So maybe our ideas shouldn't be universal, just continental.

Sorry, just a joke. I couldn't help it.

I found the actual sheet i was looking for diagraming the stucture of a romance novel from a previous teacher of mine. This diagram descibes the logic of the romance narrative and how explanitory links are solved in progression as the novel unfolds. For example the first conflict is that the herione's identity is put into question in order to set up the plot of the story. At the resolution, the herione's identity is restored, the question of whether the identity is a transfigured one or not is posed. In terms of a Lacanian reading of this logic, it is the protagonist's creation of the 'object of desire', a fantasy, it is Rhett Butler for Scarlett, the pin-up for the soldier, and Marylin Monroe for me. In reality, these characters do not exist and are unconcious productions of unatainable unatainable things. Their purpose is to give impetus to the protagonist's quest or quest for knowledge. This is the architect searching for a true syntax or the knights quest for the damsel in distress. For me, this means each of five parts of a narrative must not only pose a question about architecture but also foreshadow my resolution. The resolution's success is its existance.

These are the ideas I'm working on using to inform my 'performative techniques'