Okay, so I'm hoping someone familiar with Mark Swain's Motivation-Reaction Unites technique can help me out here. I understand the basic concept of these MRUs but I'm having problems incorporating them into use... Motivation = Objective | Reaction = Subjective Paragraph1 MOTIVATION Paragraph2 REACTION Paragraph3 MOTIVATION Paragraph4 REACTION For example: With multiple characters, will non-POV characters, reacting to motivation be a sort of objective-objective sequence? With the first objective actually being subjective to that specific character, but only in a way the main POV character perceives it? Like if the POV character is observing a scene, but reacting minimally if at all? I hope I'm making sense here... I'll try to write something now as a sort of example: Taylor (POV Character) - Gabriel chanted minor Latin. His quarterstaff beamed in light yellow for a few moments before dimming to a magma-like yellow and red glow. He hoisted and twirled the weapon above his head before settling to still posture. "Come at me bro." Aamon whirled amd honed his sights onto the boy. His jaws widened and his lips parted and lowered into a predacious snarl, bearing rows of jagged glass-like teeth. He paused for a moment and his nostrils flared. He then cocked his head to the side, seemingly unimpressed and studying Gabriel. "As you wish." Aamon advanced on Gabriel... Like all of these paragraphs are objective to Taylor (the POV character) but I'm not including her subjective Reactions... Is this ok? Or would I need to change it to something like this... Taylor (POV Character) - Gabriel chanted minor Latin. His quarterstaff beamed in light yellow for a few moments before dimming to a magma-like yellow and red glow. He hoisted and twirled the weapon above his head before settling to still posture. "Come at me bro." Taylor sickened. Gabriel didn't stand a chance against a Greater Demon of Hell--Or did he? Aamon whirled and honed his sight onto the boy. His jaws widened and his lips parted and lowered into a predacious snarl, bearing rows of jagged glass-like teeth. He paused for a moment and his nostrils flared. He then cocked his head to the side, seemingly unimpressed and studying Gabriel. "As you wish." Gabriel, you fool, Taylor thought. // Or alternatively I could include a different sort of // reaction. Aamon advanced on Gabriel... Maybe I'm just way over thinking this... But as is, it seems correct. So long as other characters (such as Gabriel) are reacting to Motivation and alternating paragraphs with Motivation and Reaction.... Any thoughts?
I want to note that I don't like the slogany and mechanical feel of the motivation/reaction concept. That said, when I Google it, I don't see a requirement that you have to break motivation and reaction at paragraphs. And I don't see that something is necessarily motivation OR reaction; you may be pingponging, where the reaction to the first thing is the motivation for the third thing.
Thanks for the quick reply, and I appreciate the response. I don't care much for being overly mechanical myself, and I do plan to occasionally stray when necessary as to not have my writing constricted. But as a new writer, I'm hoping to mostly adhere to some sort of format that makes sense to just improve my writing in general. With that said, this whole MRU thing is hurting my head. I'm new here on these Forums so I'm not sure if posting a link to the article I've been reviewing is allowed. So I'll just say it's titled "Writing the Perfect Scene" and reads of Small-Scale Scene structure (MRUs) and Large-Scale Scene structure. As for the paragraphs thing, I sort of had the same thought as you. But in this specific article, it clearly states rotating paragraphs... Article Quotes- "The Motivation is objective but it is something your character can see (or hear, or taste, smell, or feel)... You will then start a new paragraph in which your POV character does one or more things in Reaction to the Motivation." See also, "The Motivation is external and objective, and you present it that way, in objective, external terms. You do this in a single paragraph. It does not need to be complicated." See also, "The Reaction is internal and subjective, and you present it that way, exactly as your POV character would experience it — from the inside... To repeat myself, this must happen in its own paragraph (or sequence of paragraphs). If you leave it in the same paragraph as the Motivation, then you risk whip-sawing the reader. Which no reader enjoys." So I guess I'm going to update this thread to include the question: How does everyone feel about these MRUs and does anyone else use them? Somewhere down the short line of my writing enthusiasm I just assumed everyone was using them... IDK why.
