When Is Your Creative Time?

You sit in your favorite writing chair, by the window, on the porch, or in the study. You wear your favorite tweed jacket with the leather elbow patches, or your blue jeans, or your “creative shoes.” You look around at the carefully crafted environment you spent months arranging to trigger your inspiration. Reaching eagerly forward you place your hands on the keyboard or grasp the pen or pencil, and… Nothing happens.

You look around the room again, out the window, sip your coffee, cross or uncross your legs, finger your lucky charm, reach forward and… Still nothing

What in blazes is wrong? You know you are full of inspiration; you can feel it! Why the ideas were flowing like a deluge just this morning, last night, or yesterday. Frustrated, yet determined, you try several more times to get the words to flow, but to no avail. “Good pen name, ” you think,” Noah Vale.”

So what’s the problem? How can you feel all primed to write, sit in your favorite environment with everything just perfect and still nothing comes?

Perhaps the problem is not where you are trying to write, but when!

Each of us has a creative time of day and a logistic time of day. Never heard of this? I didn’t discover it until quite recently myself. As a writer, I always thought creativity came and went with the Muse, sometimes bringing inspiration, sometimes spiriting it away. Like most writers, I had found that creating a quiet refuge, a creative sanctuary, increased the frequency and intensity of visits from the Muse. What I didn’t know was that the Muse keeps a schedule: she comes and goes like clockwork.

Here’s my scenario and see how it might apply to you… I’ve always felt guilty when I write – guilty that I’m not out cleaning something, building something, visiting someone, or even just getting out in the real world and living a little. But writing always draws me back. I find it therapeutic, cathartic, invigorating, stimulating, and, well, just plain fun. Sometimes… no, make that ALL the time, it’s as good as… no, make that BETTER THAN sex! And food! And earning a living! I often feel (when writing) like that rat with the wire connected to his pleasure center who kept pushing the stimulation button until it starved to death because it forgot to eat!

Well, the urge to write is there all the time. But, because I feel guilty I try to get all of my chores done I the morning, clearing the way to spend the afternoon or evening writing guilt free. But then I sit there watching the sun go down, full of the desire to write but completely unable to do so.

Recently, however, I had the good fortune of actually finishing all my chores the night before. I found myself with the whole morning free and guilt-free as well! At first, I was just going to goof off, do some reading, watch some TV, but then that old Writing Bug took a nip of my soul and off I was to my study to pound the keys. And you know what? The words just spilled out like secrets from the town gossip! This was wonderful! What an experience! I was pelting out the thoughts without the least guilt and without the slightest hesitation. I was flying through my own mind and playing it out on the keys! It felt very much like when I play music.

But why was this happening? I was truly afraid the feeling would go as quickly as it came and I would be lost in the creative doldrums again. In fact, it did fade with time – not abruptly, but gradually… slipping away until it was no more. But it did not leave a vacuum. In its place was a rising motivation to clean something, build something, visit someone, or get out in the real world and live!

Then, it hit me… Perhaps my creativity does not spring from where I write, but when! Perhaps the morning is my creative time and the afternoon, my practical time! I experimented. Try to write in the afternoon, the evening, at night, the morning. Quickly I discovered that if I felt free from the guilt of non-practical activity, I could write in the morning as if I were designed to do nothing else! But no matter how many chores I might accomplish in the morning, by the time the sun dropped below the horizon, my inspiration dropped away as well.

In fact, my creative time seems tied to the sun. For me, it brightens in the morning, peaks around noon, and fades away to nothing at dusk. Interestingly, I recently moved to the mountains and dusk comes early hear in the canyon this time of year – far earlier than when I lived down in the flatlands of the city.

Looking back over the years, I could see that my daily creative cycle depended upon the direct rays of the sun, not the time of day. And all those years I tried to get the practical stuff done in the morning to avoid guilt didn’t help my creativity but hindered it!

