Dramaticapedia

Here is a link to the definitive explanation of the Dramatica theory (in PDF) from 1993, that explains all of the key concepts in text and graphics, including descriptions of non-story uses of the psychological model and the functioning of the model in terms of the dramatic circuit created by Potential, Resistance, Current, and Power (Outcome) and its relationship to the prediction of temporal story progression in terms of a quad-based 1 2 3 4 sequence.

http://storymind.com/free-downloads/sa_article.pdf

Now here’s a touchy subject.  Still, over the years, many have taken a philosophical, even spiritual view of Dramatica.  There are even some who have drawn a comparison between Dramatica’s 64 elements and the 64 trigrams of the I Ching.   In fact, two of them wrote articles on that topic.  Here are the links:

Noa’s Archetypes
by noted ballet coach,
Anthony Noa

The One and the Many
by C.J. Lofting

Some find this comparrison odd, and at first so did we, since neither Chris nor myself had studied the I Ching before creating Dramatica and only after having this brought to our attention did we explore the similarities.  Ultimately, for me, it is just another indicator that we are all looking for the same answers to the same universal questions.  Dramatica is just another lens through which to focus on our own existence.

A new Dramatica user recently sent to me the following:

If God is within us and we within God, then the concept of characters within a Story Mind might be a useful perspective in our attempt to better understand our relationship with the Divine.

Consider – suppose that we experience our linear lives like scanning lines on a television. Suppose our souls do not perish at death, but simply reset to the next scanning line, so that we either have been or will at some time be and live the life of every thinking creature that has existed, currently exists, or will exist. In other words, be good to your neighbor and every bug on your wall, for it is you.

Time is irrelevant to God, for it is our one continuous life as a single soul that scans the experience of reality from a Main Character view – I think, therefore I am. But God sees all the scanning lines not as individual linear experiences, but as comprising a bigger picture – the fully scanned image, in motion, as the universal collection of thinking creatures is constantly altering as new hosts are born and old hosts die, frame by frame.

Together, we play out across God’s mind, informing God’s thoughts and, in a sense, continuously creating God as God puts us (who are really one) into play.

God is both author and audience to his own creation in a way no player on the field can ever fully appreciate, for ours is not to watch the movie but to live the role.

I call this concept “co-creation.”

Just idle speculation.  Make of it what you will.

Melanie

Watson and Dramatica: Building an Artificial Mind

By Melanie Anne Phillips

Some twenty years ago, upon realizing that the structure of stories was actually a model of the mind itself, Chris and I began to wonder if that model could serve as a blueprint and instructions for creating a truly artificial mind.

Today, with the debut of IBM’s Watson and its attendant interest and enthusiasm, it seems the perfect time to revisit those considerations and the conclusions at which we arrived.

What follows is a complete description of Dramatica’s plan for building a thinking and feeling machine that is not only aware, but self-aware as well and how that model is only partially realized by Watson.

To begin with, minds are not exclusively engines of logic.  Rather, they are generators of passion as well.  Awareness requires only logic.  Self-awareness requires emotion as well.

Logic is based on discrete points connected by causal relationships.  Emotion is a continually evolving condition that ebbs and flows.  In more technical terms, think of logic as made up of particles and emotion as comprised of waves.  It is the interaction of the particle and wave natures of the functions of the physical brain and its biochemistry that create the particle/wave nature of the resultant mind that is engendered yet does not reside within the brain.

Simply put, to function as a complete mind a system must include both binary and analog components.

In other words, what we are proposing is that the neural networks of the brain are only half the story.  It is the influence of the brain’s biochemistry on the functioning of the neural networks (and vice versa) that creates self-awareness.

Before we proceed, let’s take a moment to define awareness and self-awareness as we will be using them.

Awareness, by Dramatica’s definition in regard to mental functioning, means a system that is affected by and responds to its environment.  This response is automatic and completely predictable if the nature of the stimulus and the organization and potentials of the neural network are known.

There is nothing magical about an aware system.  Rather, it can fully be explained as a series (or several concurrent parallel series) of causal processes that, once triggered by a stimulus (or simultaneous or progressive stimuli) responds in an absolute manner with no variance other than that interjected by chaotic influences from outside the system.

More conversationally, barring chaos, the same stimuli applied in the same manner and with the same timing will invariably generate the same result.

Self-Awareness (again, by Dramatica’s definition) is a much more complex notion and far more complicated system, first and foremost because it requires an Aware system to already be in place.  Self-Awareness is then overlayed upon (or added to as a better descriptor for some purposes) that essential foundation to which is must refer and through which it must translate its functions between itself and the external world at large.

A Self-Aware system is, in contrast, very nearly magical in its properties, which is not to say that the mechanism of its operation is unknowable.  In fact, that is the heart and substance of this article.

Essentially, due to the nature of the physical brain’s neurons and neural networks, all activity of a binary nature is driven by the so-called “action potential” between the inside and outside of each neuron’s membrane.  Only when the action potential reaches a certain size does it trigger the irrevocable firing of the neuron as a charge is sent down its body to chemical containing boutons which burst, releasing neurotransmitters across a synapse to be received by the awaiting dendrites of a nearby neuron (or neurons).

Simplistically, the biochemical nature of the brain interferes with the binary functioning of the neural networks, adding the element of apparent (though not actual) serendipity to the system, all of which is really based on the mean average of the functions of many nearby neurons converging on each individual neuron to alter the external environment, and thereby contributing to (or removing from) the local action potential of each neuron.

Again, more conversationally, no neuron is an island, and direct communication from one to another is continuously moderated by the local weather that surrounds it.

This, then, is the opening salvo in an assault on the nature of the mind itself.  So far, as it is no more than a rough sketch of the concept so as to illuminate the scope of what we are actually professing, it has offered no details, no proofs, and is, therefore, hardly convincing.

It is in the material that follows in which I hope to provide a thorough enough exploration of the topic so as to at least suspend disbelief enough to warrant further investigation and inquiry.

To that end, let us now turn our attention to the inner workings of the Dramatica model, how they ultimately represent the functioning of the mind even unto the physicality of the brain and then sum up with a description of which portions of this model have been implemented in Waston, what remains to be done to create a truly artificial mind, and how that can be brought about through both hardware and software approaches.

As our point of departure to this journey of exploration, let us note that the Dramatica model is a system comprised of two principal parts: a structure (represented in the multi-level Dramatica Chart  – download the Original Dramatica Story Structure Chart in PDF) and dynamics (represented in the forces that twist and turn the chart to rearrange its components much as one might alter the patterns of a Rubik’s Cube).

The structural aspect of the model represents the neural networks, binary components, and logical causalities of the mind as made manifest by the biology of the brain.  The dynamic aspect of the model represents the varying action potentials, analog components, and emotional progressions of the mind as made manifest by the biochemistry of the brain.

Collectively, the structure and dynamics of the Dramatica model illustrate a complete functional model of a mental system incorporating both Awareness and Self-Awareness.

Though other models are possible and may ultimately better represent this system, it is the theory concepts behind this particular representation that are the core issue of import in this discussion, and the model itself is simply a means to visualize the relationships described .

(In fact, in the early days of Dramatica development, the same data was organized in a number of different models ranging from pyramids to a toroid wrapped in a mobius strip, all of which worked but were ultimately abandoned in favor of the graphic simplicity of the current Dramatic chart and its operations.)

Let us examine first the structural portion of the model as it applies to hierarchies of neural networks and later define the dynamic forces at work upon and in conjunction with it.

