In terms of sources of tension, there is Loss. The fear of the loss of a child or a fortune or a friend, or a home. Lots of books are written around the anticipation of loss.
I like that. But is it different than Desire? Most concerns about Loss could be restated as a Desire to keep. For example, "Will she be able to keep her home?" "Will he remain in touch with his wife?"
Are there separate Loss-specific questions you can think of?
But couldn't all these be restated as desire? I mean, if there is not something you want at stake in a story, where's the tension?
But it does seem to me that want-don't-have and have-fear-to-lose are different dramatically. Desire drives you forward. Fear of loss causes you to hold back. In some ways, they play against each other in scenarios where to gain the thing you want, you must risk losing the thing you have.
Can I step back and suggest a broader classification, into which your classification scheme may then fit? Without claiming completeness, let me suggest four basic types of tension:
* Fatalist tension: will a thing happen over which the characters have no control?
* Exploratory tension: will a character find something?
* Performative tension: will a character accomplish a task?
* Moral tension: how will a character choose between two competing values
Of these, I will suggest that moral tension is the most important and the most useful, for a couple of reasons:
1. With exploratory and performative tension, the character is motivated to solve the problem and will reach it by the simplest path available. This means that if the story is not to end prematurely, countless obstacles have to be thrown in their way artificially to slow them down. But with moral tension, the character does not want to have to make the choice, rather, they seek every way they can to delay making it. The task of the plot, then, is simply to force them to make it.
2. The resolution is not obvious. With exploratory tension, we know that the thing will be found. With performative tension, we know that the task will be performed. We have to suspend disbelief to imagine that these things are in doubt. But with moral tension, the resolution is not obvious. The character might genuinely make either choice.
3. There is a price to be paid for making a moral choice. The character is changed or at least revealed by the choice they make. This makes the story arc more complete. There is a reason why serial stories are so often based on exploratory tension (will Dr. House diagnose the disease of the week) or performative tension (Will the Lone Ranger out-draw this week's special guest star?) Exploratory and performative plots do not fundamentally change the character, meaning you can send them on the same kind of mission next week. This is also why almost no serial ever has a satisfactory finale. It is hard to suddenly switch to a moral plot that arcs all the way back to the beginning of the series and give a satisfying conclusion to the whole.
As to conflict, I tend to see it as the release of tension rather than as a form of tension, though, of course, its aftermath may give rise to new tensions.
I thought about adding "Moral" as a form of tension. It probably deserves to be on the list. "Will Frodo destroy the ring?" "Will Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy lay down their pride and their prejudice?" It's often a cornerstone, especially for the climax.
It does have some overlap with Hope, and I wonder if there's a useful distinction here. We might Desire a character to be happy, but we Hope that they make the right choice even if it means sacrificing their happiness in order to save the day. That's tension between two tensions, and maybe Moral tension is of this kind?
Although, does any part of us want Frodo to keep the ring? Not really. What is the actual tension in that decision? Is it just vicarious realization that we might not be strong enough to make the hard choice ourselves?
One thing I wanted to make clear in my post is that these tensions can coexist with each other. But you've said it can be hard to start with Exploratory tension and shift to Moral. Does a story have to choose one? Can Moral tension last a whole book? What provides scene-by-scene tension in your framework?
I think there are two different issues here. There is the type of tension and the source of tension. I saw your list as more a list of sources of tension rather than types. So, as you say, Pride and Prejudice is a romance (source) with moral tension (type). But will Bobby Joe get Becky Sue to go to the dance with him is a romance (source) with performative tension (type). There is no doubt that Bobby Joe wants to go to the dance with Becky Sue, it's just a matter of whether he is able to get her to say yes (performance, not moral choice).
Actually, this suggests that there might be another type, which we might call selection tension. Should Archie ask Betty or Veronica to the dance? It's not moral tension because he wins either way, and moral tension requires loss.
Can moral tension last an entire book? It's the easiest form of tension to make last the entire book because the characters are motivated not to resolve it. Resolving it involves loss, and they will twist and turn and fight not to have to choose. The problem is to get any other form of tension to last the whole book. With all the other forms (except fate), the character is motivated to resolve the tension, and you have to constantly keep putting obstacles in their way. With moral tension, characters will put obstacles in their own way.
I think scene by scene tension works like this: First, some string must be in tension. Second, the scene must strike that sting, sounding a note. The scene does not have to generate tension itself if there is a taut string over the wider arc of the story. All it has to do is strike at least one note on that string. Of course, if there are more strings and more strikes on those strings, the scene can play a melody, which is a good thing, as long as all the notes are in harmony (not easy to do!)
The thing is, while a scene can certainly create its own tension, and strike a note on that sting it just made taught, if that is the only string in tension, and it that string belongs only to the scene, then at the end of the scene, nothing will be in tension, and that create and exit point from the story. So scene by scene tension is dangerous as you can too easily lose the audience between scenes. In other words, it is better to sustain tension than to constantly regenerate it.
