Writing the Societal Plotline

Most stories need at least three different types of plotlines to be successful. This gives the story more dimension and depth. While there are other combinations to choose from, by far the three most popular ones to interweave are the external, internal, and relationship journeys.

The external plotline is the character's outer journey; the objective is to get a concrete goal. He encounters antagonism and struggles with conflict. This leads to significant consequences that can alter his life. This is referred to as the plot arc.

The internal plotline is the character's inner journey; the objective is to fulfill the abstract want. The antagonist is the self, which causes internal conflict, and the consequences are related to identity, which creates the character arc.

The relationship plotline is the character's relationship journey; the objective is to increase or decrease distance with another person (or, in some cases, maintain the relationship as is). The antagonist is what endangers that, which leads to conflict. The consequences are the relationship arc.

While I have written about each of these plotlines on my blog, I haven't really covered the fourth most popular plotline. This is what I call the "societal plotline" (or in some cases the "world plotline").

What is the Societal Plotline?

The societal plotline is the journey of a society. The objective is a collective's concrete goal (which could have an abstract want behind it). The antagonist may be another collective, or an entity within or outside the group. The consequences are the way the collective arcs. We may call this a societal arc.

The societal plotline is arguably "bigger" in scope than the external plotline, because it involves groups of people (or entities at least). However, this doesn't necessarily make it the most important in the book or film. In fact, the societal plotline is rarely the primary plotline (the A Story). Most commonly, it is the quaternary plotline. It's nonetheless still very effective, and significant. And sometimes it is pulled up into a more dominating position, like when there is no internal plotline. 

This is what happens in Indiana Jones. Indy doesn't really have an internal plotline, so it's the external, relationship, and societal plotlines that dominate his stories instead. Those are the three dominating plotlines.

In any case, I like to envision the societal plotline as fitting "above" the external plotline (since it is bigger in scope), and in a sense, adding dimension that way. 

So, let's cover more of what this plotline is, and how to work with it, so you can write one that resonates throughout--and adds dimension to--your story.

What is a Collective or "Society"?

The societal plotline, by definition, is about one or more collectives. A collective is simply a group of individuals.

In Star Wars, the rebels are a collective.

In The Hunger Games, the districts are a collective.

In Harry Potter, the Order of the Phoenix is a collective.

And in Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, the pirates are a collective.

But the collective need not always be large in number nor make epic strides.

While the Order of the Phoenix aims to stop Voldemort, the Gryffindors aim to win the House and Quidditch cups at Hogwarts. They're a collective too.

In Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, Jack's crew is taking on Barbossa's. They're collectives.

And in The Greatest Showman, the circus performers are a collective facing backlash in their town.

Even with a Hallmark film, a collective may be a small business with its employees, or a group that puts on a local event.

In the societal plotline, the collective is just a group with a shared goal. It can be three people in a music group--like Huntrix in KPop Demon Hunters. It can be a club, a student body, a faculty, a sports team, a church group, a family, or any other group you can think of.

And just because the individuals are ultimately striving for the same goal, it does not mean there is no conflict within the group (in fact, often the story will be more interesting if there is).

If you have a group working toward an outcome, you have a "society."

Do All Stories Need a Societal Plotline?

As you may have guessed from what I wrote above, no, not all stories need a societal plotline. Just as not all stories need an internal or relationship plotline. Most successful stories have them, but it's possible to write a good story without one of these plotlines. For example, I could write a wilderness survival story about a man stuck in the Australian Outback with his dog. He may have the external goal to get to the nearest town. He may change internally during his pursuit. And his relationship with his dog may evolve (yes, you can have a relationship plotline with an animal). But he may not be part of a collective, or encounter a collective. There may be no societal plotline.

I mean, I guess you could maybe argue he and the dog make a collective, but it's unlikely the dog is fully conscious of the protagonist's goal. I also feel like the societal plotline is more about a group (3+ individuals) than a duo.

I could also take away the dog as well, but this would likely make the story feel a bit flatter, with only those two plotlines (external and internal), and to work well, the story will likely need to be shorter than a novel--a short story. Often, though, when the protagonist is truly alone, there will still be some sort of relationship plotline--it will just be with a person who is not physically present. The protagonist may still be thinking about that person and taking action to decrease the distance between them. He may make choices that honor that person, and therefore draw closer to that person psychologically, if not physically. Or there may be a relationship arc relayed through flashbacks. So often the writer still finds a way to put one in. But I digress.

