Monthly Archives: February 2010

The Dramatica Theory of Story Structure

  Introduction

Everything you are about to read is wrong. Why is it wrong? Partly due to my own preconceptions, and partly due to pure ignorance. Of course, I can’t see my own preconceptions and I know nothing about my ignorance, so to me all you are about to read is right.

Right or wrong, the concepts contained in this book will absolutely cause you to think differently about what stories are and how they work. If you find something that makes sense to you, and (better yet) works, great! If you disagree with anything put forth, you should ask yourself why you don’t agree. That one question alone may bring you to question you own conceptions and knowledge, and may even point out preconceptions and areas of ignorance as well.

Before every class in story structure I always tell my students never to buy into anything more than 97%. No matter how all-encompassing an idea appears to be, if you believe it 100%, you’ll never see a better idea that just might come along. I believe this is good advice even when looking at your own understanding, but I’m only 97% sure about that.

Fact is, there is no “one right way” to look at story structure. As Eastern philosophy would have it, “The Tao that can be spoken is not the Eternal Tao.” In other words, the moment you think you completely understand something, the one thing you can be sure of is that you’ve missed the point.

The capital “T” Truth can never be known. But we can get a sense of it. By entertaining a variety of alternative explanations, we start to see the edges of the bush all those different perspectives are beating around. Through a combination of study and intuition, we become more and more able to chart a good course and avoid obstacles along the way. And perhaps, by the end of our journey we’ll know how we should have started it in the first place.

So Dramatica is not the end-all system of story structure. But it’s pretty good! And along with all the other good attempts at explaining the elusive Muse, it just may help you glimpse the Truth.

What is Dramatica?

Dramatica is a new theory of story that offers both writers and critics a clear view of what story structure is and how it works. Dramatica is also the inspiration behind the line of story development software products that bear its name.

The central concept of the Dramatica theory is a notion called the “Story Mind.” In a nutshell, this simply means that every story has a mind of its own – its own personality; its own psychology. A story’s personality is developed by an author’s style and subject matter; its psychology is determined by the underlying dramatic structure.

This book describes all the key concepts of the theory, how to use them to analyze the structure of any story and, more importantly, how to apply them creatively in the construction of stories.

Some of the material may be challenging and certainly much of it will be new. But a little effort and determination on your part will be rewarded with a new command of the tools of authorship that will open creative avenues for all of your projects to come.

The Story Mind

As mentioned above, the Story Mind concept is at the heart of Dramatica, and everything else about the theory grows out of that. If you don’t buy into it, at least a little, then you’re not going to find much use for the rest of this book. So let’s take look into the Story Mind right off the bat to see if it is worth your while to keep reading…

Simply put, the Story Mind means that we can think of a story as if it were a person. The storytelling style and the subject matter determine the story’s personality, and the underlying dramatic structure determines its psychology.

Now the personality of a story is a touchy-feely thing, while the psychology is a nuts-and-bolts mechanical thing. Let’s consider the personality part first, and then turn our attention to the psychology.

Like anyone you meet, a story has a personality. And what makes up a personality? Well, everything from the subject matter a person talks about to their attitude toward life. Similarly, a story might be about the Old West or Outer Space, and its attitude could be somber, sneaky, lively, hilarious, or any combination of other human qualities.

Is this a useful perspective? Can be. Many writers get so wrapped up in the details of a story that they lose track of the overview. For example, you might spend all kinds of time working out the specifics of each character’s personality yet have your story take a direction that is completely out of character for its personality. But if you step back every once and a while and think of the story as a single person, you can really get a sense of whether or not it is acting in character.

Imagine that you have invited your story to dinner. You have a pleasant conversation with it over the meal. Of course, it is more like a monologue because your story does all the talking – just as it will to your audience or reader.

Your story is a practical joker, or a civil war buff (genre), and it talks about what interests it. It tells you a story about a problem with some endeavor (plot) in which it was engaged. It discusses the moral issues (theme) involved and its point of view on them. It even divulges the conflicting drives (characters) that motivated it while it tried to resolve the difficulties.

