A Story Is An Argument

Dramatica Unplugged

Class One: Introduction

1.3 A Story is an Argument

A tale is nothing more than a statement. A statement that ‘this lead to this lead to that’ and ‘here’s how it ended up’.

An early storyteller would be able to say ‘ok, I’m going to tell you about this situation, that if you start here and you take this series of steps you end up there and it’s a good thing or its a bad thing to be there’. Large good, small good – little bad, big bad – but follow these series of steps from this starting point and you will end up with this thing that is good or bad.

There’s certain amount of power in that. You can fictionalize that statement to make it more human, and illustrate to people that ‘this is a path to stay away from because it’s bad’ or ‘this is a path to go towards because it’s good’.  And so you end up with fairy tales and things of that nature which, literally, are often nothing more than a tale – they are not really complete stories.

But what kind of power could you get if you were able to expand that and say ‘this is not just true for this particular case but its true for all such similar cases.’ In other words, if you start from here, no matter what path you try to take based on this particular problem you started with, it wouldn’t be as good (or it wouldn’t be as bad) as the one that I’m showing you.  Then the message of your tale becomes ‘this particular path is the best or the worst.’ It’s no longer just good or bad, it’s the best path or the worst path to take.

Now that has a lot more power to it because now you are telling everyone to exclude any other paths – ‘take only this one if you find yourself in this situation’ or,  ‘if you find yourself in this situation no matter what you do, don’t do that’. That has a lot more power to manipulate an audience – a lot more leverage – because even though you have only shown the one path, you convince them it’s better than any of the others you didn’t show.

But have you really convinced them?  After all, you are really just making a blanket statement and, in truth, an audience won’t sit still for a blanket statement. They will cry foul. They will at least question you. So, for example, if a caveman is sitting around the campfire and says, ‘this is the best of all possible paths that I have shown you.’, his audience is going to say, ‘hey wait a minute, what about this other case, what if we try this, this and this?’ If the author is to satisfy his audience and actually ‘prove’ his case to their satisfaction, he will be able to argue his point, saying, ‘in that case such and such, and therefore you can see why it would end up being not as good or better than this path that I’m touting.’

Another person brings up another scenario such as ‘what about going down this way and trying that.’ Then, if the author’s point can be well made, the storyteller is able to defend his assertion and say, ‘well that case, such and such, so you can see the point that the blanket statement I made is still true’. Eventually either something will be found that is better than what the author was proposing or the author will be able to stick it out and counter all those rebuttals and convince the audience, ‘yes that’s the case.’

Now you won’t have to counter every potential different way of doing it when you are telling the story live because the audience will only come up with a certain number of them before they are satisfied that the alternatives they think are most important to look into have been adequately addressed. But the moment that you record the story, the moment you put it into a song, stage play, a motion picture or a book, as soon as that happens, you’re no longer there to counter the rebuttals. You also don’t know exactly which potential rebuttals might come up. So if somebody looks at your story in the form of a movie in the theater and they see some pathway they think ought to be taken wasn’t even suggested, then they are going to feel that you haven’t made your case because maybe that would have been a better path than yours.

So what do you do? In a recorded art form you have to anticipate all the different rebuttals that might come up about other potential solutions and show why these other potential solutions would not be as good or as bad as the one that you are proposing – proving therefore that if all reasonable and appropriate alternatives have been explored and yours is still the best or the worst, then you’ve made your case. You have successfully argued your point, and the blanket statement is now considered true.

In order to do that you have to anticipate all the ways the audience might look at the problem alternatively. In effect, you to think of all the ways anyone might think of solving that problem alternatively. Essentially, you have to include in your story all of the different ways any human mind might go about solving that problem.  In so doing, you have automatically created a model of the mind’s problem solving process, the Story Mind. Ultimately, you have created an analogy to the mind itself.

Now you never set out to do that, it was a byproduct never intended. No caveman ever sat down and said, ‘you know I think I will create an analogy to a single human mind trying to deal with an inequity.’ No, it didn’t happen that way, but in the process of trying to communicate a recorded art form across a medium and successfully argue one particular situation is better than all potential ones, you need to put in all the potential ones, and you thereby create a model of the mind quite by accident.

Once that’s happened, once it’s recognized, one can now look to that model of the mind from a psychological perspective. Psychoanalyze the story, and you find everything that’s in the human mind represented tangible and incarnate in the story in some form or another in the structure.

That’s what Dramatica is all about. When we had that Rosetta stone we then threw ourselves into documenting the psychology of the story and we documented the Story Mind. We created the theory and then created the software to implement a major portion of the theory to allow an author to answer questions about the impact he or she wishes to have and have.  Dramatica’s story engine then predicts the structure necessary to achieve that particular impact.

Transcribed by Marc O’Dell from
Dramatica Unplugged by Melanie Anne Phillips

Robert McKee

A writer emailed me with the following comments:

Your ideas make so much more sense than certain other writing teachers. For example, McKee.  I don’t see any logic to many of his statements.  He says things such as ‘imagine the universe of story as a triangle of possibilities.’ and he draws squiggly lines that’s supposed to represent the story going back and forth from positive to negative territory. He is proud of his ideas but they just don’t make much sense and I certainly don’t find them to be practical. I doubt he has any sort of background in math or physics or logical thinking.

My reply:

I know what you mean.  Back in the early 1990’s, just after we developed the first version of Dramatica, we invited McKee to come by our offices and give us his feedback.  We were just starting out in the field and were kind of in awe of him, as he was the leading “guru” of the time.  So, it was with nervous but eager anticipation that we awaited his comments while we demoed the Dramatica software and explained the concepts behind our Dramatica theory of story.

When it was over, he bolted up from his chair, proclaimed that this was the exact kind of crap he had been fighting against for all those years, and stormed out of the room.  We were crushed.  Our hero had just pronounced that we were less than worthless – we were the enemies of all writers.

Well, he was just the first of a long line of folks who are so into the passion of writing that they see any attempt to approach it logically as an all out assault against the Muse – an effort to subvert her and replace inspiration with scientific analysis.  It took many years after that before we really had a lock on the idea that structure is logical, storytelling is passionate.  And that structure is a carrier wave that delivers the storytelling experience.

Structure can ONLY be understood by logic; the magic of story can ONLY be engaged by our emotions.  Both the binary and the analog must be present in order to fully satisfy the human mind, from its neural networks to its biochemical drives.