The structure, independent of its complementary dynamics, has two parts: the matrix or framework and the items or units held within and organized by that framework.

The units (i.e. Classes, Types, Variations and Elements – each on a different level of the model) represent processes of the human mind.  The framework represents the relationships among these mental processes and the manner in which their individual operations bring like processes together into conceptual families, much as the Periodic Table of Elements organizes its components into families such as the Rare Earths or Noble Gases.

The members of each family share certain common traits and relate to one another in distinct, definable, and predictable manners.  This is true with the physical elements and, as we shall later see, with the elements of the mind as well.

For now, however, let us concentrate on the elements (units) themselves.

In the Dramatica model, each unit, regardless of its level or position, is not an object per se but represents a distinct and unique process of the mind, in fact, common to all minds.

For example, the Dramatica element “proaction” is not a thing or a state but describe the process by which the mind instigates an action of initiative, as opposed to one of reaction.  “Reaction” is in there too, and represents the mental process that leads one to respond (or not) to a stimulus. 

(Unlike a simple “Aware” system, a “Self-Aware” system may choose not to respond or react to a direct stimulus – for reasons driven by the action potential-altering variations imposed on the neural network by the local biochemistry as described above and as will be fully explored later in the section on Dynamics.)

To recap then, each of the 148 individually named units in the Dramatica Structural Chart represents an independent, definable, process of the mind and their position in the framework, both laterally and vertically, represents their close or distant association and interaction with all the others.

The structural portion of the model (at the most simplistic appreciation) represents a single, large neural network comprised of 148 different processes.  But, as we shall now see, that not only over-simplifies the true nature of the model, but the true nature of the mind as well.

Originally, computers were single network processors.  In recent years, consumer-level computers advanced to dual processors (co-processors) and even quad-processors.  Watson, as I understand the system (based on a general description) employs many concurrent processors or neural networks, all functioning together to parse different aspects of a problem or purpose.

This sort of relationship among neural networks is described by any one of the four levels of Dramatica model, as each level lays out the necessary kinds of processes required to fully parse a problem or purpose at that level of detail and consideration.

So, for example, the top Class level has only four units and represents the computational power of a standard quad-processor.  The next level down, the Type level, has sixteen individual processes and proposes that to completely and most efficiently parse down to the next level of detail (next magnitude of consideration) beyond quad-processing requires sixteen individual neural networks operating in conjunction on various aspects of the task at hand.

The third level of the model (an additional magnitude of detail) requires sixty-four unique units, and by the time we get to the lowest most detailed level it requires sixty-four other unique units, each represented four times in different conjunctions with its neighbors for a total of two hundred and fifty six units representing sixty-four different processes.

(Why the fourth level does not present 256 individual processes will be fully explored later, and actually represents another higher-order overseeing process of the mind.  It is intriguing, but too divergent to explore at this early stage of our discussion).

As you may already have suspected, each of the four levels does not operate independently in a planar sense, but also interacts with the levels above and below.

Now this is a truly illuminating concept when applied to computer models of the mind.  What the model predicts is not only that co-processors work best in multiples of four and that to completely and efficiently build such a system requires that the processes in each magnitude of four must fulfill very specific functions and relate to one another in very specific ways.

But even beyond that, in order to expand the detail and power of a processing system, larger processes, such as the Classes, must be comprised of smaller sub-processes, such as the Types, which are in turn comprised of even smaller processes, such as the Variations, which in turn are comprised of still smaller processes, the elements themselves.

To get a grip on the significance of this, let us consider Object Oriented Programming.  In this system of developing software (such as C++), one does not design all operations as a single overall program.  Rather, sub-routines are created (called objects) which can be called by the overall program at any time and assigned to a given task.

This creates an efficiency of effort as processes that are needed more than once do not have to be individually written or even individually included at their appropriate place in the overall program, but merely called into play when needed.  This is the computer equivalent of “measure twice, cut once.”

Similarly, the units of Dramatica (at any level) are processes that are treated as objects in the model so we might observe, replicate, and predict how and when the program at large (the combination of our Awareness and Self-Awareness) calls on the processes, in what order, in what frequency, and in what pattern.

Now a program written in an object-oriented language is still a linear proposition on a single processor platform.  In a dual-processor environment, the overall program, operating on one processor, can call a second object (process) into play on the second processor while it simultaneous engages in the next process required on its own initial processor.  A quad-processor increases the speed and efficiency exponentially, and both the Dual and Quad arrangements move out of the linear realm and even offer the opportunity to engage in some basic pseudo-non-linear operations.

(Why they are “pseudo” non-linear is because they are all still controlled by the overlord program, rather than interacting as equal members of a more democratic lateral hierarchy.)

Rather than having just a single overseeing program, imagine that the top Class level of the Dramatica chart proposes four equal master programs, each affecting and being affected by the other three.

Picture each of the units in the Class level as a non-linear equation.  In and of itself, it will progressively alter its output as that output is re-channeled as the value of the variables in the body of the equation itself.  In essence, each unit in the Class level is a non-linear process, represented as an object.

Now, imagine that the results of each of the four processes not only feed back to its own unit, but are also added or applied to the results of each of the other three.  In such a scenario, the output of each of the non-linear processes now changes and progresses in ways that begin to feel much more organic (not analog yet by any means, but less obviously predictable yet still discernable as meaningful patterns).

Pause for a moment to consider the implications of this intermediary step on our way to a full appreciation of the Dramatica model of the mind.  We are proposing that the mind is not a single process but (at the highest or most broad-stroke level) can be best understood as four equally influential non-linear processes affecting each other in an almost relativistic self-regulating manner to create an overall system.

And yet, that is just the top level.  We must now consider that the results of each of the four iterative processes are directly and continuously broadcast to the sub-processes beneath it in the second level down.  What’s more, because the parent process in any Class is also affected by the output of the other three Classes, their output is indirectly broadcast to the sub-processes beneath the original Class in its altered results.

And so, what alters the functioning of the underlying sub-processes is partly the direct input from above, and also the indirect input from the parents neighbors.

Now, we are going to take some leaps here (rather than belaboring our points), but I feel sufficient groundwork has been so far laid as to provide a solid landing.

The system described does not just apply between two level, but among all four.  So, what happens in the processing of any one of the four Classes (of itself and as it is affected by the other three) is ultimately broadcast down all four level of the other three to the very roots of the entire structure.

Conversationally, what happens in Vegas does not stay in Vegas.  Rather, as a trickle-down theory, all parts of the roots are fed by what happens in all of the leaves.

But wait, as with trees (or branch-trees for that matter), what happens in the roots also nourishes and informs what will be occurring in the leaves.

In other words, this flow of relativistically altered iterative output is not just from the top down, but from the bottom up as well.

Every one of the object units in the Dramatica model represents an independently functioning non-linear process of the mind at one magnitude or another.  So, even the tiniest, lowliest process at the very bottom of the model in the most obscure corner is still generating iterative output on its own.  And the output of the four units in the family under each parent unit is in fact what defines the operation and function of the parent unit by nature.

Again, conversationally, the children Units define the operations performed by the parent unit, while the output of the parent unit alters the variables of the child units.

And so, the Dramatica model represents a system wherein iterative processes affect one another directly laterally, and directly vertically, but also affect one other indirectly both laterally and vertically, altering not only the values of the variables but the functions of the operations in each independent iterative process.

All of this energy flow crosses over and through itself within the system, creating what might be loosely thought of as an ever evolving interference pattern in which standing waves and troughs rise up, hold their positions for a time, and even migrate through the matrix while maintaining their identities as peaks and troughs but moving on to affect other operations in the system as the action potential of the peak or trough comes into conjunction with other processes.

