Sime~Gen(tm) Inc.

Where Sime and Gen Meet, Creativity Happens

WorldCrafters Guild

Workshop:Plot Flaw  

 

Workshoppers and other writer-folks copied on this message:

(1999 comment: Again we're analyzing a Sime~Gen story attempt here -- which could put some of you at a disadvantage, but I think anyone can benefit from this discussion.   In the future, we may focus more on a wider variety of fictional backgrounds. JL)

I have a WONDERFUL Sime~Gen story here that is the result of a first-attempt at collaboration by two very good writers on the Sime~Gen List.

(note -- we don't post whole stories to this workshop, and we don't discuss particular stories. We discuss the principles of writing, the craft not the art. So I'm going to describe the bare bones of the mechanism of this story , but not in a way that you will recognize this story once you see it in all its full glory -- of which there is PLENTY in addition to this flaw.)

I read less than a third of it (maybe about a fifth of the way into the story) before the PLOT FLAW that I think resulted from the collaboration style itself leaped off the page and knocked me out of the story.

And that PLOT FLAW is a result of a failure to test the OUTLINE from which this story was written for what I have been calling on this Workshop the "because chain" -- or the "plot". (they didn't show me an outline first, so maybe they didn't have one.)

The story opens, WONDROUSLY WELL, with the two conflicting elements coming face to face over the CORE ELEMENT in the conflict, and that element delineates the theme perfectly.

Male Protagonist Channel walks into a Sime Center where Female Protag is the Controller that year. She has a problem disjunction on her hands, and the Male protag is there to solve that problem. In the opening action, the Male Protag takes charge and over-rides the Controller's authority with regard to the disjunction case. They are instant antagonists to each other, and a simmering sexual attraction adds explosiveness to the conflict. All this tracks perfectly.

The second scene -- the kitchen catches on fire. The Center workers put out the fire handily and the channels heal the few burns, no problem. This scene serves only one purpose (that I can see so far) -- to provide another illustration of the theme. But it doesn't advance the plot or the conflict. It doesn't leave the protag or antag with an insurmountable challenge. Everyone knows how to handle this, and does without working up a sweat. It's a self-contained incidence. (if I were writing this story, the whole Center building would have burned down)

The Third scene -- no sooner is the fire out than the Controller and the Male Protag decide to go out for lunch together (two Simes, no Gen in attendance). They need to talk about their clash over the problem of her Authority and work out a way to work together within the Tecton Rules.

They have that talk, and the dialogue is solid and good, and makes sense. So now, after the third scene all the CONFLICT outlined in scene one has been resolved with a simple apology and replaced by a certain amount of sexual tension and anticipated future clashes over authority. We're barely a 5th of the way into the story at this point.

End of the out-to-lunch scene -- someone unknown, outside the diner, yells for help and the two channels go dashing out.

THAT is where I stopped reading and decided I shouldn't read any more until this story has been rewritten. (a professional editor would not have gotten that far but I was just eating this up until the FIRE when I suspected there was a bad plot-problem underlying these events -- and I couldn't STOP reading when the out-to-lunch scene started. I was anticipating some serious advance of the CONFLICT -- and instead the conflict was resolved with a cordial and reasonable discussion on both sides. But in the back of my mind, I was adding all this up and thinking about what my own next scene would be -- and then we had this UN-FORESHADOWED call for help. At this point I don't know what the problem was that needed help, and actually it doesn't MATTER in the discussion of this plot-flaw.

So I'm going to wait to read the rest of this story until this problem is fixed.

Now pause a moment and see if you can figure out the problem and the solution before you read what I say. After you've read what I'm going to say here, you can of course disagree (you're supposed to disagree, but the trick is to disagree for reasons).

My Analysis:

What we have here is a perfect example of what is technically termed CONTRIVED PLOTTING. These 3 events are there simply to illustrate the theme, the character motivations, and to characterize. And the characterization is inconsistent -- in scene one they are both hot-tempered. In scene three, they are both calm, sane, reasonable people with nothing to contend about.

The authors are reaching and straining to force the events to SAY what they want them to say.

The result is a series of incidents -- disconnected from each other.

Because of that "incident" structural flaw, in Scene #3 the authors fell right off the first established CONFLICT LINE.