I understand what you're getting at with Moral tension, but I struggle to come up with examples (even from classic literature) where that is the main tension, and is in view for the whole story. It seems that Moral tension often shows up at key moments (like the climax), rather than being present from the beginning.
I really like your illustration of strings that exist outside of a scene and get struck in order to give that scene purpose. A good scene starts with some conflict already in existence (even the first scene of the story, if you're starting in media res) and develops it so that the conflict has slightly altered by the end of the scene.
Will Hamlet avenge his father and become a regicide, or fail to take vengeance for his father's blood?
Will Lear accept the false claims of inordinate love promised by Goneril and Regan, or accept the merely ordinate love offered by Cordelia?
Will Lizzy sacrifice her pride and D'Arcy his prejudice so that they may marry?
Will Gawain resist the seduction of the Green Knight's Lady even though he expects that the Green Knight will cut his head off either way?
Will Frodo carry the ring to Mount Doom or take it for himself?
Will Ratty, Mole, and Badger help the vainglorious Toad reclaim Toad Hall from the weasels, despite his many crimes?
Will the Whisky Priest escape with his life or remain true to his priestly vocation?
The thing is, most of the story is operational because it consists of the protagonist trying to escape from having to make the moral choice that they desperately want to avoid. It is not moral hand-wringing (Hamlet excepted) that dominates the story. Most of the story is not about deciding which choice to make; it is about avoiding making the choice.
Incidentally, I think this is why it is so significant that so many modern statements of the Hero's Journey omit the refusal of the call. It is the refusal of the call that establishes the moral arc for the story. If you omit it, there is only the practical arc, which is all you get in most modern fiction, which is also why the lack of tension has to be compensated for with lots of sex and violence.
I like this idea that stories can be motivated by trying to escape from making a choice. Although that can certainly go awry (repetitive scenes, lack of agency), it reflects the hard realities of life.
Matt Bird says that a well-written theme is not a conflict between something Good and something Bad, in which the choice is obvious, but a conflict between two Good things or two Bad things where the choice is not obvious. Comfort or freedom? Self-sufficiency or love? The death of one or the death of many?
Those are all moral questions on some level. Something is being lost with either choice, and we're forced to examine ourselves and determine what we value most.
I think that's mostly true. But even when it is clear what the right choice is, there is a price to pay for making the right choice. It isn't a matter of how obvious the choice is, but of how much it costs to make the right choice. It is actually the cost of making the choice that matters more than the ambiguity of the choice, though that can certainly be an important element too.
In terms of sources of tension, there is Loss. The fear of the loss of a child or a fortune or a friend, or a home. Lots of books are written around the anticipation of loss.
I like that. But is it different than Desire? Most concerns about Loss could be restated as a Desire to keep. For example, "Will she be able to keep her home?" "Will he remain in touch with his wife?"
Are there separate Loss-specific questions you can think of?
But couldn't all these be restated as desire? I mean, if there is not something you want at stake in a story, where's the tension?
But it does seem to me that want-don't-have and have-fear-to-lose are different dramatically. Desire drives you forward. Fear of loss causes you to hold back. In some ways, they play against each other in scenarios where to gain the thing you want, you must risk losing the thing you have.
Categorization is hard!
You've convinced me. I especially like the example of losing what you have in order to gain what you want. Adding it to the list!
Can I step back and suggest a broader classification, into which your classification scheme may then fit? Without claiming completeness, let me suggest four basic types of tension:
* Fatalist tension: will a thing happen over which the characters have no control?
* Exploratory tension: will a character find something?
* Performative tension: will a character accomplish a task?
* Moral tension: how will a character choose between two competing values
Of these, I will suggest that moral tension is the most important and the most useful, for a couple of reasons:
1. With exploratory and performative tension, the character is motivated to solve the problem and will reach it by the simplest path available. This means that if the story is not to end prematurely, countless obstacles have to be thrown in their way artificially to slow them down. But with moral tension, the character does not want to have to make the choice, rather, they seek every way they can to delay making it. The task of the plot, then, is simply to force them to make it.
2. The resolution is not obvious. With exploratory tension, we know that the thing will be found. With performative tension, we know that the task will be performed. We have to suspend disbelief to imagine that these things are in doubt. But with moral tension, the resolution is not obvious. The character might genuinely make either choice.
3. There is a price to be paid for making a moral choice. The character is changed or at least revealed by the choice they make. This makes the story arc more complete. There is a reason why serial stories are so often based on exploratory tension (will Dr. House diagnose the disease of the week) or performative tension (Will the Lone Ranger out-draw this week's special guest star?) Exploratory and performative plots do not fundamentally change the character, meaning you can send them on the same kind of mission next week. This is also why almost no serial ever has a satisfactory finale. It is hard to suddenly switch to a moral plot that arcs all the way back to the beginning of the series and give a satisfying conclusion to the whole.
As to conflict, I tend to see it as the release of tension rather than as a form of tension, though, of course, its aftermath may give rise to new tensions.
