# Throughlines



## FifthView (Sep 1, 2017)

Lately I've been listening to the Mythcreants podcast, and a recent topic was throughlines: 131 - Throughlines - Mythcreants

I'd never thought of the things they address in the context of that term, although other terms and phrases relate, like "what's it about," "what's the heart of the story," "theme," and so forth.

It's an interesting discussion.

Problem areas like beginning too early, knowing where to end the story, switching the "throughline" midstream, what constitutes a prologue and whether there should be a prologue-ish opening, are addressed.

Having a clear idea of the throughline can help you stay on course in the story.

For a conceptual visualization of the throughline, I've been thinking of a type of may pole dance in which the ribbons are plaited down the pole. The pole is the throughline, and everything more or less circles it; the pole is the guide, the crux, the central structure holding everything else together.

Edit: Also, I think, the throughline should be something the reader will recognize and experience, even if it's not always explicit. It's a little more solid than something like theme. In a way, it relates to the promises we make, the hook, etc.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Sep 1, 2017)

FifthView said:


> For a conceptual visualization of the throughline, I've been thinking of a type of may pole dance in which the ribbons are plaited down the pole. The pole is the throughline, and everything more or less circles it; the pole is the guide, the crux, the central structure holding everything else together.



You need a bunch of drunk Swedes pretending to be frogs too.


...on a more serious note. This was an encouraging listen. I think it ties back very much to the discussion about promise that we had a while back. 

I found that really helpful, and I used it in my outline for my current project. I've not applied the "fractal" theory that they mention in the podcast, but I think that too is a really good point, and I probably could make use of that too.


----------



## pmmg (Sep 1, 2017)

Found this rather interesting and it gave me a bit to think about. With my own WIP, I have said at times I don't really have an elevator speech for it, and now I kind of realize that is because the through line is not what one might call the major conflict of the story. Therefore, to say that is what the story is about would seem misleading, when really, it is about that. I am not sure what that would mean, but it might mean something.

Kind of like saying LOTR is about the friendship between two hobbits, when the whole world is on fire about the ring. But, it is about the friendship of two hobbits...anyway.

I see they have some other podcasts up. I am interested to hear some others.


----------



## FifthView (Sep 2, 2017)

Svrtnsse said:


> ...on a more serious note. This was an encouraging listen. I think it ties back very much to the discussion about promise that we had a while back.



I'm interested in the way the discussion promotes the idea that making a promise early and clearly about the type of story being told, primary conflict, etc., is as important as fulfilling the promise later. Also, that continuing that throughline throughout will help to keep the readers hooked. 

I'm sure we've all experienced stories that started one way and later unaccountably shifted into a new direction, a different type of story, and felt cheated. We've sometimes encountered a scene or sections that seemed disconnected from that throughline, extra bits inserted for some purpose beyond advancing the story. Considering the throughline of our own stories should help when editing out the extraneous stuff or rewriting whatever doesn't yet seem to "connect" with the throughline.

Since listening to that podcast, I've also been thinking throughlines relate to Sanderson's idea that the readers should always be feeling a sense of progression regardless of what they are reading in the book. There was a comment made in the podcast to the effect that "it will be important later" is not a good enough reason to put something in a book early; readers must be able to feel the importance of what they are reading _as_ they are reading it, or at least have that sense of significance.


----------



## FifthView (Sep 2, 2017)

Continuing that thought...

For the metaphor of the may pole dance...The beginning of the story _might_ have different drunk frogs hopping about and doing things that seem a little disconnected, but the reader should still feel that their ribbons are connected to the same pole. In fact, I think readers begin by assuming this is so: The author wouldn't put in anything that isn't important. The fulfillment of the dance (promise) is a pole that's entirely wrapped in ribbons after the dance has completed, in whatever cool weaves the author has made. (Actually just now, the thought has occurred to me that these ribbons, the dancing frogs, move closer and closer to the pole and each other with each circuit...Perhaps this helps describe how a story winds down when starting with seemingly disparate—but not totally disparate—events, character arcs, etc.)

Straying from the throughline is like being in the process of describing that dance and then, for no clear reason, making a diversion and telling the reader, "Hey, wait, let's read a bit about this little girl over here to the side, waving her own ribbon in the air over her head, dancing to different music," when there's no clear indication that her ribbon is connected to the pole.

That girl's dance might be interesting, the ribbon could have some cool colors, but her dance has nothing to do with the rest of it, and as far as the reader can tell, her dance is not contributing to the eventual end state of the pole.


----------



## Mythopoet (Sep 2, 2017)

Ah, so there's a name for it! That's good to know. I always just say "You know, what the story [wild gesturing] is ALL [HUGE gestures] about!"


----------



## FifthView (Sep 2, 2017)

pmmg said:


> Found this rather interesting and it gave me a bit to think about. With my own WIP, I have said at times I don't really have an elevator speech for it, and now I kind of realize that is because the through line is not what one might call the major conflict of the story. Therefore, to say that is what the story is about would seem misleading, when really, it is about that. I am not sure what that would mean, but it might mean something.
> 
> Kind of like saying LOTR is about the friendship between two hobbits, when the whole world is on fire about the ring. But, it is about the friendship of two hobbits...anyway.
> 
> I see they have some other podcasts up. I am interested to hear some others.



The confusion—something I experience on a frequent basis, it seems—arises because any given story can be "about" many things.

But it comes down to what the focus is, sorting what is the main plot and what are subplots and the degree to which various characters arcs fit in with those.

I can imagine a character/relationship story that uses the world as a backdrop and various exterior conflicts as mostly devices to explore that relationship....But I can also imagine a story that is "About" that world and exterior conflicts which also uses those character arcs and the relationship as a kind of depth-adding factor. Put another way: in the latter case, the effects on the characters and relationship are used to pound in the stakes of the greater conflict; in the former case, the exterior events are used to add sand into the machinery of that relationship, into the eyes of the characters, to draw out the inner workings of those by forcing change.

That's probably a facile way of putting it, heh. The thing is, there could be two very different stories that include the same characters, relationship, and exterior events that would really, truly, be two different stories.

It comes down to focus, how much time you spend on the various elements, and the roles those elements play in the overall story. Deciding which you are writing could help you in figuring out how to approach the telling of that story. Plus, being clear about this helps you hook a reader and keep a reader hooked.*

_*Edit: using the generic, universal "you."_


----------



## Svrtnsse (Sep 2, 2017)

FifthView said:


> There was a comment made in the podcast to the effect that "it will be important later" is not a good enough reason to put something in a book early; readers must be able to feel the importance of what they are reading _as_ they are reading it, or at least have that sense of significance.



This ties in with the discussion in another thread that got reactivated at the moment, about infodumps. Don't add in information until the reader wants to know it.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Sep 2, 2017)

The thing with stories being about more than one thing, could it be there's a difference between the throughline, the promise and the theme?

When I began the outline for my current WIP I wrote a sentence for each story to sum up what it is about. I picture this as being the throughline. I also added an entry for the promise, which is similar to the throughline, but not exactly the same. Then for the theme I just added a few keywords.

*Throughline:*
Fading werewolf wrestling champion Roy is requested to lose his next match, but will his pride get in the way and cost him a comfortable retirement?

*Promise:*
This is a story about a man trying to stick to his ideals despite facing both corruption and temptation. There will be conflict and a moral dilemma and a last minute decision to do what’s right no matter the consequences. 

*Theme:*
Morals, ethics, responsibility.

Now, is that actually the throughline there, or did I misunderstand the concept?


----------



## FifthView (Sep 2, 2017)

I kinda see the throughline as being something of a combination of the first two of these.

