Throughline Perspectives/Contexts - Whose perspective?

I’m embarrassed to write this note, but I feel like the more I read the articles, books and forum messages, the more confused I get.

Let me try this. Which is it, in each case?

Overall story throughline is the story from the perspective of
a) the MC
b) the Overall Characters
c) the author
d) God
e) the StoryMind
f) the audience

or is it ‘just a perspective’ that any of those can latch onto as needed?

MC the story from the Main Character’s perspective
MC is the story from the author’s perspective on the MC
MC is the story from the StoryMind’s perspective on the MC
MC is the story from the audience perspective on the MC

IC the story from the Impact Character’s perspective
IC is the story from the MC view of the IC as a possible other self
IC is the story from the author’s perspective on the IC
IC is the story from the author’s perspective of the MC’s view of the IC
IC is the story from the StoryMind’s perspective on the IC
IC is the story from the StoryMind’s perspective on the MC’s view of the IC

RS. etc

I feel like I should already know this but somehow it keeps wriggling away from me. Help would be appreciated.

Oh also, what’s the deal with referring to it as a context vs a perspective?

PS I just listened to @jhull fantastic Podcast 60, about the Relationship throughline but it sounded like the throughline and the appreciation of the growth or dissolution of the relationship, the heartwarming part of the story, as Jim puts it, was very much from the audience’s perspective.

my shorthand has been

overall story

omg look at that group of people and look at the things they’re doing


i’m doing some things, wow, this is what the world looks like, well huh


hey, look at the things he’s doing, that could be me and maybe it should be

look at those two, how is their relationship doing, what kind of relationship is it and is it growing or falling apart

is there some fantastic article that will clear this up for me?

There is an inequity at the heart of the story. The part that can’t be spoken.

Because you can’t describe this inequity directly, you can only approximate it. And you do that by taking four different perspectives. The idea is that once you have seen the inequity from all angles, you gain a better appreciation of what it means to resolve or not resolve that inequity.

The Author uses the Four Throughlines as reference points for those different perspectives.

1 Like

This idea stumps me.

Why not?

One man’s inequity might translate to another’s equity. Fine.

An imbalance will affect different people in different ways. Fine.

But, why can’t it be spoken? Is it unwordable? That sounds mystical. Kind of like, no person could describe God.

I believe it’s as you say: everyone will see the inequity differently, so we can’t know what the “real” inequity is, only feel it.

But the author defines it. So, isn’t it as simple as saying the inequity is what I say it is? It’s my world. How can there be something that I cannot define?

Perhaps it falls into never being able to know another person. We only know people insofar as we can relate our personal experiences to them. But we will never truly know them because we are not them.

And inequity is a feeling that is defined by a unique living thing that can never be understood by another unique living thing. Only approximated.

I guess I am ok with that. But it is a frustrating thing to accept.

Cue thousands and thousands of years of human history.

When you don’t sense separation you’re at peace. Zen. Oneness. Equity.

The moment you start to sense separation—when the self starts getting involved—inequity arises.

Now explain that inequity to me.

You can’t. You can only talk around it.

Dramatica gives you those things to talk about.