Lately, I just know that when the sun goes down it’s time to get practical. As a result, I know in the morning that I’ll accomplish real world logistic things later in the day. That eliminates guilt because the work part is already scheduled. And, that frees my mind to play with words all morning long.

When is your creative time? Just being a “morning person” or a “night person” isn’t enough because that only determines when you have your most energy. But what KIND of energy? Perhaps you are more energetic when you are working on the practical, so you think that just because you get your greatest energy at night you are a night person. This is not necessarily so! Suppose your creative side is NEVER the most energetic part of you, but is strongest in the morning. Then you are a Practical night person and a Creative morning person.

Your Creative Time might be any span of hours in the day. Or, it might even be more than one time. For example, you might be most inspired from mid-morning until noon and again from mid-afternoon to dusk. Everyone is a bit different. The key is to find your Creative Time and then adjust your daily schedule to fit it. It is important to remember to avoid guilt feelings while trying to determine your Creative Time. To do this, don’t just focus on when you are going to try writing, but make sure to also schedule other time to concentrate on chores. This way your “reading” of the level of your creativity will not be tainted by negative feelings of guilt, and you should arrive at more accurate appraisals.

After a week or so of trying different combinations, you should be able to determine the best creative and most practical times of the day. From that point forward, you will almost certainly find inspiration is present more than it is absent, and writing becomes far more joyful a process and less like work.

But there is a little bit more… Our lives are not just creative or practical. In fact, there are four principal emotionally driven aspects to our days: Creative, Practical, Reflective, and Social.

We need our Reflective time to be alone, to mull the events of our life over our minds eye, to let our thoughts wander where they will: to daydream. We need our Social time to recharge our batteries in the company of others, to express ourselves to our friends, to de-focus from our own subjective view by standing in the shoes of those around us.

I’ve found for myself that Saturday is a Social day for me, and that Sunday a Reflective day. I don’t do much of either on the weekdays at all. Whether this is nurture, nature, or something else altogether I can’t say, and to be truthful, it doesn’t really matter. What matters is that I have come to recognize it.

When is your Reflective time? Do you have some every day, just on weekdays, only on weekends, or some combination of these? How about your Social time? Do you ever feel guilty wanting to be alone? Do you ever feel deprived because you ARE alone? Part of these feelings may come from trying to do each of these activities in times that (for your) are actually geared toward the other.

Once you have mapped our your Creative, Practical, Reflective, and Social cycles, you’ll find that you get so much more accomplished, and with so much more fulfillment. All four aspects of your life will improve, and the improvement in each will remove emotional burdens and therefore increase the energy in each of the other three!

In short, you can be in phase with your emotional cycles, or out of phase. The more you schedule your activities to match the flow of your feelings, the more your life experience will buoy itself higher and higher with less and less effort. And best of all, the more inspiration you will find when you sit in your tweed jacket and reach for the keyboard.

New Interactive Index Card Software – Just $9.95

I love index cards. I hate index cards. They are the best way to organize and re-organize my thoughts and story concepts before I write. But, they are time-consuming to fill out, impossible to edit, and UG-LY when stuck to a wall.

Finally, I go so frustrated I hired a programmer to build an interactive index card program designed to meet my story development needs.

The result is Throughline, and (I’m not kidding you here) it has changed my life! Not only did it streamline my work on stories, but I’ve started using it for everything from “Things to Do” to shopping lists!

The beauty of the program is its simplicity.  Click one button to create a new card.  Click once on the card to give it a name.  Double-click on the card to open the “content window” (essentially, the back of the card) where you can enter any information you want.  Drag and drop cards to rearrange them in any order you like.  You can give each card a color, change the font, and justify the text.

By description it doesn’t sound like much, but wait until you actually start using it!  In fact, why don’t you take it out for a test drive by downloading the Windows Demo.  (Sorry, no Mac demo at this time).  Or, since we have a 90 day money back satisfaction guarantee, why not just buy it so you can save, export, and print your cards.

Either way, once you’ve given it a whirl I’m pretty sure you’re going to feel like I do:  how did I ever get by without this thing?

