I think you've got it regarding causality. Here's what George wrote when he explained his idea of pulses: "What makes a story a story is the way one pulse leads to the next, which produces that lovely story-feeling. (“Ah, this led to that.”)" I think maybe the trick is to not get caught up with the word "meaning." Or to think of it more …
I think you've got it regarding causality. Here's what George wrote when he explained his idea of pulses: "What makes a story a story is the way one pulse leads to the next, which produces that lovely story-feeling. (“Ah, this led to that.”)" I think maybe the trick is to not get caught up with the word "meaning." Or to think of it more as "something meaningful happened" that will lead to the next "meaningful thing that will happen."
Aye! There' s the mechanics, the pump which we might give title to i.e
'Narrator gets asignment' or some such, and then there is the action resultant, the blood that is pumped, and pulses on to the next pumping station, enriched...
Yeah, Mary, that's a good point. I think one of the reasons I found it confusing was because when George discussed finding "The Hollywood version" in his previous post, he talked about summarizing the story this way, "man is rejected, then gets accepted." And, he identified that as the larger meaning of the individual elements of the story.
Yes, i can understand the confusion. "Man is rejected, then gets accepted" is the "why" of the story--the purpose for writing it in the first place. The pulses are the "hows," as in "how it came to pass that the man was rejected and then accepted." I don't mean to speak for George here, but that's how I understand it.
I see your point. I think I mistook, "Man is rejected, then gets accepted" as something internal, but it isn't. It's an overview of an external thing that happened to the man.
I love that last sentence! Thank you! It's a great summation, and I think you've hit the nail on the head. Building off that, I'd say my working definition for a pulse would have to be something like: "a primary causal/escalatory event in a story." Or, as you put it, a meaningful event that will lead to the next meaningful event. It's that fundamental action/reaction, bowling pin relationship, and, as Niall noted upthread, it's intimately connected with change. Our need for it and the story's need for it (which are, of course, the same thing). If we return to George's concept of the "what" and the "how," it might even be termed the ur-concept behind the "what."
I absolutely adore how, in writing, so many seemingly different concepts turn out to be the same concept, just seen from different angles. This object-like tendency is so marvelous for contemplation, isn't it?
I think you're right--that sometimes we're all saying the same thing. But for it to hit home, we often need someone saying it in just the right way that speaks to us in that particular moment. I think what George is showing us here is the way to move a story forward. There's always an internal story at the same time as the external action. But a scene (usually) can't be simply internal. Something has to happen! And each thing that happens (and moves the story forward with new meaning)--well, that's your pulse. I think.
I think you've got it regarding causality. Here's what George wrote when he explained his idea of pulses: "What makes a story a story is the way one pulse leads to the next, which produces that lovely story-feeling. (“Ah, this led to that.”)" I think maybe the trick is to not get caught up with the word "meaning." Or to think of it more as "something meaningful happened" that will lead to the next "meaningful thing that will happen."
Aye! There' s the mechanics, the pump which we might give title to i.e
'Narrator gets asignment' or some such, and then there is the action resultant, the blood that is pumped, and pulses on to the next pumping station, enriched...
Yeah, Mary, that's a good point. I think one of the reasons I found it confusing was because when George discussed finding "The Hollywood version" in his previous post, he talked about summarizing the story this way, "man is rejected, then gets accepted." And, he identified that as the larger meaning of the individual elements of the story.
Yes, i can understand the confusion. "Man is rejected, then gets accepted" is the "why" of the story--the purpose for writing it in the first place. The pulses are the "hows," as in "how it came to pass that the man was rejected and then accepted." I don't mean to speak for George here, but that's how I understand it.
I see your point. I think I mistook, "Man is rejected, then gets accepted" as something internal, but it isn't. It's an overview of an external thing that happened to the man.
I love that last sentence! Thank you! It's a great summation, and I think you've hit the nail on the head. Building off that, I'd say my working definition for a pulse would have to be something like: "a primary causal/escalatory event in a story." Or, as you put it, a meaningful event that will lead to the next meaningful event. It's that fundamental action/reaction, bowling pin relationship, and, as Niall noted upthread, it's intimately connected with change. Our need for it and the story's need for it (which are, of course, the same thing). If we return to George's concept of the "what" and the "how," it might even be termed the ur-concept behind the "what."
I absolutely adore how, in writing, so many seemingly different concepts turn out to be the same concept, just seen from different angles. This object-like tendency is so marvelous for contemplation, isn't it?
i love contemplating all of it.
I think you're right--that sometimes we're all saying the same thing. But for it to hit home, we often need someone saying it in just the right way that speaks to us in that particular moment. I think what George is showing us here is the way to move a story forward. There's always an internal story at the same time as the external action. But a scene (usually) can't be simply internal. Something has to happen! And each thing that happens (and moves the story forward with new meaning)--well, that's your pulse. I think.
Nothing more to add! I think you've put it in a way that will hit home for a great many people in a great many particular moments!
Again, thank you, Mary. Every time I read one of your posts, it makes a little bit more sense to me.