I feel that they're irritating and slogany and I definitely don't use them. I mean, I don't consciously using them, thinking, "Ooh, MRU, rules, rules, RULES!" I do, of course, have events, and characters reacting to events, because, well, how can you avoid that? Why do I need an acronym to do that? Once in a while, it does appear that a writer has trouble with cause and effect, and in particular with perception of cause and effect. But I'm just not sure how these very specific and strict rules are going to help. Now I'm Googling about MRUs to see if even one website can convince me that the whole idea isn't a waste of space.
Gotcha. The way I've been thinking about it is like this... Proper use of MRUs will allow the reader to experience the story as realistically as possible. With that said, I mean that real life seems to be a perfect string of MRUs in how we experience the world. As example, We see something, and then react internally to it. But not only do we react internally, but we react internally and then outwardly, and in a specific order... We can see something, and then have a feeling, then we have a reflex reaction, then we have a rational action, and then we might speak. If I don't keep these things in mind, and I write them out of order, it won't feel as real to the reader. But actually, when I learned of this method I began reviewing my work, and I did instinctively write this way already mostly. It also has the potential to solve the "where to end a paragraph, and start anew" question.
MRUs are not rules. They are tools to help you achieve a sense of dynamics in your story and in tension in your prose. Just like with "show, not tell," the better you are, the more likely you'll be able to use it or not use at your own discretion and in your own way. I personally think it can be useful to go over your work and see if you can reduce (in your head) everything that follows into MRUs. Obviously, the units or parts of them will often times be implied rather than outright stated, but it's nice to see beneath the prose there is a a clear sense of cause and effect. There is a lot of amateur writing out there that is dry and static feeling, and I think this in particular would benefit from applying some form of the MRU system.
I like your enthusiasm. In addition to everything you've said, I also believe that thinking in this way can inspire you to come up with creative and authentic events that enrich the story, because it forces you to see things through the character's eyes at specific instances.
Eh... see, I'm sitting here with a whole bunch of inputs. No single one of them is deciding what I do. So I guess that's one of my objections--the idea that you're aware of ONE thing and then you react to that ONE thing. Right now, I could react to the TV, my laptop, the truck outside the window that's making braking sounds like a whale, the half-full iced tea glass next to me, the fact that my foot hurts, the Scrivener window that's behind this window saying, "Uh, me?"... I can see that if a person is the kind of writer who writes things like, say: When the Volkswagon Rabbit in the garage across the street exploded, John bolted upright in his bed. in a close third person story, then some work on cause, effect, and perception may be called for. But they seem so legalistic.
Thank you, I like that... "MRUs are not rules. They are tools..." which goes along well with using it as a tool to potentiate your writing as a static writing noob, which I very well might be. I'm thinking at this point I will continue to try and use MRUs but not get too caught up in the details, and somewhere along the lines my writing will just improve with practice. Not exactly sure if that is my writing style, I honestly don't know. But for example, before reading about MRUs I might have written this: The Volkswagon Rabbit in the garage across the street exploded. "Shit!" John yelled, and bolted upright in his bed. Or... John bolted upright in his bed as the Volkswagon Rabbit in the garage across the street exploded. Or... "Shit!" John yelled, as the Volkswagon Rabbit in the garage across the street exploded. When in reality, it reads better as, The volkswagon Rabbit in the garage across the street exploded. John bolted upright in his bed. "Shit!" he yelled. Also I really hope you don't think I'm arguing you down, or trying to convince you that MRUs should always be used and required. I'm just working this out for myself as best I can.
Nope; this seems like a perfectly fine topic for a friendly argument. But, see the MRU didn't help with what I see as the problem with the Rabbit example, which is that John doesn't know it's a Rabbit. The first line should be something more like: A boom sounded, somewhere outside.
I knew there'd been a recent thread about this so I searched it up. @Brenden O maybe something of use or interest to you shook out over the course of it. https://www.writingforums.org/threads/motivation-reaction-units.153899/
Tushay... Didn't even catch that, but I read that more as a PoV error than a MRU error. I will definitely review. Thanks for finding that for me!