_Fading, prideful werewolf champion must find his path in a world where he may no longer belong._

Here, the hook early in the story would require showing that

1) he is both fading and prideful, and
2) the world (_his_ world) is changing in a way that forces him to find a new way of being in that world.

The throughline is the movement toward a new way of being, from the starting point of fading/prideful/champion and the catalyst of the changing world.

Things like the request to lose his next match and a last minute decision to do what’s right are a bit incidental in that movement; they are just devices used to show this movement, a description of specifics. These are fine for use in a premise statement or perhaps log line, but they aren't the crux of the throughline—and a reader who begins reading won't necessarily have such specifics.

If you hook the reader by showing the key state he's in, suggesting the conflict*, then the reader will keep reading to find out what happens and how it happens, the decisions he makes and the consequences. The events, scenes and chapters would bear upon these key elements, be a kind of intricate dance between these elements.

I'm not sure how theme ties into this. I suppose theme might describe, a bit, the paths of the ribbons and dancers around the pole, heh. Theme runs alongside the throughline, describes something of the dance.

But I'm just working through these ideas still, grasping a little, heh.

_*Edit:_ And these two things, his current state and the conflict, will probably include those specifics.

My thinking though is that those specifics aren't the focus, even if the story is "about" the corruption in that wrestling world—lowercase. The possible danger is writing a story _About_ the corruption of the Werewolf Wrestling Federation, heh, rather than _About_ Roy's personal journey. There's nothing wrong with that if that's what you want, however.

There's some splitting of hairs here, but I think these are important hairs.




Svrtnsse said:


> The thing with stories being about more than one thing, could it be there's a difference between the throughline, the promise and the theme?
> 
> When I began the outline for my current WIP I wrote a sentence for each story to sum up what it is about. I picture this as being the throughline. I also added an entry for the promise, which is similar to the throughline, but not exactly the same. Then for the theme I just added a few keywords.
> 
> ...


----------



## Svrtnsse (Sep 2, 2017)

Good callouts. I get the idea little better now, and I probably got the idea that the throughline and the log line where closer together. They're close, but not the same. 

I feel like I'm getting the basic idea, but I'm not sure I've got the language to properly discuss it with clarity yet - if you know what I mean.


----------



## Heliotrope (Sep 2, 2017)

Haven't listened yet, I should probably do that before commenting lol, but to me the throughline is directly related to the over arching "goal" of the MC, or the large story question presented in the hook. 

The beginning of the story sets up that goal and its stakes by presenting it as a hook, 

Goal: destroy the ring of power. 
Hook (question): can this little hobbit destroy the one ring of power? 

The middle messes it up, and at the end he either achieves it or doesn't. 

To go with LOTR, sure, the story was about "friendship", but it was also about "change, growth, overcoming evil, working together, etc". 

The throughline, however, is the goal, which is simply "destroy the ring". The start of the story sets up that goal (the why and the stakes) and at the end Frodo achieves it. 

Here is the issue. If you start the story too early the reader will grab onto anything the MC is doing and they will think that is the MC's goal. So if we saw Frodo fishing for twenty minutes and he wanted to catch the biggest fish to beat a hobbit called Walt in a fishing contest the we would assume the story was about a fishing contest or a rivalry between Hobbits. When Gandolf showed up later and asked Frodo to destroy the ring and Frodo went off and Walt was never mentioned again, then we would wonder wtf was the point of all the early stuff. 

Hence, start as close to the throughline as possible. 

As far as finishing, if destroying the ring is the goal (throughline) then it better take until almost the last chapter, because as soon as that goal is achieved the story is essentially over for the reader. Once Frodo destroys the ring I'm not sticking around for ten more chapters of some other dumb conflict that has nothing to do with the story I was invested in. 

This is the same for any type of story. 

For a heist story the throughline is the heist. The story better start very close to the "why they need this job" and and end at the end of the heist. 

For a romance it better start at the "why theses two need each other" and end at them getting together. 

For a journey it starts at "why the hero needs to embark on this journey" and end at him getting there. 

For a mystery it must start with "why did this janitor get drowned in a bathtub full of barbecue sauce" and end with the answer to that question. 

The throughline is directly related to the "goal" or the over arching question of the story.


----------



## Heliotrope (Sep 2, 2017)

All stories have one very simple, very linear throughline if you look for it, and it is almost always related to the main hook (over arching question). 

Will the people be able to stop the gigantic dinosaur from eating everyone in the park? - Jurassic world

Will the old man catch a fish and save the people?  - the old man and the sea

Will the team be able to kill the alien before it kills them? - alien 

Will the woman be able to save the Englishman without any supplies? - the English patient

Each story starts as close to the hook question (throughline) as possible. 

Jurassic park with the eating of the worker by the trex. The old man by worrying about the starving boy, alien by the first of the crew being 'impregnated', you get the idea.


----------



## FifthView (Sep 3, 2017)

Svrtnsse said:


> Good callouts. I get the idea little better now, and I probably got the idea that the throughline and the log line where closer together. They're close, but not the same.
> 
> I feel like I'm getting the basic idea, but I'm not sure I've got the language to properly discuss it with clarity yet - if you know what I mean.



I'm also working my way to understanding the language. To some extent, shifting terms around could become confusing because they intersect so well and relate to one another. I'd probably say to anyone who is asking: As long as you have a clear idea of what your story is about and how to write it, don't worry whether you use premise statement, log line, or throughline to describe that understanding, heh!

In general, I'm trying to see the throughline through the lens of how the reader experiences the book. A premise statement could help a writer write it, and a premise statement or log line could help the writer sell it, but generally a reader isn't going to have either to pull her through the book.

Hopefully, having a clear idea of the throughline will also help the writer write it—in a way the reader will enjoy—by keeping the story tight, focused, and constantly dangling answers and questions for the reader that relate to the central question and potential outcomes.

I have been rethinking my earlier comments re: specifics. I'd written the "example" throughline with some specifics about Roy but the rest was a generality—

_Fading, prideful werewolf champion must find his path in a world where he may no longer belong._

—but in truth a reader might be pulled through the story better if "a world where" were more specific, maybe something like this:

_Fading, prideful werewolf champion must find his path in a world where he may no longer belong; will he be able to overcome his ties to the Werewolf Wrestling Federation and start a new life with The Girl, a life that doesn't include the WWF—or will he succumb?_

I don't remember the specifics of the story series you are writing, so I'm not sure how well this fits. But the point is that the WWF may play a central role throughout the journey, and readers could be really keyed into that. This is what separates one story from another about a man confronting a new world and being forced to change his circumstances.



Svrtnsse said:


> I've not applied the "fractal" theory that they mention in the podcast, but I think that too is a really good point, and I probably could make use of that too.



The idea of _fractal_ plotting ties into this. The overarching throughline for the story series might simply be the more generic one above..._or_ the more specific one, and then each story within the series could be a related but smaller—scaled version:


[Examples are _ad hoc_ here, heh.]

*Story One*

_A fading, prideful werewolf wrestler is offered a choice between easy retirement if he throws a match and an uncertain future if he doesn't; what will he do?_

*Story Two*

_On the run from the WWF, a former werewolf champion wrestler must decide whether he'll follow a clue that may lead him to a lost love or risk losing that lead by ambushing and killing a former master in revenge for a past wrong._

*Story Three*

_A former werewolf wrestling champion enters the city of Avrigard and encounters a novice werewolf wrestler whose family is being held hostage by that city's WWF league, to force him to fight; does that champion continue on his journey to find his lost love or does he help this novice wrestler?_


And so forth. It's kind of fractal. 

