One argument isn't a whole scene. It's the scene that needs to shift in value from beginning to end, not a single argument. It would depend on where they were before the argument, were they getting along pretty well then? If so, then it just reversed value from positive to negative. And perhaps their next exchange will be making up, followed by an even bigger blowout.
I'm aware of Aristotle's work--the three act structure as a basis. Story structure in the ways of inciting incidents, plot points, turns, and essentially the end. But I'm finding Mckee's approach to TURNING VALUES complicated. It seems to be a way to overcomplicate scenes that should come across naturally, but are choc-filled with opposing beats for every new line of dialogue. I'm aware of the overall structure of story. But I'm looking at the more miniscule unit of scenes or chapters and what--on a general level--makes them work as dramatic tools.
What constitutes a VALUE? I'm so confused as to what a value is in terms of a scene and reading it by McKee confuses me because it feels so categorical in terms of what IS or ISN'T a value.
Ah, well really that's easy. It's basically a repeating structure at different scales. A scene is like a sequence is like an act is like a story. Sort of anyway, I mean not identical, but the values reverse in each. If the value at stake in the story is courage for instance, maybe at the beginning of the story the MC seems to lack it, and at the end he demonstrates that he has it in great abundance. That means courage is the value for each scene, each sequence, and each act. I might not be the best person to write about this, because the whole reversal of values thing is not a part I've payed a lot of attention to. I'm currently re-reading Story though, and paying more attention to it. I wanted to get the bigger stuff down on the earlier passes. In fact just last night I read about reversal and escalation of the value in scenes and sequences. Not sure how much I trust my memory though, I READ it, not memorized it. But this should help me consolidate it. A group of scenes makes a sequence, and a group of sequences make an act. As i recall, scene changes are fairly minor (not always, just in general), sequence reversals are bigger, and act reversals are really massive. What makes the final reversal the most powerful one is that it's final and irreversible. The smaller reversals can be reversed themselves. My understanding of it anyway.
Dude, I think if you take a little time and re-read the book a lot more of it will make sense. This is why I'm on a 3rd or 4th reading of it now. There's a lot to learn, and you won't get it all in one read-through. Some of it will absorb into your mind, and the next time you read you'll be able to absorb the next level, and so on. Like I said, it's my 3rd or 4th time through and I'm also struggling with value reversals. The value is 'what's at stake in the scene'. That could be courage, as I used in the example above, or it could be honesty, or whatever it is that the scene is about.
I'm thinking of giving up altogether. I've studed and re-studied Mckee's aspects of scene design and story design. The overall plot of story structure is simplistic and I understand it fully. I do not understand values, or polarity shifts of values within scenes. It's like implying every single character in a scene undergoes internal change which is not the truth. I've read Story--rereading it seems to be a confusing chore that bogs me down. I'm aware of all the tools of writing but it is this aspect of scene design which is a complete mystery to me. What constitutes a value? Maybe I can explain this better with an example. Meet George and Amy. They are step-siblings. Amy is fond of George but George dislikes Amy. Amy is found to be sitting in his room reading his diary when he returns home from school and George chases her out of his room, and warns her to stay out. George warns Amy she's not welcome in his room and if she steps into it again he will hurt her. What value would be evident in this scene? What are the CORE ingredients that make up a scene?
Well, that isn't really a scene, it's just a part of one. As written it sounds like the value would be privacy. It isn't about every character, just the main or POV character. Whatever is at stake for him (or her) in the scene is the value. But if you can't re-read Story, how do you expect to understand it from reading what people write in here? I get the feeling you're not trying very hard, it seems like you're flailing around and not really thinking about what people are writing before asking the next question. Do you have issues with attention or impatience? Not trying to be rude, I'm trying to understand.
Well if that isn't a full scene, what would you consider makes a scene, a scene? I can re-read Story, but telling me to go over the same points I've gone over doesn't work. Rereading story doesn't change my misunderstanding of Mckee's work. I understand his aspects of story structure, but my biggest obstacle is understanding what a scene is made of on a basic level to be a scene, and no matter how many times I look at the same words, I can't understand it any better. It's not impatience or an attention issue, it's more about never actually finding a solid answer that I can understand.