All of which brings us back to the functioning of neurons, the action potential, and how firing of the neuron occurs not only because of direct or even collective stimulation, but also because of the more analog affect of these migrating peaks and troughs of potential that increase or decrease the opportunity to fire at the local level and then move on through the system to apply their impact elsewhere – all a function of the biochemical side of the system.

And that, quite naturally reaches a point at which to conclude our initial exploration of the structural units of Dramatica and to move on to the remaining half of our structural model – the matrix framework: what it is and how it works.  (Keeping in mind that both parts of structure comprise only half of the Dramatica model of the mind – the other half being the dynamics and the forces that alter the dynamics).

The Dramatica structural framework is all based on the quad.  The quad is not just a convenient group of boxes into which the process-units of the structure can be placed and organized, but in fact, each quad also represents the nature of each unit and the relationships and interrelationships among all four units.

Each of these relationships can be represented as simple equations, in a truly mathematical sense, and taken together they comprise an exceedingly complex web of iterative interactions.  While interesting, the mathematical side is really tangent ( no pun intended) to the task at hand, though I will include some web links at the bottom of this article directly those interested in further self-punishment to some previous articles specifically addressing those topics.

To begin with, the four spaces in each quad represent the following:

In the upper left hand corner is the “K” position, which stands for Knowledge, one of the four principal components of the mind (more on this later).

In the lower right is the “T” position, which stands for Thought.  Thought and Knowledge share a relationship not unlike Energy and Mass.

As energy can move mass around, so too can thought move distinct elements of knowledge around.  In this way, complex massive objects can be created and complex systems of knowledge as well (not unlike the very model we are proposing in something of a self-incursive twist).

In the upper right is Ability, which (for reasons explained elsewhere – again, look for the links at the bottom of this article) is the mental equivalent of Space.  A quick explanation in lay, inaccurate “Science Channel” terms would state that just as Mass is in space, but also defines the reaches of space, Knowledge is in Ability and defines its reaches as well.  Ability, in short, is an assessment of what we know compared to what we don’t know, just as Space is an assessment of what is there compared to what isn’t. (Told, you – “Science Channel”.)

The fourth space in the lower left is Desire, which is the equivalent of Time – in short, Desire can only be felt by comparing what was to what is or what might be; moderated by the speed of progress toward or away from the preferable state.

Though these four items have been described in almost child-like terms, the equivalent of describing painting by Leonardo using only the primary colors, they serve to get us in the ball park.  Again, there are several much deeper articles on the internet that are far more elegant and compelling.

But for our overview understanding of the Dramatica model of the mind, all that is important to know that the relationships among these four items can be set down as T/K = AD.  In other, even more obnoxiously simple words, Thought acted upon by Knowledge maintains an equilibrium with the product of Ability and Desire.

So what does that mean?  First, consider Ability and Desire.  Their product is Desirability.  If Ability is zero, no matter how much Desire there is, motivation is zero.  If Desire is zero, no matter how much Ability there is, motivation is zero.  But for any positive values of Ability and Desire, there will be a certain degree of Desirability.

On the left hand side, Thought is divided by Knowledge – in other words, this equation describes inductive reasoning.  Thought, which might go anywhere, is broken up into pieces, parceled out in closed processes as determined by what we know.

So, this particular equation (and there are many) denotes that our inductive reasoning, which drives our assessment of probabilities maintains itself in equilibrium with the Desirability of the subject under consideration.  In short speak, our motivation is equal to the possibilities and, conversely, we consider possibilities in proportion to our motivation.

That sounds quite touchy-feely until you consider that with a little algebraic re-arrangement T/K = AD becomes T = KAD, which looks suspiciously like E=MC2.  That is why I alluded to Knowledge being like Mass and Thought like energy in the beginning of this section.  It is also why Chris and I named the theories pertaining to the mind, rather than to story, Mental Relativity, for they pertain to the relativistic nature of the iterative processes of the mind.

Though these kinds of contentions practically demand proof (or at least serious and detailed explanation), that is really beyond the scope and purpose of this particular article, and is best addressed by the web links at the bottom.

The point at hand is that there are many equations, each relatively simple in itself, but each having a unique nature determined not only by the equation de facto, but also by its relative position in relationship to the other equations represented in the matrix.

In a nutshell, why are there all these terms like proaction or reaction in the structural chart, and why are they positioned where they are?  The answer is that the units do not exist independently of the structural matrix but because of it.

Each unit is really the very same process, but because of its position in relation to the other three units in its quad, and those above and below and laterally to it, the relativistic effect of the interacting iterative processes at different magnitudes of parents and children result in a specific systems of balance between internal functioning and external influence that are represented by position in the matrix.

So, the names of the units are arbitrary, in a sense, because it is really the matrix that defines each unit.  But, for the model to be understood, other than in a mathematical manner, each unit is named for the nature of the system that unit represents.

And so we find Past in one quad under Universe and we find Memory in another quad under Mind.  Because Past and Mind are in the same relative position in their respective quads beneath their parents, it holds true that Past is to Universe as Memory is to Mind.

This startling aspect of the semantics held by the structure is that the entire chart is a complex web of analogies by which any vector between two units on any levels anywhere in the structure share the same semantic relationship as any other two units that can be connected by the same vector.

What’s more, putting the words themselves aside, this means that any two processes of the mind that are connected by specific direct and indirect relationships to any other process share an exactly identical mathematical (relativistic) relationship with any other two mental processes that are connected by exactly the same direct and indirect relationships – regardless of position overall position with the model (the mind) and regardless of the magnitude of one set compared with the other.

This is the heart of the Fractal Psychology concept in Dramatica that states that as individual processes of the mind come together to create an overall process, so too individual minds in the real world come together to create overall psychologies that function identically to the system of the individuals.

As a corollary, it infers that we all share the same underlying psychology – being defined as a system of mind – and that is what makes Dramatica’s model culturally independent, just as the semantics in the structural chart could be replaced with words or symbols from any language, so long as the relationships among their meanings is identical to the relationships among the processes they represent, as dictated by their position in the matrix and the equations which drive it.

Well, it’s all enough to give you a headache.  But the final word on the structural side of the model as it pertains to creating a functioning artificial mind is that such a machine must be based on not on an arbitrary number of co-processors, but in groups of four neural networks which share specific relationships among themselves (which can be expressed in mathematical terms) and affect and are affect by each other and by other such families of four that are their parents and their children in a four level hierarchy of sub-processes.

Now, while I have not yet addressed such issues as why four levels, and why do the elements of the bottom level have only sixty-four unique names, each appearing four times in different conjunctions, that is for the wrap up at the end of this entire article.

At this time, we will suspend our discussion of the units and matrix and shift from exploring the structure to examining the dynamics that drive it.

As structure is divided into the units and the matrix, so too are the dynamics divided into two parts: those that rearrange the structure (a la the Rubik’s Cube analogy earlier) and those that rearrange the dynamics themselves.

I’ll begin with the former.

The Dramatica structure appears to be fixed affair – more like a 3D chess set in four levels than a “twist and turn” Rubik’s cube.  But that is just because the structural chart simply depicts an untwisted cube in which each side is a single color.  In short, it depicts a mind at rest: a mind without an inequity.

There is no such balanced mind.  The mind is a machine made of time.  Every gear and pulley is a process within a process, like nested Russian dolls.  But, if we froze a mind in mid-thought, it would look like the Dramatica chart if it also hadn’t a care in the world.