Click here for complete details about all the features and how to use them, and let me know what you think!

Should all characters be developed as much as the Main Character?

A writer asks:

Hello

I’m trying to write a novel and I have a quick question. I have my main character developed and some of the other characters. I want to know do I have to developed every single character in great detail like I did the main character?

Tony

Hi Tony

The Main Character is a special case.  As you may know, most characters are oriented to the plot (we call them “Objective Characters” in Dramatica because we identify them by function in the story).

But there are also two “Subjective Characters” – the Main Character and the Obstacle Character (also called the Impact or Influence Character).

The Main Character is special because he or she grapples with an inner dilemma that is at the heart of the story’s issues.  In fact, success or failure in the overal goal of the story depends upon how the Main Character decides in regard to that dilemma.  (Think of Scrooge in “A Christmas Carol” or Hamlet.)

This, however, does NOT mean that the Main Character has to be the Protagonist.  The Protagonist is the prime mover in the effort to achieve the goal – it represents our initiative and tenacity.  It is an Objective Character because it is identified by its function in the story/plot.

The  personal “subjective” internal struggles can be given to any one of the Objective Characters.  That character then becomes the Main Character by definition.  And, the character given the additional role of representing the opposite belief system or opposite attitude to that of the Main Character becomes the Obstacle Character.

Besides whatever role they have the plot, the Main and Obstacle Characters also have a story-long relationship battling over their ideals, with one ultimately prevailing in that realm.  And whichever one prevails (right or wrong) will be the key to achieving success or failure in the quest for the goal.

So, naturally, there is a lot more to explore in the Main Character – all its personal issues and its paradigm battle with the Obstacle Character.  And that means it needs to be developed in far more detail than any of the other Objective Characters just fulfilling their roles in the plot.

Want to know more?

Read all our most recent articles about the Main Character

Is StoryWeaver Good For Both Novels & Screenplays?

A StoryWeaver user asks:

I purchased storyweaver to help me write a screenplay.  I think it’s great.

I may try a novel.  Is the same software used to write novels?

Thanks, vin

Answer:

Hi, Vin

Sure.  StoryWeaver is about working out your story, regardless of your medium.  So it is equally useful for Novels, Stage Plays, Screenplays and any other type of “long-form” storytelling.

Melanie
Storymind

Stories on the Mind

As with people, your story’s mind has different aspects. These are represented in your Genre, Theme, Plot, and Characters. Genre is the overall personality of the Story Mind. Theme represents its conflicted value standards. Plot describes the methods the Story Mind uses as it tries to work out its problems. Characters are the underlying drives of the Story Mind.

Genre  

To an audience, every story has a distinct personality, as if it were a person rather than a work of fiction. When we first encounter a person or a story, we tend to classify it in broad categories. For stories, we call the category into which we place its overall personality its Genre.

These categories reflect whatever attributes strike us as the most notable. With people this might be their profession, interests, attitudes, style, or manner of expression, for example. With stories this might be their setting, subject matter, point of view, atmosphere, or storytelling.

We might initially classify someone as a star-crossed lover, a cowboy, or a practical joker who likes to scare people. Similarly, we might categorize a story as a Romance, a Western, or a Horror story.

As with the people we meet, some stories are memorable and others we forget as soon as they are gone. Some are the life of the party, but get stale rather quickly. Some initially strike us as dull, but become familiar to the point we look forward to seeing them again. This is all due to what someone has to say and how they go about saying it.

The more time we spend with specific stories or people the less we see them as generalized types and the more we see the traits that define them as individuals. So, although we might initially label a story as a particular Genre, we ultimately come to find that every story has its own unique personality that sets it apart from all others in that Genre, in at least a few notable respects.

Theme

Everyone has value standards, and the Story Mind has them as well. Some people are pig-headed and see issues as cut and dried. Others are wishy-washy and flip-flop on the issues. The most sophisticated people and stories see the pros and cons of both sides of a moral argument and present their conclusions in shades of gray, rather than in simple black & white. All these outlooks can be reflected in the Story Mind.