What is Story Structure?

Dramatica theory is not just a bunch of words about writing. It is also a very specific model of the elements that make up all stories and the manner in which they can be arranged to create each unique story.

Now, most writers are not theorists, and don’t want to be. Still, an understanding of the way stories work can help support a writer’s instincts to make sure a flawed structure won’t get in the way of the creativity.

If you own the Dramatica software, you’ve probably noticed it comes with chart that looks something like a Rubik’s Cube on steroids, or a super-complex 3-D chess board. If you don’t have the software, you can download a copy in PDF at http://storymind.com/free-downloads/ddomain.pdf

That chart is a map of the elements that make up stories. If you were to twist it and turn it like a Rubik’s Cube, you would be “winding up” the dramatic tension of your story.

The Story Engine at the heart of the Dramatica software tracks all of those elements to make sure no dramatic “rules” are broken. What’s a Dramatic Rule? As an analogy, you can twist and turn a Rubik’s Cube, but you can’t pluck one of the little cubes out of it and swap it’s position with another little cube. In other words, you can create all kinds of patterns, but you can’t break structure. Similarly in stories, you can create all kinds of dramatic patterns, but you can’t just drop story elements wherever you want – they have to MOVE into place.

When you answer questions in Dramatica, you are expressing your dramatic intent – the dramatic pattern you want to create for your audience. That says something about the final arrangement you want with some of the “colors” in the Rubik’s Cube of your story.

Every time you make a choice, you are saying, “I want my story to look like this, as opposed to that.” You are choosing just as much what you DON’T want in your story as what you do.

The choices are cumulative – they pile up. The more you make, the more Dramatica’s Story Engine winds up. Your future choices start to become limited, not by arbitrary and rigid rules, but because you can’t do everything at one time in one place. Some choices or combination of choices simply prevent other options from being possible in that particular story.

Imagine – what would happen if you put anything you wanted into a story? Then anything goes. That means there is no good structure or bad structure, in fact there would be no structure at all.

What is structure? Structure is nothing more than making a point, either logistically or emotionally or both. Many stories don’t need structure because they are not about making a larger point or having a message, but are designed to be experiences without specific overall meaning.

That, in fact, is the difference between a Tale and Story. A Tale relates a series of experiences, a Story brings those experiences together to create an overall meaning. In other words, each experience is part of an overall pattern that becomes clear by the time the story is over.

There is nothing better or worse about a Tale compared to a Story, but authors of Stories take upon themselves a more demanding rigor. When your purpose is to have the sum of the parts amount to a greater meaning, the Structural Chart and the Story Engine can ensure that meaning is consistent and does not contradict itself.

The 12 Questions Every Writer Should Answer

 

There are 12 Essential Questions every author should know the answer to regarding his or her story. The next several tips will explore the meaning of and best way to answer Dramatica’s 12 Essential Questions. The questions are divided into three areas – Character, Plot, and Theme.

Character Questions:

1. Main Character Resolve – Change or Steadfast

2. Main Character Growth – Start or Stop

3. Main Character Approach – Do-er or Be-er

4. Main Character Mental Sex – Male of Female

Plot Questions:

5. Story Driver – Action or Decision

6. Story Limit – Timelock or Optionlock

7. Story Outcome – Success or Failure

8. Story Judgment – Good or Bad

Theme Questions:

9. Domain – four options: Universe, Physics, Mind, or Psychology

10. Concern – a choice of four depending upon choice of Domain

11. Range (Issue) – a choice of four depending upon choice of Concern

12. Problem – a choice of four depending upon choice of Range (Issue)

Why 12 questions? Imagine the structure of a story as the network of girders that form the structure of a skyscraper. Every place two or more girders connect to form an intersection is a key stress point in the structure. In stories, every place two or more dramatic forces converge is a key story point.

If you want to know something about the shape of the overall building, the four most important points are the four corners. Once those are determined, everything else falls within that perimeter.

Character, Plot, and Theme are like three different buildings in a story – three different kinds of structures. The best way to get a handle on the overall shape of each is to lock down the four corners.

By answering the 12 Essential Questions, you determine the basic shape of each of the three areas within which all other story point must fall, to which all other story points must conform. It is like determining the background or playing field against which all story elements must be played.

What about Genre? Genre is like a fourth building in the story. It provides the fourth corner in the complete structure. In fact, it determines how the other three buildings (Character, Plot, and Theme) will relate to one another.

Why aren’t there four more questions for Genre, making it 16 Essential Questions? Because Genre is not an actual structure like the other three areas, but is a description of how the other three relate to one another. It is more like a city in the sky.

Genre is determined by how you TELL the story, the other three describe the story that is to be told. As a result, Genre is dependent on the talent, inspiration, and mystical artistry of the author. That is why no computer will ever write a story as meaningful as a person can. In contrast, to think that stories are ALL art and nothing definitive and mechanical exists is to jump to the opposite extreme.

Until Dramatica, the art of storytelling was generally thought of as being inseparably intertwined with the substance of story structure. As a result, authors often created beautiful expressions of faulty structures.

By answering the 12 Essential Questions in Dramatica, authors can gain a sound understanding of the structural imperatives they have determined for their stories. Then, using that Storyform structure as a canvas and palette, they can draw their respective muses to express the intangible essence of the human heart in a meaningful and understandable form.

Archetypes in Dramatica Pro

Recently this question came my way:

So my question is how come this (from the Author’s perspective) is the first set wherein the Archetypes don’t fit in with the Dramatica rules. Specifically I am referring to the Sidekick, Skeptic, Guardian, and Antagonist’s Purposes. They all have ratings and judgments in the same quad! (Ability and Knowledge, Order and Equity, etc.) Does this mean that when using these Archetypal Purposes they will feel weaker or that they internally contradict one another? I think I remember from the online book (v.3) that when elements from the same quad are used in the same character that it kind of narrows what you can do as an author and creates a sort of internal conflict within the character.

Here is a brief response:

To answer your question, first take a look at the Dramatica structural chart. You’ll notice that the good ol’ original eight Archetypes work fine in Universe, Physics, and Psychology, but not in Mind. If you try to create them in Mind, the Elements of, say, the Protagonist (Pursuit and Consider) are in the same quad!

Why? Because the structure has a built-in bias. Simply put, when you look at anything, you aren’t looking at what’s behind you. Another way, when you look around yourself, you never see what is right under your feet. Instead, you have to synthesize that view based on the information you DO see.

