By WHAT do you (in parallels) structure? (woof-woof!)

Posted by 22111
Aug 30, 2022 at 02:22 PM

See https://www.outlinersoftware.com/topics/viewt/9834 for for multiple-trees, in parallel to some one, probably more or less “natural”, “organic” “taxonomic” one.

Then, let’s speak about “writing”, since obviously, many “authors” are continuing to do it “wrong”, i.e. not in an “optimized” way.

First, inferior software like “Ulysses whatever” is to be discarded; I demonstrated this here just some weeks ago… but then, HOW “to do it”?

Sometimes, even German, the allegedly superior language of’em’all - well, I’m a master of German, then only can really compare with English and French, and have some remote notions of Italian, Spanish and Dutch - isn’t “good enough”, and it’s term “Gerüst”, for one, means, scaffold(ing), truss, gantry, rack trestle, etc., and then frame(work), structure, skeleton, etc., the obvious schism lying in the contradiction of “adding to, in order to work on” vs. “inherent structure, the WHOLE to be built on”... and that notion of inherence, of organicism… may unfortunately lead your astray…

Since there may be more, and even better ways…

Most “authors” now follow some sort of “structure from the books”, and I’m ok with’em: they want to sell, after all…

But then, it’s some technical structure indeed, and at the end of the day, it’s the experience of the “hero(es)” - here again, wonderful German (only?) has got the right, the perfect term: their Erleben.

But what about the Erleben of - i.e. the one in the minds of - the “audience”?

See what I mean? “How-to-books”’ authors seems to equate the hero(es)’ Erleben with the audience’s one, and that, obviously, cannot stand, and it’s the psychological development in the head of the standard audience member which has to build the structure of your story, not some technical poles and beacons, which are nothing but means to get to the (more or less rollercoaster, and way more) elements of the former: of the Erleben of “the audience”... whilst this Erleben also includes the, very personal in case, reconcilement with the respective audience member’s previous Erleben, previous, individual experience-of-life-for-them.

I am not speaking of “curves” here, of “here the viewer will be aghast, there they will be frightened”, etc., but I am speaking about ROUNDING some others’ experience, in order to integrate it into, almost MAKING it your own.

Now, how to do that, technically? Well, there is the notion of “film treatment” (see wikipedia), not to be confounded with (more-or-less 1-page) “synopsis” (also on wikipedia), and there are many different ways to write down such a “treatment”...

But obviously, you should write much more about the - detailed - What-is-it-about than about the How-do-we-illustrate*-it, and that means that the sequences, the scenes should NOT become the structure of your “planning” anymore, but your What-are-we-going-to express…

And I say, “we”, on purpose here, since you’ll have to find like-minded persons, i.e. producers, i.e. persons with the money or (rather, in reality, that is:) in position(s) to get the money to “produce”, i.e. to realize that your “story” will be heard…

And it won’t be heard but if you trigger former experiences of the “standard” audience member, AND ENHANCES’EM.

* = my use of the term “illustration” might have irritated? And you’re right, since here, suddenly, the notion of “organic” will come into play again, since it’s not then about “illustrating” your “ideas” of such, but what you show, the “scenes”, will have to express what you’re going to convey, organically.

With all due respect, architects are more-or-less engineers, their constructions are built upon their walls, their pillars in case: no other construction principle has ever seen the light of the day…

With so-called “software architects”, it’s become a little bit more variable, but even here, most construction principles are preset…

And then Edson proclaims that “writing” is the most elaborate construction engineering task this world has on offer - my wording, and, frankly, that’s what I had discovered years ago, since you’ll have to really TOUCH the so-called “unconscious” of your so-called “audience”, while, on the other hand, “develop” their said “unconscious” - if you’re honest, i.e. a real writer.

(This being said, don’t take me wrong: I, for once, advocate the highest standards there are, for “writing”... whilst on the other hand, in comedy, it’s just all about your audience shitting in their pants by uncontrollable laughing, and the irony here being that both standards are equally demanding…)

Thus, technically, what should you do? Superpose the REAL structure upon everything-else? And even that’s not true - see? I’m perfectly honest here: -: Have your “standard” structure, i.e. 4-acts or whatever, but then FILL it, in the first instance, with your - see above! - “treatment” - spread all over the place…

and then, further on, work on that treatment, i.e. not on your “scenes”, “chapters”, whatever you call your technical units: work on your fanned-out treatment, ALL THE TIME, and then only work on “scenes” and the like, and be ready to discard those, and even whole “sequences” or whatever you’ll call’em, whenever they don’t comply anymore with that ruling, always-optimized “treatment”...

...spread all over your “outline”, since… see, you’re neither in the house-, nor in the high-rise building business, but you’re doing something “original”, i.e. something unique:

You’re ideally enhancing the Erleben of people - and, btw, Er-Leben means something in the lines of “living, but so fully living that you’ll become somebody enhanced” (and yes, the subconcious of the German language is unparalleled even “worldwide”, as far as my admittedly rather tiny experience guides me) -...

by doing something unparalleled, something truly “original”, just guided - not by foundations, walls and pillars, but - by your own “imagination”... and which always has to be flow along the lines of what people already reckon to “know”... but then, not remaining within those confines.

Technically, you’ll need some outlining tool which provides you with (at least some) “user-sided tree formats” (which obviously is not the case with “Ulysses App” and the like, tools written by coders for whomever), or which, ideally, even then allow you to (re)view one such format not spread-over, but in consolidated form (and with blank-lines, between the “entries”).

Anyway, while you’ll stick with your sequences-scenes (ditto for novels and whatever) schema, you’ll have quite rare chances to produce something you’ll be remembered for, but here and there by accident.

An’yes, I could have titled this thread, “Organizing the Intangibles” - organizing those intangibles though and in a way they’ll form something people will cherish, is technically possible, with some of today’s outlining tools, IF you work on your what-they-call-treatment, and in the right way: anything else will then be just “illustration”... NOT: within your “illustrations”, you’ll then further have to to speed up their heartbeat… but IF you reach their heart, or don’t, will be determined, by four fifths, by your “treatment” or whatever you call your REAL outline.