Overview Appreciations • Story points relating to the widest dramatic interpretations of your entire story, including the Character and Plot Dynamics which describe its dramatic mechanism and basic feel are called Overview Appreciations. For example, Essence, Nature, Reach, Apparent or Actual Dilemma stories, etc.
From the Dramatica Dictionary
How do Dramatica’s sixteen character motivation elements fit into the movie, “Jaws”? Let’s find out….
Brody, as Protagonist, is very nicely pursue, and certainly with his bell-ringing and whistle-blowing Brody is consideration as well. Hooper does provide the sense of conscience and helps Brody. The Mayor definitely hinders our Protagonist and dishes out plenty of temptation to give up the quest. Certainly the shark forces reconsideration of the propriety of the goal and goes out of its way to prevent Brody from accomplishing his goal of adjusting its feeding habits. Brody’s wife is his faithful supporter. Hooper adds to his functions by filling the role of logic as well, yet he is very uncontrolled in his approach, as made evident by the variety of devices he employs to no apparent success. Quint is clearly operating from his feelings, but his approach is very simple and in control. The Mayor, in addition, supplies us with disbelief and oppose.
From the Dramatica Theory Book
Over the course of your story, the Main Character will either grow out of something or grow into something. Authors show their audiences how to view this development of a Main Character by indicating the direction of Growth by the Main Character.
If the story concerns a Main Character who Changes, he will come to believe he is the cause of his own problems (that’s why he eventually changes). If he grows out of an old attitude or approach (e.g. loses the chip on his shoulder), then he is a Stop character. If he grows into a new way of being (e.g. fills a hole in his heart), then he is a Start character.
If the story concerns a Main Character who Remains Steadfast, something in the world around him will appear to be the cause of his troubles. If he tries to hold out long enough for something to stop bothering him, then he is a Stop character. If he tries to hold out long enough for something to begin, then he is a Start character.
If you want the emphasis in your story to be on the source of the troubles which has to stop, choose “Stop.” If you want to emphasize that the remedy to the problems has to begin, choose “Start.”
A lot of books about writing describe the importance of a “Love Interest.” Other books see a Love Interest as unnecessary and cliché. What does Dramatica Say? As with most dramatic concepts, Dramatica pulls away the storytelling to take a clear look at the underlying structure.
A Love Interest has both storytelling and structural components. The storytelling side is what most people think of – A Love Interest is the character with whom the “hero” or “heroine” is in love. Simple! But what does that tell us about the kind of person the Love Interest is, or even what kind of relationship the two have between them? Not a whole lot!
For example, the Love Interest might be the leader of the enemy camp, in which case he or she is the Antagonist! Or, the Love Interest might be the supportive, stay-in-the-background type, in which case he or she is the Sidekick. In both cases, the hero is in love with this person, but structurally each positions the relationship on different sides of the effort to achieve the story goal. Also, the Love Interest might be a person of noble heart, a misguided do-gooder, or even a crook! And, any of these types of people might fit into either of the two example scenarios we’ve just outlined.
As we can see, the structural and storytelling elements have little to do with one another, other than the fact that there will be some of each. So, what can Dramatica do to help provide some guidelines for developing a Love Interest that works?
Lets start with some basics. Dramatica sees there being two types of characters in every story (and a prize in every box!). The first type contains the Objective Characters such as the Protagonist, Antagonist, Sidekick, or Guardian, who are defined by their dramatic functions.
The Protagonist strives to achieve the goal; the Antagonist tries to prevent that, for example. In and of itself, this aspect of character outlines how the participants line up in regard to the logistic issues of the story. But there is a second side of the dynamics of every story that center on the second type of characters – the Subjective Characters.
There are two Subjective Characters, and unlike their Objective relatives who represent functions, the Subjective Characters represent points of view. These characters are the Main Character and the Obstacle Character. The Main Character represents the audience position in the story. The Obstacle Character represents the point of view, ideology, or belief system opposite that of the Main Character.