Without unbalance there is no potential.  Without potential there is no motivation.  Without motivation there is neither inner consideration nor external activity.

So what is it that creates imbalance so as to propel the mind, and how does that mechanism work, exactly.

Dramatica Dynamics describe the forces that shift the balanced mind out of alignment, creating potential and therefore motivation and activity.  This process is called Justification.

Justification is neither a good nor a bad thing.  It is just a thing – a process that rearranges processes.  Essentially, if we look within ourselves for a solution to a problem and find none, we then look outside ourselves to see if the solution lies there.

In truth, we may actually be the cause of the problem and not see it.  This is what eventually leads to such things as the psychological phenomenon of projection in which we attribute qualities to people and things outside ourselves, rather than to ourselves where they belong.

The opposite of this is to attribute qualities to ourselves that really don’t belong to us but to others or to other things.  A belief in controlling the world through magic might be considered a projection form of justification.  It can also appear as someone blaming themselves for something that isn’t their fault.

The reasons for such manners of thought are quite complex and are again beyond the scope of this article describing how the Dramatica model might be employed to create an artificial mind.  But suffice it to say that when we project, we shift the relative positions of where we perceive forces at work from inside to outside or vice versa.

This function (among many others) is represented in the Dramatica model by a dynamic that actually exchanges the positions of an internal unit with an external one.  For example, at the top of the Dramatica chart are the four familiar units Universe, Physics, Mind and Psychology.  In some stories, Universe and Mind may change positions on their diagonal or Physics and Psychology might along theirs.

When two units shift to each others position along a diagonal line, it is called a “flip” for want of a more psychologically savvy term.

But that isn’t the only way in which units may change places.  They might also shift around the quad as if it were a clock, ninety degrees to the right or to the left.  This is called a “rotate” again, for want of something less mundane.

It is the combination of flips and rotates at different levels that determine how the model twists and turns from its neutral position into a potential that describes a particular mental state ready to be propelled forward by having wound up the spring of inner potential (a macroscopic fractal of the action potential way back down at the level of the individual neuron).

In Dramatica as it is applied to stories, there are eight dynamic questions which we call the eight essential questions, for it is they that determine all that needs be known to arrive at a complete storyform, save what the subject matter centers is.

Whereas the units in the structure may be thought of as processes driven by Awareness, the dynamics are the forces that act upon the processes driven by Self-Awareness.

Some questions determine whether a given quad will flip, rotate, do both or do neither.  Others determine the axis of the flip or the direction of rotate.  Still others determine if the flip or rotate will “take the children” from a lower level, or leave them behind when they move.  (This represents the nature of cross-level justifications wherein some potentials are isolated to smaller lateral issues only whereas others affect whole quadrants of the mind in many levels at once.)

It is the necessity of nature of the dynamics that no truly human artificial mind might be built without an overlying system that, in fact, breaks an accurate balance among logical relationships and rearranges them in another stable but warped organization.

If we were only Aware, our minds would simply adapt or react to the momentary environment around us.  When the environment changed, so would we.  But with Self-Awareness, a mechanism exists by which we refuse to adapt and choose not to react, but rather warp ourselves to maintain the potential (motivation) to return to our original form at a later time.

In this manner we “hope” to outlast or create situations that are more in line with our inner arrangement than to simple match ourselves to whatever is.

Because of this delay factor in responding to stimuli in our environment, and because our individual experiences are all different (from the microscopic to the macroscopic) we are all twisted and turned into different configurations, yet share a common psychological system of Self-Awareness that even allows conditions such as neuroses to be diagnosed and treated, even though they may have been caused by complete different events.

There is far more to the dynamic side of the model than this, but to fully understand its functioning beyond being the driver of mental potential would require far too much time and many diagrams that, again, would divert from the purpose at large of this article.

And so, to the point, we leave behind our brief discussion of the Dynamics that drive the structure and turn our attention to the fourth and final aspect of the model, the other half of the Dynamic side, the forces that alter the Dynamics.

Earlier I mentioned the dynamic questions that determined flip, rotate, both or neither.  Other questions determine which axis to flip and/or which direction to rotate.  And the final group determined whether or not to take the children.

But there is a forth sort of question that alters the way the dynamics function.  For example, if the dynamics have determined that a given quad is going to flip one way and rotate in a particular direction, this other manner of question might determine whether the flip or the rotate will be applied first.

Such a question might be the mental sex of the mind under study.  Independent of physical gender is the gender of the mind – not as being masculine or feminine but as being spatially oriented or temporally oriented.

All Self-Aware minds explore their world in terms of Space and Time.  (Aware minds only respond to Mass and Energy)  It is the nature of Self-Awareness to justify, and thereby to create a delay factor in which the mind is able to recall an earlier situation and compare it to the current situation as our temporal thinking.  Seeing patterns as opposed to just responding to substance is the spatial equivalent, born of the justification delay.

In spatial thinking we not only observe X, but can recall X while observing Y and thereby learn something of the relationship between X and Y – in essence, discerning a pattern.

In temporal thinking we not only experience situation W but also recall situation Z and thereby can cast a value judgment between the two – in essence, determining a preference.  This is one illustration of why Desire is tied to Time, from a previous discussion.

Spatial thinkers first see the spatial patterns and then consider the temporal progression.  Temporal thinkers first grasp the progression, then see the patterns.

Our Spatial sense is represented in our logic, or temporal sense in our feelings.  We all have logic and feelings, but which one is our initial filter on our environment and which is the secondary filter is divided very nearly along gender lines.

It should be noted that male logic is not superior to female logic for they are both the same things.  And female feelings are not superior to male feelings because they are the same.  But women shade their logic with feeling and men temper their feelings with logic, creating two different systems at a foundational level, making each kind of mind adept at primary observation of space or time and secondary observation of the others.

Still, in the Dramatica model, this has nothing to do with the units in the structure.  It has nothing to do with the construction of the matrix framework.  It has nothing to do with the dynamics.  It only affects one fourth of the forces that work on the structure to twist and turn it.

And yet, because every twist and turn is multiplied in its impact by the forces that work from quad to quad and level to level, a simple yet powerful difference emerges in the male mind model and the female mind model.   In essence, where women see men as being very similar – say out of phase, men see women as being quite different, say 270 degrees out of phase.  As a visual, place a man in a quad and a woman in the space next to him.  They are both 90 and 270 degrees out of phase, depending on which way around the circle of the quad you rotate.

That is the essence of Mental Sex.  There are very sound reasons to support mental sex based on neurology and also reasons why a mind must have a temporal or spatial bias or risk grid-locking in certain calculations.  But again, that is beyond the scope of this article, and you will find links to early works on this topic at the bottom.

Finally, to sum up and simplify all that has been stated so far, no single processor or single neural network will every support a truly self-aware mind.  No combination parallel processors or lateral neural networks, no matter how plentiful, will engender true self-awareness.

It is only through nested levels of iterative processes arranged in relationships as described by the quads (that mirror Mass, Energy, Space, and Time and their mental equivalents, Knowledge, Thought, Ability, and Desire) that affect an are affect by the output of each other, both laterally and vertically that a true relativistic self-aware entity might artificially be created.

Simplified, as promised, man (or woman) does not think by logic alone.  It is the blending of logic and feeling, space and time, binary and analog, particle and wave, both in opposition and combination that creates all the shades and splendor of the minds we call our own and the minds we may build.