No matter what approach or which specific value is explored, the key structural point about value standards is that they are all comprised of two parts: the issues and one’s attitude toward them. It is not enough to only have a subject (abortion, gay rights, or greed) for that says nothing about whether they are good, bad, or somewhere in between. Similarly, attitudes (I hate, I believe in, or I don’t approve of) are meaningless until they are applied to something.

An attitude is essentially a point of view. The issue is the object under observation. When an author determines what he wants to look at it and from where he wants it to be seen, he creates perspective. It is this perspective that comprises a large part of the story’s message.

Still, simply stating one’s attitudes toward the issues does little to convince someone else to see things the same way. Unless the author’s message is preaching to the audience’s choir, he’s going to need to convince them to share his attitude. To do this, he will need to make a thematic argument over the course of the story which will slowly dislodge the audience from their previously held beliefs and reposition them so that they adopt the author’s beliefs by the time the story is over.

Plot  

Novice authors often assume the order in which events transpire in a story is the order in which they are revealed to the audience, but these are not necessarily the same. Through exposition, an author unfolds the story, dropping bits and pieces that the audience rearranges until the true meaning of the story becomes clear. This technique involves the audience as an active participant in the story rather than simply being a passive observer. It also reflects the way people go about solving their own problems.

When people try to work out ways of dealing with their problems they tend to identify and organize the pieces before they assemble them into a plan of action. So, they often jump around the timeline, filling in the different steps in their plan out of sequence as they gather additional information and draw new conclusions.

In the Story Mind, both of these attributes are represented as well. We refer to the internal logic of the story – the order in which the events in the problem solving approach actually occurred – as the Plot. The order in which the Story Mind deals with the events as it develops its problem solving plan is called Storyweaving.

If an author blends these two aspects together, it is very easy miss holes in the internal logic because they are glossed over by smooth exposition. By separating them, an author gains complete control of the progression of the story as well as the audience’s progressive experience

Characters  

If Characters represent the conflicting drives in our own minds yet they each have a personal point of view, where is out sense of self represented in the Story Mind? After all, every real person has a unique point of view that defines his or her own self-awareness.

In fact, there is one special character in a story that represents the Story Mind’s identity. This character, the Main Character, functions as the audience position in the story. He, she or it is the eye of the story – the story’s ego.

In an earlier tip I described how we might look at characters by their dramatic function, as seen from the perspective of a General on a hill. But what if we zoomed down and stood in the shoes of just one of those characters, we would have a much more personal view of the story from the inside looking out.

But which character should be our Main Character? Most often authors select the Protagonist to represent the audience position in the story. This creates the stereotypical Hero who both drives the plot forward and also provides the personal view of the audience. There is nothing wrong with this arrangement but it limits the audience to always experiencing what the quarterback feels, never the linemen or the water boy.

In real life we are more often one of the supporting characters in an endeavor than we are the leader of the effort. If you have always made your Protagonist the Main Character, you have been limiting your possibilities.

Melanie Anne Phillips
Co-creator Dramatica

Try Dramatica’s Story Mind Approach

Risk Free for 90 Days!

 

Are You Writing a Story or a Tale?

When an author tells a tale, he simply describes a series of events that both makes sense and feels right. As long as there are no breaks in the logic and no mis-steps in the emotional progression, the structure of the tale is sound.

Now, from a structural standpoint, it really doesn’t matter what the tale is about, who the characters are, or how it turns out. The tale is just a truthful or fictional journey that starts in one situation, travels a straight or twisting path, and ends in another situation.

The meaning of a tale amounts to a statement that if you start from “here,” and take “this” path, you’ll end up “here.” The message of a tale is that a particular path is a good or bad one, depending on whether the ending point is better or worse than the point of departure.

This structure is easily seen in the vast majority of familiar fairy “tales.” Tales have been used since the first storytellers practiced their craft. In fact, many of the best selling novels and most popular motion pictures of our own time are simple tales, expertly told.

