Re: How about "situations" as a plot abstraction?

[Bob <mantic@mbo.net>]

> How many of these deals are you expecting to be made in an authorial work?
> In a movie or a play, there might be 1 deal between actors that forms a plot
> point or pinch point in the work.  Maybe there are 2 deals, where the 2nd
> deal is a startling reversal of the terms of the 1st deal.  But there aren't
> going to be deals after deals after deals.  At that point you're not
> authoring a story, you're simulating Wall Street.  I'm arguing once again
> for dealing with things in terms of human authorial meaning rather than
> abstract mechanism.  You need to consider how often a human author will
> actually need deals to create meaning in his work.


Deals can be a driving force in some kinds of fiction. In one genre I am
fond of (the political thriller) it is not uncommon for more events to
involve dealmaking, as Chris defines it, than any other sort of
interaction. Some novelists are pretty creative about playing plot like
a multi-tiered chess game, with deals altering plot situations five
moves in advance (something a direct evaluation system might be good
at).

Additionally, in many plots there is a significant amount of abstract
'deal-making' involved in the interaction of characters seeking
resolution to current obstacles outside direct action. The objects of
trade are often more abstract, involving emotional and psychological
imperatives, so this deal-making may be less immediately obvious, but in
that context this seems very appropriate as a general extension of the
Erasmatron's system. The problem arises with tracking the outcome of the
deals and how they affect interpersonal relationships; in many (most)
cases the deals made during the establishment of character relationships
are not completed as defined, or are accepted on the basis of
misinterpretation or intentional misdirection, so I am wondering if this
system could understand the concept of substitutions (with or without
clear intent) and evaluate based on separate values. Will a greater good
be appreciated? 

I agree that such bartering interactions need to be weighted by
significance (I'm a die-hard structuralist, so it's a familiar
bandwagon; I feel the same way about every action). But is that not a
separate issue? What Chris proposed, as I understand it, is a method for
compound decisions and counter offers -- an extension of the
Erasmatron's existing logic. So long as the author can manage to keep
characters working toward specific goals, an initial offer should only
be made in the interest of progression toward a goal (using the
Erasmatron's existing rules), and bartering only accepted/attempted on
similar grounds. Long term goals are another matter.


									--Bob