References:

An Introduction to Quad Structure

Indicators of Justification

Problem Solving and Justification

Human Sexuality 101

Where Mental Sex is Headed

Original Mental Relativity Booklet (pdf)

Videos:

Behind the Quad – Part 1

Behind the Quad – Part 2

Behind the Quad – Part 3

Dynamics Operations Quads, Part 1

Dynamics Operations Quads, Part 2

In regard to non-linear video game story structuring, in fact, that is where Dramatica excels in ways no other system has been able to achieve.  To illustrate how, we need to take a few steps back and then work our way forward again to iterative gaming theory.

In the beginning, there was the tale – a simple logical step-by-step progression that described a journey from a point of inception to a destination, documenting the key events along the way.

This evolved into a more complex form that included not only the logical progression, but the passionate progression as well – a heart-line in addition to a head-line.

A head-line says, “This leads to this leads to that.”  A heart-line says, “This feeling evolved into this feeling resulting in that feeling.”

Either of these linear progressions is referred to as a simple “tale” in Dramatica theory.  There is also a complex tale form in which these two linear progressions interact and alter the course either would have taken on its own.  Such a complex tale would say, “Beginning here and feeling thus, we progressed here which made us feel thus, and based on that feeling we ended up going there.”

In other words, a complex tale is the intertwining of two causal linearities in which they do not run in parallel but alter the progression of each other.  Such a complex tale can have situations driving emotions, in which case the passionate side is derivative and reactive, or it can have emotions driving activities, in which case events are slaves to passion.  This establishes a causal hierarchy between our intellect and our feelings.

But, the most complex of all tales shifts between the two drivers to alternate which one is driving the other.  For example, starting at a given logistic and emotional state, it may be the logic that determines the first event, which then leads to a change in feelings which then determine the next course of action.

It is just such an arrangement that constitutes the essence of the “hero’s journey”.

All of these possibilities are still tales, and thus constitute what Dramatica considers to be the first order of storyform.

At the next level of magnitude, we encounter the linear story, as opposed to the linear tales I’ve just described.  As a quick and loose analogy, imagine a television picture on an old tube set.  A single complete frame of video is constructed by a series of scanning lines creating a horizontal stack of lines.  Each line in the stack varies in luminosity and color, much as an individual tale varies in logic and feeling over the course of its linear progression.

Stacked together, however, they collectively take on a greater meaning.  What appears to be almost arbitrary progressions in each individual tale are assembled like pieces in a mosaic until an overall image is formed that is more of a tapestry than a thread in degree of complexity.  That is why, in Dramatica, we say “You spin a tale but you weave a story.”

A story, therefore, is a far more demanding form, requiring every beat, scene, sequence, chapter and act to be part of a larger overall message.  Each piece must do double-duty, making sense in its own internal linear progression over time, and also filling in its proper place in the overall spatial understanding when the unfolding of the story is complete and the message made manifest.

This is the equivalent of a single storyform in Dramatica, and why the Dramatica Story Engine is able to translate and predict between what linear progressions are required to arrive at a given overall meaning, and, conversely, starting with a given overall meaning, to determine the order in which dramatic progressions of characters, plot, theme and even genre must occur.

In Dramatica, this is considered a second order storyform, as its complexity is one magnitude beyond the tale.

Now, we finally arrive at non-linear video game theory, which is yet one more increase in magnitude of complexity.

Referring to my earlier analogy to a television frame being loosely equivalent to a story, whilst it is comprised of individual tales described by scenes and sequences, picture now the progression of television frames that constitutes a broadcast program.  In Dramatica terms, this is equivalent to a series of fixed storyforms progressing from one to the next as if they were frames in a movie.

Each storyform represents a mind set – a flash photograph of all of the elements and vector dynamics of the intellect and passion of a mind at a frozen moment of time.  This is what we all commonly think of as a story in a novel, screenplay, or stage play.  It is the exploration of a mind set and the author’s judgment as to whether that state of mind should be maintained or abandoned in order to arrive at the best possible outcome, taking into account both logic (success or failure) and feeling (good or bad).

In interactive non-linear gaming, the goal is to create an experience in which each moment seems as ordered as a single storyform but is not bound by such an intractable arrangement.  Hence, by creating a series of storyforms, one is able to construct an ever-changing environment, driven by the user yet guided by the designer.

More specifically, the human mind (both intellectually and passionately) cannot jump willy nilly from any given mind set to any other directly – i.e. the stages of grief in which one will eventually experience all of the stages, but must pass through them in a specific, rather than random, order.  Conversationally put, we can eventually get to any logical or emotional point, but from any given point, you can’t necessarily get there from here.

Fortunately, the existing Dramatica Story Engine is designed to allow for the creation of such appropriate progressions that do not violate logical order nor emotional progression.  Here is how it works.  First, you create a storyform that represents the logical and passionate situation in which you want your non-linear story to begin.  In the Story Engine feature, Dramatica allows alteration of a storyform in order to game out “what-if” scenarios and to test the appropriateness and voracity of a given storyform against another.

This is accomplished by picking any given dramatic element in the Story Engine and “unchoosing” it by un-selecting a previously chosen item.  Since a storyform is fixed by having enough cross-referenced story point (dramatic elements) that all other points are determined, by “opening-up” the storyform through the removal of the constraints of a single dramatic element only, then other previously fixed dramatic elements now revert to having several available options once more.

You now create a second storyform by making specific selections among one or more of these newly opened-up story points until you once more arrive at a single fixed storyform.  This new storyform will be complete compatible with both logic and emotion as a next mind set in the ongoing progression of the game.

In actual play, the designer would choose in advance which story point to “open-up” by removing the previously chosen selection but the end-user would then choose from the available options to determine the next storyform scenario.  In simple systems, this choice would be a direct on from an options screen, but in more complex non-linear gaming, the choice of the next appropriate storyform in the progression would be determined by the manner in which the end-user had already progressed through the initial storyform, as the user has had the opportunity to select the order in which he or she has explored the elements of the initial storyform, and thus data can be gathered that indicates areas of lesser interest and therefore the best candidates to alter through opening up of the initial setting.

Well, there is certainly far more detail and specific development involved in such an undertaking, but hopefully this indicates the capability and usefulness of Dramatica, both as a theory and of the software tool in its current incarnation, for non-linear storyforms as well as traditional linear stores and even simple or complex tales.

I was going through some old back-ups of my computer from many years ago and came across this lecture I had prepared for a meeting of psychiatrists involved in the psychological aspects of art and therapy.

Alas, after being invited to speak, I met with one of the principals involved (a Freudian psychiatrist) and he was so appalled by the “radical” concepts I was proposing that he cancelled my appearance, rather than subject the members of his group to these dangerous and subversive concepts.

Hey, I thought I’d toned it down. Go figger….

Well, here’s the transcript of what I would have said, given the chance….

Transcript of a Lecture

Prepared for the semi-annual convention of

The Southern California Psychoanalytic Society

and

The Center for Psychoanalytic Studies of Creativity and Art
of the Southern California Psychoanalytic Institute

Media and the Individual

by
Melanie Anne PhillipsCo-creator, the Dramatica theory of story

Stories, especially those told in the media of film or television, can have a tremendous impact on an audience. Experiencing a story is similar in many ways to experiencing events in “real life”. Stories can make us laugh or cry, leave us feeling euphoric or depressed, lead us through a logistic consideration, or leave us in an emotional state.

In this age of broadcast media, CD ROMS, and high-tech motion pictures, the average citizen in our society may be exposed to almost as many narrative experiences as life experiences. As a result, understanding the nature and mechanism by which stories affect audiences can lead to insights in media impact on an individual’s outlooks and attitudes.