I thought about adding "Moral" as a form of tension. It probably deserves to be on the list. "Will Frodo destroy the ring?" "Will Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy lay down their pride and their prejudice?" It's often a cornerstone, especially for the climax.
It does have some overlap with Hope, and I wonder if there's a useful distinction here. We might Desire a character to be happy, but we Hope that they make the right choice even if it means sacrificing their happiness in order to save the day. That's tension between two tensions, and maybe Moral tension is of this kind?
Although, does any part of us want Frodo to keep the ring? Not really. What is the actual tension in that decision? Is it just vicarious realization that we might not be strong enough to make the hard choice ourselves?
One thing I wanted to make clear in my post is that these tensions can coexist with each other. But you've said it can be hard to start with Exploratory tension and shift to Moral. Does a story have to choose one? Can Moral tension last a whole book? What provides scene-by-scene tension in your framework?
I think there are two different issues here. There is the type of tension and the source of tension. I saw your list as more a list of sources of tension rather than types. So, as you say, Pride and Prejudice is a romance (source) with moral tension (type). But will Bobby Joe get Becky Sue to go to the dance with him is a romance (source) with performative tension (type). There is no doubt that Bobby Joe wants to go to the dance with Becky Sue, it's just a matter of whether he is able to get her to say yes (performance, not moral choice).
Actually, this suggests that there might be another type, which we might call selection tension. Should Archie ask Betty or Veronica to the dance? It's not moral tension because he wins either way, and moral tension requires loss.
Can moral tension last an entire book? It's the easiest form of tension to make last the entire book because the characters are motivated not to resolve it. Resolving it involves loss, and they will twist and turn and fight not to have to choose. The problem is to get any other form of tension to last the whole book. With all the other forms (except fate), the character is motivated to resolve the tension, and you have to constantly keep putting obstacles in their way. With moral tension, characters will put obstacles in their own way.
I think scene by scene tension works like this: First, some string must be in tension. Second, the scene must strike that sting, sounding a note. The scene does not have to generate tension itself if there is a taut string over the wider arc of the story. All it has to do is strike at least one note on that string. Of course, if there are more strings and more strikes on those strings, the scene can play a melody, which is a good thing, as long as all the notes are in harmony (not easy to do!)
The thing is, while a scene can certainly create its own tension, and strike a note on that sting it just made taught, if that is the only string in tension, and it that string belongs only to the scene, then at the end of the scene, nothing will be in tension, and that create and exit point from the story. So scene by scene tension is dangerous as you can too easily lose the audience between scenes. In other words, it is better to sustain tension than to constantly regenerate it.
I understand what you're getting at with Moral tension, but I struggle to come up with examples (even from classic literature) where that is the main tension, and is in view for the whole story. It seems that Moral tension often shows up at key moments (like the climax), rather than being present from the beginning.
I really like your illustration of strings that exist outside of a scene and get struck in order to give that scene purpose. A good scene starts with some conflict already in existence (even the first scene of the story, if you're starting in media res) and develops it so that the conflict has slightly altered by the end of the scene.
Will Hamlet avenge his father and become a regicide, or fail to take vengeance for his father's blood?
Will Lear accept the false claims of inordinate love promised by Goneril and Regan, or accept the merely ordinate love offered by Cordelia?
Will Lizzy sacrifice her pride and D'Arcy his prejudice so that they may marry?
Will Gawain resist the seduction of the Green Knight's Lady even though he expects that the Green Knight will cut his head off either way?
Will Frodo carry the ring to Mount Doom or take it for himself?
Will Ratty, Mole, and Badger help the vainglorious Toad reclaim Toad Hall from the weasels, despite his many crimes?
Will the Whisky Priest escape with his life or remain true to his priestly vocation?
The thing is, most of the story is operational because it consists of the protagonist trying to escape from having to make the moral choice that they desperately want to avoid. It is not moral hand-wringing (Hamlet excepted) that dominates the story. Most of the story is not about deciding which choice to make; it is about avoiding making the choice.
Incidentally, I think this is why it is so significant that so many modern statements of the Hero's Journey omit the refusal of the call. It is the refusal of the call that establishes the moral arc for the story. If you omit it, there is only the practical arc, which is all you get in most modern fiction, which is also why the lack of tension has to be compensated for with lots of sex and violence.
I stand corrected and enlightened.
I like this idea that stories can be motivated by trying to escape from making a choice. Although that can certainly go awry (repetitive scenes, lack of agency), it reflects the hard realities of life.
Matt Bird says that a well-written theme is not a conflict between something Good and something Bad, in which the choice is obvious, but a conflict between two Good things or two Bad things where the choice is not obvious. Comfort or freedom? Self-sufficiency or love? The death of one or the death of many?
Those are all moral questions on some level. Something is being lost with either choice, and we're forced to examine ourselves and determine what we value most.
I think that's mostly true. But even when it is clear what the right choice is, there is a price to pay for making the right choice. It isn't a matter of how obvious the choice is, but of how much it costs to make the right choice. It is actually the cost of making the choice that matters more than the ambiguity of the choice, though that can certainly be an important element too.