In a structural sense, tales have power in that they can encourage or discourage audience members from taking particular actions in real life. The drawback of a tale is that it speaks only in regard to that specific path.  But in fact, there are many paths that might be taken from a given point of departure. Suppose an author wants to address those as well, to cover all the alternatives. What if the author wants to say that rather than being just a good or bad path, a particular course of action the best or worst path of all that might have been taken?

The message has now become no longer just a simple statement but a “blanket” statement. Such a blanket statement provides no “proof” that the path in question is the best or worst, it simply says so.

Of course, an audience is not likely to simply accept such a bold claim, regardless of how well the tale is told.  The audience will want proof.  In the early days of telling tales, an author related the fiction to his audience in person. Should he aspire to wield more power over his audience and elevate his tale to become a blanket statement, the audience would no doubt cry, “Foul!” and demand that he prove it. Someone in the audience might bring up an alternative path that hadn’t been included in the tale.

The author might then counter that rebuttal to his blanket statement by describing how the path proposed by the audience was either not as good or better (depending on his desired message) than the path he did include.

One by one, he could disperse any challenges to his tale until he either exhausted the opposition or was overcome by an alternative he couldn’t dismiss.

But as soon as these expanded tales began to be recorded in media such as song ballads, epic poems, novels and stage plays, , the author was no longer present to defend his blanket statements.

As a result, some authors opted to stick with simple tales of good and bad, but others pushed the blanket statement tale forward.  Through centuries of trial and error, a new art form evolved that was able to support a blanket statement and satisfy an audience even when the author isn’t present: the “story”.

A story is a much more sophisticated form of communication than a tale, and is in fact a revolutionary leap forward in the ability of an author to make a point. Simply put, when creating a story, and author starts with a tale of good or bad, expands it to a blanket statement of best or worst, and then includes all the reasonable alternatives to the path he is promoting to preclude any counters to his message. In other words, while a tale is a statement, a story becomes an argument.

Now this puts a huge burden of proof on an author. Not only does he have to make his own point, but he has to prove (within reason) that all opposing points are less valid. Of course, this requires than an author anticipate any objections an audience might raise to his blanket statement and include a response to them as part of the story itself.

The most efficient way to do this is to create additional characters, each of which represents one of the major alternative approaches to solving the story’s issues that a reader or audience member might consider.    The story’s plot is then designed to pit one approach against another until only the character representing the author’s “message approach” must make the final choice or take the final action.  As long as each approach has been given its due, the audience will tend to accept the author’s message that his promoted approach is either the best or the worst.

In time, these characters evolved into the archetypes we know today, such as a character who represents the voice of Reason, and one who stands for the Passion of the heart.  The Mentor, Trickster, Conscience, Temptation, Sidekick, and Skeptic all developed to illustrate the impact different approaches had on solving the story problem.

The avatar of the author’s point of view became the Hero, and the diametrically opposed approach became the Villain.  As the art form continued to grow and the arugments became more complex, the Hero stopped being a single player in the story and split into two separate kinds characters:  a Main Character who grapples with the moral or ethical aspects of the story’s problem and a Protagonist who struggles with the physical or logistic aspects.  Similarly, the Villain split into an Obstacle Character who represents the opposite moral or ethical stance to that of the Main Character, and the Antagonist who works in the pyhical or logistic realms to thwart the Protagonist’s goal.

Today, this subdivision of archteypes continues and has reached a point where stories clearly exhibit as many as sixty four different character attributes, each representing a different attitude or approach to solving the story problem.  And just as some approaches are compatible while others mix like oil and water, there are underlying dynamics that indicate how we might combine groups of these basic character building blocks together to form more complex characters, more appropriate to this complex age.

But of course, that is another story….

To learn more about characters and story dynamics,

read the free online edition of the Dramatica Theory Book

The Master Storyteller – Tickling Your Muse

The concept behind this method of finding inspiration is quite simple, really: It is easier to come up with many ideas than it is to come up with one idea.

