How to develop a novel plot using Flying Logic

[Robert McNally]

Quick question to Robert M: if I and other Pro users created such a standard domain, are we allowed to post it here?

Of course. If it deals with writing directly you can attach it here. And whether it does or doesn't you can always post it in the "Examples and Templates" section of the forum.

[AndreasE]

It has been more than 2-3 weeks, well...

I have to admit that what George Bot proposed did simply not work for me: Use FL's intended purpose - to solve problems - to develop a novel. On the contrary, the more I try, the more I come to think that maybe this even prevents a story to unfold. Maybe a story is in a way nothing else that a problem solving process? The main character has a problem and works his/her way out of it - or not. And the story is simply, how this all happens.

Isn't thinking a kind of virtual acting? What if Hamlet, after he met the ghost, opened up his MacBook, started FlyingLogic and calmly developed all options and solutions possible in his situation? Would there be a story left? Would there be murder, passion, bloodshed? I think not. He most probably would end up with some compromise, about which he would negotiate with his opponent etc. - and it would be endless boring to see this on stage.

I used to say that interesting stories are what you want to read, but what you don't want to experience yourself. (Being hunted? Adultery? Blackmail? Not really.) Now I'm tempted to add: Stories are what happens to people who don't use Flying Logic... 

[AndreasE]

A variation to what I have written in the beginning of this thread:

I have come across a nice little text editor named Bean. (Downloadable for free at http://www.bean-osx.com/Bean.html.) It offers a very handy "float" option, which means, the editor pane stays on top whether the editor has the focus or not.

Instead of using the Notes of Flying Logic to develop my scenes, I write down what has to happen in Bean, having it floating above the FlyingLogic-picture of my events, scene groups etc.. This way, I can easily scroll backwards and forwards, and no problems with notes in another order than expected can happen.

[Robert McNally]

I have to admit that what George Bot proposed did simply not work for me: Use FL's intended purpose - to solve problems - to develop a novel. On the contrary, the more I try, the more I come to think that maybe this even prevents a story to unfold. Maybe a story is in a way nothing else that a problem solving process? The main character has a problem and works his/her way out of it - or not. And the story is simply, how this all happens.

I, for one, would not use Flying Logic to solve my characters' problems using Flying Logic— unless my characters were all Vulcans. While it's true that we humans benefit from "stepping back" from problems and thinking about them in a dispassionate way, which is what Flying Logic was originally designed to do, I don't think by any means that that is Flying Logic's only use. Rather, if I were writing a novel using Flying Logic as a tool, I would use it to model many of the chaotic complexities that are motivated by my characters' conflicting desires and their situations, and then use it to help me to project what the outcomes of those desires would be. I would also use it to help me find plot holes so I can fill them and so provide my readers with a better experience.

Flying Logic is quite a general tool. Just as a word processor doesn't force you to only write scientific dissertations, Flying Logic doesn't force you to use it only for problem solving, and I'm hearing some great things from people who are using it in creative ways I never would have imagined.

[George Blot]

Nice posts, together. Thank you for a most interesting discussion.

I admit I've had some considerable hostility to these ideas among my friends as well (enough, in fact, to make me wonder why everyone's so defensive about human irrationality). In any case, my answer is the same: the only rule is that there is no rule, and I'm not saying you have to write like this... only that it sounds exciting to try it.

Also, you still misunderstand me. I don't see people, whether fictional or real, as Vulcans.  Of course people are not always rational - indeed, they seldom are. But fictional characters do always do things for a reason, even if it's an irrational one. The way I see it, the process from irrational reason to rational action is itself rational. The logic traps the character; his or her emotions, prejudices, conceits, moral principles, and character traits force their actions. Yes, we have freedom - for example, we can adjust our principles, suppress our emotions, abandon our prejudices. But, given that we don't, our actions are strictly determined. Hamlet is, now you mention him, an excellent example FOR my case. Consider the scene near the beginning where the new king (Claudius?) tells Hamlet to pull himself together, and stop mourning his dead father (I'm working from hazy memory here, so cut me some slack on accuracy... something about "your father lost a father, and that father lost his."). Now, here's a partial list of some of the irrational forces buffeting Hamlet: (a) he doesn't like Claudius but now has to call him king (prejudice); (b) he's jealous of Claudius for marrying his mother (emotion); (c) he feels it's indecent that they've married so soon (moral principle); (d) his pride and vanity are hurt because no one else is mourning with him (conceit); (e) he likes being the centre of attention, and being the only mourner achieves that (character trait). Given all those, is he really going to tell Claudius he's right, chuck off his mourning dress, and join the wedding party? No way. Given these irrational forces - he has no choice. What follows is inevitable. Now, did Hamlet come to that decision using logic charts? Did Shakespeare develop the character using logic charts? No, of course not, to both counts. But they would have got the same result if they did! Now, if you're actually in a dramatic situation like Hamlet was, or if you're a genius like Shakespeare, then you don't need any help navigating through your various choices. Me, I do.

That's all I'm saying, and it strikes me as fairly uncontroversial. If you're serious about your characters' autonomy - if you really believe that they're not your playthings - then I can't see how else you'd do it. I'm particularly surprised Robert demurs - as I've said, as this is modelled on his "going back to school" example. Perhaps Hamlet is playing for higher stakes, but I see the process as the same.

Regards

George

[Robert McNally]

Also, you still misunderstand me. I don't see people, whether fictional or real, as Vulcans.  Of course people are not always rational - indeed, they seldom are. But fictional characters do always do things for a reason, even if it's an irrational one.

I'm not sure I do misunderstand you. I was only pointing out my disagreement with what some people seem to think: that since Flying Logic encourages logical and dispassionate thinking about problems, that any story written using Flying Logic as a writer's tool will necessarily result in characters with logical and dispassionate motivations.

I think we agree that's not the case.

[George Blot]

@ Robert.

1) Oh.
2) Apologies.
3) Exactly!

G