Your story does not have to have a societal plotline, but most successful stories do, even if it's a quaternary or minor plotline. In Wicked, it's clear the relationship, external, and internal plotlines are the dominating plotlines, but there is still a societal plotline about the animals being oppressed, which eventually affects all the other plotlines.

It's likely your story will have a societal plotline too, even if it's minor. So let's dig into what this entails.

Working with the Societal Plotline

In some ways, working with the societal plotline is surprisingly simple. It's like working with the external journey, but amplified by numbers. However, it's these numbers that can sometimes lead to confusion and pitfalls.

In any case, pretty much any powerful plotline will have these primary plot elements: an objective, an antagonist, conflict, and consequences.

The Objective

As stated above, the objective is going to be a concrete goal shared by the individuals in the collective. In KPop Demon Hunters, Rumi, Mira, and Zoey aim to seal the Honmoon to stop the demons from stealing souls. 

In Star Wars, the rebels want to overthrow the Empire. And similarly, in The Hunger Games, the districts want to overthrow the Capitol.

The pirates in At World's End ultimately band together to fight the East India Trading Company.

Similar to the protagonist, the collective may also have an abstract want behind the concrete goal.

The rebels, districts, and pirates all want freedom from oppression. As a group, this is what they are fighting for.

In Harry Potter, the Order of the Phoenix is fighting for equality, against the Death Eaters, who want magical superiority. And the Gryffindors want to win the House and Quidditch cups to bring glory to everything that Gryffindor stands for (and frankly, to put an end to Slytherin's dominance). 

Even in Twilight, the werewolves aim to kill vampires because they want to protect their tribe. And the Cullens only get involved in conflicts, when something threatens their family's safety and secrecy.

However, it's not necessary that everyone in the collective shares the same abstract want, just that as a whole, their group has a concrete goal. For example, at earlier points in Pirates, Jack's crew members voice different wants they're trying to fulfill by joining him. One crew member joins because he wants to see the sea, another because he wants adventure, another because he's seeking wealth, another because she wants reparations. Nonetheless, as a crew, they share a concrete goal.

It's often satisfying, though, when the "good guy" collective (eventually) unites under the same abstract want. Typically when there is a "final battle" speech, the leader will voice this abstract want to boost morale and remind the collective of their highest and true purpose. This will ideally come after it seems there's no hope. So in At World's End, when it seems the pirates have no chance, Elizabeth, the Pirate King, unites them by speaking of freedom. She then leads them against the East India Trading Company.

Similarly, in The Lord of the Rings, Aragorn unites the army at the Black Gate by reminding them of courage and of fighting for their loved ones. And in Deathly Hallows, Neville rallies the good guys by speaking to the idea that love is more powerful than death.

While not necessarily a requirement, ideally the want the collective unites under at the end, will tap into the themes of the story, so that it is more resonating. Elizabeth speaks of freedom, and freedom is also a major theme of At World's End--as well as the whole trilogy. Neville speaks of love and death, and death is a major theme of Deathly Hallows, while love is the primary theme of the series.

Likewise, Rumi (re)unites with Mira and Zoey, against Gwi-Ma, when she sings about her shames, to connect with them authentically (thematic). This rallies Huntrix as a whole to defeat the demons.

In many stories, the societal plotline will put the lead characters and the "good guy" collective on the same page at the end--on the side of the theme. So Elizabeth gives up her motive of revenge, and instead fights for freedom, which is also what Jack wants, and what Will wants for his father. This is amplified and embodied in the pirates as a whole, as they are all fighting for freedom (which is what the East India Trading Company is taking away from everyone.)

It's a nice effect, but it should (again) be noted that it's not a must-have, as how this all shows up depends on the story, and there is plenty of room for variation.

So before I get to the antagonist, I want to talk about how the protagonist fits in. . . .

The Protagonist & The Society

In many stories, the protagonist will be part of, or become part of, a "good guy" collective, and will (eventually) act as a major leader, or at least an important figure in that society.

Luke joins the rebels and becomes a key fighter. Will and Elizabeth ultimately join the pirates (who are, ironically, the "good guys"). 

But it's also possible that the protagonist leaves one society for another. Anakin leaves the Jedi and joins the Empire.

It's also possible that the protagonist refuses to be part of any collective. In Princess Mononoke, Ashitaka adamantly refuses to side with the humans or the forest inhabitants in the war, and so finds himself sandwiched between both forces, while simultaneously trying to stop both forces.

With this plotline, there is always plenty of room for variations and complexity. For example, in The Hunger Games, Katniss finds herself the face and a leader of the districts, even when she doesn't want to be. And it's ultimately revealed that the true leader of the districts is a worse person than Snow, and we can't easily call them "good guys." 