If the throughline is the more general one above, maybe the WWF doesn't figure into each story, not even tangentially, but a series of other adventures relating to the central throughline of encountering a new world and trying to find a place in it could be created.

Readers could like either series. But it's important to be clear about the throughline for a connected series of stories. If you "promise" that the WWF is going to play a central role throughout—it's a major part of the conflict—and then you insert stories that don't relate, a reader could grow bored. Maybe, maybe not. But if you promise the WWF is going to be important throughout, and then entirely drop the WWF in Story Four and all remaining stories, this could be a more significant problem because readers might want to see that conflict play to its conclusion.

And I think this sort of thing could be done for individual chapters in a novel as well as for individual stories in a story series.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Sep 3, 2017)

It's funny how your ad hoc examples aren't all that far from the actual stories. Sure, there are differences in the details, but there are similarities in the bigger picture.

Story one is pretty much the same as what you describe.

Story two is similar. Roy (the wrestler) is tracked by the WWF flunkies and has to make a difficult and important decision (which may or may not haunt him through the rest of the series).

Story three is actually story five, but only because stories three and four introduce the novice wrestler. Also, the novice wrestler is traveling journalist and not a wrestler at all. Roy's still going to have to decide whether to help them or leave them to their fate though.

It's like the building blocks for the stories are the same, but they're painted differently, if that makes sense.

Also, the overarching theme of the story is about finding your place in the world - a home, or a place/situation where you belong. 

Roy starts out feeling more and more like he doesn't belong, and when he learns that Toini is alive he realises that he belongs with her.
Alene (the traveling journalist) keeps telling herself she belongs on the road and that she enjoys being free to travel, but at the same time she also wants some kind of stability in her life. For the most part it's her suitcase (which was mentioned in another thread).
Toini has returned to her childhood's hometown and she finds she no longer belongs there, but longs to get back to her real work which has her travel the world in her air ship.

This theme is something the series comes back to over and over again, while the WWF thing kind of fades out after a while. I've heard the warning though. I don't want my readers to expect the conflict with the WWF to go on throughout the entire story, but rather to take an interest in Roy's journey.


----------



## Heliotrope (Sep 3, 2017)

Hey Svrt, 

Understanding what sort of story you are writing is key here. I love Blake Snyder's story types, and based on what I know of yours I'm fairly certain you are writing an "institutionalized" plot. Basically MC against "the man", and the man in this case is the wwf. He can't live with it, but he can't live without it and therein lies the rub. 

Have a read of this article 

Institutionalized - flying wrestler

And here are some hints on writing loglines (or getting to the throughline) of each type 

Your Logline Template for Each Save the Cat!Â® Genre | Save the Cat!Â®


----------



## Aryth (Sep 3, 2017)

FifthView said:


> The throughline is the movement toward a new way of being, from the starting point of fading/prideful/champion and the catalyst of the changing world.



I had never heard of a "throughline" before. From this discussion it sounds like it is distinct from theme, though I'm not exactly sure how yet. Is it something that encompasses the entire story,or a single character like a character arc? Maybe I'll check out the podcast, thanks for recommending.


----------



## Heliotrope (Sep 3, 2017)

Svrtnsse said:


> The thing with stories being about more than one thing, could it be there's a difference between the throughline, the promise and the theme?
> 
> When I began the outline for my current WIP I wrote a sentence for each story to sum up what it is about. I picture this as being the throughline. I also added an entry for the promise, which is similar to the throughline, but not exactly the same. Then for the theme I just added a few keywords.
> 
> ...



I think the only issue with the throughline statement in this exercise is the lack of a clear (specific) goal. The statement here is still pretty abstract and doesn't point to the linear goal/stakes of the story. 

I don't know what the goal is, but if I were making it up it might be something like: 

Fading wrestling champion Roy _needs to win one last fight in order to settle his debts and retire in comfort_. But when he is asked by his manager to intentionally lose, Roy finds himself choosing between integrity and loyalty. 

I put the specific goal in italics to show what is missing from your throughline. The direct, concrete, start to finish goal. 

The book will start with Roy getting ready for retirement, and end with him retired... but retired how? With millions of dollars and no integrity left? Or poor, but soul in tact? That doesn't matter. What matters is the direct, concrete goal, which gives the story a linear throughline.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Sep 4, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> Fading wrestling champion Roy _needs to win one last fight in order to settle his debts and retire in comfort_. But when he is asked by his manager to intentionally lose, Roy finds himself choosing between integrity and loyalty.



Right, I think I'm getting it now. I was thinking of the goal as the making of the difficult decision, but it's not. It's just the climax of the story. Roy's goal isn't to make the decision, but the decision stands in the way of his goal, and once he makes it he's either achieved the goal or not.

The goal then would be something like _Roy needs to lose his big match in order to secure a comfortable retirement for himself and his manager_?


----------



## Svrtnsse (Sep 4, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> Hey Svrt,
> 
> Understanding what sort of story you are writing is key here. I love Blake Snyder's story types, and based on what I know of yours I'm fairly certain you are writing an "institutionalized" plot. Basically MC against "the man", and the man in this case is the wwf. He can't live with it, but he can't live without it and therein lies the rub.
> 
> ...



Great resources. I missed this post at first. May have to get around to reading up on that cat thing already.


----------



## Heliotrope (Sep 4, 2017)

Svrtnsse said:


> Right, I think I'm getting it now. I was thinking of the goal as the making of the difficult decision, but it's not. It's just the climax of the story. Roy's goal isn't to make the decision, but the decision stands in the way of his goal, and once he makes it he's either achieved the goal or not.
> 
> The goal then would be something like _Roy needs to lose his big match in order to secure a comfortable retirement for himself and his manager_?



Sure, if that is the goal right from the beginning. 

Roy needs to lose his big match in order to secure a comfortable retirement for himself and his manager, but when he learns a long forgotten love needs his help he is forced to choose between loyalty to his current life, and responsibility to his past. 

Note* losing the match had better have some significant stakes, more than just simply securing a good retirement, unless retirement was literally life or death. It has to matter to the point where the reader is glued to the page until the very last chapter to see what he is going to do and how he is going to pull it off. 

_When warned by his doctor that he is one punch away from permanent brain damage, Roy must lose his next big match in order to secure a comfortable retirement for himself and his manager..._

Something like that. It gives you a very direct throughline, start to finish, and hints at the conflict.

Anyway you do it, I can feel the conflict dripping out of this story. But without a concise throughline it will come across on the page as too abstract, like the writer wasn't even clear on exactly where he was going with it, and it dilutes the tension and can even get downright confusing.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Sep 4, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> Sure, if that is the goal right from the beginning.
> 
> Roy needs to lose his big match in order to secure a comfortable retirement for himself and his manager, but when he learns a long forgotten love needs his help he is forced to choose between loyalty to his current life, and responsibility to his past.
> 
> ...



Cool, then I get it. 

I'm not sure that will be the exact throughline for the story, but it'll be something along those lines. Thanks for the help.


----------



## Heliotrope (Sep 4, 2017)

Yay! I love this stuff. These sorts of discussions on structure and clarity. 

I meant what I said, about the conflict. I can really feel a great story here, buried under all the excess muck.


----------



## FifthView (Sep 4, 2017)

Aryth said:


> I had never heard of a "throughline" before. From this discussion it sounds like it is distinct from theme, though I'm not exactly sure how yet. Is it something that encompasses the entire story,or a single character like a character arc? Maybe I'll check out the podcast, thanks for recommending.



For the moment, theme in context with the subject of throughlines is a little amorphous for me.

I've been thinking of serial v. episodic approaches for stories in a shared universe, specifically the original _Star Trek_ v. _Voyager_ v. something like the CW's _Flash_ or _Arrow_.

