First of all, the historical setting is of keen interest (I have another 700+ page on the Bolshevik revolution on my night stand) and a great source of human drama.

However, the love triangle sounds similar to the love triangle in Doctor Zhivago. Only it seems that in this instance, Nadya is cast in the role of Tonya, not Laura.

And not only is she the victim, she’s a passive one rather than an proactive one. As the logline is written, the story pivots on how her husband acts and chooses — not on what she does. She seems to be totally at the mercy of her husband’s capricious heart.

The plot is a conspiracy against the protagonist. But the plot is also supposed to be a function of character. How to square the circle on that one? The answer, it seems to me, is that while the initial circumstances of the plot may be beyond the main character’s control, how the character responds to those circumstances, choices she makes, determines the direction of the plot going forward and the eventual outcome.

Consider Katniss Everdeen in “The Hunger Games”. The plot could have been constructed so that Katniss was chosen in the lottery on reaping day — she had no choice, she was a helpless victim. The initial reaction of the audience, of course, would be pity. Poor Katniss.

Or she could have said nothing, let her sister be taken in the reaping, plotted revenge. But that would have been a totally different plot. And the audience might have consider her a weak character.

Katniss makes the strongest choice a human being can make under the circumstances, the conspiracy the plot has inflicted on her. She volunteers in her sister’s place. If she is a victim of circumstances, she is a proactive one, not a passive one. The second she volunteers, she’s a hero, a strong character, and everyone in the audience is not just pitying her (a weak emotional response), they are rooting for her to win (a strong emotional response).

[And Katniss continues to make strong choices that determine the course of the plot and increase the cathexis, the audience’s emotional investment in the character.]

So Nadya is the victim of her husband’s infatuation with another woman. What is she going to do about it? A logline is about a main character’s objective goal. What is Nadya objective goal? To win him back? To find someone who can truly love her?

What is her game plan for achieving her objective goal? What is her proactive choice? What is her strongest choice going to be? How will she be proactive, rather than passive?

Oh, and concurrently survive the chaos, suffering and repression of the revolution and its aftermath. Love is always a great subjective need, but doesn’t she have bigger existential needs to deal with — like merely staying alive?

I apologize for being prolix. Hope this helps.

I’m a (deeply) closeted rebel myself. I think that every rule about everything is made to be broken under certain circumstances. But I also think one has to know the rules — which is to say master the rules — before one can know when to break them and how, wisely.

Or as my Latin teacher would say: pecca fortiter — sin bravely– but also pecca sapienter— sin wisely.

(It is my observation that a lot of people would prefer to just break the rules without first investing the time and effort to master them.)

I would also like to clarify where I come down on the the plot versus character question. I think it’s a false dichotomy. To my way of thinking they are two sides of the same coin. As in the Tao where yin and yang co-exist in opposition. A good script needs both plot AND character, and usually in equal proportions.

A logline emphasizes plot with but an adjective or two about a character’s flaw or strength. That’s the madness of the method and I see no prospect that the convention will change: it reflects the nature of show business and human nature. The first thing most people want to know about a script is not who the characters are, but what the plot is — what’s the roller coaster ride they are (vicariously) being cajoled to take.

My 2.5 cents worth.