From one perspective, we might identify four areas in which this impact manifests itself: One, the emotional mood an audience is left with at the conclusion of a story, Two, the emotional journey experienced by an audience during the unfolding of a story, Three, understandings arrived at by the audience by the conclusion of a story, Four, logistic considerations made by the audience during the unfolding of the story. Because these are so basic and important, let me take a moment to expand slightly on each of these concepts.

1. Emotionally, a story can change the mood of an audience from what it was at the beginning of a story to a completely different emotional state by the time it is over. This might pertain to the way the audience feels about a particular topic, or simply might change the underlying mood of the audience overall.

For example, in a story such as “Remains of the Day”, an audience might be brought to a saddened and frustrated emotional state that might linger well after the story is over. This mood could even recur when some symbol or set of circumstances in everyday life triggers a conscious re-consideration of the story or a subconscious response based on patterns experienced in the story.

In addition, an audience’s emotional response toward a particular topic, symbol, circumstance, or pattern may be altered through the story experience, leading to anything from changes in likes and dislikes to changes in attitudes, loyalties, or motivations in regard to a specific topic.

2. In the process of experiencing a story, audience members may be carried from one emotion to another in an order that might conform to or differ from their experiences in “real life”. This can either reinforce or alter habitual patterns of emotional response, albeit in a small and perhaps temporary way. For example, if an audience member were to identify with a character, such as Agent Mulder in “The X-Files”, he or she might (over time) become more likely to play hunches or, conversely, less likely to accept things at their face value.

3. By the end of a story, the audience may be brought to an understanding it did not possess prior to participating in the story process. For example, in “The Usual Suspects”, the big picture is not grasped by the audience until the final pieces are dropped into place near the end. This creates an insight, as opposed to a logistic argument, and can be used to change audience opinion in regard to a particular issue, either through manipulation or propaganda.

4. As a story unfolds, a logistic argument may be constructed that leads linearly from one point of consideration to a conclusion. In “JFK”, for example, a continuous chain of logic is built link by link over the course of the film in an attempt to prove the filmmaker’s contentions about the Kennedy assassination. This method can exercise audience members in logistic methods that may be repeated unconsciously in their everyday lives.

From this brief look at the power of the visual media, we can get a sense that many people might be better understood by becoming aware of the kinds of stories to which they are exposed, and many people might also benefit from carefully tailored story experiences.

But what exactly is the mechanism of story, and precisely how can one use that mechanism to create specific impact on an audience? Those questions have plagued authors for centuries, and are also of utmost important to those who may feel that an understanding of story can enhance therapist/patient interactions.

Fifteen years ago, my partner, Chris Huntley, and I began an exploration into these issues which culminated in a book, “Dramatica – a New Theory of Story.” Tonight I want to touch on a few of the essential tenets of the Dramatica theory which I hope will provide some insight into the mechanism of story.

Traditional theories commonly see stories as narratives in which characters, representing real people, engage in activities comprising a plot which illustrates a moral point pertaining to a particular theme in a setting and style which determine genre. In contrast, Dramatica sees every complete story as an analogy to a single human mind trying to deal with an inequity. That’s quite a mouthful, so let me say it once again for clarity… Dramatica sees every complete story as an analogy to a single human mind trying to deal with an inequity.

In other words, stories are not really about characters, plot, theme, and genre, but rather, characters, plot, theme, and genre represent different families of consideration that go on in a single human mind when it is trying to come to terms with an inequity. Characters are the different motivations of the Story Mind that influence each other, jockey for position, or come into conflict. Theme represents the value standards of the Story Mind – the measuring sticks by which the Story Mind determines what is better and what is worse. Plot demonstrates the Story Mind’s methodologies or techniques it employs in trying to resolve the inequity at the heart of the story. And genre determines the Story Mind’s personality – what kind of a mind it is that is doing this consideration.

Well, that’s a rather bold statement to make. After all, why would such a complex model of psychology end up being at the center of story structure? Surely writers didn’t sit down and say, “I think I’ll write an analogy to a single human mind trying to deal with an inequity.” Not hardly. So where does the Story Mind come from? According to Dramatica, this model of the mind happens quite naturally, by itself, as a byproduct of the process of communication.

When we seek to communicate we can’t reach our audience directly – mind to mind . Rather, we must transmit our message through a medium. To do this, we fashion a symbolic representation of what we have in mind in the hope it will affect our audience the same way it does us. In effect, we create a model of what we are thinking and feeling for the audience to embrace. Which symbols we use depends upon our personal experiences and the culture in which we are working. But beneath the specific symbols are the essential human qualities that are the same in all of us – all cultures and all times.

In and of themselves, these qualities do not yet constitute a model of the mind. For example, if we wanted to convey fear, then we would choose a symbol that would invoke fear in our audience. That human quality would then be communicated. But it is only a small part of what makes up each of our minds.

As communication evolved, the earliest storytellers progressed beyond simply expressing basic emotions or single concepts and began to tell tales. A tale is a progression of symbols that connects one feeling or consideration to the next in an unbroken chain. In this way, an author could lead an audience along an emotional journey and also illustrate that a particular approach led to a particular outcome.

It didn’t take these authors long to realize, however, that the human heart cannot leap from one emotion to another indiscriminately without passing through the emotions in between. This concept is well documented in The Seven Stages of Grief, and even in Freud’s Stages of human development.

Similarly, a logistic chain must not skip any links or it will be held as invalid. So, when telling a tale, the early storytellers developed a feel for which intermediate symbolic steps were required to get from one point of view to another, both logistically and emotionally. We see the result of these discoveries in concepts such as the hero’s journey, and story as myth.

Still, this is not a complete model of the mind. A tale is simply a statement that a series of concepts led from point A to point B. In other words, the message of a tale is that a particular series of events can happen. It will be accepted or rejected by an audience solely on the basis of taking the right steps logistically and making the right connections emotionally. Yes, this could happen, or no it could not.

Many fine works through the ages and even today in novels, motion pictures and television are really not complete stories, but simply tales. So what constitutes a story? Well, if a tale is a statement, then a story is an argument. A tale says, “this path led to this outcome indicating it is a good way or a bad way to go about solving a problem”. A tale states that a particular outcome is possible. A story says, “this path always leads to this outcome indicating it is always a good way or a bad way to go about solving a problem”. A story argues that a particular outcome is inevitable.

If an early author made a statement that a particular case was good or bad, he or she would simply have to prove that a particular approach led to a positive or negative outcome. But if that author tried to tell the audience the approach was always good or always bad, more than likely someone in the audience would say, “Well, what about under these conditions,” or “what about in this context?” Being right there, the author could counter that rebuttal by explaining how the approach would still be best or worst even in that additional case. He or she would either make the point, or fail to make it, in which case the argument would be lost, and the tale would remain as a only a statement, true for that case alone.

As the art of communication evolved beyond the spoken word to the written word, however, the author was no longer physically present to argue the point. Instead, if an author wanted to “prove” inevitability, he or she would have to anticipate all reasonable challenges to that statement, and preclude dissension by incorporating all appropriate arguments in the work itself. In this manner, by the time the story is told, not only is a statement made that an approach is good or bad, but all necessary supporting arguments have also been made to “prove” it could not be any other way.

To make these supporting arguments, an author needs to look at the story not only from his or her own point of view, but to anticipate all the other points of view on the issue that audience members might take. By the time the work is finished, it should represent a full exploration of the issue at the heart of the story – both logistically and emotionally, addressing all considerations a human mind might explore within the scope of the argument. In so doing, a complete mind-set is created – an full analogy of a single human mind trying to deal with an inequity – the Story Mind.