The original Star Trek was episodic. There was no throughline for the whole series. In this regard, the original Star Trek series was open-ended: 

"Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before."​
_Technically_, it was a five-year mission, so it would have an end. But this fact had no bearing on the events of the episodes, and the individual episodes had no substantial bearing on that end point.

Individual episodes of Star Trek had their own throughlines. Viewers tuned in to see a standalone story—what danger occurs, how it resolves—without any thought about where those individual stories were leading for the series as a whole.

Voyager was different. It had a series throughline: Ship is flung to an unexplored quadrant of the galaxy in the initial episode and must survive there while trying to get back home—which they eventually did in the final episode of the series. [Oops, spoiler alert, heh. Statute of limitations.]

Voyager is still somewhat episodic. Viewers tuned in to see whatever new danger occurred and how it would resolve during the episode (or the next episode sometimes.) But there's almost always the understanding that events in the episodes had a bearing on the final outcome of the series: Would they survive? Would they get home? Often enough, the crew was searching for some help or technology in an episode, things that would help them reduce the time/space of their journey home. Sometimes, they were encountering new foes that would hound them for large sections of that journey.

Where Voyager went wrong sometimes—in my personal, biased opinion—was when they'd spend a whole episode that was "human interest," or focused on some side story about an individual character, a story that didn't relate much to their voyage except to the degree that this character was in the show. This happened more in the first few seasons. Some of these episodes were better than others, but some annoyed me greatly. (Especially those focusing on Chakotay or that were largely flashbacks.) 

Then there is Flash, Arrow, and most of the best television now airing. These shows have a very clear throughline for each _season_—but not necessarily for the entire series run. Some of these shows, as with Voyager, occasionally have filler episodes that have little or nothing to do with the season throughline. I think this is largely due to the need to fill up a whole season's play list, heh, and happens far more often in seasons lasting 22-24 episodes. (I'm very positive about the trend toward shorter seasons, lasting 8-12 episodes, but those lasting longer can still be done well—if the writers are up to the task.)

So...there are these three general approaches vis-a-vis throughlines. But every one of these shows also has a theme or multiple themes. 

The original Star Trek's theme is that show opener: To boldly go, to explore.

Voyager's theme is isolation, the dangers of isolation, and the way this isolation forces us to become stronger. This theme reappears in episodes in many ways, not only relating to the larger voyage and the Voyager's crew becoming stronger. Characters are isolated from the rest of the crew in an episode and must find their way out. When Seven of Nine joins the crew, the theme is seen in reverse: The crew of the Voyager is that strange world, Seven is isolated and must change, grow stronger.  Neelix and Kes go through a similar process. The Doctor is isolated, must find his identity and fully join the crew.

TL;Dr I suppose, conceptually, throughline is best understood in terms of the trajectory leading from initial, primary conflict to its resolution, but theme is what arises during the journey from A to B. Theme is a bit more qualitative; throughline, structural. But I'm not sure this description is great, heh. Two people can have the same trajectory, two stories can have the same structural trajectory, but there could be two different themes. A man flung to a far-distant place may spend the whole journey home learning that we carry our troubles with us, wherever we are they are, and home is wherever we are. This would be a different theme than what Voyager uses.


----------



## Heliotrope (Sep 4, 2017)

I don't think the throughline has anything to do with theme. Two authors could take the same basic throughline but each have their own different theme focus. Lets pretend there was a throughline writing challenge. We were given the basic throughline, and we each had to write a story for it. 

_Retired con-man Markus wants his daughter to have a better life than he did, but is orchestrating a bank heist in order to pay for private school worth the price?   _

Ok, basic throughline. Markus is going to orchestrate a bank heist to pay for his daughters private school tuition so she doesn't end up a washed out jail bird like her old man. 

But every author will take this in an entirely different direction. Some might focus on the theme of over coming your past and accepting who you are, others might focus on the theme of fatherly love, others might focus on themes of trust and honesty in relationships. Some authors might make it a drama, others a comedy. Throughline are purely structural, the "may pole" as FifthView put it (perfect analogy!) where as theme, dialogue, scenes, setting, are all the ribbons tied around it.


----------



## Heliotrope (Sep 4, 2017)

Ps, I may do something with above throughline... it's totally a comedy in my mind and could be super fun to write lol


----------



## FifthView (Sep 5, 2017)

This could also go the route of The Unforgiven, except with a heist rather than assassination.

One of my difficulties considering throughline and theme together arises because I suppose different throughlines lend themselves better to exploring some themes, although perhaps this is because exploration of a theme requires constituent parts that may also be required by some throughlines.

If Markus didn't have a daughter and the desire to pay for private school, the theme of fatherly love might be harder to explore.  Maybe there could be flashbacks to Markus' father however, and the theme could be explored that way sans daughter and private school–although we'd need to find a slightly different throughline or at least a new reason for the heist, new motivation, new stakes.

In short, I'm not sure "throughline has [nothing] to do with theme" is apt. I do understand that theme and throughline are substantially different things, however, for the writer crafting a story.



Heliotrope said:


> I don't think the throughline has anything to do with theme. Two authors could take the same basic throughline but each have their own different theme focus. Lets pretend there was a throughline writing challenge. We were given the basic throughline, and we each had to write a story for it.
> 
> _Retired con-man Markus wants his daughter to have a better life than he did, but is orchestrating a bank heist in order to pay for private school worth the price?   _
> 
> ...


----------



## Heliotrope (Sep 5, 2017)

I see what you mean. Ok, my example was too specific. I really think this all ties into Blake Snyder's story types. If I make the throughline much more simple: 

A_ character goes after a McGuffin, which he believes is the key to his happiness._ 

That throughline is still a may pole, in the most stripped bare possible way, open to any interpretation of theme. 

So my opinion still stands that throughline have nothing to do with theme. They are purely structural. 

Snyder believes there are really only about ten successful story types, or throughlines, which are all then interpreted in infinite ways. 

*Monster in the House*

A character must kill the monster before it kills them. (Alien, Jaws, Jurassic Park, Scream, Tremors....) 

*Golden Fleece*

Character goes after a McGuffin in order to find happiness, but ends up discovering something else, himself. (Wizard of Oz, Star Wars, Road Trip, Vacation, Lord of the Rings, Oceans Eleven) 

*Out of the Bottle*

Character gets his wish, only to find life was better before. (Liar, Liar, Bruce Almighty, Freaky Friday) 

*Dude with a Problem*

Ordinary dude finds himself in extraordinary circumstances. (Die Hard, Schindler's list, Titanic, The Terminator). 

*Rites of Passage*

Character must navigate and cope with life events beyond their control. 

*Buddy Love*

Two characters who don't like each other are forced to work together until they understand how much they need each other. (All romance stories, Wayne's World, Lethal Weapon) 

*Why done it?*

Character must find out why the mystery happened in order to stop it from happening again. 

*The Fool Triumphant*

Underdog takes on the establishment. (Dave, Amadeus, Forrest Gump, underdog sports stories) 

*Institutionalized*

Guy takes on the man or risks losing his identity to the man. 

*Superhero*

Extraordinary character thrust into ordinary world.


----------



## FifthView (Sep 5, 2017)

Helio,

I think I'll stand by the idea that different throughlines may lend themselves better to exploring some themes. I don't think this necessarily means that some themes require a particular throughline or that a particular throughline limits the sort of theme the story can have.

Perhaps I should qualify that by saying that different throughlines may lend themselves better to exploring some themes _in depth_, heh. Some stories are more "about" a theme than other stories even if the latter also have themes.