This means there would be no way to see the Dramatica structure at all, unless we adopt a point of view. And, as soon as we have a point of view, we can see one part clearly and another part gets wanky.

But, the “wankiness” is consistent, so that the Story Engine can be accurate.

Now, when seen from this perspective, Motivations are the most clearly seen dimension of character. So, the 8 original Archetypes work in three out of four Classes. And, if seen as Motivation characters, then you can see their Evaluations, Methods, and Purposes. But if you shift your point of view of the characters and see them as Evaluation characters (rather than Motivation character who have Evaluations) the patterns fall apart. The patterns are equally wanky with Methods, but when you get all the way across the lake to Purposes (the farther thing from Motivations) then the patterns go completely haywire.

Still, looking at those other perspectives of Archetypes is a much better way to describe many of the stories that are told. To truly tailor Dramatica the software to accommodate that part of the theory, you would need to create four DIFFERENT arrangements of the structure that favored each of the four perspectives. We’ve talked about that, but it is a mammoth task and will require some time to get it right.

In the meantime, you may note that Dramatica’s “rule” about Elements is that characters should “never” contain dynamically opposite Elements (those that are diagonal on the chart). This is never violated by any of the new Archetypes nor the original 8. Then there is a rule of thumb that it is usually better not to put Elements from the same quad into a single character, but this is only true part of the time and should be taken with a grain of salt.

I hope this clarifies the issue a bit and makes the Archetypes a tad more accessible and a bit more useful.

Creativity vs. Dramatica

PLEASE keep in mind the difference between Dramatica theory and the process of writing!!! If nothing else, NOTE THAT!

The Dramatica theory says that “every complete story” is an analogy to a single human mind trying to deal with an inequity. But even in the very first chapter of the theory book, I point out that not all stories are complete and they are neither better nor worse because of it.

Some ways in which authors affect audiences are NOT stories and in fact, NOT about communication. They are about creating a fertile environment in which the audience can author its OWN experience. The human mind seeks patterns in all that it sees (logistically speaking) and seeks meaning (emotionally speaking) in all it experiences. When we turn out logic on our experiences, we see emotional patterns, when we turn our emotions on patterns we give them value.

One valid approach to creating a “work” for an audience would be to present a series of words that have no intended meaning, As an example, take your dictionary and arbitrarily open it and point your figure to a series of words.

Now, that will have no intent behind the sequence, yet an audience will try and even succeed in finding meaning. As an example, I’ll do that now and list what comes up: Yes, waters, invisible, everyday, techniques, another, home.

Okay, I meant nothing by that, it was completely arbitrary, but, does your mind not seek to find some order and meaning in it? Yes, waters, invisible, everyday, techniques, another, home. Heck, it’s almost poetry! In reading it now, I see connections and make in my own mind the belief that “Yes, waters of flowing force, invisible in my everyday life spur me on to master techniques, never enough, yet if I can find just another, I might finally be home.”

Now, you probably got something completely different out of it than I did. But not so totally different that it didn’t play on the words, which were the “givens.”

If I had actually CHOSEN the words by looking for them instead of pointing without looking and then seeing what word I unknowingly had chosen, then one could say I instilled some meaning in the words.

The point is that even random data is interpreted by an audience which draws on personal experience to give it meaning.

Now, at the next level, I put together “random” words, but with a purpose: Red, slicing, quivering, screaming.

No one can tell exactly what I had in mind, but the images the series of words invoke carry an impact that will likely be strongly felt. I’m still not telling a story, much less a complete one, but I am definitely beginning to communicate. In fact, I’m probably communicating all kinds of things about ME, the author, of which I’m not personally aware.

Next I write: Pig, falling, earth, trembling, run, hide, bacon.

Here I meant something particular. It may be not fully clear, but suddenly there is a picture starting to form. Some pig is falling (from a plane, a truck, a hill?). It hits the earth so hard that it trembles (or the anticipation of trembling). I (we) run and hide to avoid the gooey mess that follows (or being squished by the hog). But, we return to gather the remnants and enjoy a crispy plate of bacon. Many of you will have likely gotten some similar interpretation to the one I describe. I’ve communicated to a greater degree.

Ultimately, I might write: A boy walks down the street, he trips and falls and skins his knee.

This is much more clear, though we know little about the boy’s feelings. This is a logistic TALE, not a story. It is simply a step by step “headline” that describes a series of events which could happen.

Next I write: A boy feels that his father is full of it, so he ignores his advice and then comes to recognize his father’s wisdom.

This is a clear description of the boy’s feelings, though has little in the way of specific information. It is an emotional tale – a mood by mood emotional journey, the “heartline” that describes a series of emotions which could follow each other.

If I put them together, I create: A boy feels that his father is full of it, so he doesn’t tie his shoelaces, which he thinks are cool untied, when his father warns him about them. He crosses the street, trips on the laces and skins his knee. Through his pain he comes to realize that his father perhaps was right.

Now, this is as far as a TALE can go. It has a linear headline and heartline that work together.

If we were to add, “In fact, the boy now realized his father might be wise about a number of things and deferred to his judgement in the future,” THAT does NOT ring true! It is a blanket statement and needs to be proven on a case by case basis.

If I were to construct a work in which all appropriate experiences were included that would be necessary to bring the boy to that conclusion, however, then I would have fashioned a story.

If I were to then expand the work to “prove” that young boys should ALWAYS defer to their father’s wisdom, I would have fashioned a COMPLETE story.

As we can see, all of the above examples which became progressively more complex are contained as subsets of the complete story, with the notable exception of the random words of the very beginning.

Dramatica was designed to represent the complete story, with the understanding that authors may often wish NOT to tell a complete story but only some subset of one.

Dramatica does not look at anything OTHER than a complete story as being LESSER than a complete story – just different. Different approaches for different intents.

Further, Dramatica deals with the underlying logistic structure of the story’s argument, linear progression, or inter-related meanings. As such, it contains nothing of the passion and inventiveness an author will call up in the telling of the story.

Story Structure is a Craft. Story Telling is a Talent. Talent can’t be taught, but Craft can.

The first thing to consider is, if it works, don’t fix it! In other words, if you are having no structural problems with your tale or story, then STAY AWAY from Dramatica – you’ll just start overthing the plumbing.

