competing (meta)plot models

[WFreitag@aol.com]

Laura wrote:

>But I do see dealmaking as a potentially handy tool for holding onto
>critical story history without necessarily having to reconstruct complicated
>grammar in order to recover it.

I think you've hit upon the common denominator of what we've all been 
discussing re Erasmatron. The suggested means differ (nesting, conflict 
ojbects, situation objects, scenes/clusters), but the desire for tools to 
hold onto critical story history without having to search it out of the 
history book appears to be general.

Brandon wrote:

>> This basic scheme (vaguely stated deal, unanticipated
>> interference, sense of
>> betrayal) can be spun off in a million different directions and
>> variations.
>
>True, some of them more dramatically powerful than others.  "Rules of
>Engagement" would be an example of that.  What's the deal between the US
>Government and a marine?  Who's responsible for the situation and the
>results?  That's why it ends up being a courtroom drama.
>
>I have to wonder, though, if you take "deal" to such a general level, if
>you shouldn't just be calling it "plot" or "story."  Earlier Chris it sounded
>like you were talking about a specific deal made within a story.  If the
>significance of the deal is the entire story then I think that only
>reinforces my point about where significance and meaning must come from.
>
>> The deal system I am now contemplating for the Erasmatron does not enable
>> such vaguely stated deals,
>
>Exactly.  A deal that is so general encompasses the whole story.
>
>> but I think it's a step along the path to such deals.
>
>Here I think you have to consider the appropriate scope of a structure.

There are a couple of important points implicit here.

First, that plot structures _have_ scope.

Second, that a single description such as "deal" can describe plot structures 
of vastly different scope.

For me the interesting question is, can a single process and/or template 
_create_ plot structures that are similar in structure but vastly different 
in scope? This is part of the "fractal narrative" hypothesis, and an 
interesting hypothesis to work with. But how likely is it to be true?

Without a hierarcy of scales, assembling a story out of a chain of events 
would be like assembling a complex machine out of parts that are all the same 
size, and each of which can only connect to two others. Unlikely? Not at all. 
Ribosomes assembling proteins do exactly that!

So here are (at least) two healthy competing models for plot structure. To 
extend the metaphors: In the protein structure model, we want to "hold onto 
critical story history" in order to create the links that, by connecting 
events that are at varying distances apart in the linear narrative line, 
gives the story meaning just as the hydrogen bonds between units that are far 
apart in the protein chain give the folded protein its three dimensional 
shape. In the fractal structure model, we want to "hold into critical story 
history" in order to maintain a hierarcy of contexts for each new event that 
can shape or select that event to make it part of an overall structure, like 
a differentiating cell in an embryo.

Referring to Chris's Protein Metaphor essay (which I thought was going to be 
about the metaphor of assembly of 3-D proteins from linear chains, but turned 
out to be something else entirely): A plot structure (or metaplot system for 
creating a plot structure dynamically) must mediate between the linear 
narrative stream and the mesh-like web of underlying meaning. A metaplot 
based on the protein chain metaphor is close to the linear narrative stream 
(and closer to the manner Erasmatron was designed to be used) but difficult 
to map onto (or assemble into) the underlying web, while a metaplot based on 
the fractal structure metaphor may be closer to expressing that web but may 
also be difficult to convert into (or create by means of) a linear narrative 
stream.

- Walt