Heliotrope said:


> Snyder believes there are really only about ten successful story types, or throughlines, which are all then interpreted in infinite ways.



Ok, so here you are equating throughline with story type, and each of those story types has a description that is somewhat vague or general. In an earlier comment, you suggested that Svrt add some specifics to highlight the goal and stakes:



Heliotrope said:


> I think the only issue with the throughline statement in this exercise is the lack of a clear (specific) goal. The statement here is still pretty abstract and doesn't point to the linear goal/stakes of the story.
> 
> I don't know what the goal is, but if I were making it up it might be something like:
> 
> ...



I'm wondering whether story type and throughline should be thought of as equivalent terms. I think, probably not—although I do think that story types suggest particular conflicts and potential throughlines and possibly a general goal.

Beyond the abstract considerations, there are the practical considerations when deciding to write a story. I think this is where new writers can trip themselves....I know this affects me a lot.

If I begin with "I want to write a [story type] story," then that gives me little clue how to proceed, heh. The details, the structure, are still vague. I want to write a heist story. Okay, so now what? I know there are thieves, a thing to be stolen, and probably dangers in trying to steal it. There is a beginning and an end, sure—as with every story hah.

Those story types are not structure, but only descriptions of structure in the abstract, heh.

If I add some of the specifics—

My MC is Markus, a retired thief, and he's doing the heist to pay for his daughter's private school so she doesn't end up like him...but the target is a former employer who has been hunting for Markus with blood in his eyes...the item is on a train being protected by werewolf and vampire guards...and if Markus is discovered, that former employer will not only kill him but also take Markus' daughter and force her into indentured servitude...

—then I have a more specific throughline. This is not some vague idea of a throughline, a throughline in the abstract sense of, well, there's a beginning and an end. This is not a generic heist or generic "Golden Fleece" story. The throughline is a retired thief trying to pull off a heist so his daughter has a bright future (_while risking his daughter's future!_) and overcoming his former employer's designs on him, his daughter, and protecting the treasure. The questions asked are not merely, "Will he successfully steal the Golden Fleece?" 

There's a difference between a real, solid throughline, and a mere abstraction of one, heh. Or maybe put another way: The may pole is more than the bit in the ground and the top orb, or beginning circumstances/catalyst and goal. It's the whole metal or wooden length of the pole. The ribbons circle that entire length, so I need to know what the ribbons are circling. If I have some more of the specifics, I can begin to imagine the progress of the story, what the scenes will need to do, the obstacles, the players, etc.

Starting with theme is also problematic. Let's say I want to write a story about the power of a father's love. Okay, even more than when starting with a general story type idea, I have a wide-open set of potential stories to consider. It could be any one of those story types. Which of those would best allow me to explore that theme?  Maybe there's no answer to that; it could be any one of those story types.

But is there a particular throughline that would better help me explore that theme in depth—or, more easily? I could choose the elements of the throughline that would help me to do this.

This isn't an idle question for me personally, because I often start with thematic elements, like "I want to write a love story about two young men from very different, sometimes antagonistic cultures," or in other words, about the way true love transcends these cultural divides. I think I'm not alone in this....Thematic elements can be a great spur to writing. But starting with thematic elements (what I want the story to be "about," I sometimes think) and having no concrete throughline can lead to a meandering story, lots of scenes in which the primary characters interact or else lots of world building happens, or whatever, but it just doesn't feel as if it's _going_ anywhere in an engaging way. Even if I have vague ideas about the beginning (two men from different cultures collide) and end (aha, true love!), that still doesn't tell me much about how to structure the story in a practical way: What scenes to write, where to put them, which POVs to use, and so forth.

If I return to the example of CW's _Flash_, I could say every season has the same throughline, if considered abstractly. A new baddie is introduced in the first episode, probably a speedster, and Flash & Co. will need to defeat him in the last episode. Let's call this the Flash Story Type, heh. This provides a vague structure we'll call the Flash Formula. And for the sake of the May Pole Concept, we could say that what distinguishes one season from the next is the collection of ribbons circling this basic throughline. 

We could say the Flash Story Type and Flash Throughline and Flash Formula actually describe lots of other shows. Heck, these describe _24_. 

Knowing these broad formulae might help somewhat in structuring our own version, but probably not so much in designing our particular scenes and episodes and characters and so forth. Yet these things are what circle that Flash Pole. (Or...Flash Point? Heh.) So if we consider our throughline with more specifics, like the Baddie is a terrorist planning to use nukes on American soil, and our MC is an ex anti-terror agent on the outs with his former agency, and there's a mole on the inside of that agency working with the terrorist...Well, now we have a season of _24_ and will have a better idea of how to choose the ribbons we weave around the pole. The questions raised are not merely, "Can Jack Bauer defeat the terrorists before it's too late?"—because the answer's already always "Yes."—but also, will Jack Bauer be able to overcome the hostility he experiences from high level figures in that agency and rejoin it, and will the mole be exposed before doing massive damage to Bauer's quest, etc.


----------



## FifthView (Sep 6, 2017)

Helio, I think the TL;DR version of my above comment would be that structure can be thought of in the abstract or the concrete, and for the concrete structure to take shape, specifics are required. 

In a discussion like this, we can approach the topic in the abstract in order to come to a clearer understanding of what is meant by throughline, and this could help when considering our own stories. By distilling it, we can see how all good stories have a throughline.

But from a creative standpoint, trying to build particular stories, a consideration of the specifics can help us understand the throughlines of our individual stories.

We're not exactly talking about different things but maybe approaching the topic from two directions.

As the discussion has developed, I've also been thinking in terms of the hook, promise, and sense of story progress as these relate to throughlines. So this led me to consider how the specifics influence reader engagement with particular throughlines. For instance, rather than being hooked by the broad and vague story throughline suggested by "Guy takes on the man or risks losing his identity to the man," the specifics of _"Fading werewolf wrestling champion" takes on "a corrupt Werewolf Wrestling Federation" and "risks losing his retirement or his integrity"_ might be the throughline that interests a reader.  Some other story falling into that story archetype might not interest the reader much at all despite having a similar throughline.


----------



## Futhark (Sep 6, 2017)

Fascinating post.  Serendipitous for myself, as I have been pondering a great deal about where to start my story.  After reading lots of excellent blogs I've decided to drop the prologue that introduces the villain and start with the MC in his normal world.  He is basically a detective Mage in a pre-industrial oriental-ish society, part nobleman, part city official.

I had been toying with the idea of him investigating a missing person, which is a sub-plot.  When 'upper management' finds out, the case is closed and he is reprimanded.  The reason I would include this in the story is to get him to start questioning what knowledge the government is withholding.  It ties in with his character arc.

However, this particular sub-plot does not tie in with the main plot, and I have been thinking that including it would confuse and perhaps irritate readers.  From my understanding of what this post is about, I am more convinced that this is true.

Have I got this right?  How do you give the throughline to the reader and introduce them to the characters normal world at the beginning?


----------



## Heliotrope (Sep 7, 2017)

FifthView said:


> Helio,
> 
> I think I'll stand by the idea that different throughlines may lend themselves better to exploring some themes. I don't think this necessarily means that some themes require a particular throughline or that a particular throughline limits the sort of theme the story can have.
> 
> ...



I get what you are saying, but personally I believe all those extra details are the ribbons, not the pole. 

The Flash storyline is simply a "Superhero" story line, the same as all "Superhero" storylines. Flash has to stop the bad guy before the bad guy destroys the _whatever_. It's the same as every Batman, Superman, X-man, Spider-Man storyline. The "throughline" is identical, beat for beat. 