The Objective Characters represent the “headline” in the story and the Subjective Characters represent the “heartline.” Often, the character who is the Protagonist is also given the Main Character job as well. This creates the archetypal “hero” who drives the story forward, but who also represents the audience position in the story. Of course, the Main Character (audience position) might be with ANY of the Objective Characters, not just the Protagonist. For example, in most of the James Bond films, Bond is actually the Antagonist and Main Character because although he represents the audience position, he is also called into play AFTER the real Protagonist (the villain) has made his first move to achieve a goal (of world conquest.) It is Bond’s functional role as Antagonist to try and stop it!
Not quite as often, the Antagonist is given the extra job of also being the Obstacle Character. In such a case, not only does the Antagonist try to stop the Protagonist, but he (or she) also tries to change the belief system of the Main Character, whether the Main Character is the Protagonist or another of the Objective Characters by function.
The worst thing you can do is to make the Protagonist the Main Character and the Antagonist the Obstacle Character. Why? Because then the two “players” in the story are not only diametrically opposed in function regarding the story goal, but are also diametrically opposed in belief system. As a result, it is difficult for the audience to figure out which of the two throughlines them is being developed by any given event between them.
What’s worse, as an author it is easy to get caught up in the momentum of the drama between them so that one skips steps in the development of one throughline because the other “carries” it. Well it may carry the vigor, but it doesn’t hold water. Both throughlines must each be fully developed or you end up with a melodrama or worse, plot holes you could drive a truck through.
The solution is either to assign the Main Character and Protagonist functions to one character and split the Antagonist/Obstacle Character functions into two separate characters, or vice versa.
And this brings us to the Dramatic Triangle and how it is used to create a sound Love Interest relationship.
First, let’s assume we assign the Main Character and Protagonist jobs to the same player to create an archetypal hero. Now, this hero (we’ll call him Joe) is a race car driver who is vying with the Antagonist for the title of best overall driver of the year. Each race is a new contest between them with their balance so close that it all comes down to the last race of the season.
But there is something troubling Joe’s heart – his relationship with Sally. Sally is very supportive of Joe (a Sidekick, in fact) but Joe feels that if he really loves Sally, he should quit racing to avoid the potential of an accident that would leave him dead or crippled and ruin her life. Why does he feel like this? Because his own dad was a racer, whose untimely death on the track left his mother devastated, and ultimately committed to an asylum. (Hey, I never said this example would be creative!)
In any event, Sally doesn’t feel that way at all. She would rather see Joe go out in a blaze of glory having done his best than to spend her life with a limp shell. She tries to tell him, but he just won’t be convinced. He starts to play it safer and safer as his worries grow (because the closer he gets to the final race, the more it resembles the chain of events that happened to his dad.) Finally, he has lost his edge and his lead and it all comes down to that final event.
Now, realizing that she would never be able to live with Joe if she felt that he lost the title because of her, Sally tells him at the final pit stop that if he doesn’t win the race, she is leaving him. Joe must now decide whether he should stick with his approach born from fear of hurting another, or let Sally be her own judge of what is right for her and put the pedal to the metal.
What does he do? Up to you the author. He wins the race and Sally’s heart. He hasn’t got the courage and loses both race and girl. He loses the race, but Sally realizes how deep his love must be and decides to stay with him. He wins the race, but there is such a dangerous near-fatal crash that Sally realizes Joe was right and leaves him anyway because she discovers she really can’t take it after all.
Or, you could have Sally want him to quit and Joe refuse, resulting in four other endings with a more cliché flavor.
Why this long example, to show how the conflict of the logistics of the plot occur between Joe and the Antagonist, but the emotions of the personal relationship occur between Joe and the Sidekick, Sally.
If you charted it out, there are two throughlines. Both hinge on Joe, and then they split farther and farther apart to connect to the Antagonist on one and to the Obstacle Character, Sally on the other. In this way, the events that happen in the growth of each relationship are much easier to see for the audience and much easier to complete for the author, yet they both converge on the “hero” to give him the greatest possible dramatic strength.