Now that may sound counter-intuitive, but consider this… When you are working on a particular story and you run into a specific structural problem, you are looking for a creative inspiration in a very narrow area. But creativity isn’t something you can control like a power tool or channel onto a task. Rather, it is random, and applies itself to whatever it wants.

Yet creative inspiration is always running at full tilt within us, coming up with new ideas, thinking new thoughts – just not the thoughts we are looking for. So if we sit and wait for the Muse to shine its light on the exact structural problem we’re stuck on, it might be days before lightning strikes that very spot.

Fortunately, we can trick Creativity into working on our problem by making it think it is being random. As an example, consider this log line for a story: A Marshall in an Old West border town struggles with a cutthroat gang that is bleeding the town dry.

Step One: Asking Questions

Now if you had the assignment to sit down and turn this into a full-blown, interesting, one-of-a-kind story, you might be a bit stuck for what to do next. So, try this. First ask some questions:

1. How old is the Marshall?

2. How much experience does he have?

3. Is he a good shot?

4. How many men has he killed (if any)

5. How many people are in the gang?

6. Does it have a single leader?

7. Is the gang tight-knit?

8. What are they taking from the town?

9. How long have they been doing this?

You could probably go on and on and easily come up with a hundred questions based on that single log line. It might not seem at first that this will help you expand your story, but look at what’s really happened. You have tricked your Muse into coming up with a detailed list of what needs to be developed! And it didn’t even hurt. In fact, it was actually fun.

Step Two: Answering Questions

But that’s just the first step. Next, take each of these questions and come up with as many different answers as you can think of. Let your Muse run wild through your mind. You’ll probably find you get some ordinary answers and some really outlandish ones, but you’ll absolutely get a load of them!

  a) How old is the Marshall?

a. 28

b. 56

c. 86

d. 17

e. 07

f. 35

Some of these potential ages are ridiculous – or are they? Every ordinary story based on such a log line would have the Marshall be 28 or 35. Just another dull story, grinding through the mill.

Step One Revisited

But what if your Marshall was 86 or 7 years old? Let’s switch back to Step One and ask some questions about his age.

 For example:c. 86

1. How would an 86 year old become a Marshall?

2. Can he still see okay?

3. What physical maladies plague him?

4. Is he married?

5. What kind of gun does he use?

6. Does he have the respect of the town?

And on and on…

Return to Step Two

As you might expect, now we switch back to Step Two again and answer each question as many different ways as you can.

 Example:5. What kind of gun does he use?

a) He uses an ancient musket, can barely lift it, but is a crack shot and miraculously hits whatever he aims at.

b) He uses an ancient musket and can’t hit the broad side of a barn. But somehow, his oddball shots ricochet off so many things, he gets the job done anyway, just not as he planned.

c) He uses a Gattling gun attached to his walker.

d) He doesn’t use a gun at all. In 63 years with the Texas Rangers, he never needed one and doesn’t need one now.

e) He uses a sawed off shotgun, but needs his deputy to pull the trigger for him as he aims.

f) He uses a whip.

g) He uses a knife, but can’t throw it past 5 feet anymore.

And on and on again…

Methinks you begin to get the idea. First you ask questions, which trick the Muse into finding fault with your work – an easy thing to do that your Creative Spirit already does on its own – often to your dismay.

Next, you turn the Muse loose to come up with as many answers for each question as you possibly can.

Then, you switch back to question mode and ask as many as you can about each of your answers.

And then you come up with as many answers as possible for those questions.

You can carry this process out for as many generations as you like, but the bulk of story material you develop will grow so quickly, you’ll likely not want to go much further than we went in our example.

Imagine, if you just asked 10 questions about the original log line and responded to each of them with 10 potential answers, you’d have 100 story points to consider.

Then, if you went as far as we just did for each one, you’d ask 10 questions of each answer and end up with 1,000 potential story points. And the final step of 10 answers for each of these would yield 10,000 story points!