Super villain plots to destroy x. 
Everyone is too typical and normal to be able to stop him. 
They need the (insert super hero here). He is the only one who can do it. 
Poor superhero is so misunderstood by society. He just wants to be a "real" boy. 
He saves the world to try to prove to everyone he has value. 
No one cares. Things resume as normal. Superhero goes back into hiding....

Until next time. 

The end. 

The setting, the bag guy, the costume, the unique and humanizing back story... all that is ribbons. 

I'll maybe give you theme. You have convinced me on that one. Yes, some throughlines do lend themselves to specific types of themes.


----------



## Heliotrope (Sep 7, 2017)

FifthView said:


> Helio, I think the TL;DR version of my above comment would be that structure can be thought of in the abstract or the concrete, and for the concrete structure to take shape, specifics are required.
> 
> In a discussion like this, we can approach the topic in the abstract in order to come to a clearer understanding of what is meant by throughline, and this could help when considering our own stories. By distilling it, we can see how all good stories have a throughline.
> 
> ...



This is true, in that of course specifics and details make the story more engaging to the reader, but I argue those are again, the ribbons. The way you have packaged the story. The throughline is simply the basic goal. 

Save the girl. Destroy the ring. Find the McGuffin. Lose the match. 

That is the linear, forward moving aspect of the story that keeps the reader reading. 

Is he going to be able to destroy the ring? 

Some readers are going to be partial to a certain type of story, of course. So where I may not pick up a book about a werewolf wwf wrestler struggling with making choices about his career, I may pick up a story about a woman struggling with the choice between persuing a career, or motherhood. Both stories would fall in the "institutionalized" category, and match the throughline beat for beat. 

Character is offered a route to happiness through their career. 
But then something unexpected happens that makes them second guess that choice. 
Now they have to decide what would really make them happy, 
But it will come with sacrifice. 
They will make that sacrifice and it will be bittersweet, but they know they made the right choice. 
The end 

Both stories, the mother and the werewolf, are basically, at their core, the same story. They have just been dressed in different ribbons.


----------



## FifthView (Sep 7, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> I get what you are saying, but personally I believe all those extra details are the ribbons, not the pole.



This is another area where our outlooks differ somewhat. When I originally thought of the may pole metaphor, I'd mostly been thinking of the ribbons as events, scenes, chapters, subplots, side quests, character arcs and various developments—what is put before the reader, how the reader's focus is drawn. These things should appear significant, keyed into the throughline, and not extraneous, to preserve a sense of progress in the story.

In a successful story, the throughline constrains these developments. We don't spend a whole chapter having Markus trying to bake a pie unless his efforts have a bearing on the throughline of the story. That would be a loss of focus, vis-a-vis the throughline, and would probably have a negative effect on the reader's experience. (Pacing, most likely.)

So, these ribbons are connected to the pole, and the pole constrains them. 

Sometimes the connection is not explicit, for instance in the case of a chapter used mostly for character development: the character may not be doing anything to directly address his primary goal, but whatever character traits are shown or whatever character growth happens should seem to have some bearing on the overall throughline. An example might be something like a training montage, if growth is what's being shown. If the chapter's used to show character traits or perhaps a character's relationships, it would be because these affect the kind of path the character's on, which would include the path of the throughline, and should provide a sense of _some_ progress (a progress in the reader's understanding of that character, stakes, whatever.) There's nothing wrong, per se, with showing Markus trying to bake a pie—_if_ that passage is keyed into the throughline.

But let's suppose that a chapter of Markus engaged in some non-plot-specific activity is important to the story and pacing. We still have to make sure the chapter is connected to and circling the throughline. But do we have to make it about baking a pie? Maybe he could bake a cake, repair a child's bicycle, shop for school clothes, whatever. These details may not be as constrained by the pole as the general development of "showing Markus trying to be a good single father" or showing Markus "struggling with the basics of child-rearing" or "showing Markus as a _retired thief_ trying to be a good single father, struggling because being a father is not his primary skill set" or whatever. As an author, perhaps you could pick and choose those details according to....what? Not the pole.

_Unless_, of course, a part of the throughline includes those details: _Markus, a retired master thief struggling to master the new skill set of being a good single father, decides to help his middle grade daughter win a school pie bake off contest._  Heh. Then maybe the chapter showing him trying to master the skill set of baking a pie would key into that rather well, the detail is constrained by the pole.  A chapter showing him trying to repair a bicycle...might also key into that throughline detail of "new skill set of being a good father" and maybe into the detail of "middle grade daughter...school." This is just a facile example of what I'm kinda thinking. (But after writing that, I think it'd be a great, funny story.)


----------



## FifthView (Sep 7, 2017)

Futhark,

I think this ties in with what Heliotrope said in an earlier post on this thread:



Heliotrope said:


> Here is the issue. If you start the story too early the reader will grab onto anything the MC is doing and they will think that is the MC's goal. So if we saw Frodo fishing for twenty minutes and he wanted to catch the biggest fish to beat a hobbit called Walt in a fishing contest the we would assume the story was about a fishing contest or a rivalry between Hobbits. When Gandolf showed up later and asked Frodo to destroy the ring and Frodo went off and Walt was never mentioned again, then we would wonder wtf was the point of all the early stuff.
> 
> Hence, start as close to the throughline as possible.



That second sentence especially: _"If you start the story too early, the reader will grab onto anything the MC is doing"_ and think that's what the story will be about. If they latch onto this beginning, this'll spark their interest in _that_ story, and they'll be thrown for a loop if the story suddenly veers into another direction.

However, at the same time, I don't think this is an exact science, heh. 

I'd mentioned earlier that I think readers automatically assume that what an author puts in a story is important. That's the natural beginning state for the reader. That's also a double edged sword, especially for the beginning of the story. If you start too early, then you could be misleading the reader about the story you are telling. But at the same time, readers are still easing into a novel at the beginning, and I believe this means we can get away with a lot more at the beginning than later into the story. In other words, we are given the benefit of the doubt, heh, and we might be able to ease readers into the main plot.



Futhark said:


> I had been toying with the idea of him investigating a missing person, which is a sub-plot.  When 'upper management' finds out, the case is closed and he is reprimanded.  The reason I would include this in the story is to get him to start questioning what knowledge the government is withholding.  It ties in with his character arc.
> 
> However, this particular sub-plot does not tie in with the main plot, and I have been thinking that including it would confuse and perhaps irritate readers.  From my understanding of what this post is about, I am more convinced that this is true.



Part of the issue is deciding on _focus_. And part of that revolves around the length of time you spend on any given sequence, developments, and so forth. If your MC is a detective, starting with him in the midst of an investigation is not a bad thing, even if that particular investigation has nothing to do with the main story. This introduces the character, his milieu, etc. But, if the whole of the first chapter is nothing but that investigation, and it's a longish chapter, and his bosses calling him in to reprimand him only happens at the very end of that chapter, then that's probably putting too much focus on that inconsequential investigation. You can still start with it, but wrap it up pretty quickly, say on page two or maybe two-and-a-half, when he's called in by his bosses. The rest of the chapter could be more about the main throughline.

But focus isn't only about number of pages. You could possibly make clear to the reader that this investigation is ho-hum, just another part of this detective's daily life, one of many investigations, nothing particularly relevant to the main throughline, if you thread through that chapter other elements relating more clearly to the main throughline. Let's say in paragraph three (or sooner!) your MC reads a short message from his boss directing him to report in, the message signals very clearly to him that something is wrong, he's probably in trouble, and so forth. Then he spends the entire rest of the chapter continuing on this investigation, disregarding the summons but thinking about it lots, and maybe at some point in his investigation a representative of the higher-ups shows up—let's say your MC is standing in a dark room, having just broken into a residence during the middle of the night, and there's a shifting sound in the corner, he freaks, but that representative just steps out of the shadows and says, basically, "Hey bub, they're waiting for you."—and then he continues working that room after the rep disappears. The chapter could end with him reporting in to his bosses and that reprimand, in this case.