Now, you could hinge them both on the Antagonist, as in a James Bond film, and slip the Protagonist from the Obstacle Character. Look at “Tomorrow Never Dies.” The Protagonist is the mad newspaper mogul. The Obstacle Character is the beautiful Chinese agent (whose function is muddled dramatically by Bond’s relationship with the mogul’s wife). Bond is Antagonist AND Main Character, but the dramatic triangle is still functional.
Silence of the Lambs: Starling is the Main Character / Antagonist, Jamie Gumm (Buffalo Bill) is the Protagonist (after all, she didn’t go looking for a crime and THEN he committed one!) Hannibal is the Obstacle Character and perhaps a Love Interest of a sort (as described by the director on the Criterion Edition DVD.)
For a different approach, consider Witness: John Book is the Obstacle Character / Antagonist, the crooked Chief of Police is the Protagonist. Rachel, the Amish Girl is the Love Interest and Main Character. Or is John Book (Harrison Ford) the Love Interest to Rachel? It’s hard to tell because John is such an active Objective Character that he carries more momentum than Rachel, even though we are positioned in her shoes. The important point is that even if the Protagonist is made to be the Obstacle Character and the Antagonist and Main Character are split into two different people, the dramatic triangle still exists!
The dramatic triangle is one of the best structural ways to focus attention on one character even while splitting the headline and heartline to make a more pleasing and complete story. It can be used for “buddy” pictures and even used when the heartline isn’t between lovers or even likers but between two people who would like to see each other’s emotions destroyed by slyly manipulating the other to change his or her beliefs. Think of all those “cheat the devil” stories in which the Main Character/Protagonist is after something and the devil tries to convince the Main Character to sell his soul to get it. Yep, the dramatic triangle at work again!
So, in considering whether or not to have a Love Interest in your story, simply consider whether that would make your storytelling cliché or not. Either way, consider the dramatic triangle as a means of putting heart into an otherwise logistically mechanical plot.
Melanie Anne Phillips
Co-creator, Dramatica
Outcome • [Plot Dynamic] • a logistic assessment of how things ended up • When one is creating a story, one must consider how it all comes out. This will not just be a description of the situation but also of what potentials remain and how they have changed over the course of the story. Often, an author may wish to show the Outcome of a dramatic movement at the beginning or middle rather than the end. In this way the audience will focus more on how that eventuality came to be rather than trying to figure out what is going to happen.
From the Dramatica Dictionary
How do Dramatica’s sixteen character motivation elements show up in The Wizard Of Oz?
In Wizard Of Oz, Dorothy is both pursue and consideration. Toto is faith and support. The Cowardly Lion is clearly disbelief and oppose, and Glinda is conscience and help. But here is where breaking the Eight Archetypal Characters into 16 characteristics solves our previous problems.
When we look at the Scarecrow he appears to exemplify logic but his approach, rather than being in control, is quite uncontrolled. Similarly, although the Tin Man is undoubtedly feeling, his demeanor is just as surely described by control.
Apparently, the Scarecrow and the Tin Man have swapped characteristics: logic goes with uncontrolled and feeling goes with control. In a sense, both of these Characters now contain two Elements that are at odds with each other. The Action Element does not reflect the Decision Element. This creates two very interesting Characters who have an additional degree of depth to them: an internal friction, inconsistency, or conflict. This is the kind of arrangement that begins to make characters more complex.
But what about the Witch and the Wizard? What is it that makes them diverge from the Archetypal molds? Could it be a similar “swapping” of Elements? As it turns out, it is a similar swapping, but not exactly the same. To be the Archetypal Contagonist, the Wizard would have to be temptation and hinder. To be the Antagonist, the Witch would have to be reconsideration and prevent. But rather than swapping an Action Element for another Action Element, the Witch ends up with both Action Elements and the Wizard with both Decision ones!