So we have TWO major structural flaws at the very beginning of this piece, and I know these two authors can do much better than this -- so I'm sending it back for rewrite. (there are beginners on this List that I'd allow to get away with some of this kind of writing).

What should they do to fix this CONTRIVING?

Well, the "rule" that I made up is that "Plot=Because" -- that your EVENTS or INCIDENTS must flow one out of the other BECAUSE.

So with these three events we should have the following structure:

BECAUSE Male Protag arrives, DISJUNCTION CANDIDATE has a mini-crisis.

Because DISJUNCTION CANDIDATE has a minicrisis, Male Protag antagonizes Female Protag.

Because Male Protag antagonized Female Protag, the kitchen catches on fire.

Because the Kitchen catches on fire, the Disjunction Candidate's life is put at risk and he/she is hurt badly. (but Candidate puts out the fire, thus proving Candidate's innate worth and establishing that this person must be saved at all costs). (in my version of this story, the Candidate would be at death's door because of his burns all the way to the end of the story, and would live or die depending on how the protags resolved their conflict).

Because Candidate is hurt badly, Female Protag antagonizes Male Protag -- and both the ardor and the anger between them escalates a notch.

Because the ardor and the anger has escalated to threaten the functioning of the Center (and other purposes of important people around them) the Companions contrive to maneuver the Female Protag and Male Protag into a corner on the excuse of getting them to eat. (they would not "go out to eat" -- they would be eating from the overheated and singed jars of preserved foods in the pantry -- the wax seals would have melted so this food must be eaten now.) (of course, I would have burned the whole building down -- I don't pull my punches -- and they'd be sitting in tents donated by the local citizens, and it would rain (hard) and they'd be working under THOSE conditions the whole rest of the story.) (they get a new building only in the last scene).

During this meal/discussion, the treatment of the Candidate is the main subject of discourse -- and the disagreement between the two is defined for the reader exactly. Instead of an apology that's instantly accepted, we have a second escalation of the anger -- and ardor -- resulting from the Companion's action of bringing them together for a meal. (i.e. BECAUSE the Companions brought them together - the anger/ardor escalated).

Because of the escalation of the anger and ardor to this level, someone calls for Help.

Because of the call for Help -- something else happens. And so on until the anger and the ardor resolve at the end of the story -- preferably in the same event.

See what I felt that the call for HELP was my stopping point? I didn't want to know who called for Help or why because it doesn't come from the prior story material, and doesn't seem to go to a resolution of the essential conflict. It feels just like the "fire scenario" -- an incident inserted to illustrate something, not to drive the plot forward.

So that BECAUSE CHAIN above is an example of PLOTTING -- plot=because. The next thing that happens, happens because of the last thing that happened in an UNBROKEN CHAIN -- like the kids toy where you pull monkeys out of a barrel and their arms and tails are entwined in a chain -- break the chain and you lose the game. It's the CHAIN ITSELF that keeps people turning pages, that makes you want to know 'what happens next'.

When you (as writer) come to a branch in the because-chain and you, (as writer) must CHOOSE which direction to go, you must always choose to STAY ON THE CONFLICT LINE -- even if that conflict line doesn't go where you want the story to go. (if you really don't want the story to go there, then go back to the FIRST LINE of the piece and CHANGE THE CONFLICT. If you don't do it that way, you end up with a "contrived effect."

The Conflict Line is the exact issue raised in Scene One of the piece (however long or short that piece might be - scene one defines the conflict that will resolve ONLY AT THE END of the piece. Do not raise a conflict and resolve it two scenes later with a cordial shrug and then go on to tell a different story. Back up and re-do the opening until it centers right on the conflict that resolves at the ending.

The beginning of the story is defined as the point where the two elements that will conflict to generate the plot first come into conflict.

The end is defined as the point at which that initial conflict is resolved.

The middle is the point at which it seems that conflict can not be successfully resolved.

This is the very definition of STORY -- conflict engaged, conflict developed to conflict-resolved.

And that's why I stopped reading. Because this is not, (yet) a story. It's a series of disconnected incidents contrived to background the story -- to set up the characters and state the theme. It is what MZB called (when I did it -- and I have and no doubt I will again make this same mistake) -- "throat clearing and pencil sharpening" -- it is getting ready to tell a story, but not telling the story. I know for a fact that these two writers can do much, much better than this.