You want to ask yourself if it’s story makes sense. If not, you need to work on the logic of your story. Does it feel right, as if the Story Mind is telling you everything, or does it seem like it is holding something back? If so, your story has holes that need filling. And does your story hold your interest for two hours or more while it delivers it’s monologue? If not, it’s going to bore it’s captive audience in the theater, or the reader of its report (your book), and you need to send it back to finishing school for another draft.

Again, authors get so wrapped up in the details that they lose the big picture. But by thinking of your story as a person, you can get a sense of the overall attraction, believability, and humanity of your story before you foist it off on an unsuspecting public.

There’s much more we’ll have to say about the personality of the Story Mind and how to leverage it to your advantage. But, our purpose right now is just to see if this book might be of use to you. So, let’s examine the other side of the Story Mind concept – the story’s psychology as represented in its structure.

The Dramatica theory is primarily concerned with the structure of a story. Everything in that structure represents an aspect of the human mind, almost as if the processes of the mind had been made tangible and projected out externally for the audience to observe.

Do you remember the model kit of the “Visible Man?” It was a 12″ human figure made out of clear plastic so you could see the skeleton and all the organs on the inside. Well that is how the Story Mind works. it takes the processes of the human mind, and turns them into characters, plot, theme, and genre, so we can study them in detail. In this way, an author can provide understanding to an audience of the best way to deal with problems. And, of course, all of this is wrapped up and disguised in the particular subject matter, style, and techniques of the storyteller.

Now this makes it sound as if the real meat of a story, the real people, places, events, and topics, are just window dressing to distract the audience from the serious business of the structure. But that’s not what we’re saying here. In fact, structure and storytelling work side by side, hand in hand, to create an audience/reader experience that transcends the power of either by itself.

Therefore, structure and storytelling are neither completely dependent upon each other, nor are they wholly independent. One structure might be told in a myriad of ways, like West Side Story and Romeo and Juliet. Similarly, any given group of characters dealing with a particular realm of subject matter might be wrapped around any number of different structures, like weekly television series.

But let’s get back to the nature of the structure itself and to the elements that make up the Story Mind. If characters, plot, theme, and genre represent aspects of the human mind made tangible, what are they?

Characters represent the conflicting drives of our own minds. For example, in our own minds, our reason and our emotions are often at war with one another. Sometimes what makes the most sense doesn’t feel right at all. And conversely, what feels so right might not make any sense at all. Then again, there are times when both agree and what makes the most sense also feels right on.

Reason and Emotion then, become two archetypal characters in the Story Mind that illustrate that inner conflict that rages within ourselves. And in the structure of stories, just as in our minds, sometimes these two basic attributes conflict, and other times they concur.

Theme, on the other hand, illustrates our troubled value standards. We are all plagued with uncertainties regarding the right attitude to take, the best qualities to emulate, and whether our principles should remain fixed and constant or should bend in context to particular circumstances.

Plot compares the relative value of the methods we might employ within our minds in our attempt to press on through these conflicting points of view on the way toward a mental consensus.

And genre explores the overall attitude of the Story Mind – the points of view we take as we watch the parade of our own thoughts unfold, and the psychological foundation upon which our personality is built.

Obstacle Character’s Focus

Obstacle Character’s Focus • [Element] • Where the Obstacle Character’s attention is centered • The Obstacle Character concentrates his attention where he thinks his problem lies. Just as in the Main Character, an inequity exists in the Obstacle Character between himself and his environment which is driving him. The actual nature of this inequity is described by the Obstacle Character Problem Element. The nature of what is required to restore balance is described by the Obstacle Character Solution Element. From the Subjective view afforded to the Obstacle Character though, the inequity does not appear to be between himself and the Environment but wholly in one or the other. The Focus Element describes the nature of how the problem appears to the Obstacle Character from his Subjective point of view. Focus really describes the effects of the Obstacle Character Problem element, but because the Problem element is on the level of his own motivations, Subjective Characters can never see his actual problems without solving them.

From the Dramatica Dictionary

What is a Complex Character?