Maybe it's a scene, but it seems awfully short. More like just a single incident. A scene can consist of several such incidents as long as the same value is still central. Let me add a few more incidents that are connected: She tells her friends at school some of what she read in his diary, and then he gets really mad next time he sees her at home, and she taunts him so much that he's on the edge of physical violence. Now, if you take the original incident you wrote plus the parts I added and call that all a scene, George begins by thinking his Privacy (the value in the scene) is secure, until he discovers Amy reading his diary, at which point his sense of privacy disintegrates or more like explodes. He takes it from her and kicks her out, and now feels that his privacy is again under control, but that he needs to secure his personal things much better and keep an eye on her. But next day at school he discovers she's been blabbermouthing, and maybe to some of his friends. Now once again his sense of privacy has reversed. He doesn't feel secure at all now, she's a much bigger danger than he thought, and now he sees her as in fact a dangerous enemy who lives in his home. So the value of privacy has reversed for him several times in this one scene, and kept escalating each time (rising action). But it ends on a very strong negative, the opposite of how it began, so for the overall scene that's a reversal. Actually though, since a night passed in between, you might be right, maybe yours was a scene and I turned it into a sequence.
There's such a thing as over analysis, too. There really is. It's very valuable to think about theory and to dissect and probe, but I guarantee that you understand this stuff internally, you just need to realize it. You've read hundreds and hundreds of scenes in your lifetime, I'm sure. I'm probably not being helpful, but you must internally understand what a scene is? I think it's something you just gotta grok.
Well, no. Because it seems that everybody has conflicting views of what is a scene, and what makes a scene work. Some believe in Mckee's method. Others their own. I'm just looking for the universal ingredients that make up every scene, or the majority of them.
@Friedrich Kugelschreiber Lol, well, when you're trying to understand something like McKee, it's all about analyzing things you formerly did intuitively. For my part, I want to try to understand this stuff (and this conversation is forcing me to try to think through it, which helps a lot). That's not to say I'm going to analyze everything all the time, but I do want to learn how to do it.
If you are talking about script this is an important scene to show the dynamics between these two characters. The viewer understands clearly that Amy values George, while George thinks of her as a nuisance and that's that. This shows their characters as well. George wishing to be safe in his shell, Amy making a bold move to step inside of it. Her, trying to get involved - him, trying to push her out. It says a lot for a scene. It builds characters.
Ok, I missed the part that says Amy is fond of George and that's why she read his diary. My bad! I went a different direction with it. But I did give an example of several reversals of value, that part could be valuable anyway.
What about in terms of a novel? Also, so scene in its most basic form is literally goal, conflict, and climax with multiple ways of conflict becoming apparent.
I agree that it's very valuable. But when you get to the point that you don't know where you even are anymore, sometimes you need to take a step back. After all, stories are intuitive things, in the end.
Well no, I don't know where I am because I haven't memorized McKee's definitions of what constitutes a scene and a sequence. When I get that memorized this will fall together much better. When you're trying to learn something (especially something big like this) but haven't really learned it yet, you're all mixed up!
I get it. The thing about theory is that it's descriptive, not prescriptive. It's an explanatory framework, and it certainly has gaps. It's like in music, "if it sounds good, it is good." I'm mostly referring to the OP.
I seem to be caught between though, unsure of what is good or bad in terms out what I should outline to get a hold of the core points of the scene, not the superficial reasons by the side of it.
I suck at planning, but I'm experimenting with planning around the characters' arcs rather than necessarily events, if that makes sense? So it isn't just about "What should happen next? What would my character do?" But rather, it is, "What do I need to happen to change my character in this direction?"
I think I've figured it out in terms of scenes. Story values are normally values relatable to everybody in a basic way. The scene turns or changes with these reversals. I think focusing on making sure your character, or a change of emotion is key to the changing of values. The conflict is just beat by beat which ends on either a positive or negative. The key to a scene is that the values must change, or there must be some form of purposeful change that affects story. It's these reversals that make up a scene, and so several scenes make a sequence in terms of screenwriting. I would assume for novels each sequence would lead up to the inciting incident, act end, mid points etc, etc. I'm going to try and focus on making sure my scenes do at least turn in meaningful ways. It was just so hard to understand it, and I wasn't sure why.
Glad to see realization has dawned. One thing I was trying to point out (not very well) was that a scene can be more than a single beat. When I said incident before I probably should have said beat, because that's what I was really talking about. I noticed each example you gave on this thread as a scene was really more like just a single beat, and I wanted to point out a scene can contain many beats, in which the scene's main value can reverse again and again. In the general story outline you might just list the larger story beat, but when you write the scene out in detail it will include many smaller beats in the conversation or the action, like nested Russian dolls.
The beats are like action and reaction which kind of pull and push the value of the scene which creates conflict as the opposition wrestle with each other and then the scene will end with the conflict winning or losing. Or so that's what I've come to understand.