I THINK the story will be Male Protag vs. Female Protag over the matter of authority or loyalty or rules -- or all of the above.

Now, how do you (as the author) STAY ON THE CONFLICT LINE? How do you know if you are on the conflict line as you write? What test do you use?

Well, if the conflict is Male Protag vs. Female Protag over authority, it goes like this.

Male Protag makes the first move (a story is always a chess game with the main Protag playing White) -- Male Protag Arrives and immediately violates protocol.

In RESPONSE (i.e. RESPONSE=BECAUSE) the Female Protag does something to re- assert her authority. (or block the violation - or thwart the Male Protag's agenda -- and that move must be EFFECTIVE).

In RESPONSE to that move, the Male Protag does something either to assert his authority, or to place himself outside her authority.

In RESPONSE to the Male Protag's move to avoid being under her Authority -- the FEMALE PROTAG does something to prevent the Male Protag from escaping her jurisdiction.

In RESPONSE, the Male Protag does something to oust the Female Protag from her position of authority.

In RESPONSE the Female Protag etc.

THAT is plotting (response here = "because") on the conflict line. The conflict line is Male Protag vs. Female Protag. The 'RESPONSE' mechanism creates the because chain. Each action causes the other to RESPOND.

Follow that chain to its inevitable conclusion and you've got a story. Break the chain even once anywhere, and you no longer have a story.

If the above RESPONSE skeleton doesn't fit your plans for your story -- THEN the CONFLICT is not Male Protag vs Female Protag -- but something else vs. something else yet.

As written, this series of incidents so far (Arrival, Fire, Lunch) are not on that conflict line. The Fire doesn't happen in RESPONSE TO the Arrival. Lunch doesn't happen IN RESPONSE TO the fire. So the "Fire monkey" in our monkey-chain is not part of the story. The Monkey Chain has been broken.

When I started reading the Fire scene, my "contrived" light started to flash . When I finished the denoument of the fire scene (after the rather perfunctory healing) I knew the fire scene was contrived, but kept hoping we'd be back on track in a moment. When the initial conflict was viciated by a sane, logical apology-scene over a contrived lunch that ignored what a real Controller whose Center's kitchen had just caught fire would really be doing with their afternoon, I knew we had serious trouble with the structure of this piece. When the ending of the lunch scene occurred exactly with the cry for help (the cry for help didn't interrupt the apology-over-lunch -- the person in distress politely waited until all the tension in the conflict had been drained away) -- I knew this whole piece had to be reconstructed.

One could make a case for the Fire Scene illustrating how well-run this Center is by this Controller. But since that illustration doesn't advance the plot, the scene doesn't belong in this story anyway. This Center's crew is NOT CHALLENGED by this Fire -- therefore, it doesn't belong in this story. Such a fire-scene might be an incident referred to in passing by someone, or if it's vitally important, might be told in flashback, or memorialized in a tale rapidly becoming a local Folk Myth -- but it doesn't belong on the narrative line of the story told in real-time. The opening events of a story have to CHALLENGE the characters -- make them sweat and strain to solve the problem presented. And solving that problem has to create the next problem that's even worse. (i.e. they saved everyone, but lost the building -- which causes something else etc).

No amount of gorgeous writing can hide the lack of a solid skeleton behind your story -- and that skeleton is the PLOT.

Master the art of writing the simple plot -- and then you can learn more elaborate ones with curlicues and trees and branches and weavings all around . Curlicues can not mask the absense of a spine for your plot.

A story idea might first come to you as a plot, or a conflict, or a theme or a character-in-a-Situation, or just a Situation, but before you begin to WRITE, be sure that you have all these elements clearly in your mind, and tightly woven together.

Test your structure by defining the two conflicting elements, and check to make sure that every scene in your outline advances the CONFLICT to a new stage, or level.

Another Lichtenberg Original definition -- "action" = "rate of change of Situation" --- and you must keep the action rolling at an ever increasing pace all the way to the ending.

In the above outlined 3-incident opening --- we have an opening Situation where a Channel arrives to take charge of a difficult Disjunction.