And, even if you want to do something a certain way and Dramatica says it isn’t accurate, that doesn’t mean it isn’t right – just that it isn’t accurate.

Writing, to be fulfilling, must come from the heart. It might be satisfying when it comes from the head, but not fulfilling. If you’re head and heart come to different conclusions, what do you do? Well, some writers prefer to stick to the accurate structure, and others decide to go with the path that is more interesting to them. Either way is fine, as long as it is YOUR way.

If Dramatica says one thing and you want to do another, well then DO IT YOUR WAY! Even if you weaken or even break your structure, does that really matter if the path you chose is so passionate that your audience is enthralled?

Audiences don’t require perfection. They DO, however, require that you don’t try to sell them swampland. In other words, some aspects of structure can be easily discarded for the sake of a powerful statement, scenario, argument, or character moment. But others are so crucial to the underpinnings of a story’s structure that the story will collapse if they are changed.

Which are the most important? Dramatica can’t tell you that. It can just tell you what the structural elements are and how they should fit together to create a “perfect” structure. The rest depends largely on your abilities as a story teller.

So, DON’T USE DRAMATICA if it even slightly starts to inhibit your storytelling passion. Use it when you get stuck, use it to get an overview of your story’s structure – to learn about story points that ought to be there that you might not have considered. Then, go off and write. Write from the heart, write what you care about.

If it comes out just the way you want and everyone connects when they read it, don’t go back to Dramatica. But if a draft has problems you can’t identify, then analyze that draft with Dramatica, see what structure you ended up with, as opposed to what you intended to create. Take notes of where the significant problems are caused by inaccurate structure and then whip them into place.

In the end, learning the Dramatica theory helps fine tune your instincts so that the structures of your stories will become more and more sound, even when you aren’t thinking analytically, but are just creating from the heart. If and when those instincts aren’t quite on the mark, that’s when you haul out the software. The Dramatica software is nothing but a tool – in fact, a collection of tools. Use the right tool for the right job. Hammer your structure into place and then let your instincts turn the remodeled section into art. Artists use pre-mixed colors and then create their own shades. Bricklayers run strings to ensure walls stay straight. Composers choose notes and fashion chords. All of these activities can be analyzed in structural terms, but are actually performed by feel and experience.

Let your heart be your guide and Dramatica be your hammer.

Is Dramatica Software Binary?

The Dramatica theory book talks about Binary and Analog aspects of story. Binary means “two” and Analog means “unsegmented,” rather like a spectrum.

Although there are some places in the Dramatica software that deal with apparent binaries, there are none that deal with analog. Most aspects of the software fall between the two extremes.

For example, in the Dramatica structural chart, story points are divided into families of four similar story points called “Quads.” Therefore, any quad is dealing with the relationships among 4 items, not two as one would have in a binary system. And since each quad is “nested” within larger families made up of groups of quads, if you want to pick your Objective Story Problem in one of the lower quads as your first choice in story structuring, you are presented with 64 options!

In fact, the only seemingly binary questions in the software are the four Main Character Dynamic Questions (Resolve, Growth, Approach, Mental Sex) and the four Plot Dynamic questions (Driver, Limit, Outcome, Judgment).

Each of these eight questions presents a choice of only two items, such as Change or Steadfast. Surprisingly, these “binary” choices are actually closest to analog of anything in the software. Why? Because of the way they should be interpreted by the author.

Using our example of Change and Steadfast, it may look at first as if we are simply talking about whether the Main Character is different or the same, mentally and emotionally at the end of the story when compared to the beginning.

As an illustration of Change, suppose our Main Character was driven by “faith.” Well then a Change character would end up driven by “disbelief.” That is how the software works, and that is clearly binary. But in fact, not all characters actually jump all the way to the other side when they change. A character might lose some of his faith without actually becoming a disbeliever, moving from pious to agnostic. Is that not a change? Yes it is, yet the software says he is Steadfast because he is still on the “faith” side of the fence.

Immediately we can sense that there are many stories to tell about becoming less strongly fastened to a previously firmly held attitude or attribute. But the software will call it Steadfast, and that just doesn’t feel right.

Before I describe why the software does this, lets look at the other side of the coin. Suppose a character Changes by becoming a disbeliever, but it is only in regard to the particular situation of the story. In fact, it is quite clear that he sees this as an exception and will jump right back to being his same old self immediately after.

Well, such a character would not seem so much a Change character as a Steadfast character who made an exception. But the software simply calls this character “Change” and that is the end of it!

Okay, why does the software do this? Simply put, the Dramatica software engine is the MINIMUM implementation of the theory that doesn’t leave any holes in a structure. In other words, in a future version of the software you might find that each of the eight “essential questions” moves from a binary choice to a quad of choices.

Using our example, we would end up with a quad that would ask, “By the end of the story has your Main Character:

Changed

Remained Steadfast

Become less Steadfast.

Changed but only as an Exception.

In fact, an even later version of the software might also add:

Become more Steadfast

Changed, but only temporarily

Finally, the whole question might end up with also:

Will eventually Change

Will eventually come back to being Steadfast

Now we have two complete quads – One change quad, and one steadfast quad. Each of the eight available choices would create a different feel in the story.

So again, why doesn’t the software allow this? Because all kinds of additional formulas and algorithms would need to be worked out and added throughout the software to accommodate this degree of theory-sophistication.

If you offer two quads of Resolve, then you need two quads of each of the eight essential questions to maintain dynamic balance. (Note that creates sixteen quads of four dynamic items each, effectively creating yet another set of 64 items, but this time dynamic ones.)

What’s more, you would need to show in the software the DEGREE to which any item is “held.” This easily becomes a graphic interface nightmare. For example, a tightly held faith might be red in color, but a loosely held faith would be blue. And, if faith increased, it could have a “+13” or a “-8” attached to it as well.

The fact of the matter is, that to come up with a solid set of algorithms to describe the minimal structure which would fully surround a story to four solid years! It took another two on top of that to finish the programming and another two to bring the software to where it is today.

Version 3 added the Theme Browser and the Plot Progression windows (among other things). Have you ever wondered what the colors mean in the Theme Browser? Right now, they don’t mean anything. They’re not exactly random, but they don’t relate to anything theory-oriented. Someday, however, they will. And the fact that they are there now indicates the direction things will be going in the future.

