Trying to Integrate the Justification Steps Into Throughline
Posted: Dec 20, 2012 9:10 pm
Intellectually, I know in a story where the IC is making an effort to change the MC, not necessarily consciously, the IC would be the IC's efforts as seen externally. The MC would show the change. The RS would show the cause and effect, I guess. I'm trying to integrate the justification process into this. Which part goes in which throughline. We'd see the tearing down effort in the IC throughline, while he's building up his own drive. We'd see the effects of it in the changing MC. Okay. So, what's the RS filled with, other than a merge somehow between the two? Unless the RS is more of an external feeling of the relationship. That's the impression I've always gotten of it.
Now listening to the podcast for Notting Hill and considering the dynamic relationships in the throughlines, I guess the RS wouldn't relate at all to the justifications and impacts. It would be dynamic to the OS so it would just be depicting "girl meets guy" and so forth. I also caught, at least in my story's case, that the IC throughline should be impacted by the MC so that it reflects the IC becoming more and more steadfast in reaction to actions taken by the MC. In other words, it's not just a one-sided impact. I built this naturally into my story, but it's nice to see Dramatica calls for it and to see where it fits.
Now listening to the podcast for Notting Hill and considering the dynamic relationships in the throughlines, I guess the RS wouldn't relate at all to the justifications and impacts. It would be dynamic to the OS so it would just be depicting "girl meets guy" and so forth. I also caught, at least in my story's case, that the IC throughline should be impacted by the MC so that it reflects the IC becoming more and more steadfast in reaction to actions taken by the MC. In other words, it's not just a one-sided impact. I built this naturally into my story, but it's nice to see Dramatica calls for it and to see where it fits.