^In this case, the investigation can last throughout the first chapter, but much of the "focus" is on the primary throughline. You'd probably want to include some details, perhaps something that representative lets slip, about the shady nature of his bosses and the government, to better tie into the main throughline...details that raise the pertinent questions for this MC and the reader.

Edit: I'd forgotten this part: "this particular sub-plot does not tie in with the main plot." In a case like that, I might be wondering whether subplots add anything to the overall story. Is it merely a device to fill up time? Then it's only filler. But it could be used as a device to show something important about the world, that MC, etc., and so it could be useful to the main throughline. Is that missing person investigation going to continue throughout the story in some way?


----------



## Heliotrope (Sep 7, 2017)

Hi Futhark, 

I meant to answer your question, but I always get so distracted by FifthView lol! 

FifthView, you and I probably are coming at this from two different angles, but still arguing the same thing. We do that a lot. 

I think a lot of what you mentioned earlier about the ribbons still being tied and wrapped around the same pole is where I'm going to go with my response to Futhark. 

Ok, Futhark, I would need to know more about your planned character arc to get into more detail, and based on the info you gave I'm still not sure on what type of story you are working on, so take all this with a grain of salt 

Here is the thing about subplots, they NEED to be there to move the main plot forward. Always. They must be tied around the same pole. Whether this is to explore the THEME in more depth, or to give background knowledge to the reader that the MC can't know about, they must be connected to the main plot. 

Here is the thing though, they can appear totally unrelated, but by the end they MUST be tied back to the pole in some way. 

So in the case of THEME, if I were writing a story about "fatherly love" and exploring the relationship between a father and his daughter, I may include a subplot where the father is also responsible for looking after his own, aged father, who maybe has dementia or something. This "B" plot, as it is known, would add depth to the theme, show why the father wants a certain type of relationship with his daughter, and maybe he learns something from the old man that helps him connect with his own daughter... that clichÃ© "I wish I had done things differently with you son. Don't make the mistakes I made" moment.

I could also add a "C" plot, where maybe the daughter has a best friend who has a seemingly "perfect" relationship with her dad. The friend's dad is super rich and super cool etch, etc, etc, or maybe he is super strict and has lots of rules, but the daughter likes that because she thinks her dad is too easy and doesn't really care about her. Wherever. Then by the end the girl realizes the relationship isn't "perfect" and that every relationship has it's flaws. 

You get the idea. Sub plots must feed into the main plot and character arc in regards to theme. They must serve a purpose and be wrapped around the same pole. 

In regards to moving the plot forward, sometimes information must be given to the reader that the MC can't know about. This might be something like revealing the villain's plans to the reader, so the reader knows what is going to happen when the MC enters the scary cave, and they are on the edge of their seat knowing the bad guy is waiting. In this case you can have a B plot where the reader get's extra "Chapters" showing the bad guy in action. 

In the case of your story, the opening investigation could do a few things that would then tie in by the end so it doesn't feel so pointless. 

1) It could reveal a flaw that will be overcome by the end. 

Many stories use the opening scene to reveal the character's flaw that will be overcome at the end, thus showing "change" and highlighting the character arc. Examples of this include: 

In 21 Jump street with Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill the two boys start out at High School, Channing as the Jock and Jonah as the nerd. We see their weakness and their strengths. Then we jump forward ten years later and they are in cop school, and they need each other and the other has a strength that matches the other's weakness. Finally, we see them patrolling a park and they try to take down some drug dealers. Channing Tatum doesn't know his Miranda rights, and Jonah Hill refuses to use his gun. 

Ok, all this seems irrelevant AT FIRST. But then we get into the main plot. The two men, as a result of their idiocy, get recruited into the Jump Street division. They have to go back to High School (tying in the opening scene and making it relevant to the main plot) to investigate a drug problem. Turns out the guys dealing drugs to the teenagers are the SAME guys from the park scene at the beginning (again, tying it all into the main plot). And guess what? By the end Tatum is going to remember his Miranda rights, and Hill is going to have to shoot his gun. Oh, and the two guys will end up as best friends. 

Every single part of the story, every sub plot, every character introduced becomes relevant in some way to the main plot. I personally think the writers were MASTERS of structure. They are the same duo who wrote the Lego Movie, and that movie is also a perfect structural masterpiece. 

So in the case of your story, use the investigation, but find ways to tie it into the main plot, whether that includes using the same characters later on, making the discovery of a key piece of information that may _seem_ unrelated but he will need later, or showing a lesson that will need to be learned to show growth by the end.


----------



## Futhark (Sep 7, 2017)

Thanks so much for the replies.  I agree with FifthView about focus, and the MC's work on this missing person conspiracy is not the focus of the story.  It was an idea more akin to a side quest in a game, not suitable for a novel.  What I should be focusing on is the primary throughline, as you say, which is saving the nation from a resurgent inimical force.  Perhaps a routine investigation into shadow elements (say a warlock abducting people to experiment on) that still exist would be more fitting. 

Heliotrope, thanks for the advice on subplots.  To give you a little info about the MC.  He is a reserved, rather anxious and isolated person trying to live up to the expectations of society and familial honour.  His arc is about becoming self-empowered and purposeful as an individual.  The theme is questioning the strengths and limitations of society (I guess).  The antagonist is his mirror, fighting to restore the lost privileges of witches and warlocks everywhere, but his arc is about over-powering and oppressing others rather than providing freedoms.

So, thinking out iPad here, the beginning could be a subplot that is threefold in purpose.  It introduces the MC's normal world, some of his strengths and flaws, and provides background info on baddies that will be relevant for the main TL.

Thanks again for the replies, greatly appreciated.


----------



## Futhark (Sep 8, 2017)

I found an interesting webpage, storymind.com that has an article

Throughlines - and How to Use Them!

By Melanie Anne Phillips

That may interest you two and your 'lively discussion'.

Cheers, Futhark.


----------



## FifthView (Sep 8, 2017)

One of the Mythcreants podcasters casually mentioned "character throughline" or some such in another podcast I listened to after the one I linked in the OP.

I don't particularly have a problem with thinking about multiple throughlines, as suggested by that article, although I think doing so shouldn't distract from the idea of a central throughline for the whole story. Each ribbon could be thought of as a different "line," heh, and the weaves in the cloth of each ribbon could be thought of as having different "lines" woven together.

At some point, complexity in the theory/abstractions could become distracting. 

OTOH, when I mentioned that these ribbons could be woven down the may pole, plaited, that's similar to what that article says:  "Essentially, a number of different throughlines are layered, one upon another, much as a craftsperson might weave a tapestry."  



Futhark said:


> I found an interesting webpage, storymind.com that has an article
> 
> Throughlines - and How to Use Them!
> 
> ...


----------



## Jorunn (Sep 19, 2017)

I've been pouring over this thread and the linked resources as this is the exact trouble I'm having with my current WIP. The difficulty is I have two MCs who each have their own goals and two ominous overarching threats/conflicts that will be resolved over the course of what is currently believed to be two books. It's been tricky to distill a clear throughline out of it all. Possibly because I keep getting tangled up in my own brain and distracted by potential rearrangements of plot points that could all prove to be interesting in their own way...

Goal of MC 1: Wants to be accepted and have a real role in her society.
Goal of MC 2: Wants to maintain/return to peace and order.

