: What is the spectrum of 'disasters' in 'scene-sequel?" I'm looking at my project through the lens of the 'scene-sequel' model now. Scene=Goal/Conflict/Disaster, Sequel=Reaction/Dilemma/Decision. My

Vote Up Vote Down

Scene-sequel is all about tension.

A scene ratchets up the tension, while the sequel relaxes it and gives the reader time to breathe. Tension can be caused by the creation of a problem, the worsening of a problem, or an attempt to resolve the problem, since any attempt to solve a problem has the chance of making it worse (or causing new and different problems). The sequel is space that the writer gives to readers during which the problems do not grow.

This scene from the final battle in The Avengers illustrates scene-sequel quite nicely. It contains two scenes and two sequels. Since it's part of a larger action sequence it's the sequels that stand out. The first is Black Widow and Captain America's conversation about solving the problem, and the second is when Hulk punches out Thor.

Humor relieves tension very quickly.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

The Disasters in your examples – losing an oxygen tank, losing a flipper, losing R2D2 – the way you state them there is actually no "disaster" there. These are just matter-of-fact things that happened. They are the same as "someone lost a handkerchief". We have no context that set up the Disaster: the Goal and Conflict. To put it bluntly, you have no disaster you just have a thing that happened.

The Scene-Sequel model is about character motivation, not so much plot points. For it to be a Disaster in the Scene-Sequel model, it needs to be directly related to the character's Goal and Conflict. The Goal is something intimately personal about your character. The Conflict is a dynamic that is interfering with the Goal. The Disaster is how the goal is not achieved, but it get worse.

Here's my goofy example:

Goal: Jon plans to ask Brenda to dance.

Conflict: Larry is headed in Linda's direction too. Larry is going to ask Linda to dance before Jon! Larry gets everything!

Disaster: Jon breaks into a run to get there ahead of Larry, but sends a tray of food all over Brenda. Oh, no! It's a disaster!

So when the scene starts we only know the goal. As the scene progresses we are introduced to the conflict. If Larry got to Brenda and asked her to dance first, there would have been no disaster at all, and Jon simply could have asked later. But because the Goal and the Conflict together directly lead to the Disaster, and the Disaster now makes the Goal impossible, the reader is (theoretically) hooked by our "perfect scene".

Eventually there will be another scene, the Sequel where Jon's Reaction is to beat himself up for being so clumsy, his Dilemma is how to get Brenda to ever speak to him again. Finally his Decision is to let the air out of Larry's tires.

But we don't have to wait for that scene in the parking lot with Jon. Instead our Sequel could be transferred to Brenda. After a tray of food has been dumped on her (the Disaster set up by Jon), Brenda's Reaction is to feel humiliated, and it was just as Larry was going to ask her to dance! Her Dilemma is whether to run to the bathroom crying or yell at that idiot Jon, and her Decision is now very important because it follows the disaster and now everyone is looking at her. This moment will make or break her reputation. She laughs, so convincingly she almost believes it. Everyone sympathizes with Brenda for being such a good sport while Jon is being thrown out.

I agree with Kirk's answer. If we take these methods too literally they stop being inspirational. It's fun to run a story through these filters to see if we can ring any emotional bells, but it should never feel mandatory. If the system isn't resonating, you shouldn't force it. In this case, I believe what you are misunderstanding is that the Disaster is more of a personal disaster. It's a situation that arrises out of the Goal and Conflict. In my scene with Jon and Brenda, any random person could have been hit with the tray of food and Jon would have been seen as a jerk and it still would have been embarrassing for him. But it's a true Disaster because it crushes Jon's Goal.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

All that’s required to qualify as a “disaster” in the scene/sequel model is: Things get worse.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

Scene sequel is a pretty generic concept, and nothing to be suspicious of. It is a way to format your pacing. Several authors choose something like scene-scene-sequel. Having the pair "scene-sequel" isn't important as long as you understand what it's doing; which is ramping up tension, and then letting out a bit of steam. The reason some authors vary is that it can feel formulaic, if done in an obvious way; but, it is a staple of thriller writing.

Disaster is not meant to be just an obstacle that your character has to walk around or avoid, though it can be. It's meant to be something that explicitly makes the story more interesting on any vector by introducing conflict that matters in respect to what a character wants. Disaster could be your protagonist seeing her boyfriend with another girl in a coffee shop or something else entirely. It shouldn't always be large or small, but it should be relevant to the plot or character are you are aiming for; and it should be proportional to how much tension you want to create (and how much your story can earn based on its current setup).

Another way of thinking about this is "yes-but" & "no-and". The character is after something. Do they get it? Yes, but something else happens! No, and something else happens!

The goal here is to make sure tension stacks up nicely and that it does so at a decent pace, keeping your reader hooked. It's not merely about something going wrong, it's about making things more interesting by having something of import going wrong.

If losing your flipper means you can't go look for treasure, then that night not be the disaster you want. But maybe it is ok if you can make something interesting happen. Like, because you could not go searching, you find out your loan shark is after you, so now you really need to find that treasure (no, and). Maybe what you really want is a hungry actual shark guarding the now located treasure (yes, but).

This is called many other things: chase your characters up a tree, then throw rocks at them; blow things up; hurt your characters; don't be boring; etc.

The point is largely to make your reader feel sympathy and an urge to read on. Sequel is about releasing the pressure. There's not really a right "disaster", but there are functional ones. The spectrum as you pointed out is anything from perceived or emotional disaster to something with a literal cost, be it physical or opportunity.

(0)