From the Dramatica Theory Book
In some stories, the main character holds out against all attempts to change his attitude or behavior, remaining steadfast in his nature.
Here are examples of stories that illustrate this concept of the Steadfast Main Character:
A Clockwork Orange: Alex never willingly changes his roguish anti-social behavior, and when forced to do so, he prefers to die rather than give up that part of himself. Alex tries to hold out against the challenges to his self-authority: when his droogs begin to rebel, he teaches them a lesson; he skips school despite Mr. Deltoid’s efforts; he fights against the authorities during his interrogation; he tries to commit suicide rather than be forced to hate his individualism (represented by Beethoven’s 9th Symphony).
All That Jazz: In the opening scene, Joe asserts “To be on the wire is life: the rest is waiting” (Aurthur and Fosse 1). This statement sums up Joe’s credo, and because of it he remains steadfast in living the high life, despite the fact that it is literally killing him.
Amadeus: Once he declares his war, his intent to destroy Mozart, he remains steadfast to the end. He had offered to trade a recommendation to the Emperor on Mozart’s behalf if Constanze will have sex with him. After he declares his war, he isn’t interested. He tells us, “I wanted nothing petty…..My quarrel wasn’t with Mozart. It was through him! Through him to God, who loved him so.” As Salieri listens to the “Magic Flute,” he finds that a bit of pity might be entering his heart, but he resolves, “Never!” In the end, Salieri even attempts to take his own life to spite God’s punishment- that is, Salieri’s lack of recognition.
Being There: Chance remains steadfast in his desire to live in a home where he can work in a garden and watch television.
Braveheart: William steadfastly fights the English in spite of the odds. He neither yields to the persuasion of Robert the Bruce nor does he give in to Longshanks’ attempt to buy him off. And although eventually he has to change his attitude towards the Scottish nobles, his determination to get Scotland free of England remains as solid as a rock.
Candida: True to the Christian principles he preaches, Morell employs the virtue of patience and prepares for self sacrifice as he awaits the fate of his marriage.
Chinatown: Never one to leave things open-ended, Jake pursues the ‘answer’ to his questions relentlessly. Even after Evelyn is killed and Noah takes his granddaughter away, Jake’s inclination is to keep on going.
The Fugitive: Dr. Kimble maintains he is innocent, and does everything he can to prove it including consistently putting his life in jeopardy.
The Glass Menagerie: Laura exists in a fantasy world where her very own “gentleman caller” awaits her. Even after Jim informs her of his impending marriage and permanent departure, Laura maintains her fantasy more securely than before.
Klute: Klute’s not convinced that Tom’s disappearance is what it looks like to everyone else:
KLUTE: I don’t see it. Tom Grunemann. I’ve known him all my life. He wouldn’t just, you know, go.
AGENT: But he’s gone.
(Lewis & Lewis, p. 6)
Klute sticks with his belief in Tom, and sees “the girl” as the clue to solving the puzzle. He stays close to her, getting to know her more intimately–ultimately using her as bait to trap Tom’s suspected killer, Cable.
Rebel Without a Cause: Jim is steadfast in his desire to be part of a functional family.
Reservoir Dogs: Mr. White refuses to believe that Mr. Orange is the “rat,” even when all evidence points to him. When Mr. Orange confesses to him, he is anguished over the betrayal but remains true to his criminal nature and shoots him, at the cost of his own life.
Revenge of the Nerds: Lewis sticks to his original path of actively pursuing a great time in college. He faces the idea that he is a nerd, but he doesn’t let it dissuade him from any goals he has set for himself. Lewis emerges from the story with the same motivations with which he entered.
Romeo and Juliet: Romeo remains steadfast in his love for Juliet and desire to remain at her side–to the point of following his wife in death.
Searching for Bobby Fischer: Josh sticks to his own way of playing in tournaments. Although Bruce tries to convince Josh to adopt his personal views on winning (and whether or not he should play at all), ultimately Josh resolves his problems by own means, choosing at the end to offer his opponent a way out, before finally winning the game.