Complex Characters are created from the same set of dramatic functions as Archetypes. The principal difference is that the Archetypal Characters group together functions that are most similar and compatible, and Complex Characters don’t. This means that although Archetypal Characters may conflict with one another, an Archetypal Character is never at odds with its own drives and attitudes. This is why the Archetypal Characters so often appear to be less developed than Complex Characters or perhaps less human.

To create characters who more closely represent our own inconsistencies, we must redistribute their functions so they are less internally compatible. As this results in many more levels of exploration and understanding, we refer to any arrangement of character functions other than an Archetypal grouping to be Complex. A character containing such a grouping is a Complex Character.

From the Dramatica Theory Book

Slicing and Dicing Stories

A writer asks: On the FAQ’s of the dramatica website, it explains short stories as (condensed):

Short stories typically do not go to the depth of a full story and epics usually have one “main” story embellished with lots of short sub stories

There are basically two different approaches to using Dramatica with “short form” works:

1. Cover all of the story points quickly (time wise).

Or.

2. Spend more time illustrating the story points, but limit the scope.

My question is:

When you say “limit the scope” do you mean limit the amount of “story points that you explore” ?

I guess that is how I am taking it … as being the opposite of #1 where you cover all the points but with less detail (quickly)

thanks

Kyle

My reply:

Hi, Kyle.

Limiting the scope is what we call “slicing and dicing” the Dramatica model.

Are you familiar with the “3-D” tower version of the Dramatica Structural chart? It looks like a cross between a Rubik’s Cube and a 3-D chess set. It has four levels, split into four separate “towers.” Well, the four vertical levels provide depth to a story and the four individual areas covered by the towers provide breadth.

So, you can “limit” a story to keep it short by either cutting it down to two or even one tower (like having just a Main and Impact character, but no overall story or subjective personal story, or vice versa), or you can cut it short by limiting the depth (such as having a plot and characters, but no thematic issues.)

The important thing to remember is that if you limit a story, don’t step out of those limits, even a little bit. The minute you move into a larger or deeper area, the audience will assume your message is bigger and expect your argument to cover all that ground. If you only dabble with a few story points in that area, then it will look as if you are failing to make a complete argument, rather than just adding a little extra breadth or depth.

It is much more powerful to make a complete argument within the scope you have outlined for your story, than to appear to make an incomplete argument with a larger scope.

Hope this helps.

Dramatica Definition: Obstacle Character’s Domain

Obstacle Character’s Domain • [Domain] • The broadest area of the Obstacle Character’s impact • Everything that emanates from what the Obstacle Character does and represents which primarily relates to his impact alone, as opposed to specific relationships he has with other characters, can be said to be part of the Obstacle Character Domain. There are four different Domains in the structure of any story, represented by the combination of each of the four Classes with each of the four throughlines– the Objective Story Throughline, the Subjective Story Throughline, the Main Character Throughline, and the Obstacle Character Throughline. The Obstacle Character Domain describes, in the broadest single term, what the Obstacle Character represents and the area in which the Obstacle Character operates within the story.

From the Dramatica Dictionary

Guardian & Contagonist Archetypes

What are the Guardian and Contagonist?

The first of these archetypes is a common yet often loosely defined set of functions; the second archetype is unique to Dramatica.   The Guardian functions as a teacher/helper who represents the Conscience of the Story Mind. This is a protective character who eliminates obstacles and illuminates the path ahead. In this way, the Guardian helps the Protagonist stay on the proper path to achieve success.

Balancing the Guardian is a character representing Temptation in the Story Mind. This character works to place obstacles in the path of the Protagonist, and to lure it away from success. Because this character works to hinder the progress of the Protagonist, we coined the name “Contagonist”.

Contagonist: “Whose side are you on?”

Because the Contagonist and Antagonist both have a negative effect on the Protagonist, they can easily be confused with one another. They are, however, two completely different characters because they have two completely different functions in the Story Mind. Whereas the Antagonist works to stop the Protagonist, the Contagonist acts to deflect the Protagonist. The Antagonist wants to prevent the Protagonist from making further progress, the Contagonist wants to delay or divert the Protagonist for a time.