Now in the real world, you probably won’t bother answering each question – just those that intrigue you. And, you won’t trouble yourself to ask questions about every answer – just the ones that suggest they have more development to offer and seem to lead in a direction you might like to go with your story.

The key point is that rather than staring at a blank page trying to find that one structural solution that will fill a gap or connect two points, use the Creativity Two-Step to trick your Muse into spewing out the wealth of ideas it naturally wants to provide.

A Bug in Writer’s DreamKit? (Say it ain’t so!)

A Dramatica Writer’s DreamKit user recently contacted me to say that she had encountered a bug in the software.  First, when she created a character and assigned it a role as a particular archetype (such as Reason), and then reassigned that role to another character and saved the file, when she re-oped the file the character was labeled as “complex” rather than as the archetype that had been chosen.

Secondly, when giving up on that software problem and trying to identify the character’s archetypal role in the character’s name, she ran of of space and the software cut off her text.

Finally, the reports showing information about the characters listed here characters all as complex, even though she chose them as archetypes.

I investigated  (along with Write Brothers, the manufacturer of DreamKit and Dramatica) and here is my reply to the DreamKit user as to what we found so far:

Hi, again!

This may help you.

Dramatica Pro and DreamKit are run by the same story engine. DreamKit just presents a portion of the story points that Pro does.

When it comes to characters, DreamKit only shows motivations. Pro has three other areas of character elements: methodologies, purposes, and motivations. Archetypes have 8 elements each, two from each of the four areas.

In DreamKit, you only see the two motivations. So, if you choose to make a character an archetype the story engine automatically assigns the other six elements for that archetype so the engine will be properly balanced. But, if you choose to make another character that archetype instead, the story engine “reads” your choice as just the two elements that you gave it in DreamKit and does not move the other six in the engine already. That results in the character appearing to be “complex” because it only has two elements since the other six are still assigned to the first character, behind the scenes in the story engine where you can’t see.

Now, that is a real bug (not a theory bug, but a programming mistake). In fact, if you choose to take the role of an archetype away from a character and give it to another character, it should reassign all eight elements, not just the two that you see.

Interestingly, DreamKit has been out for about 15 years, and no one ever reported that mistake before in all those years. (Truth is, it doesn’t matter if you call a character an archetype or complex – the real important information is what elements does that character have). Still, the software should be consistent in whether it labels a character an archetype or complex.

But, to be perfectly honest, you can’t really create archetypes in DreamKit (speaking from a theory point of view) because, by definition, archetypes must have a full complement of all eight elements and you simply can’t build that in DreamKit – intentionally! Many stories create characters with only motivations – the simplest way to build characters. That’s why DreamKit only offers those, which makes it a properly balanced product for simpler stories. We still call them “archetypes” in DreamKit because that is the way writers casually think of those characters, even though they don’t have all four levels of elements, just the motivations.

So, nothing is wrong with the story engine or the theory, the DreamKit software just handles the labels incorrectly when it comes to reassigning the label of archetype from one character to another. The elements in the character are correct, nonetheless.

On another issue, as I wrote before, Dramatica (both Pro and DreamKit) are designed to allow only one character at a time to be an archetype. This is because, according to Dramatica theory, there should never be two characters trying to represent the same point of view or characteristic at the same time – it confuses the readers or audience.

But, in very, very rare stories, the role of character as an archetypes may be “handed off” to another character instead, such as when one character dies and another takes his place and continues the same dramatic impact. It is kind of like when a soldier carries a flag into battle, is killed, and another soldier picks up the flag and carries it. The role of flag carries has shifted from one soldier to another – the role is the same, the position on the field of battle continues to advance, but it is a different person carrying that standard.

So, if your story is one of the very rare ones that requires having one archetype drop out of the story and another one take its place, there is no “direct” way to show that in DreamKit (or Dramatica) but there is an indirect way, as I described in my earlier email. You simply give the archetype the names of both characters so YOU know that each will play that role at some point in the story. For example, if John is the first Reason character and later it is played by Sam instead, you could name the Reason character John-Sam.