@ChickenFreak I do get what you are saying. And IMO not every line needs to be a perfect string of MRUs, I am completely boggled on how I can possibly convert some of my paragraphs into MRUs without completely changing the content. But for example, and excuse my unedited, poor, noob-like writing I'm taking from my Chapter One... Taylor walked amongst the dead. She trailed aside the onxy tombs, the only monument dedicated to the Fallen. Taylor drew a deep breath and let her hand fall and float gingerly behind her, gliding across the cool, slick, polished stone of the Wall of the Fallen. She shuddered. Cold hands, warm heart, she reminded herself, echoing her late-brother’s words. She brushed her fingertips over the names of those dead, losing their lives in the Mortem Trials. It was the final and most absolute sacrifice to the Goetia. One day, Taylor too would be expected to forfeit her life and bestow to these Demonic Gods her final offering. Not today, she had already given the Goetia so much. Now to me... it just FEELS like there's an objective paragraph missing here... I would also like to note that to me personally, a lot of cause and effect and obvious sequencing isn't that obvious to me. As a new writer it seems to help. But after reviewing the other recent MRU thread I'm worried about opening a can of worms here. Again, not defending MRUs as writing religion, but came here for specific input to specific problems regarding MRUs.
OK, if I force myself to consider this, let's put the Motivation in blue and the Reaction in pink. I'm guessing, because I don't know what the "brother's words" are. I'm also totally ignoring the paragraph division thing. The Wall of the Fallen gleamed along the northern border of the cemetery. Taylor walked toward it, then drew a deep breath and let her hand fall and float gingerly behind her, gliding across the stone. The stone was cold. She shuddered; cold hands, warm heart. Her late brother's words came to memory. She brushed her fingertips over the names of the dead who had lost their lives in the Mortem Trials, the final and most absolute sacrifice to the Goetia. One day, Taylor too would be expected to forfeit her life and bestow to these Demonic Gods her final offering. Not today, she had already given the Goetia so much.
Just a short insert (I'm not that familiar with MRUs myself, because... well rules and just my opinion): If you get down to the beat level, each sentence should be a reaction to the one before, the same way that your brain is thinking. Your thoughts aren't jumping around, they go along a reason-path, where one thought triggers the next. IMO good writing, writing that flows, is like that.
I like it, reads cleaner and less wordy. The "Cold hands, warm heart", were her brother's words. And this is also the current issue I'm having with MRUs and finding a way to make it work. Actually, the original work was written as, "Taylor drew a deep breath, walking along the monument that was the last reminiscent reminder of the Fallen. She let her hand float and trail gingerly behind her. She raised her hand and allowed it to glide across the cool, slick, polished stone that was the Wall of the Fallen. She brushed her fingertips over the names of those dead, losing their lives in the Mortem Trials. All the students who had been put to the test and failed, paying the ultimate price of their lives. It was the final and most absolute sacrifice to the Goetia. One day, Taylor too would be expected to forfeit her life and bestow to these Demonic Gods her final offering. Not today, she had already given the Goetia so much." What I originally quoted was me trying to convert into MRUs unsuccessfully. I guess the major issue here is the paragraph breaking, and that is what I'm struggling with the most myself currently.
I don't think that the paragraph breaking makes any sense. It assume that each "piece" is of some reasonable length, and that's an assumption.
I guess my next step would be to open up some of my favorite works of Fiction and see how closely other authors adhere to this concept. And from there I can make my own general rules if I find the said concept is applied instead of reading online articles of other people's methods of application.
Now, I'm not seeing them as either rule or tool. I'm seeing MRUs as analytical. You read a piece of work, and you break it down into the paragraphs that are motivation, and the paragraphs that are reaction to that motivation. It helps you to analyse your/somebody else's work. But looking at something I wrote, I can see that the first paragraph is descriptive, the third paragraph is motivation, then there are several paragraphs of scene-setting before the reaction to the motivation happens. So how does analysing it into MRUs help? I could cut the descriptive part, ...and end up with something as simplistic as a very basic reading primer.
Dwight Swain's book was one of the first writing technique books I read, three or four years ago, when I started writing. I was floored by MRUs much as you are. I found another writer-book author, Randy Ingermanson, who champions MRUs and the snowflake method. He wrote a duo of books, The Oxygen Series, using MRUs with discussions in appendices.