So basically, what I want to emphasize here, is that while it's common for the protagonist to be part of a "good guy" collective, anything and everything is an option. The protagonist may not even need to be part of a collective in order for your story to have a societal plotline. And there may not even be a "good guy" collective or "bad guy" collective. Just a collective.

The plotline is simply a society working toward a goal . . . and running into an antagonistic force.

The Societal Antagonist

In order for this to be a great plotline, the society arguably needs to run into an antagonistic force. It's not much of a plot if the districts can just walk in and take over the Capitol without a sweat.

Because this is so similar to the external plotline (just amplified), I don't think we need to overcomplicate it here. Just remember that a true antagonist provides opposition and resistance to the goal. It's something in the way of the goal (directly or indirectly). Not just a "bad guy" or heckler.

Commonly, the society's antagonist will be another collective. The Capitol is opposing the districts, particularly through its peacekeepers. The East India Trading Company is taking over the seven seas and killing pirates. The Death Eaters are fighting for supremacy by "purifying" the world--oppressing people who aren't purebloods. And the Saja Boys are stealing the souls of Huntrix's fans.

Ideally, there should be a leader, figure, or "face" of the antagonistic collective (or any collective for that matter). Jinu is the leader of the Saja Boys, and Gwi-Ma is the ultimate leader of the demons. Beckett is the leader of the East India Trading Company, and Snow is the President of the Capitol.

This is often an important thing to include when working with societal plotlines, because it's hard for the audience to "see" and get interested in a collective that doesn't have a "face." You can do that, but it's usually less impactful, because it's not very personal. It's like fighting "throwaway" bad guys in a video game. They're just there to be cut down. They're flat. It's certainly not always wrong--there may be some cases where you want to do that--but usually it's not what we are going for.

Instead, there should be one or more figures who stand out in the collective. We want to individualize some of the members so the entity feels rounder and more complex--just as we often want our protagonists to be round and complex. This will make the plotline more emotional and more meaningful. Even in The Lord of the Rings films, where the creators could have just thrown in some half-baked orcs to take Merry and Pippin, they made a few specific orcs stand out.

It may not be a good idea to individualize everyone in a collective (and trying to do that for large collectives is unrealistic), but choose one or more individuals to emphasize.

Now, with all that said though, the antagonist need not always be another collective. The antagonist could be one person in power, like a predatory teacher, and the students want to take a stand against him. Or it could be nature, like a Tsunami, and a group is trying to escape it. Or an illness, and a team of doctors are trying to eradicate it. It could be technology like AI, and a religious group is trying to destroy it.

It could be almost anything; it's just something formidable in the way of the goal.

And just as it's often a nice effect for the "good guy" collective to tap into the theme, it's often a nice effect if the "bad guy" collective amplifies the counterargument to the theme (the "anti-theme"). So, Beckett and the East India Trading Company are trying to control, catch, and oppress people, which is the opposite of freedom. Voldemort and the Death Eaters are trying to rule through hatred and intolerance, which is the opposite of love. And Gwi-Ma and his demons represent shame controlling people for eternity, which is the opposite of eradicating it through authentic connection. 

But whether or not this works, will depend on the story and how it's set up. Like I said, there is a lot of room for complexity and variation. And if this is handled poorly, it can feel flat, forced, or too on-the-nose.

Societal Conflict

Once we have an entity pursuing a goal and running into an antagonist, we have conflict. Conflict is that clash happening. Again, similar to the external plotline . . . but slightly different. 

In the external plotline, we want to almost always have the protagonist taking significant actions and influencing the turns of the story. (And if the protagonist isn't doing that, she's probably not a true protagonist, just a viewpoint character.) She should be the one making the plot progress.

If your protagonist is also very much a part of the collective, then this will also often be the case. We want the protagonist to be the greatest--or one of the greatest--influencers of the plotline.

However, please note that this does not strictly mean the character has to be a leader in that society.

What this ultimately means is that the protagonist is doing and saying things that are solving problems and creating plot turns. It does not matter if, in the grand scheme of the world, she's in the role of the queen or in the role of a pawn. Within the plot, what she says and does greatly influences the outcome of the societal conflict. It does not matter that Frodo is just a Hobbit from the Shire, and not a king like Aragorn. Frodo's decisions influence the fate of Middle-earth.

If your protagonist is not committed to a collective, then this may show up differently in the societal plotline.

