Short stories from a single quad

theory
#1

When exploring a single quad to write a short story, like Piper, or even something longer, like Jaws, the elements come to represent Sign Posts within the story. But do they still act as the problem, symptom, response, and solution at the same time?

For instance, in the article about Piper the PRCO is listed as Inaction, Reaction, Protection, and Proaction and in Jaws it’s Protection, Inaction, Reaction, and Proaction. Are these simply filling the role of Sign Posts, and the Problem, Solution, Symptom, and Response would then fall somewhere else? Or do they do double duty in these stories as Sign Posts and the Problem, Symptom, Response, and Solution?

2 Likes
#2

I’d like to see an Expert come in here and explain it, but as I understand it, no. I may be completely off-base here, but notice how those four things are all under “Strategy” in the “Gathering Information” Type? It looks to me like those are the four strategies an MC and/or protagonist can use in each Act. I’m still figuring out how to implement the PRCO model, and from those examples and the other examples over there, I’m still not sure how to choose the order, the assignment of strategy to PRCO, or whatnot, but in any case, the takeaway is that you should still have a storyform in mind, even for a short story.

Now, overeager/impertinent student that I am, I think we can go further. I think you can also categorize each Act using one of the four analyses (Deduction, Induction, Production, and Reduction). [Or maybe different stories get selected by Analysis rather than by Strategy.] And if that’s so, then maybe you can also categorize Acts by… Prerequisite or Precondition? Morality, Self-Interest, Approach, or Attitude? Fate, Destiny, Prediction, or Interdiction?! I don’t even know what I’m saying any more! :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

Okay, back to sanity. When in doubt, stick with what you know. (MoE of Proven, that’s me. ;)) Even for a short story, use the Twelve Questions to set up a storyform. Have an Overall Throughline, a Main Character, an Impulse Character, and a Relationship between them. Demonstrate the assigned Problem, Symptom, Response, and Solution. Do that, play all the cards right in between, and you’ll have a meaningful story.

EDIT: Everything I just said here is in the Advanced box in the Jaws article. Oops. :sweat_smile:

#3

Huh. I didn’t remeber seeing the advanced theory stuff at the end of the article. Not sure how I missed that (although it probably has something to do with me reading it while at work, shh) but I went back to check it out and it very clearly says that the quad being explored in Jaws is not the OS or MC quad. I guess that answers the question.

Although now I’m curious where it came from. The article calls Jaws a simple tale but the article on Piper talks about how much of the story form fit into that story and how complete it was for only 6 minutes. Maybe it’s better, then, to discuss that example. Out of curiosity, anyone know which quad is being explored in Piper? The article talks about the MC exploring inaction, reaction, protection, and proaction (I think, I’m not at a place where I can look over it again at the moment), but would it be the MC quad? Would it be the IC quad with the mama bird and the crab as IC characters influencing the baby bird in these areas? Is this another instance where I’m overthinking it.

#4

@actingpower, when you say you think you can also use deduction, induction, etc., are you saying that in reference to Jaws? As in you think Jaws could be categorized using all the examples you gave?

#5

Let’s try analyzing a slightly different story using this Strategy model: Frozen. Problems arise when Elsa is forced to disassociate herself from her sister–an act of Protection. Elsa does pretty well with this for a while, but when Anna’s marriage throws her off-balance, she lashes out in Reaction, revealing her powers. Seeing the damage, she Reacts again, fleeing to the farthest mountains. Reaction seems to work pretty well for her until she discovers that her magic has freezed Arendelle over. Admittedly, my memory of the plot is pretty weak at this point, but I imagine it would be Inaction–she doesn’t put up much of a fight when she is captured by Hans and sentenced to death. But when Anna sacrifices herself to save Elsa, Elsa finally realizes the love she shares with Anna and Proactively turns her powers to good. (Note: I have no idea if that’s accurate or not.)

Curiously, as I think about it, I can do the exact same thing for Anna, only it’s the Dynamic Pairs each time. Anna starts in Inaction: unable to break through Elsa’s shell, she lives in a state of arrested development. But when Elsa reveals her magic, Anna decides to Proactively mend their relationship. Unfortunately, she takes a shard of ice to the heart for her efforts, leading to a need to be taken back to Arendelle and recover–Protection, essentially. However, when she sees Hans attempting to execute Elsa, Anna forgets her own condition and Reacts to the situation, blocking the sword blow with her own body. It’s this Reaction that finally brings Elsa to her senses.

See? You can do this framing for any sort of story. As to what quad “Piper” is in, I couldn’t say; I haven’t seen Finding Dory.

#6

Okay, look. If my last post was experimental, this idea is even more so. I probably shouldn’t even talk about this, since it’s total speculation on my part. That being said…

Okay, so Analysis of Frozen. Deduction, Induction, Reduction, and Production. Elsa’s first Act is all about Reduction: because of her condition, there are certain possibilities she simply can’t entertain. However, when she reveals her powers and escapes Arendelle, suddenly she’s flooded with new opportunities. She Produces an entirely new way of living. …That is, until she discovers the horrible curse she’s blanketed over Arendelle. Suddenly, this new way of living doesn’t work for her. Her method of thinking turns to Induction: if I am alive, the curse exists; if I die, then the curse will probably fade. (I always have trouble with Induction, but this seems like probabilistic thinking rather than Deduction, as I will reveal presently.) When Anna sacrifices herself, Elsa’s method of analysis changes once more. She puts together all the pieces and Deduces the truth about her powers: she creates ice when she is stressed or scared, but with love, she can undo it. This achieved, she accepts her powers and restores Arendelle to its natural state.