Characters, plot, theme, and genre, evolve naturally out of this process to represent the full spectrum of considerations made by the human mind. Acts, Sequences, Scenes, and Events also evolve naturally as the Story Mind finishes considering the issue from one point of view and shifts it’s attention to another.

Okay, suppose we have a Story Mind. What do we do with it? Or, more importantly, how does the audience receive it? In fact, the audience examines the Story Mind from four distinct perspectives. Imagine for the moment that a story is a battle. We might hold the Story Mind out in front of us, “Alas, poor mind,” and look at it from a distance. For the audience, this perspective is like that of a general on a hill, watching the story’s battle. From here, we are looking from the outside in. We can see all the broad strategies and forces at work, but we are distanced from them. Although we may be concerned for the soldiers on the field, they are too far away to identify as individuals, so we classify them by their functions instead. There might be the soldier leading the charge – a protagonist archetype, or a deserter cowering in the bushes – the skeptic archetype. In an of it self, this view offers the best perspective on the “big picture” but at the expense of any personal involvement. So, in Dramatica, we refer to this as the Objective perspective.

For a more involving point of view, let us zoom our audience into the shoes of one of the soldiers on the field. Suddenly, we are seeing things from the inside, looking out. We are no longer privy to the broad developing movements of the battle as a whole, but we have a much better understanding of what it is like to be in the midst of the bombardment, trying to do our job and get out alive. The soldier from whom the audience experiences the story first hand is the Main Character of the story. It is important to note that the Main Character need not be the Protagonist, any more than any of us has to be the central figure in every group in which we are involved. Authors may choose to position the audience on the sidelines to gain an understanding of the battle from off-center. For example, in “To Kill a Mockingbird”, the Protagonist is Atticus (the Gregory Peck part in the movie), while the audience see the story through the eyes of his young daughter, Scout. If Atticus had been the Main Character, the audience would have felt self-righteous in doing the “moral” thing. But by placing the audience in Scout’s shoes, Lee Harper suckered us into being prejudiced against the unseen Boo Radley, showing us all that prejudice does not have to come from intentional hatred or meanness, but can rise quite innocently through assumption. In Dramatica, we refer to this most personal view as the Main Character perspective.

Now, as the Main Character struggles to make his way through the field of battle, a figure blocks his path. Through the smoke of all the dramatic explosions, the Main Character cannot tell if this figure is a friendly soldier trying to divert him from a mine field, or an enemy soldier trying to lure him into an ambush. As the Main Character approaches he yells, “Get out of my way!” The obstacle in his path shouts, “change course”. In the end, either the Main Character will run through the Obstacle Character to succeed or die in the mine field, or he will relent and change course to succeed or fall prey to the ambush. Neither decision guarantees success except as a reflection of the author’s argument This view is called The Obstacle Character perspective.

Finally, the audience will want to examine growth in the relationship between the Main and Obstacle characters as they “have it out” in their personal skirmish in the midst of the overall battle. No longer standing in the Main Character’s shoes, the audience judges on against the other as if they were two fighters circling. Because it deals with the conflict between two subjective points of view, this is called the Subjective perspective.

One way to get a feel for these four perspectives is to think of how the audience relates to the characters in each. The Main Character is first person singular – the “I” perspective. The Obstacle Character is seen through the Main Character’s eyes, and is the “you” perspective. The Subjective view is the “we” perspective, and the Objective view the “they” perspective. “I”, “you”, “we”, and “they”.

Symbolically, the Main Character represents where we are positioned at any given moment in our own minds – our sense of self. The Obstacle Character represents an alternative paradigm we are considering – we haven’t adopted it yet, so we don’t see things from that perspective yet, but merely examine that perspective from where we are. The Subjective view represents the process of trying to weigh the pros and cons of two points of view in a balanced fashion. The Objective view represents our attempt to look at our own mental processes analytically. Taken together, all four perspectives are like different camera angles on the same football game. Each is valid from its own point of view, but also incomplete. If they run in parallel the audience will come to a full understanding of all valid considerations regarding the story’s central issue and a complete argument will have been made.

There isn’t time this evening to even scratch the surface of describing the components of these four parallel arguments, but let us focus on the Main Character and examine some of the key considerations as an example. In this way, the nature of a story’s impact and how to control it to desired audience effect can be, at lest partially, illuminated.

To get meaning from the Main Character’s journey, and audience will need to know some things about the nature of that journey and its outcome. For one thing, by the end of the story the audience will want to know if the Main Character has changed or not. Many students of story erroneously believe a character must change in order to grow. In fact, a character might grow in their resolve while remaining the same. This calls for clarification of terms. In Dramatica, we define a steadfast character as one who keeps the same paradigm or character traits in regard to the story’s central issue of argument. A change character is one accepts the Obstacle Character’s alternative paradigm and adopts a new way of thinking or feeling. Because of the difficulty in overcoming obstacles and avoiding the apparently easier way out, a steadfast character needs to muster emotional reserves in order to remain steadfast, much like Job in the bible story.

Some well known Steadfast characters are James Bond in every movie except “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”, and Clarise Starling in “Silence of the Lambs”. Well known change characters are Luke Skywalker in “Star Wars”, and Ebeneezer Scrooge in “A Christmas Carol.”

As indicated earlier, change or steadfast alone does not guarantee success or failure. So an author must decide which it is to be. By “success” we do not mean a value judgment, but a simple assessment – did the Main Character achieve what he set out to achieve or not? It doesn’t matter if the Main Character realized that achieving his goal would be the wrong thing to do, for example, but simply, in the end, did he do it or not.

Once that determination is made, an author can ask himself or herself, “Now, how does the Main Character feel about the outcome? Did he or she resolve his or her personal angst or not?”

Earlier, I mentioned Clarise Starling in “Silence of the Lambs”. This story ends in a success because the original goal was to capture “Buffalo Bob” and rescue the senator’s daughter, which she does. But, if you recall the end of the movie, her graduation ceremony is not presented as the celebration we might expect. Rather, the camera moves slowly in long shots, the music is very somber, and Clarise is left pretty much alone – until she is called to the phone. It is Hannibal Lecter who immediately asks her, “Are the lambs still screaming?” She does not answer because they still are.

Hannibal Lecter was her Obstacle Character, even though Buffalo Bob was the Antagonist. With his question and answer, “quid pro quo”, he forced her to tell her story and ultimately to face the reason she is in her career – trying to save every lost lamb to make up for the one she couldn’t save as a child. To find relief from this central angst, she must let go of that experience and move on. But she cannot, and hence her success is tempered with her ongoing angst. In Dramatica, we call this a judgment of “Bad”. If angst is overcome, the judgment is “Good”.

Audiences are strongly affected by the four combinations of Success/Failure and Good/Bad. Look at the different overall viewing experiences of the Failure/Bad story of “Hamlet”, the Failure/Good story of “Rain Main” in which he doesn’t get the inheritance, but overcomes his hatred for his father, the Success/Bad story of “Remains of the Day” in which he successfully maintains the household through all trials and tribulations but fails to obtain a loving relationship, and the Success/Good story of “Star Wars”.

There are many more considerations pertaining to a Main Character, and a multitude of others in the other three perspectives as well. For example, a more Objective issue is whether the story’s scope is such that it is brought to a conclusion by a Timelock or an Optionlock. We all know Timelocks like “48 hours”, but just as many stories are drawn to an end by running out of options, again, as in “Remains of the Day.”