Any member (ideally still a "face"), or the group as a whole, may be taking significant actions and influencing the turns of this plotline, during the main conflict. In a way, this is similar to handling an ensemble story, where there isn't an actual protagonist. There may not be one key person ultimately driving the plotline, but the entity as a whole, or its members stepping in and out to do things. In this sense, we could argue that the collective itself is the "character." 

Consider the film adaptations of The Hunger Games, which show different districts attacking peacekeepers to try to get the upper hand. On the plot level, these scenes and their triumphs have little to do with Katniss and her decisions. They nonetheless progress the societal plotline, by dealing major blows to the Capitol (which in turn, does then affect Katniss's plotline.) 

Similarly, in Wicked, Professor Dillamond being removed from his teaching position, has little to do with Elphaba. It's a conflict between the animals and an unknown antagonist (which we learn later is Oz himself). Yes, again, this ultimately influences Elphaba's external journey--as she decides to get involved--but initially, these forces are in conflict without involving her. It's two entities striking at each other; it has nothing to do with the protagonist. At least not in the beginning. 

Once (or if) the protagonist commits to a society, then the character should be a significant influencer in the societal conflict. Of course, their sphere of power may be modest at first, but typically they will grow in their power as the story progresses. For example, in The Maze Runner, Thomas is just a newbie in the Glade. Nonetheless, his decisions still influence the direction of the plot. And by the end, he is one of the characters who holds the most power and public influence among the Gladers.

There are some variations to all this, but I fear talking about them at this point, would just be confusing, so I'll just add this bit.

There can also, of course, be conflict inside the collective. Members may clash with each other, or have opposing ideas on how to move forward. Someone may try to break free of the collective, or challenge it, and become an antagonist to it. They may oppose its goal.

In some regard, if we view the collective as a "character," we may argue that this is "internal conflict" (or its equivalent) . . . at least until a member breaks free and openly tries to thwart the group's goal.

Consequences

The goal, antagonist, and conflict only really matter if there are consequences. If Huntrix and the Saja Boys being in conflict doesn't have the potential to change anything, who really cares? So what?

As you may have already guessed . . . the consequences of this plotline will be societal 🤯🙃

Make sure to communicate to the audience how the "world" is going to change if the collective succeeds in getting its goal. How will getting this goal improve its members' lives? How will not getting it make its members' lives worse?

Including this will make your story feel bigger in scope--whether you are writing about the fate of Middle-earth or about a family-owned business. 

While it's a great idea to make the consequences concrete (the districts won't have to starve and compete in The Hunger Games anymore!), if the collective is united by an abstract want, playing that up can be equally impactful (getting the goal usually means fulfilling that desire).

The abstract want is usually something the entity is willing to "die" for (literally or figuratively). In At World's End, Elizabeth, Will, and Barbossa know they will be fighting to the death, but the pirates are willing to do it, because it means taking a stand for freedom. It's worth dying for.

The Climactic Turning Point

The conflict will escalate into its major turning point--the climax.

Usually by this time, all of the plotlines have fed, or are feeding, into each other, and the protagonist will be a key player in resolving the societal conflict (even if he never picked a side, like Ashitaka in Princess Mononoke). The protagonist will do something that leads to the collective winning or losing.

Ashitaka returns the head to the forest spirit. Katniss shoots Coin. Rumi defeats Gwi-Ma. Frodo gets the Ring to the Crack of Doom (though Gollum gets it in). An encounter between Jack, Will, Elizabeth, and Davy Jones, leads to his heart being stabbed, and Will becoming captain of the Flying Dutchman, which enables the pirates to shoot down Beckett, and defeat the company.

In the falling action, the collective may or may not disband. It all depends on the story and society. 

If these are "good guys" who won (as is often the case), there is usually a strong sense of community and camaraderie as they celebrate. Alternatively (or additionally), the victory may be bittersweet if it came at a high cost, or if the collective disbands.

If the collective was made up of "bad guys" who lost, then any survivors might need to be dealt with. They may be arrested and brought to justice, or in some cases assimilated into the new "world." Or they may just turn tail and run.

This could really play out in so many different ways; you'll simply want to tune into what is best for your story.

Interweaving Plotlines

While I find it incredibly helpful and enlightening to pull the plotlines apart and see how each works, it's important to note that in most stories, all of these plotlines will be interweaving. What happens externally affects the protagonist internally, which affects what happens externally next. What happens externally and internally often affects the relationship, or vice versa. And any or all of these things can affect the society, and vice versa. It's rare for these to exist outside of each other (though it does happen on occasion).

Often the societal plotline is sort of the "umbrella" the other plotlines fit under.

It usually amplifies and/or intensifies the external plotline, or at least the primary plotline.