The Silence of the Lambs: Even after Lecter has killed more people in his escape from custody, Clarice still believes she was on the right track in getting his help. She heeds his advice and finds a vital clue in the case file, as Lecter suggested.
The Sun Also Rises: Jake remains steadfast in his desire for Brett.
Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?: Rather than stopping the “game” by exposing the lie about their “son,” George continues to play within the rules and “kills” their son–GEORGE: “I have the right, Martha. We never spoke of it; that’s all. I could kill him any time I wanted to.”
The Wild Bunch: A person’s character is best defined by their deeds, not their words. Though Pike discusses changing his lawless, gunfighting ways, it’s the only lifestyle he knows and he hangs onto it, a dinosaur in changing times. He stands by his code of loyalty:
PIKE: We started together — we’ll end it together.
(Green and Peckinpah, p. 33)
–and finally refuses to leave Angel to die alone in Mapache’s hands, leading the Bunch in their final shootout.
X-Files: Beyond the Sea: In spite of Scully’s momentary belief in Boggs’ psychic abilities, she returns to her skeptical nature.
MULDER: Scully. . . after all you’ve told me. After all the evidence. . .
SCULLY: Because I’m afraid. . . I’m afraid to believe.
MULDER: You couldn’t face that fear? Even if it meant never knowing what your father was trying to tell you?
SCULLY: But I do know.
MULDER: How?
SCULLY: He was my father.
From the Dramatica Software Companion
Excerpt from an early, unpublished draft of the Dramatica Theory Book. Many of these concepts were not included in the version eventually published:
To make an argument that a particular element is or is not a solution to a particular problem, Character make-up must remain consistent throughout the story.
In order for the argument of a story to be complete, all approaches to solving a problem must be represented. This is the purpose of Characters. Each Character illustrates one or more ways in which one might address a problem. These different approaches are commonly referred to as Character Traits. We call them Character Elements.
If we think of the traits as elements, we can imagine that the chemical compounds created by various combinations can lead to an extraordinary number of different “substances”, or personalities from a relatively small number of building blocks.
Picture the Author as Chemist, filling several jars with samples from a rack of elements. She might put a single element in one jar but a number of them in another. Depending upon the selections she makes, a given jar might grow cold or boil, turn red or blue, crystallize or form polymers.
Now suppose this Author/Chemist was operating under laboratory guidelines that she must use each chemical element off the shelf, but only once – in only one jar. It is conceivable she might put them all into a single jar, but what a mess it would be, trying to determine which element was responsible for which effect. The interactions would become muddled beyond understanding.
Certainly, in a story, such a hodgepodge would fail to fulfill the mandate of making a full and meaningful argument. No, if we are to cover the field, but not at the expense of clarity, we must examine the interactions of smaller groups of elements, which calls for several more jars.
Obviously, if we used a separate jar for each element, nothing would react at all, which means to an author that virtually all of the conflict within Characters would be lost with only the potential of conflict between Characters remaining. Certainly each element could be fully understood, and indeed, from time to time, an author may find good reason to keep a few Character elements solo, so that they might be absolutely defined. More often, however, it serves the story better to combine more than one element in more than one jar.
In this way, very specific combinations can be fully explored, and not at the expense of clarity.
Each of the Character Elements must be employed in one character or another. None must be left out. Otherwise the argument of the story will have a hole in it. None must be represented in more than one Character, otherwise the argument will be redundant, confusing, and become less interesting.
Even within these guidelines, a huge number of different types of Characters can be created. Yet, in many stories, we see the same Characters appearing over and over again. Characters like the Hero and the Villain and the Sidekick recur in a plethora of stories in a multitude of genres. This is not necessarily due to a lack of creativity by these authors. Rather, of all the elements, there is one central arrangement that is something like an alignment of the planets. It is a point of balance where each Character looks exactly like the others, only seen through a filter – or with different shading.