As with the Sidekick, the Contagonist can be allied with either the Antagonist or the Protagonist. Often, Contagonists are cast as the Antagonist’s henchman or second-in-command. However, Contagonists are sometimes attached to the Protagonist, where they function as a thorn in the side and bad influence. As a pair, Guardian and Contagonist function in the Story Mind as Conscience and Temptation, providing both a light to illuminate the proper path and the enticement to step off it.

From the Dramatica Theory Book

Comparing Writing Software Paradigms

The variety of software programs for story development employ different structural paradigms. Each of those programs (with the exception of Dramatica) relies on a variation of the hero’s journey. Truby does it directly, tailored to specific genres, Collaborator relies on Aristotle’s version as laid out in “Poetics.” Power Structure doesn’t rely on one concept or perspective, but still lines things out in “steps” that you can tailor to any “journey-type” approach. New Novelist follows suit.

Essentially, you work on each step independently, referring to what you created in other steps, then string them all together to see what needs to be done when. You end up with a linear list of instructions for writing your story, containing all the specific information you developed along the way.

Dramatica differs insofar as it is NOT based on the Hero’s Journey concept. In fact, when I started Dramatica, I’d never heard of the Hero’s Journey – I was just interested in what made stories tick and set out to discover it for myself. Everyone assumed that’s the direction we were taking – until they actually saw the work. But, the biggest problem people have trying to understand and figure out how to use Dramatica is that they can’t let go of the Hero’s Journey and try to stuff Dramatica into that mold in their mental image of it. Problem is, Dramatica doesn’t fit that mold very well, so they see it as flawed, rather than as an alternative paradigm of story structure.

And what’s worse, StoryWeaver was designed as both a departure and complement to Dramatica, so it is, essentially, the inverse counterpart of something that is NOT the hero’s journey. Try explaining that!

First, a brief paragraph on how Dramatica was designed to tackle story structure, and then an explanation of what StoryWeaver is designed to do…

Okay, here goes… Dramatica in one paragraph… Rather than seeing a linear journey, Dramatica sees a story as a ball of twine, or perhaps more like the scanning lines on a TV screen. Linearly, everything needs to make sense like the hero’s journey – and that defines the audience experience of the story as it unfolds. But in addition, each scanning line ultimately creates the Big Picture – the real meaning of the story. And, of course, both the linear progression and the overall Big Picture meaning are complete connected and dependent upon one another. We feel that the Hero’s Journey only covers the linear, leaving it to the author to try and make the Greater Meaning make sense. What we discovered in Dramatica were the underlying components of story structure that appeared in both the linear and Overview perspectives of story. We spent years documenting them, discovering their almost mathematical relationships, and then building an engine that could calculate the effect on the Overview when the steps in the journey are changed, and vice versa. That is the Story Engine at the heart of Dramatica, and everything else is basically interface, education, and reports. In fact, one of these reports looks only at the linear progression for convenient reference, and that is the report that looks a lot like New Novelist, Blockbuster, Collaborator, and Power Structure.

Well, I did it – Dramatica in one paragraph! (Probably cheated by not breaking the paragraph into smaller sections, though…)

Now, StoryWeaver…

While Dramatica deals with the underlying structure of a story, StoryWeaver deals with the subject matter. Nobody sits down to write a great structure. We write (and audiences and readers come to our work) because of passion – the author to express his or hers, the audience/reader to ignite its own. What makes us passionate is not the structure, but the subject matter – be it a historical romance, a sci-fi epic, or a true-to-life experience.

StoryWeaver looks at the big picture just like Dramatica, but not at the structure. Rather, StoryWeaver helps you build the big-picture of your subject matter.

There are four stages in StoryWeaver. The first is inspiration that helps you describe all the bits and pieces of subject matter you already have, then use them to inspire more material until you have a well-rounded over-all concept for your story, all the characters you need, the key events of the plot, and so on.