Beyond all this, however, is a more central difficulty. The theory predicts that to be completely accurate, a model of story must have a view that deals with components (not just binaries, but simply meaning a network of interconnect story points) and also a seamless flow of force (not just analog, but more like the waves in a pond that flow out from a leaf that drops in the water.) If each story point is a leaf, then the waves in the dynamics of the story merge and combine to create an interference pattern, not unlike a hologram, where each story point exists because of the convergence of the ripples, and each ripple is generated because of the story point.

In short, “fuzzy logic” won’t hack it because the relationships aren’t fuzzy. They are very specific. And, for those who want to know where this kind of system comes from, it is simply a synchronous system analogous to the physical nature of the brain.

I won’t be going into much detail about that here, as it is WAY beyond the scope of the current subject, but I do want to point out that the reason stories actually work this way is NOT arbitrary. In fact, the reason story structure has taken the form and force that is has is simply that it mimics the way the brain functions, just as the mind does.

The structure and dynamics of the brain are NOT the mind, but the mind is “generated” by them and shares an analogous “structure” and dynamics, conceptually. When we communicate, then, we create a Story Mind which we twist and turn to create the dramatic tension that represents the forces at work in our own minds, which in turn draw on the physical system of memory and neural activity. All three systems look identical because all grow from the same seed.

Getting back to the REAL world…

For any quad, when one pair of items is seen as being separate (binary) the other two are seen as a spectrum. For example, in one quad in the structure, Dramatica has Faith, Disbelief, Conscience, and Temptation. If we decide to see Faith and Disbelief as two separate states of mind, then a character will Change or Remain Steadfast due to the shifting influences along the scale from Conscience to Temptation.

What is a scale of Conscience to Temptation? How about making a choice for the “greater good?” Is it okay to steal from a rich man to feed your starving family? How about stealing from a poor man to feed yourself? Or stealing from a middle-class man to make sure your children won’t risk being hungry?

One could turn the whole thing around and see Conscience and Temptation as binary, but then Faith and Disbelief would appear analog.

Conscience would then simply appear as doing what is right and Temptation as doing what is wrong. The scale between Faith and Disbelief would influence whether a character would Change or Remain Steadfast in Conscience or Temptation.

Examples of seeing Faith and Disbelief as a scale might be, one believes in God but to doubts the Bible. Perhaps a character has faith in a cruel god. In fact, a great number of people believe in God but not in heaven or hell. Faith and Disbelief are no longer binary, but are a scale along which situations can be pegged.

To wrap this all up, Dramatica: the theory is young. Dramatica: the software is even younger. Currently the software only presents the minimum implementation of the theory necessary to fashion a complete structure all the way around your story. But it is like scaffolding, not a solid enclosure. Future versions will add more sophistication, but creating the algorithms and programming to make that happen is time consuming and expensive.

Still, in defense of the software, it represents the first time in the history of human kind when such a thing as a functional model of story was possible at all! No other software can offer that model (it’s patented), and the model even as it currently exists, works accurately to fill in holes and move dramatics into alignment.

What does this mean to you, the author? Let me paraphrase Winston Churchill:

“Dramatica is the worst system in the world – except for all the others.”

From my point of view, when your instincts are right on DON’T go near the software. But when your instincts are amiss or your inspiration runs dry, use the software as a tool to plug, straighten, and fine-tune.

Finally, not everyone should expect to or even try to learn the whole theory. Like Tai Chi, there is a level which is quick to grasp and easy to use. There are also many deeper levels of which even experts (including the theory creators!) are only now beginning to understand.

The key is to find the best level for you between understanding stories and writing them.

Z Patterns and the Theme Browser

A word on the difference between the arrangement of Variations in the Theme Browser and that in the Plot Sequence Report:

The Theme Browser is nothing more than the “neutral” structural chart stuck into the software. In contrast, the Plot Sequence Report verbally describes the structural chart once it has been “wound up” to create dramatic tension.

I hate to keep going back to the “Rubik’s Cube” analogy, but if you picture a Rubik’s cube as if is brand new, right out of the box, each side is a single color. All the yellow squares on one side, all the red on another. Things are orderly and balanced. This is how things are arranged in the Theme Browser and in that position it represents a complete lack of dramatic tension.

Now, twist up that cube a few times in different directions and the colors become mixed on each side. After several different twists, the patterns look more random or chaotic, even though they were created by a sequence of simple moves. This is the view illustrated by the position of the Appreciations (story points) as they show up listed on the Theme Browser.

Then there is the Plot Sequence Report. It describes the sequence of moves necessary to create that particular dramatic pattern of your story’s tension.

So if you are keeping score, we have three things:

1. The model of the Storyform at Rest (the structure as seen in the Theme Browser)

2. The model of the Storyform twisted up with dramatic tension (the position of the story points as they appear in the Theme Browser).

3. The sequence of exploration of the items in the structural chart (as indicated the Plot Sequence Report.

The discrepancy between the Browser and the PSR is this:

The Browser shows which “colors” on the cube ended up next to each other in arrangement at the end.

The PSR shows which “colors” on the cube were next to each other in sequence during the process.

So, use the Browser to see what pattern your story seems to make for the audience when it is over and they look back and appreciate the meaning of the dramatic predicament. Use the PSR to figure out how the Types and Variations show up as the story unfolds.

Part of the confusion is due to including the Signposts in the Theme Browser. The Signposts are the only “time oriented” story points shown there. Everything else relates to the story’s meaning when it is completely told. There was some discussion in the engineering stage that perhaps the Signposts shouldn’t be included there. That is why there is a separate selection necessary in the Theme Browser window to specifically request them.

When the Signposts show up there, it can erroneously seem that the Variations associated on the Browser chart with each Signpost are supposed to be explored when that Signpost is explored in the unfolding of the story. This is simply not true! In fact, including the sequential Signposts in with the structural items is like mixing apples and oranges.

The only way to find out which Variations go with which Types in the sequence of the story is through the Plot Sequence Report.

Similarly, for a while just before release of 3.0, we removed the Plot Sequence Report from the software. It was felt that with the Signposts and Journeys being more emphasized in this version, it might be confusing to talk about Types and the Variations through which they are explored. In the end, those who really liked the report successfully lobbied for it to be added back.

