Applying So… But… to multiple characters

This article refers to two other articles: The ‘So…, But…’ Chain, and Who’s Got the Problem Now?

I’d read them first (if you haven’t already).

You can also use So…, But… to track multiple characters, to add complexity and depth to a story. You can expand the focus of the process to build complexity without losing causal momentum.

How does this Work?

To go back to Amy’s story in The ‘So…, But…’ Chain, you might insert some beats from the POV of other characters in the story:

Amy has only been working at her company for six months,

• But she thinks she deserves a raise.
• So Amy goes to her immediate supervisor and puts her case.
• But her supervisor has just been hauled over the coals for missing his quarterly targets,
• So he dismisses Amy’s request abruptly.
• So Amy goes to the HR manager to complain, arguing that she deserves a raise and that she’s never going to get a fair hearing from her manager.
• So the HR manager agrees to put her case to the big boss.
• But the big boss thinks part of the problem with her supervisor is not managing his staff,
• So he sends Amy a curt note telling her to stop trying to go over her supervisor’s head.
• So Amy starts looking for another job…

The sentences in italics are where the So…, But… chain shifts ownership temporarily, to add depth to Amy’s problem. In order, it shifts temporarily to her supervisor, then to the HR manager, and finally to the big boss, before landing back with Amy.

In each case we’ve followed the problem, in line with the tool Who’s Got the Problem Now?

When Amy goes to her immediate boss to ask for a raise, that adds to the problem he already has with his boss. But he doesn’t want to confront that problem, so he immediately hands it back to Amy. So she goes to the HR manager. The HR manager takes the problem away from Amy (phew!), but fails. And by doing so, makes things worse for Amy’s supervisor. Which makes things worse for Amy.

We’ve gone away from Amy from time to time, to see the problem bouncing around and getting bigger every time, before ending up with Amy. We’ve escalated her problem by letting So…, But… take us to other people.

Like a boomerang, Amy’s problem has come back to her. But much worse.

Shifting POV has enabled us to up the ante for Amy.

However, it also comes with a risk.

Losing Focus

As Jean Renoir said in The Rules of The Game, ‘That’s the awful thing about life: everybody has their reasons.’ Tout le monde a ses raisons.

All your characters ‘have their reasons.’ But are those reasons part of this story?

The challenge we face as writers is adding complexity without losing focus. Do we need to know about the other character’s own problems?

Only if they’re going to matter further along the line.

But haven’t you broken your own rule?

This approach doubles up on ‘So…’ when it switches POV. It ‘breaks the rule.’ Isn’t this a problem?

Not really.

If you try hard enough, you can often find a way of rephrasing your story to maintain the strict So…, But… flow, but I don’t think it helps. It’s just using semantics to solve a non-problem. Accept that when you temporarily shift POV, you double up on So… and carry on.

The audience won’t notice whether you managed to juggle the semantics; they will only notice whether you have kept the causal chain tight.

Speaking of rules…

Strictly speaking, the moment “But her supervisor has just been hauled over the coals for missing his quarterly targets” has happened in the past, not when it shows its face in Amy’s story.

Here are two workable solutions, and one bad one:

1. See it when it happens, and use suspense to tie it to Amy’s pending request. For example, have Amy screw up her courage and go to her supervisor’s office, only to be told that he’s seeing the Big Boss. Cut to the Big Boss tearing a strip or two off her supervisor. Cut to Amy, anxiously trying to find out when her supervisor is likely to return. Then she spots him striding back to his office and decides to strike while the iron is hot. Follows him into his office (we feel the growing suspense, because we know what’s happened, but she doesn’t), puts her request, he explodes….

2. Have the Big Boss explain to the HR manager when she puts Amy’s request, and then forbid her from telling Amy – “I’ll deal with this myself.” Suspense – we can see the problem heading Amy’s way again, and we fear for the form it will take, and the damage it will do.

3. Have her supervisor explain it to Amy when she makes her request. Bad choice. Why would he reveal how he’s just been chastised and humiliated? And, once again, it’s dialogue putting up its hand and begging to help out.

Wrapping Up

Used sparingly, shifting POV lets us show how a problem ricochets through a story world, picking up energy as it goes. It’s a way of enriching the audience’s sense that everyone has their reasons while still keeping the narrative anchored to the protagonist’s dilemma.

The trick is discipline and focus. We’re not wandering away from our main character—we’re widening the frame just long enough to show what she’s up against. Each shift should tighten the screws, not loosen them. And if the So…, But… chain gets a little messy in the process, that’s fine; it’s the causal logic that matters.

Handled well, POV shifts don’t distract. They deepen tension, heighten stakes, and make the eventual return to the protagonist feel inevitable—and often, worse for them. Shifts are fine – as long as they tighten the screws on the central character.