Unlike Dramatica and even the Hero’s Journey-type programs, In StoryWeaver you don’t create characters by their dramatic function (such as antagonist, trickster, or dragon.) In StoryWeaver you build the character’s personality – without yet even knowing whether it is a main character, protagonist, antagonist or whatever. StoryWeaver deals first with the person – what’s he or she like, what do they like to do, what kind of attitude do they have, and so on.

Plot-wise, StoryWeaver is not concerned with steps in a journey or even with Dramatica’s inter-related structure of Goals, Requirements, and Sign Posts. Rather, StoryWeaver is focused on what the plot is ABOUT. What is it that really excites you about the plot; what would you like to see happen? What interesting concepts can you come up with to fill in areas where you plot isn’t yet complete? And StoryWeaver helps you do all this.

The final big difference between StoryWeaver and ANY of the other programs, Dramatica included, (and also what I think is truly revolutionary about StoryWeaver) is that you constantly build on the work you’ve already done for the story as a whole, rather than working on each piece or step independently and then assembling them together.

The New Novelist report you sent shows Step 1, and then describes what ought to happen there and shows what you wrote to accommodate this step. Then, the report moves on to Step 2 and so on. In this way, it seeks to be a blueprint for your story.

But in StoryWeaver, it takes the global perspective of Dramatica, shifts the focus to subject matter and works on the overall Big Picture through a series of “Developmental” steps. So, each step is not a plot point in the story, but a creative step in the Author’s Journey of getting the story told.

You see, before StoryWeaver, I realized that all the other programs out there were concerned with having the author work out the order of events and their meanings in his or her story. But there really wasn’t anything that helped the author know what to do next in his or her own creative process!

The departure, then, is that StoryWeaver presents a series of 175 questions that move the AUTHOR one step closer to a completed story. Each step deals with the WHOLE store. You work out a few details, work them into a brief synopsis, then add more details and re-write the synopsis. The StoryWeaver path is a series of re-writes, developing a bit more of your story and then blending it into the already written work, making it stronger, richer, better.

So, when you arrive at the end of StoryWeaver, you don’t get a blueprint for a story that you then need to write – in fact, you’ve already written it. You end up with a detailed treatment for your story that reads like the finished story without all the word-play. It doesn’t tell you what to do, it has already done it. It is a story that is told as it unfolds, filled with all the details you have developed, unfurling paragraph by paragraph, all in your own words, from beginning to end.

This final treatment is a descriptive narrative that relates the story in a conversational way. Everything is there, but not yet ratcheted up for style. So by the time you finish StoryWeaver’s path, the only thing left to do is re-word your treatment to make the words sing, limited only by your ability as a storyteller.

For example, StoryWeaver’s final treatment might read, in part:

“John enters the room, slamming the door behind. He storms over to Lydia and shouts, “Why?!””

You would take that final treatment and re-write it to be more literary, in the manner of:

“Like an explosion, John burst into the room, slamming the door so hard the paint cracked around the hinges. Gasping heavily with anger, he zeroed in on Lydia as if she were a target and shouted with the cry of the damned, “Why?!” His bellowing scream rattled the chandelier. In the silence that followed, a lone paint chip drifted lazily down from one of the cracked hinges, shaken loose by his invocation.”

Therefore, the reports in StoryWeaver are quite different than in any other program. You do get information on every question you answered, but you also get something none of the others have – a complete story, already told in your own word in a perfunctory manner, ready to be embellished with your style.

Well, I hope I’ve adequately explained the “vision” I’ve had for StoryWeaver, and what I believe makes it more creative and more author-friendly than anything previously available.

And, of course, I decided to sell it at $29.95 because, quite frankly, I think most writing software is overpriced by a factor of 5, and writers generally have a lot of passion, not a lot of money.

In future versions we’ll be adding all kinds of creative aids, like time-lines and index cards, as well as a variety of reports should the author want to examine any aspect of his or her story in detail. But all that is just support material for the prime function, which is to keep the author excited about the story by focusing on the subject matter, rather than the structure, and to be a step-by-step guide through the entire creative process of developing and telling a story, rather than focusing on the steps in a Hero’s Journey.