Characters made in this special alignment are called Archetypal. Out of all the myriad of ways in which Elements could be arranged, there is only one arrangement that is Archetypal. Is this good or is this bad? For the author who wants to explore Character nuances, Archetypal Characters are probably a poor choice. But for the author who wants to concentrate on Action, it may be a very prudent choice.
It should be noted that just because a Character is Archetypal, does not mean she is a stick figure. Archetypal Characters contain the full complement of elements that any other Character might have. It is the arrangement of these so that all Elements of a like kind make up a single Character that simplifies the complexity of the interactions between Characters. This un-clutters the field and allows for more attention to be paid to other areas such as action, if that is the Author’s intent.
In our example of the Author/Chemist, the jars she uses fulfill an essential purpose: they keep the Chemical compounds separate from one another. That is the function and definition of Character:
A Character is a unique arrangement of solely possessed elements that does not vary over the course of the story.
The last few words above are italicized because the stability of the arrangement of elements is essential to identifying a Character. If elements could swap around from Character to Character, the story would lose its strength of argument, since an approach begun by one Character might only be shown to succeed or fail in another.
When we, as audience, watch a story, we hope to learn that we should or should not use a particular approach, so that we may grow from that experience in our own lives. But how can that point be made if a Character does not finish what she starts. We may see the element as failing, but the argument is left open that perhaps if only the Character who started with that element had stuck with it she would have succeeded.
What about Jekyl and Hyde? Is that not an inconsistent Character? Yes, it is not. This is because Jekyl and Hyde are two different Characters. Two Characters in a single body? Exactly.
There is a great difference between a Character and the body it inhabits. We have all seen stories about spiritual possession, split personalities, or Sci-Fi personality transfers. In each of these instances, different Characters successively occupy the same body or physical host. We call these hosts Players.
A Player does not have to be a person. It can be an animal, spiritual force, a car, a toy – anything that can be shown to possess a personality. Character is the personality, Player is where it resides. So, Jekyl and Hyde are two separate Characters who vie for the same Player’s body.
We have now defined all of the elements or traits that can be combined to create Characters. We have also arranged these traits in meaningful groupings. We have described methods and rules governing the combining process. And, we have related each aspect of the Character Structure concept to the other aspects.
But something is missing. So far we have created a Structure, but it is a static Structure. We have not at all discussed the manner in which Characters interrelate and conflict. In effect, we have not created a set of Dynamics to drive the Structure.
As you may have noted, the Section headings of this book are divided into Structure and Dynamics, indicating that all Structural considerations will be explored before they are put into motion. There is a reason for this. When we had first completed discovering the sixty-four elements of Character, and had arranged them in the Author’s perspective, we thought that Character conflict would be the next door that opened to us. It was not. Try as we might, we could not perceive any kind of definable pattern that governed the interactions among Characters or even Character traits.
Instead, we found something most unexpected: that there was a definitive relationship among the structures of Character, Theme, Genre, and Plot. In fact, Plot did not just describe the Dynamics of Character, but Theme and Genre as well. So to see the Plot operation of Character conflict, Theme progression, and Genre perspectives, we first needed to finish our Structural model of Story, by building a Structure for Theme and Genre as well. Once this was accomplished we would then be able to discern and quantify the functioning of story Dynamics.
Therefore, we move on to the next set of bricks in our DRAMATICA Structure, edging ever closer to that elusive overview.
Order • [Element] • dyn.pr. Chaos<–>Order • a patterned arrangment • The character containing the Order characteristic is concerned with keeping things organized. Change is not a problem as long as it is orderly. However, sometimes you can’t get there from here and the whole system has to be blown apart to rebuild from the ground up. Sometimes a little chaos needs to reign so that a log jam can be broken or a process speeded up. The character representing Order is an organization fiend. • syn. structure, patterned arrangement, organization, patterned formation, formation, configuration, patterned sequence
From the Dramatica Dictionary