As you pointed out, character names have a limited length, just as on twitter a message can’t be more than 140 “characters” long. But that isn’t a bug so much as a limitation. The idea is not to have extremely long character names, but to provide enough space so you can identify the character to yourself while you are working on it and in your reports. Again, in fifteen years, you are the only one (to my knowledge) who has ever mentioned that length of name limitation since hardly anyone has character names that long (they are hard for readers or audience to remember). I’m sure that limitation has been reached before by others, but they probably just use a nickname instead to stay within the limit, since the purpose is simply to identify the character to you in the software, not to identify it to your readers or audience, which only happens when you finally write your story in your word processor. (Remember, DreamKit and Dramatica are not where you write – they are where you work out your story BEFORE you write!)

As for the reports you provided, they appear to be working properly – they just reflect that same bug about how the software labels characters as archetypes when they really should only have the two elements you assigned in DreamKit.

I hope this helps put it all in perspective.

Remember – nothing is wrong with the character elements, which is what it is all about. The only problem is in whether or not the software labels a character consistently as an archetype or as complex. In DreamKit, there really are no archetypes, as that requires 8 elements, not just 2. But, since most writer’s want to deal with archetypes, we keep the labeling rules loose and allow them to choose characters as archetypes, even if they only have two of those elements. The problem is just a bug in how the software handles that pseudo label, but does not change the sound dramatic composition of each character.

So, as you indicated, until such time as the next version comes out, the easiest thing is just to note the archetype name in the character name and if that makes it too because you want to include two or more characters as “hand-off” characters in the same name-space, just use nicknames, as the whole purpose is to identify the characters to you as the author so you can work with them.

Melanie

The Passionate Side of Story Structure

We all know that a story needs a sound structure. But no one reads a book or goes to a movie to enjoy a good structure. And no author writes because he or she is driven to create a great structure. Rather, audiences and authors come to opposite sides of a story because of their passions – the author driven to express his or hers, and the audience hoping to ignite its own.

What draws us to a story in the first place is our attraction to the subject matter and the style. As an audience, we might be intrigued by the potential applications of a new discovery of science, the exploration of a newly rediscovered ancient city, or the life of a celebrity. We might love a taut mystery, a fulfilling romance, or a chilling horror story.

As authors what inspires us to write a story may be a bit of dialog we heard in a restaurant, a notion for a character, a setting, time period, or a clever twist of plot we’d like to explore. Or, we might have a deep-seated need to express a childhood experience, work out an irrational fear, or make a public statement about a social injustice.

No matter what our attraction as audience or author, our passions trigger our imaginations. So why should an author worry about structure? Because passion rides on structure, and if the structure is flawed or even broken, then the passionate expression from author to audience will fail.

Structure, when created properly, is invisible, serving only as the carrier wave that delivers the passion to the audience. But when structure is flawed, it adds static to the flow of emotion, breaking up and possibly scrambling the passion so badly that the audience does not “hear” the author’s message.

The attempt to ensure a sound structure is an intellectual pursuit. Questions such as “Who is my Protagonist?” “Where should my story begin?” “What happens in Act Two?” or “What is my message?” force an author to turn away from his or her passion and embrace logistics instead.

As a result, authors often becomes mired in the nuts and bolts of storytelling, staring at a blank page not because of a lack of inspiration, but because they can’t figure out how to make their passions make sense.

Worse, the re-writing process is often grueling and frustrating, forcing the author to accept unwanted changes in the flow of emotion for the sake of logic. So what is an author to do? Is there any way out of this dilemma?

Absolutely! In fact, there are quite a number of techniques that can accommodate the demands of structure without hobbling the Muse. In my StoryWeaving seminar the entire focus is on the different approaches that can be used to develop a sound story without undermining our creative drive. And that is what Dramaticapedia is all about as well.

Demo our StoryWeaver Software

And Write Your Story Step by Step