At the end of Scene Three -- we are still in exactly the SAME SITUATION -- the Channel has just arrived to take charge of the Disjunction and still doesn't HAVE charge of that Disjunction. Nothing has changed, therefore there has been no action. There appeared to be during the intervening scenes -- but it turned out to be an illusion. Everything is returned to the Same Situation as in the opening scene -- without the added spice of the conflict between the two Protags. (of course now we do have a little added ardor but that's not enough to carry a story).

Here's another reason I decided not to spoil this story for myself by reading any further -- a STORY is only as good as the last scene, and the last page is firmly rooted in the opening sequence. This opening sequence is rickety - shaky - disjointed. So any ending based on it would also be rickety - shaky - disjointed. I really like these two characters -- and I want to read a good solid ENDING to this story. So I'm giving the authors another chance to rewrite this story before I read it.

By the time you get to read it, you will not recognize the story I've described above in what you get to read. That's why I left out the particulars. Particulars about a story -- the things that make a story different from all other stories -- obscure your awareness of what this Workshop focuses on -- the plot-conflict-resolution STRUCTURE that is what makes any story identical to all other stories. Originality is easy. Conformity is hard.

So when you're working on a story of your own, and you want to test it --- strip away all the things that make it INTERESTING -- everything that makes your characters and their situation fascinating enough to write about -- and test the underlying BECAUSE CHAIN for loose or disconnected links. If that because chain hangs together -- chances are you'll have a saleable piece of goods.

Here's another observation of what happened to this terrific story because the Plot failed at the beginning -- there are no STAKES on the table between the two Protags. Neither stands to lose anything of value or win anything of value because of how their conflict is resolved. The only winner or loser here is the Disjunction Candidate -- his/her life is at stake. But the Disjunction Candidate is entirely PASSIVE, and could not make a point-of-view character or plot-generating character. The conflict does not involve the Disjunction Candidate. The Candidate is thus the "bone of contention" but not the stakes -- not what is RISKED.

As written, the Female Protag Controller feels her job may be at stake. But nobody wants to be Controller anyway, and any normal sane Channel would want out of that job ASAP -- so that's not a valuable stake. She has no apparent political ambition, so getting tossed out of a Controller's Seat would only make her the envy of all other Channels who've had to sit that seat. It wouldn't ruin her career -- it'd make her career.

The Male Protag has a safe, cushy position in life and the very worst thing that could happen to him would be to become Controller of this Center when he acts to get her tossed out. But he's strong and healthy -- he could survive a year as Controller. Yeah, he'd sweat it to be sure, but he'd survive.

Neither of them has anything to gain or to lose over this conflict -- except the life of the Disjunction Candidate -- who (as far as I know) isn't anyone to either of them. (Oh, the Controller knows this kid, and owes something to the parents of this kid, so she FEELS a sense of obligation -- but it isn't potent enough to be a STAKE. Nothing terrible will happen to her if the kid dies except that she'd feel bad. Nothing GREAT will happen to her because the kid lives. The only STAKE she has here is internal to her -- which is a good beginning but not enough for a long story like this.)

The story element that's needed here is something concrete to SYMBOLIZE the internal conflicts that cause these two to oppose each other. And that SYMBOL has to be the stake they are fighting for.

For example, perhaps there's a particular Ammendment to the First Contract that's up for a vote this year, and according to what happens to this particular Disjunction Candidate, public opinion about that Ammendment is likely to be swayed. Suppose the local and non-local Reporters have followed the Male Protag to this Center to cover this story. And the first thing that happens when Male Protag enters the doors of the Center is a public confrontation with the local Controller over (whatever).

The Controller wants the Ammendment passed -- the Male Protag wants the Ammendment defeated.

The Ammendment would be the 'stake'. The conflict would not be over something abstract or as nebulous as personality. It would be over something very specific. An Ammendement that could change everyone's life.

This would mean that this particular disjunction candidate would have to be the child of SOMEONE -- a Personage whose life would capture public interest .

That would be how I would write this story -- but I don't think that's what these authors want to do with it.

I just offer the concept of an "Ammendment" as a missing element so you can see what I mean by a "stake" -- something made real, made concrete, and external to the two conflicting individuals over which they can contend.