Finding conflict in the rule of the story world

[Steerpike]

I posted something about this in another thread on conflict, but didn't have time to elaborate. Rather than hijack that thread, I'm starting a new one. Some preliminaries:

1. These thoughts are not mine. They are from a course on screenwriting by Angus Fletcher, and I felt that they have applicability to all kinds of fiction, not just screenwriting. I'm writing them here in my own words; and
2. This is not meant to be prescriptive. It is one way of looking at or for conflict that may be of use to people, especially if one is having a hard time establishing a conflict in the story.

The idea set forth in the instruction is that a story world has at least one core rule, and that the protagonists of the story are in conflict with that rule. If you can define that rule for your world, it is easy to establish conflict from there. Three examples from popular film:

1. STAR WARS: The rule that governs the story world here is basically one of "might makes right." From the outset, the Empire is shown as overwhelmingly powerful. They have Star Destroyers, and even have a secret weapon that can destroy an entire planet.
   • Han Solo is a rogue type of character. He operates outside of the the laws that rule the story world. He's also fleeing bounty hunters, and more apt to survive on wits or charm than power. He's in conflict with the core rule of the world that says the powerful dominate.
   • Princess Leia ostensibly has some power. She comes from a noble family, after all. But by opposing the Empire she puts herself in conflict with the idea that might is always right, and when we first see her she is fleeing the dominant power, and then captured by it.
   • Luke Skywalker, the main hero, has the least power of all at the outset. He's on a backwater planet, fixing old droids and old farm equipment. He's still somewhat under the parental authority of his aunt and uncle. He's the opposite of powerful when the movie introduces him.
   • Darth Vader, the antagonist, embodies the rule of the story world. He dominates others through power and imposes his will on other characters.
2. THE GODFATHER: The rule that governs here is also one of power, but it is the rule that one man (Don Corleone) is the law. The Godfather's word as law, his power, is established from scene 1. The protagonist, Don Corleone's son Michael, is immediately shown in conflict with this. We learn that he has joined the Marine Corps, a societal force, and embodiment of the will of society as law or at least as a source of power. This is the polar opposite of the idea of one man as law. And from the outset, it is established that Michael does not want to be like his father. He's in conflict with the rule that says a single man's word is law. Of course, the Godfather is a tragedy, so in the end Michael conforms to the rule of the story world, unlike Luke Skywalker et al. who triumphantly oppose the rule of their story world.
3. JAWS: The rule that governs here is a rule of animal nature and animal appetites. The shark is, of course, the ultimate embodiment of this. It is simply base animal instinct. But humans in the movie also follow the basic rule of the story world. Young people out drinking and having sex, following their animalistic natures, are victims of the shark. The mayor of the town is driven to keep the beaches open by the base animal instinct of greed. Even the son of Brody (the sheriff) is introduced as being injured playing on a swing that he'd been told was broken. He didn't care if it was broken--he was following a primal urge to have fun and he paid the price. More importantly, this allows an immediate set up of Brody as being in conflict with the rule of the story world. He scolds his son for playing on the swing, telling him he should be more careful. There are other elements that establish Brody as being cautious or suspicious of nature right from the start. He doesn't follow animal instincts, he fights against them. And he doesn't pay the price that those following their animal natures do.

So that's the basic idea. Figure out what the core rule of your story world is, and then figure out how to put your characters in conflict with it. In some cases (like Brody from Jaws) the mere existence of the character with a set of personality traits put the character in immediate conflict with the story world.

In the course Fletcher was teaching, he went through the same analysis for Princess Bride, Game of Thrones, Toy Story, When Harry Met Sally, Unforgiven, Casablanca, Pulp Fiction, Fargo, and more. It's an interesting technique and worth thinking about. Perhaps it will be of help to someone here.

 

[Mythopoet]

I'm interested in what he identified as the core rule in The Princess Bride.

 

[Steerpike]

I'm interested in what he identified as the core rule in The Princess Bride.

I’ll go back over my notes (which are admittedly sparse) and let you know.

 

[Steerpike]

Mythopoet -- Fletcher identifies the rule of the Princess Bride story world as a rule of unhealthy self-centeredness. He argues that it is established immediately not only in the fairy tale story, but also in the framing story of the grandfather and the child.

The child is first shown finishing a video game. He is sick. He's not happy about the idea of his grandfather coming over. He's engaged in lonely, solitary pursuits and doesn't want that interrupted. When you go into the story world, Buttercup is shown at least initially in solitary or self-absorbed pursuits--riding her horse alone, teasing Wesley without ever acknowledging him as anything other than "farm boy," which keeps her isolated from him.

And of course the primary antagonist is Humperdink, who is extremely self-centered. Everything, including his marriage to Buttercup, is all about him.

Now you have the protagonists. First, the grandfather. He comes to the boy in the framing narrative, and he's immediately at odds with the self-centered rule of the story world. He's there to forge a personal bond with the boy by reading the story. Likewise, Wesley is also shown in conflict with the rule of the story world as he tries to forge a bond with Buttercup, initially through his "as you wish" comment, which is a phrase that forms an intimate bond between them.

