Thoughts on Writing: Negation, synthesis, what?

[Noumenon]

When I was safely wrapped up in Film School and learning how to write screenplays we were told that a good practice was to think of your story as an Argument, in which the Protagonist represents the Pro case and the Antagonist the Con. At some point someone trotted out an addendum that I have always found very interesting but difficult to put into action, and I don't think it was exactly the following one.

Wikipedia helpfully defines the roles in the Thesis, antithesis, synthesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis,_antithesis,_synthesis) grouping as follows:- The thesis is an intellectual proposition.
- The antithesis is simply the negation of the thesis.
- The synthesis solves the conflict between the thesis and antithesis by reconciling their common truths, and forming a new proposition.
Now, when examining ways in which to make our narratives both stimulating and cohesively satisfying, we were introduced to something very similar to the above but in which the third part was entitled the Negation of the Negation (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/n/e.htm#negation-of-negation) (maybe someone with a greater fore-brain than I can put that link to use). The illustrative example which always stuck in my mind, me being who I am, was this: Th: The Living
AntiTh/Neg: The Dead
NegNeg:The Un-Dead, or Living Dead
To me this differs quite significantly from the Th/AntiTh/SynTh model because there is no intention of reconciliation - quite the opposite, it is meant to point towards an apogee of conflict. The purpose for we budding writers was to define (in advance of the annoyingly messy business of the actual writing itself) an escalation of our chosen theme towards a worst possible obstacle which the protagonist should have to face and overcome. Or embrace - it depends on how light or dark you want to be. Another triad might be - Th: Justice
Neg: Injustice
NegNeg: Vengence
- where this Negation of the Negation is taken to be a form of Unsanctioned or Unjust Justice, although it could easily be something entirely other. I find this basic idea very appealing but I often draw a hearty blank when I try to put it to use, possibly just because I consistently fail to put my finger on a concept to neatly complete the sequence. Not that there should be one correct answer at the exclusion of any others; different perspectives on an issue are bound to lead to different interpretations of what a negation of a negation could be. I struggle to think of them.

As a reading example, I recently finished the first two books in Pat Barker's Regeneration trilogy and I felt the core concepts in question to be (in Regen) Respect and (in TEitD) Division, such that their antitheses might be Contempt and Unity - but where that leaves me as regards a possible negation of the negation in either case is far more difficult. I tend to default onto something like, and as smoothly conceptual as, Denial of Embodying the Antithesis Oneself, which could boringly be true for any Negation (and as a phrase rather lacks a certain poetry).

Projecting this whole notion onto existing works isn't necessarily helpful when it comes to interpreting them, but it could be an interesting diversion (like one of those car games for long journeys, only to be used following instead of during). As a tool for preparing a story yourself I think it is one of the best, and I'd like to know anyone else's thoughts on the subject, or see good examples of Thesis/Negation/NegationNegation if anyone can think some up.

Also, my apologies if I've spouted all this out somewhere around here before.

[John Self]

Well I can't think of any, but yes, it is an interesting idea.

I think where I fall down in handling this is that I can't really believe that any (good) films or books are so simplistic as to follow that pattern. I mean, even having a protagonist and antagonist to my mind immediately reduces a story to the level of yer average things-exploding Arnie vehicle or, even worse, Bond.

Of course I'm probably wrong and it turns out that lots of great fiction, or at least that by Pat Barker ;-) does conceal within its depths that sort of pattern or model. But if it does, would this be a conscious design by the writer or filmmaker, or something under the surface that comes out of the natural development of multiple characters and the need for a storytelling momentum?

[Noumenon]

This was something that was handed to us with the time-constraints of film in mind; if you are writing a short script, things like this can make the difference between student navel gazing and something narratively satisfying. I'm sure that no books, or as you say no books worth reading, are conceived using a trick like this, but it can offer surprisingly useful insights into where a project might develop once an idea occurs. I only used Mrs. Barker for an example of how crap I tend to be at this - I ought to be able to think of a good n-negation with the other two blanks filled...

Pretty much all the "rules" of film structuring are comparatively easy and indiscriminate to use as analysis tool after the fact - the classic Heroes Journey and the Three Act Structure can be overlaid onto any film you may care to mention, no matter how good, bad or art house; it's only the material that recreates them literally that suffers the oh so familiar Schwartsanegatory (or Bondage) effects. But I think there is a place for them in the development of any kind of narrative, film or otherwise, as long as it isn't at the expense of creativity - this is the thing that scares people off, although the two need not go hand in hand.

But... no protagonist? No antagonist? What books have you been reading? Don't hate the roses for their names, you'll be smelling them every time you open a book whether you like them or not (and with beautiful and original smimalies like that, I ought to write one).