Story Structure is half logic and half feeling. That’s why we use both our minds and hearts as authors when figuring out what works and what to do next. Dramatica’s structure describes the logic of it and the sequence describes the feel. Dramatic tension is created when our logic and our feelings come up with different and incompatible answers. So, it is not surprising that when the Story Engine’s output in the structural Theme Browser is compared to that in the sequential Plot Sequence Report it creates and SHOULD create an APPARENT discrepancy. In fact, that discrepancy is what holds the message of your story.

The end product provides the meaning; the experience as the story unfolds provides the context. The discrepancy between the two is the dramatic tension.

We try to keep this discrepancy in the storyform and out of the mind of the author by having the structural output in one area and the sequential output in another. In the Theme Browser we may have made a mistake by mixing them. But, if you dig deep enough into Dramatica’s theory or software output, it will always be there, as it must, to fully describe the Story Mind you are asking your audience to inhabit.

In creating software tools that delve so deeply into the subtleties of the drama, we encroach on the threshold of a paradox. This is best explained by looking at the nature of light. Light can be seen as a particle or a wave depending upon the context. But it is always light. Story can be seen as a structure or a sequence, but it is always story.

Particles of light interact in spatial arrangement. Waves of light flow in temporal progressions. The Structure of a story is a spatial arrangement showing the interconnections among story points. The Sequence of a story is a temporal progression showing the order in which story points come into conjunction as they move past each other on the way to the final arrangement.

Both views must be accurate and each must reflect and support the other. Sequence must lead to Structure and Structure must reflect Sequence. Yet, both cannot be appreciated at the same time.

Normally, we keep those two approaches separate in the software. By virtue of including the Signposts in the Theme Browser, however, the paradox rises to the surface. The only reason for the Signposts being there is to give quick access to them if you want to build your Storyform by graphically picking the Signposts, or to use the Browser as a quick reference to the Signposts in your existing Storyform.

So, my feeling would be that when working with the Signposts in the Theme Browser you should ignore all the other story points and just focus on the Signposts by themselves. When working on the other story points in the Browser, ignore the Signposts. And, to get a feel for the way Types and Variations come into conjunction as the story unfolds, use the Plot Sequence Report and keep the Theme Broswer far from your mind.

Finally, to reiterate, Dramatica goes into such a degree of detail that trying to follow it faithfully runs into the law of diminishing returns. By the time you get into information such as that in the Plot Sequence Report, you are dealing with subtleties so nuanced that they might not even be noticed.

Western culture is much more concerned with the spatial arrangement of things than how it came to be that way (i.e. “The end justifies the means” – just look at all the violence “heroes” are “allowed” to inflict to right a wrong!) So, as long as all the story points end up in the right place at the end (e.g. the right item is the goal, the right item is the Issue or Range) then the audience is satisfied.

For purists, perfectionists, and structuralists, you can stick with the PSR order if you like. But if you want to diverge, it probably won’t have any measurable negative effect at all on how a Western audience receives your story.

In conclusion, just make sure you illustrate all the key story point appreciations in your story and that you at least work the Signposts and Journeys in there. (They are on such a large scale then kind of have to be in the right order). Do that much and then only worry about the PSR and the minor story points to the level of your own eye for detail.

P.S. You’ll note that Chris and I focus on different aspects of Dramatica. He concentrates on explaining the theory in terms of story, I concentrate on explaining the theory in terms of psychology. So, be forewarned (Forewarning of Conceptualizing) that my postings will tend toward the esoteric. For those interested in the psychology behind Dramatica (called Mental Relativity), I keep an extensive web site with scores of articles on the subject at storymind.com/mental_relativity/ These original essays delve into the workings of the human mind, based on what we learned from the Story Mind model, and cannot be found anywhere else.

If you’ve ever toyed with the idea of using Dramatica to analyze your friends, family or self, you might enjoy exploring there.

What Determines Plot Progression Sequences?

Rich asks:

The one thing that I am having trouble understanding is the plot rotations. Why does choosing the rotation in one Domain sometimes chose them in others and sometimes not? And what relation does one rotation have to the other?

Answer:

As many of you may have noticed, choosing items in the Plot Progression doesn’t work the same way for all four throughlines. Some seem to have much more impact, control, or power on the overall progression then others, and in fact, they do!

Now this immediately smacks of some inconsistency or inaccuracy in the software and/or theory. After all, why should one throughline be inherently more structurally “important” than another? Well, conceptually, one throughline is not more important than another, but in practice one MUST be more important than another.

I know that sounds trite. Let me explain with a brief visualization, then describe how “plot rotation” works as a mechanism in the software.

First, the visualization:

Think of a globe of the world. Now, try to draw it on a flat piece of paper. You’ve all seen the different kinds of projection we end up. Some make Greenland HUGE, but the USA small. Others make the USA large, but split the map, as if you’ve flattened out the peel of an orange. In fact, there are many different projections of the globe, but each has a different kind of distortion, due to trying to project a 3 dimensional object onto a two dimensional surface.

The Dramatica Structure suffers the same problem. It is SUPPOSED to represent a model of the mind, as called for by the theory. The mind itself is a FOUR dimensional object. That fourth dimension is Time. To be accurate, time cannot be broken into a series of increments but must flow continuously and simultaneously throughout the model. The problem is, that a computer cannot create a truly unbroken “flow.”

In computer programming, every operation is a series of steps, be it a function or sequence of operations. As a result, to create a model of the four dimensional mind in a computer, you need to “project it” onto three dimensions, then “move” it through time in steps. That is not completely accurate, just as any projection of the globe is not completely accurate on a flat surface. Still, in this way, the first three dimensions are VERY close to accurate, but the fourth dimension is where you pick up the distortion.

In the software model of the Story Mind, this distortion will show up with the Plot Progression.

Now, as you might expect, there are three other projections of the Story Mind which might be created: One in which the distortion shows up in CHARACTER, one with a distorted THEME, and one with a distorted GENRE. Each has a different strength and a different weakness.

Ultimately, it is our hope to program the other three as well, so that authors have a choice of where to sweep the distortion under the carpet. Unfortunately, each requires the creation of a completely different model with its own unique algorithms. The original model took four years to build and two more to perfect. It was also VERY expensive, costing over one million dollars in R & D before the FIRST version of the software was released. As you may imagine, it will be many years before we can offer another projection of the Story Mind (especially being intellectually burned out by the mind-warping contortions of visualizing the first model!)

Okay, so this simple visualization gives an overview of the problem. It tells us why the distortion will show up in plot. But what is actually going on in the software that makes that distortion give more “power” to one throughline over the other?