I think you can look at Vizzini as well, a lesser antagonist. He is self-centered, and he keeps himself removed from the things that Fezzik and Inigo use to form an interpersonal connection, like their riddle game.

As the story goes on, you have all of the heroes operating on shared connection with one another, and the antagonists continuing to embody the rule of the story world and remaining self-centered and disconnected from others.

That's how Fletcher looks at the Princess Bride. With some of the movies and TV shows he talks about, he has some insider knowledge as to what was actually contemplated during the writing of the scripts. I can't recall whether he did with The Princess Bride, but I don't think so (and of course it is based on a novel), but I've found that this perspective is interesting enough that it has sparked some new ideas in thinking about my story, whether I adopt the idea 100% or not.

 

[Rkcapps]

I really like that approach,I can see it will be exceptionally useful. Thanks for sharing!

 

[Steerpike]

I really like that approach,I can see it will be exceptionally useful. Thanks for sharing!

You're welcome.

 

[Heliotrope]

How is the "rule" different from the "theme"?

I sort of see them explained here as being one in the same. Did he touch on that?

 

[Steerpike]

How is the "rule" different from the "theme"?

I sort of see them explained here as being one in the same. Did he touch on that?

(Rambling response; direct answer in bold below )

He specifically avoided talking much about theme, as I recall. I think he felt like theme was something people analyzed after the fact. He focused on tone, conflict, and cognitive effect of the story.

I think the way I'd look at the difference between the two is this: 1) the rule of the story world is a mechanism that defines the default operation of the world itself. It's not necessarily a message you're trying to convey to a reader, but a tool used by the author to establish the story world, create conflict, and so on. The theme is the underlying message that you hope the reader will take away.

I see this as having overlap, because depending the rule of the story world that you establish and have your protagonist struggle against is going to impact the message that is (hopefully) imparted to your reader. But the rule of the world itself is something that drives how you tell the story, the details, you share, how various characters react, as you're constructing the story. Fletcher talks about even seemingly trivial details of the story world or character being brought into focus during the crafting of the story due the rule of the world. For example, one thing he notes in Jaws is this exchange near the beginning:


Ellen Brody burrows her head under the covers, avoiding morning for a few precious minutes more.

BRODY
How come the sun didn't used to shine
in here?

ELLEN
'cause when we bought the house it
was Autumn. This is summer. Feed the
dogs.

According to Fletcher, this exchange is put in as yet another way to establish the rule of the story world. Here is Brody against nature. He doesn't even understand the changing of the seasons on an instinctual level. It bothers him. Again putting him at conflict with the rule of the animal nature of the story world.

Fletcher argues that these things are all done very deliberately by the screenwriters as they develop the script.

Getting back to your question (sorry for the aside), I think there is definitely some overlap, but I guess the theme is the message you want people to take away at the end, whereas the rule of the story world drives the during as it is created and unfolds. For example, the Godfather might have a very different theme if Michael Corleone avoids becoming just like his father, but regardless of whether he avoids it or succumbs to it (as he does in the film) the rule of the story world is the same.

Does that make sense?

 

[FifthView]

While trying to summarize for myself the plot of Pulp Fiction (inspired to do so by another thread), I instead kept circling back to what I think is the rule of Pulp Fiction: Everyone lives under the thumb of Marsellus Wallace.

I think the rule could be stated more broadly, generically, to "everyone lives under the thumb of a stronger organized force," which force would include the police and legal system as well as Marsellus, but for understanding the main characters especially, I like the tighter version.

So how do the main characters rub against that rule?

Vincent Vega — He's only just returned to living under that thumb, having spent a vacation/respite in the Netherlands. I think this is important for setting up the rule; it offers contrast very early in the movie, between "not under the thumb of Marsellus" to under that thumb. Consequently, he's edging back in to being under that thumb. He's also in a position to contrast the two states for the viewing audience, and the early scene when he and Jules Winnfield are discussing what Marsellus did to someone who slept with his wife (or may have slept with his wife) sets up the rule for the audience from their perspective: don't cross Marsellus. Nonetheless, throughout the movie, that part of Vincent that was living freely in the Netherlands keeps resurfacing, as he'll follow his own particular selfish desires under the shadow of that thumb, e.g., drug use while taking Marsellus' wife out on a "date." The whole date is Vincent rubbing against the rule, right at the threshold of breaking it (but not breaking it.) Vincent's only one of two of the main characters who doesn't escape living under that thumb by the end of the movie; Mia Wallace is the other.

Jules Winnfield — He's been living under that thumb consistently for a long time and seems to have no problem with it. But doubts enter his head, more so after the "miraculous sign" of having been sprayed by bullets that entirely missed him in the apartment in that first scene. At the end of the movie, we see that he's going to complete his current mission for Marsellus, but we are left with the sense that he's made a decision to follow a different path. He takes ownership of what he is and does. I.e., it's not Marsellus who sets the course. He's contemplating wandering the world as a kind of travelling monk. This reconfiguration of his character signifies his escape from living under that thumb.