Are Anna’s strategies perfectly dynamic again? Her order would be Production, Reduction, Deduction, Induction. …Maybe? I’ll leave it to you to think about it. I wanna try a couple more.

Approach: Act 1, Logic: “Conceal, Don’t Feel.” Act 2, Feelings: “Let it Go!”. Act 3, Reconsider? Something-something “I was wrong, I’m a monster.” Act 4: Consider? Something-something “I can finally use my powers free of fear.”

Value: Act 1, Effect: “If you just don’t create any negative effects, you can playact at being normal.” Act 2, Unproven: “Maybe you can create something valuable out here.” Act 3, Cause: “You have caused such horrible suffering–to Arendelle and to your sister!” Act 4, Proven: “Anna and I love each other; that much I know.”

Situation: Act 1, Perception: “I must appear normal.” Act 2, Chaos: “Out in the wilderness, I am free from any societal chains.” Act 3, Actuality: “I’ve created a horrible world. I can’t hide away from reality.” Act 4, Order: “I can set the world right.”

This is… really fascinating from an analytical standpoint. (Again, don’t take it at face value; I’m making it up as I go along.) Now, I wonder if/how I can use this to actually write stories? :thinking:

EDIT: …Don’t know why I did all of these for Elsa, the Influence Character, rather than for Anna or the Overall Throughline. Guess Elsa’s arc stuck with me more. :stuck_out_tongue:

2 Likes
#7

Hmmm…I like what you’ve got going on there. I’m going to have to think it over a bit and give an actual reply.

I think Elsa feels a bit like a main character through part of the movie and hers is definitely the arc that sticks with me more, so that’s fine. I’d’ve focused on her too.

I haven’t so much as come up with an idea yet, but have the intention of writing some short stories for my kids. I’m not sure how this helps with that yet either, but I like how it’s got me thinking outside of the Strategy box.

#8

So as long as we’re making it up as we go, you think this method could be used even if we backed up to the Class level?

  1. Activity - Elsa plays with Anna using her magical powers when she accidentally hurts Anna.
  2. Manipulation - After hurting Anna, and in order to prevent Anna getting worse, Elsa decides to stop using her powers and to conceal them from the outside world.
  3. Situation - When she proves unable to hide her abilities from others, she exiles herself to a far away high mountain and becomes the target of a manhunt by both Anna and the Duke of Weasel Town.
  4. Fixed Attitude - True love saves the day and whatnot.
    …or something along those lines.
#9

Hrrm… I’m less confident about that. Elsa’s the Influence Character, so theoretically her arc is entirely with the Manipulation Genre. The way she influences Anna is always about Manipulation; specifically, her attempts to isolate herself from and dissuade Anna. So there’s no reason to have individual Situation, Activity, Manipulation, and Fixed Attitude Acts because ostensibly, we’re getting all four of those at the same time: the Situation of Arendelle freezing over, the Activity of Anna trying to reconnect with her sister, the Manipulation of Elsa persuading her to stay at arm’s length, and the Fixed Attitudes of the emotional bond of sisterhood between them. That’s my two cents, anyway.

#10

meh, you’re probably right. So why do you think it works with Approach, Value, and Situation individually? Is it because of the characters’ different roles (MC, IC, RS, or OS) within each of those throughlines?

#11

Ah, my terminology was confusing. Sorry about that. Remember, we’re looking at the Elements that the character can implement across four Acts. Proaction, Reaction, Inaction, and Protection are four Elements covering the entire gamut of possible strategies. In order for the Throughline to feel complete, then, the characters need to move through all four strategies. Right? So I was taking that model and expanding it out to the rest of the chart. :stuck_out_tongue: Instead of looking at the strategies the characters use, what about the analyses they perform? Can we take the four Elements under Analysis and make the story feel complete by using all four of them in turn? How about the approaches they take to get what they want? Their situations, their estimation of value? There’s 64 of these, so plenty of options! :smiley:

You can look at the analysis the characters use in any of the four Throughlines, even though only one of the Throughlines is in Activity.

#12

I gotcha. Maybe there’s something there in using 4 PRCOs that match up from 4 different through lines at the element level to make a slightly more complete short story then than just focusing on one characters strategy? Then you can still keep it short without it feeling like you’ve left out a throughline.

#13

If Piper is a complete story, does it have a story form or are short stories different?

#14

You can use any quad anywhere because they’re all based on Knowledge, Thought, Ability, and Desire. It’s when you try to work them together across four different Throughlines that you have to start making choices to tell a complete narrative.

In the Jaws example and Piper example from my site I’m simply grabbing a quad of items and showing how complete working through a quad feels from a writing standpoint. Again, this is because they’re all based on KTAD–just masquerading under different contexts.

PRCO. SRCA. Again, all TKAD, just different contexts.

Piper isn’t a complete story. Six minutes isn’t enough time. It feels complete because it works through a single quad, so you feel the completeness of a dramatic unit.

3 Likes
How Do You Use a Quad to Write a Short Story?