The simple answer is that the same bias that makes Plot Progression distorted also favors the Main Character and Objective Story throughlines at the expense of the Obstacle Character and Subjective Story throughlines. As a result, more power is assigned to them, over the others.

Here’s where we have to get a bit more technical…

You may be familiar with my analogy of “winding up” the structure to create a storyform, as if the structure were a Rubik’s cube. This is a surprisingly accurate visualization. In the form you see the structure on the chart, it is neutral and at rest. In other words, there is no dramatic tension in the resting model. This is because all the quads are balanced and consistent in both the vertical and horizontal planes. This can be seen by nothing that on the chart, “Past” is to “Universe” as “Memory” is to “Mind” This shows that identical vertical distance in the creates identical semantic differences in meaning. Horizontally, “Being” is to “Becoming” as “Doing” is to “Obtaining.” This indicates that identical horizontal distances create identical differences in meaning. In other words, in the at rest model, identical vectors in the three dimensional matrix represent identical differences in meaning, so that the relationships among any story points plotted on the matrix can be determined by their semantic distance.

Sorry about that!

Now, on to the next technical information necessary for the answer to your question…

When the model is “twisted and turned” it moves items out of alignment, altering their relative semantic distances and creating a tension or distortion based on the degree of misalignment. This is what happens when you answer questions in the Dramatica software.

In fact, there are two kinds of wind-ups which occur. One is applied to the Main Character Domain and then ripples out over the entire structure. The other is applied to the Objective Story Domain and then ripples out.

The eight questions you answer about Main Character Dynamics and Plot Dynamics (Resolve, Growth, Approach, Mental Sex, Driver, Limit, Outcome, and Judgment) determine many things about those two wind-ups.

For example, because Time is not free flowing in the model as it would be in a real mind, one of the windups (Main or Objective) will be applied first to the neutral model, the other will then be applied to an already twisted model. Which comes first creates the feel in a story as to which is more “screwed up” – the Main Character or the world at large. In this way, the story develops a dynamic imperative indicating that a Main Character must change or must remain steadfast if success in the Objective Story is to be achieved.

The real question is, how does the mechanism of the wind-up actually work?

Okay, the wind-up in each of the two throughlines begins at the bottom and works its way up. Why? Because that way it screws more with time (the horizontal plane) than with space (the vertical plane) in keeping with a consistent projection or bias to the model overall. (The bias must remain consistent in both structure and dynamics or the distortion will drift and create apparently chaotic inaccuracies rather than limiting them to one area for the benefit of all the others.)

To wind up the very bottom quad of elements, the software must know the problem element for that throughline. That can either be chosen directly by the author, or the story engine will eventually work it out as a cross-reference of the effects of other choices.

Once the problem element is known, it becomes the pivot point or “seed” of the throughline’s wind-up. Now, on that first quad, there are two kinds of wind-ups which may be applied: “Flips” and “Rotates.”

A flip will swap the positions of two elements in a diagonal relationship, such as “Faith” and “Disbelief.” Why would this happen? In a real mind, when we have one of our elemental sensibilities rubbed raw by experience, one of two things happens – we become ultra sensitive to that topic when it comes up or we become insensitive to it (scab it over). A flip containing the problem element itself represents a scabbing over by moving the problem out of harms way. A flip along the other axis (between the other two elements not containing the problem element) represents an increased sensitivity by leaving the problem in place.

Of course, when one becomes overly sensitive to an item, the items around it become less sensitive to pinpoint the irritation and make it easier to avoid further injury. But, if one scabs over, then the surrounding items become more sensitive to make up for the loss and also as a sensitive perimeter that warns the mind something is approaching which might rip off the scab.

In contrast, one might “rotate” elements rather than “flip” them. Why? Because in our own minds, we sometimes don’t just become biased by experience to make things more or less sensitive, but we also move items up and down in the pecking order or sequence of consideration depending on their endlessly adjusting priority.

So, in a “rotate,” we move the items in a quad circularly, like a turning a knob. This also has two version, clockwise and counter-clockwise. This creates a different kind of tension determining whether or not the problem element is being moved up or down in priority.

Once we have flipped and rotated (twisted and turned) the first quad in the first throughline, we move up to the variation level (issue or range). The same kinds of dynamics are at work here too, but not necessarily the same arrangement as in the quad of elements below.

The upper quads have an additional aspect – they might “carry the children” or not. This means, when the variations flip and/or rotate, for example, do they drag their underlying elements along with them or leave them behind. Why? Because justifications (biases) can enter a real mind at any level and may or may not affect the levels above and below.

You can see this flipping and rotating at work in actual stories. To do this, find some dialog that deals with thematic issues. (“Witness” is a good example). Find a quad of variations that deals with those issues. Plot the sequential progression of the issues that occurs in the story. After plotting a number of different quads you’ll find sequential patterns that appear as “U” shapes, “Z” patterns, and “hairpins.” All these patterns can be created by the sequential application of flips and rotates to any quad.

Ultimately, you work your way up to the top level of the structure. Here, flipping and/or rotating moves the problem from an interior position (Mind, Psychology) to and exterior position (Universe, Physics) or vice versa. This is the model’s accurate description of the psychological process of “projection,” where one comes to feel that “I’m not the problem, it’s everybody else” when it really is the person or conversely, “I guess I’m the problem,” when is really is everybody else. Ironic that the psych term for that is “projection” – not unlike the projection maps we have been talking about.

Now, I could go on endlessly about this mechanism, but we now have enough to answer the questions: “Why does choosing the rotation in one Domain sometimes chose them in others and sometimes not? And what relation does one rotation have to the other? ”

The Dramatica software story engine actually predicts the best order for not only acts, but sequences, scenes, and events as well. Early on, we realized this information would amount to “micro-managing” the plot, so we “suppressed” it. It’s still in there on every storyform, but not presented in output. We did output it for a few sample storyforms, and it amounted to literally hundreds and hundreds of pages of progressions for every quad and “quad of quads” in the entire structure. Ultimately, we only kept the “act level” progressions, as they seemed truly useful without being overly binding.

The first two versions did not allow plot progression choices so the nature of the distortion was not apparent. But when we added it in version 3, it came right up to the surface. We actually considered not including that feature to avoid the sense that the software was not accurate, even though it was just the projection distortion described above. But, the desire to provide all possible useful tools prevailed, so we put it in with great trepidation.