Mia Wallace — She obviously wants to have her own life outside Marsellus' control, even if she's never made a conscious decision to actually leave him. She wants to have her cake and eat it too; i.e., she stays with Marsellus but does her own thing on the side beyond his view. After her scenes, we are given no indication that she'll ever leave him; I assume that she doesn't, she keeps living under his thumb.

Butch Coolidge — By not throwing the fight, he has inaugurated his escape. He escapes eventually, with full permission from Marsellus, after the events in that basement.

Marsellus Wallace — Obviously, he doesn't live under his own thumb. Unless you view him as that scorpion from The Scorpion and the Frog; i.e., his nature will never change, so you could say he lives under his own thumb. That's a stretch. I include him because of the stunning contrast near the end of the story when the rule is upturned and Marsellus (along with Butch) are momentarily living under the thumb of those two rapists in the basement.

All of the side characters are included to show something about this rule, mostly as they come into proximity of Marsellus' Thumb, or else by showing the weakness in operating along without the support of that Thumb—or as examples of what a life might be like when truly not living under that thumb.

The two guys in the apartment who crossed Marsellus die (and the young kid in the car dies) as a consequence of proximity and crossing the rule.

Lance and his girl—the two Vincent visits when Mia is overdosing—live under the shadow of that thumb, and if Mia dies are likely to become targets of Marsellus.

Fabienne, Butch's wife, is threatened by that thumb (but escapes with Butch.)

The diner robbers are shown to be weak when operating alone.

Winston 'The Wolf' and Jimmie Dimmick (Tarantino's character) give two contrasting examples of how to live a successful life not under that Thumb. The Wolf will do jobs for Marsellus, lots of jobs, but the sense I get is that he's free from living under that thumb; he's a kind of equal, in that he has his own set of standards that he follows. This, incidentally, is perhaps a blueprint for Jules Winnfield's ultimate "escape." Jimmie has a happy family life not under that thumb, even if proximity to the thumb does threaten him psychologically later as he considers that proximity. His life is a kind of blueprint for Butch's eventual escape.

 

[FifthView]

or else by showing the weakness in operating along without the support of that Thumb

Er, this should have been "operating alone without the support of that Thumb." I don't know if the clarification helps; but I was past the cutoff time for editing when I noticed that.

 

[FifthView]

Ok, so Svrtnsse posted a link in chat to a list of interesting writing prompts, and the list brought me back to the idea in this thread. Here's the link: More writing tips as well as prompts and even a story or two for you illiterate rapscallions

I noticed that a lot of them have a big "BUT," whether explicit or implied. Some don't. Those that do have that BUT have a general format, This is the rule of the world, but X.

Maybe more generally stated: Here is the status quo, BUT something outside that status quo happens.

Ex.1 (summarized from that linked page.)

You can heal mental illnesses by doing combat with those illnesses inside the person's mind—you've seen it all, beaten them all, done it all—BUT one day you encounter a mental illness you've never seen before.
​

This is a conflict and can form the basis of a plot. Obviously, fleshing it out first would be necessary. I'm guessing that the "real" conflict might be deeper, there's a different "real" status quo and this sudden encounter with something beyond it would put focus on the MC's outsider status vis-a-vis the actual status quo. But it's good for initial brainstorming.

Ex.2, less great for revealing plot:

"When someone's heart breaks so does a piece of the world; this creates fissures, valleys, and even cracks in the pavement. Tell the story behind the Grand Canyon."​

This is my favorite on that page. But it's only stating the status quo. There's no "BUT." I'd give this example as .... exemplary, heh, for showing how story ideas often begin, and why a writer might have difficulty finding a plot for the story. You (generic) have a great idea for what the world is like, and/or what characters are like...but where's the plot? How to find a plot?

As a story prompt for me personally...I'd take off the Grand Canyon and settle on a fantasy world canyon or deep, long fissure. Then I'd look at the status quo and spin it in a fantasy setting. Let's say that there is a person in that world whose heartbreak causes this kind of physical violence to the world—a princess, and it's genetic (or magically "genetic;" i.e. recurring) so there's a long tradition, through generations, of keeping the Prince or Princess happy at all costs. The whole milieu, and particularly the Court, laws, and culture of the government, is formed around keeping this princess happy at all times.

BUT.

Something happens, a new person or being enters into the equation, upsetting that idyllic life for the princess. This has major consequences.

Now, you have a plot, at least the initial tendrils for one; all that's left is coming up with the details.

Edit: Just occurred to me that the plot of the second one, or at least the Rule + Conflict, is almost identical to The Truman Show. Heh.

Edit#2: Hope I haven't hijacked the thread. I suppose I was mixing up, in my head, the Finding Conflict and Finding Plot via Conflict recent discussion.