the street, being lost is diminished trouble and finding shelter becomes more important.

At least that’s my understanding. I don’t guarantee it.

Jim’s article that talks about PRCO and amplify/diminish

2 Likes