I think we have seen why one throughline has more power than another, but what is the relationships among the four plot progressions? In the structure without plot progression, each throughline represents a different angle on the same issues. In one sense, they represent the I, You, We, and They points of view. In another sense, they represent Knowledge, Thought, Ability, and Desire in the Story Mind (more about this in another post sometime down the line).

Once “wound-up” they create structural differential or dramatic potential among them. In motion over time, they create resonance and dissonance (harmony and disharmony). Both the dramatic potential and the interference patterns of the flow must work in conjunction so that the space-sense and time-sense of the storyform serve to carry the same message. The trick is to make the “particle” and “wave” work together. Because the structural bias exists due to the projection of the mind on three dimensions, there must be an identical bias to the temporal progression.

Taken altogether, the Plot Progression simply does not allow certain sequences because, although possible, they cannot occur in this projection without interjecting inaccuracies BETWEEN the structure and the progression.

As it stands, every available progression consistent with the model’s necessary bias IS available, so that the progressive harmony and discord of the flow of the four throughlines creates an interference pattern in which the nodal points intersect with the story points in a synthesized four-dimensional space.

In other words, the plot progression of all four throughlines will wrap around each other as the story proceeds so that it creates the spatial meaning of the story in much the same way that the scanning lines on a TV screen work together to create the greater mosaic of the Big Picture.

Thanks for asking!

Domain Placement in Story Structure

Over the years, a lot of people have asked why Dramatica forces some of the throughlines into certain domains. Why can’t “anything go?”

Well, once again, the Dramatica theory allows for more versatility, but the software doesn’t – yet. Still, what the software does is probably what you want!

Software-wise, OS, MC, SS, and OC form a quad. OS is always opposite SS and MC is always opposite OC. So, When you plop down OS or SS on a domain, you know where the other one will be. And, if put MC or OC in a domain, you’ll know where the other is. Why does the software do this? Because it creates conflict.

Universe and Mind (two of the domains) are fixed states of things and share a similar nature. Physics and Psychology (the other two domains) are processes and thereby share a nature.

Therefore, “forcing” the MC and OC into opposite domains and forcing the OS and SS into the other two creates a structure-wide consistency. In short, it forces each of the two families MC & OC (people) and OS & SS (relationships) into the greatest conflict within each family.

Since Hollywood thrives on conflict (“where’s the conflict?!”) this arrangement serves very well for MOST of the stories actually written, purchased, and produced.

But, quads have more that one kind of relationship! To see what I mean, go to the Build Characters window in D Pro (or Movie Magic Dramatica). If you open that window full wide, you’ll see three different kinds of relationships listed on the right for every quad.

The family of two items in a diagonal relationship form a “Dynamic Pair.” Since there are two diagonals in each quad, there are two Dynamic Pairs.

The two items in a horizontal relationship form “Companion Pair,” and there are two of those as well.

Finally, two vertical items form a “Dependent Pair,” also being two in a quad.

Each of these relationships has a different nature. Also, one of the two pairs of each kind will be “positive” and the other “negative.”

1. Dynamic relationships are conflictual. Positive Dynamic relationships are like the “loyal opposition” where two sides butt heads, but synthesize a better solution because of the conflict. Negative Dynamic relationships occur when two sides butt heads until each is beaten into the ground.

2. Companion relationships involve the indirect impact one character has on another. Positive Companion relationships occur when there is beneficial “fall-out” or “spill-over” between the two sides. For example, a father might work at a factory where he can bring home scrap balsa wood which his son uses for making models. Negative companion relationships involve negative spill-over such as a room-mate who snores.

3. Dependent relationships describe the joint impact of the two sides. For example, positive Dependent relationships might bring Brain and Braun together so that they are stronger than the sum of their parts. A negative Dependent relationship might have a character saying, “I’m nothing without my other half.”

There’s also one other relationship which doesn’t show up in the software – the Associate relationship.

4. Associative deals with the relationship of the individual to the group. Rather than being consistently positive or negative, the two varieties of this kind of relationship may be either – but in any given relationship one variety will be positive and the other negative. The Component variety sees the items in a quad as individuals. The Collective variety
sees them as a group.

For example, two brothers might fight between themselves (Component), yet come to each others’ aid when threatened by a bully because they now see themselves as family (Collective).

Neither one is inherently positive or negative – it depends on context. That is why we, as a culture, have trouble with terms such as “the United States.” Well which are they, United or States?

Now these same kinds of relationships can also function between MC and OC or between OS and SS. In theory then, the Main Character and Obstacle Character might be in Dynamic, Companion, or Dependent relationships, and so might the Objective and Subjective stories.

But more than this, the each throughline will have the other kinds of relationships with the other throughlines. So the MC, for example, will have a Dynamic relationship with one of the other three throughlines, a Companion with another, and a Dependent with the third. Quite a lot of interrelationships going on in a single story!

As it stands in the software, those relationships already exist. They just aren’t referred to anywhere. If you plot the positions of the four throughlines in your story on the Dramatica structural chart (or look at them in the Theme Browser) you can see by the vertical, horizontal, and diagonal relationships how each throughline relates to the others. Again, a lot to explore in your story!

Still, you can’t yet make the MC and OC companions or dependents in the software. But shouldn’t it be easy enough to do? Shouldn’t it be easy to just allow the MC and OC to share any kind of available relationship?

Sure it’s easy, but there’s a catch. EVERYTHING – all story points are connected by the Story Engine. And, for the story to have consistency, all parts of the structure must favor ONE KIND OF RELATIONSHIP. So, you can’t just change the MC and OC rules, without changing them for everything else as well. And, you also have to rewrite the entire DYNAMIC part of the engine so that it can “flip” items (as discussed in an earlier post) on the horizontal or vertical axis of a quad, rather than on the diagonal.

To tell the truth, we simply haven’t had time to work out the algorithms that would drive such a system! But we will. Or someone else will. And then the software will expand in versatility yet again.

To get a feel for the size of the nut we will have to crack to get this working, try to imagine a gripping story which has no conflict at any level. It’s do-able, but tough. We’ll add that part of the theory to the software eventually.

In the meantime, when dealing with any quad, go beyond thinking about only the diagonal conflictual relationships and think about the horizontal companion ones and the vertical dependent ones as well. Even if there is not a lot of specific support for that in the software, a little bit of theory knowledge can go a long way to added nuance and depth to your work.