These make sense for their characters and they do each achieve them by the end of the story, but as they are they feel very nebulous. But the best I can muddle out for a collective throughline of the first book is "Twin sisters stranded in an unfamiliar city must adapt to their new abilities and surroundings before a burgeouning threat destroys their new home". 

And I don't know if that makes sense? I have other stories where the throughline is right in front of my nose 
(_Young woman flees her occupied homeland in search of a better life and goes on a quest to find her missing brother._) Easy. But this one is a PAIN for some reason.


----------



## Rkcapps (Sep 19, 2017)

That was an interesting listen, thanks for posting. Fulfilling a promise makes sense.


----------



## FifthView (Sep 19, 2017)

Hi Jorunn.

In a case like that, I might ask what your primary focus is, the thing around which all else circles. That focus will help you find the throughline; other elements will support the story, give it texture, represent obstacles and developments that circle the throughline and lead to its conclusion.



Jorunn said:


> Goal of MC 1: Wants to be accepted and have a real role in her society.
> Goal of MC 2: Wants to maintain/return to peace and order.



On one hand, as stated these seem like supporting elements, potential obstacles, and suggest some necessary development, especially considering this:



Jorunn said:


> "Twin sisters stranded in an unfamiliar city must adapt to their new abilities and surroundings before a burgeouning threat destroys their new home".



That burgeoning threat seems like a driver, which is kinda another word for goal.

What are the goals?


Wants to be accepted and have a real role in her society.
Wants to maintain/return to peace and order.
Wants to adapt to surroundings, an unfamiliar city [society.]
Wants to adapt to new abilities.
Wants to stop a threat that may well destroy their new home.

I think other goals might exist, although you've not given more information. What is the relationship between these sisters, and do they have goals relating to each other based on this relationship?

In any case, a single one of these goals can become the focus for a story. 


The story is "About" one character becoming accepted and having a real role in her society. 
Or, the story is "About" one character trying to maintain/return to peace and order. 
Or, the story is "About" these two sisters adapting to a strange new city.
It's "About" these two sisters adapting to new abilities. 
It's "About" a force/threat that can destroy this city (which must be stopped.)

There are five different stories that can be told, given these goals, heh. 

Are you familiar with the M.I.C.E. quotient? Milieu, Idea, Character, Event. Four basic "types" of story. All stories will have all these elements to varying degrees, but a story typically has a throughline, or a focus, on one.

The first two of the above bullet points would probably be Character stories or at least have a focus on a single character's journey to achieve the corresponding goal. So, they'd probably have only one MC, just one of the sisters. (However, I'd bet you could create two interlocking character stories, with two POVs, and still have a Character type of story.)

The third might be a character story or possibly could be a Milieu story, since elements of this strange, new world would be receiving lots of focus.

The fourth and fifth are probably Event stories, although the fourth might be a character story depending on how the new abilities lead to character development or even a milieu story if the powers are used as symbols of the milieu, i.e. keyholes for exploring that milieu.

These elements, M.I.C.E., would exist in all five stories, but one element would be the focus and the others would be supporting, adding texture, etc. The easiest way to think about this falls on "M." A great many stories use the milieu, i.e. the world, as a kind of backdrop. That backdrop is necessary for every story but doesn't receive the focus. It's supportive. Unless of course you are writing a Milieu story that is "About" that milieu.

Returning to the elements of your story...The conceptual problem of course is that the story is "about"—lowercase—all of those elements. But what is the focus, the driver? What's it _About_?

Ok, so I hope the above isn't confusing. I think this is just one way to think about our stories that might be helpful. Based on the info you've given, I'm not sure of the type of story you are aiming for, but I hope this helps.

As for the specific throughline you've given, two additional thoughts come to mind. I'll try to be brief, heh.

When trying to create premise statements for my stories, I realized I was very fond of the word _embroiled_. But the problem with that word is that it's passive, heh—

_A master magician and his three apprentices travel to the capital city of the Empire on an errand from his queen and become embroiled in a feud between warring political factions._

—Maybe as a description of the story or a synopsis, that's not too bad. But as a throughline, I think it wouldn't work. What's the focus, the driver of the story? Which elements support that focus? In that synopsis, the focus is hidden, I think. The magician's/apprentices' travel is almost incidental, the errand is a convenience, the feuding political factions are milieu (or an accidental circumstance.) There's no Goal there.



> "Twin sisters stranded in an unfamiliar city must adapt to their new abilities and surroundings before a burgeouning threat destroys their new home".



Yours is similar, very similar. Their stranding is incidental, a convenience, or a circumstance; the city is circumstance; and "must adapt" is rather passive. _Something else_ is driving that need to adapt. The city? The burgeoning threat? Their own personalities, internal motivators?

I don't think having elements like those in the throughline statement is necessarily a bad thing, but only that an additional element seems to be missing.

The second point revolves around the idea of goals and motivators. Often, these two words are thought to be identical. _What's her motivation?_ is read to be identical to _What's her goal?_ But I like to think of them differently.

I think of motivators as stimuli to action. As such, actions circle the motivation. [The etymology here is interesting, but I digress.] This stimulus, the motivator, can be internal or external.

In a character story like the first two bullet points way up there^, the personality traits and internal goals of either sister can be that sister's motivator. In fact, in Character stories, this is always the case: the story is driven by that character's internal motivator. The character wants a new life, and everything else in the story circles that, supports that throughline, is circumstance. 

But in an Event story, the primary motivator will be external. A threat to the city appears, and this threat is the primary motivator. Frodo receives the One Ring, Sauron is that threat, and this not only gets the story started but _everything else_ in that story circles that throughline of destroying this threat.

None of this means that there can't be multiple motivators. Like the bullet list of goals, all of which might appear in a story. But what drives the story?


----------



## Jorunn (Sep 24, 2017)

I've been letting all this marinate over the last few days while cooking hobbit food...

Sister A is gifted, a fixture of her community, and very content with her life but an emergent healing ability forces her to leave home for training. She initially wants to just get on with the bare minimum needed to control her new abilities and go home to her business and her lover, but as she struggles to grasp the basics (the first thing she has ever really struggled with) she bonds with a particular patient with whom she starts to uncover both her real talents and a huge medical breakthrough that will have significant impact in the second story. 

Sister B was born with an abnormal lack of magical ability. It appeared violently under unexplained circumstances later in life, resulting in a death and two years of observational confinement by the ruling powers of the territory who keep a close eye on such things. She travels with her sister to the new city but they are attacked on the way and she discovers she is immune to wrythesong (the hypnotic calls of deadly monsters that stalk the wilds). This oddity gets her snapped up by the guard force. She is suddenly valued for the thing that once set her apart and so goes her journey from purposeless to taking up a command position by the end of book 1. 

There is also a conflict between the sisters that develops halfway through where Sister A wants to find a "cure" for Sister B's unsettled magic (which does have some potentially dangerous downsides), and Sister B comes to realize she doesn't want to be "cured". So I guess what really drives this story at least is the changing relationship between the two of them; Sister A having always been the protector (despite being technically younger, which has always been a thorn in B's pride) letting go of that control and Sister B coming to terms with repressed jealousy and a need to impress both A and their mother (who is famous as as war hero and for her magic that is in the same line as A's). 

Distilled into a more coherent form, I end up with "_Twin sisters navigate their close and complex bond amid rising dangers both political and supernatural_".  This makes the drive internal and I can make almost all my plot points serve it in some way. It also gives me opportunities for tension in book 2, as A drifts towards joining up with their mother's old resistance cell and B (literally, at one point) disappears into her greater destiny. 

I still have some lingering question marks about fitting in the backstory (B's in particular) without making the story feel top heavy, but I have way more clarity that I did a week ago.


----------