Why a lock at all? Since the choices a Story Mind is pondering have dire consequences, the consideration might go on forever if the scope of the argument were not limited. I know I never go to the doctor until I’ve exhausted all other possibilities that could avoid it. In that case, I have been trying to deal with an inequity limited by options – when there are no alternatives left, I must choose to go or not, but I can learn nothing else (within the scope of my argument to myself) that will help me make the decision. In contrast, a Timelock is as simple as having a friend ask you to join him or her for a movie that starts at 9:00 and you can’t make up your mind because you like the movie and hate the friend, or vice versa. Not surprising that real human considerations should be reflected in story or in the Story Mind.

Unfortunately, my presentation is also under a timelock, so I must soon draw my argument to a conclusion. Before I do, however, I have one final area I’d like to touch upon – the subject of Propaganda, as it . Dramatica theory holds a wealth of information about propaganda, but one particular notion is particularly intriguing.

(Here I will hold up a larger version of the attached picture)

What is the first thing you notice about his picture? I’m almost afraid to ask this question of a room full of psychiatrists! For most people, they would notice the missing eye. In fact, they would, at some level imagine an eye in that vacant spot to, if nothing else, verify their assessment of what is missing. The propaganda in this picture is that is a man’s face, due to the tie at the bottom. While the audience is busy filling in the blank, they don’t notice the ace up the sleeve. It’s the old slight of hand – you watch the magician’s right hand, while his left is palming the ball.

This particular propaganda technique is used to strong effect in “Thelma and Louise”. There is one piece of missing information. It is never explained in the story exactly what happened to Thelma in Texas that is clearly fueling her drive for independence. The subject is brought up but the missing piece is never filled in. So, the primarily female audience fills it in for itself. Subconsciously, if not consciously, most female audience members make an association with something from their own lives or their own fears that would be strong enough to conceivably drive them to the same response. In this manner the plight of Thelma is personalized.

So far, so good. But when Thelma and Louise drive over the cliff rather than spend the rest of their lives in prison, the message is also personalized – if you try to buck the system, you will have a choice of death figuratively or literally, or a more confining prison than the one you are already in. By making one a housewife and the other a waitress, most women will even more strongly identify at some level with these characters than if they were a bank president and a congresswoman. But the key to the impact is the missing Texas piece, which changes the movie from a story about two women seeking independence to a propaganda piece which puts emotional pressure on female audience members to stay in their place – or else!

Was this intentional? Who’s to say. The script was written by a woman, and it is my understanding that the Texas Story is told in the first draft. But as we know from ink blots, author intent need not be present to generate audience effect.

Of course, we have only explored one kind of propaganda. In fact, there are a multitude of others. In “Thelma and Louise” the mechanism of propaganda involves a missing piece of information. Another technique adds an unnecessary piece of information. As an example, let us look as Disney’s “The Lion King.”

Much has been written about the possible negative racial bias created by the Hyenas in the story. Whoopi Goldberg does the voice of the principal Hyena. The Hyenas, which are dark-skinned, live in the symbolic equivalent of a ghetto. They are forbidden to set foot in the sunny world of other jungle animals. They are shown to be stupid, sneaky, and cowardly. When they do have the opportunity to enter the forbidden world, they destroy the neighborhood. Order is only restored when they are driven back to their wasteland.

But this is not the propaganda of Lion King; it is merely “manipulation”. By way of definition, “manipulation” occurs when a meta message which exists above the structural message of the story at large is discernible to the audience. In other words, if the audience is able to tune in to a bias, it is manipulation. But if the audience is unaware that it is being biased by subliminal symbolic references – THAT is propaganda.

A clever propagandist will use manipulation as a distraction, to better obscure the propaganda going on elsewhere in a story. In “The Lion King”, while attention is drawn to the potential racial issues, it is hardly ever noticed that there is an even stronger anti-female bias in the undercurrent. Why doesn’t Simba’s mother ascend to the throne when her husband is killed? Why do all the female lions accept the rule of the Simba’s evil uncle? Why do they do all the hunting as if it is their genetic duty? What of Nala, the female lion who stays during the hard times, tries to help and pays her dues while Simba is hiding in the forest living the good life? Why is the cowardly Simba who runs from responsibility given the crown as soon as he returns? These biases seldom come to conscious consideration, as the minds of audience members are busy wondering why the Hyenas are black.

And, being a children’s film, the damage is even worse, since the racial manipulation is beyond the scope of most children, so the built-in bias is accepted as propaganda instead, influencing a whole generation of young people to unquestioningly believe that minorities belong in the ghetto and males have a divine right to rule. Again, was this intentional? Who’s to say. But if it wasn’t, imagine the damage caused by accident.

Clearly, the visual media have a powerful impact on society as a whole and each of us individually. When one becomes familiar the mechanism of story, one can better identify this impact, and even work to employ it with precision.

I thank you for your time, and hope you found it well spent.

Copyright 1996 Melanie Anne Phillips

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.

  A Writer Asks:

1) In the plot sequence report, the variations by which the signposts are
explored are shifted to a different domain. Is the same true for the
variations (theme/sequences) explored in the journeys?

The quick answer is:

Don’t use the plot sequence report for Signposts and Journeys!

In fact, the plot sequence report does not deal with Signposts but with the order of the Types in sequence. Signposts are part of a Signpost/Journey pair, which constitutes a single “act” in any given throughline. Types, in contrast, are structural appreciations of order in which subjects are explored in the story.

So, Signposts must contain the fruit of the previous Journey (if any) and the seeds of the one to come, just as the Journey must reflect the roots of the earlier Signpost and the flowers of the coming one as well.

In the plot sequence report, the Types are seen as existing without journeys, from a purely structural point of view. This is what a story looks like after it is told, when all the pieces are in place and you can chart the order in which subjects were explored.

In that context, each Type seems to be explored by a different quad of Variations. But in Signposts and Journeys, the association with Variations does not hold up. The Variations listed for a given Type in the plot sequence report would only hold true at the exact center of your exploration of a signpost, halfway from one journey to the next.

In short, Signposts are not like Types. Signposts are ALWAYS morphing or evolving out of one Journey and into the next. Look at them like “bell curves” or the top of a hill on a roller coaster. The Signpost is only a pure Type at the very top – just one tiny point in time in your story. On either side, it is part Journey and therefore the Variations for that Type don’t apply.

Now, there IS one context in which you can loosely apply the Variations from plot sequence to signposts. As has been noted before, the AMOUNT of time you spend exploring Signposts relative to Journeys is completely up to your storytelling choices. So, in some stories you might just touch on a signpost in a single line of dialog and then spend the rest of the act in the journey, moving gradually to the next momentary signpost. Similarly, in other stories you might spend nearly the whole act exploring the signpost, then have only a very brief journey to the next signpost. In this kind of story you can loosely apply the Type Variations from the plot sequence report since time is kind of frozen by taking that single moment of the signpost and extending it through storytelling.

In general, however, use the plot sequence report to get a feel for the thematic progress of your story in relationship to the structure of the plot, but avoid using that as a template for the Signposts and Journeys.

(As a side note, it was argued before DPro 3.0 that perhaps the plot sequence report should be eliminated since it might lead to this exact kind of confusion. But, a lot of people like the structural overview of their story it provides, so we kept it in. The plot sequence report should only be used for your story’s structure, Signposts and Journeys should only be used for your storytelling.)

One other note: Journeys don’t have any Variations at all because they are constantly in motion. In fact, it is the flow of a Journey itself that generates Variations (which gives us a feel for how plot works to generate theme).

The Writer Also Asks:

2) If so, are they shifted to the same domain?

See above.

3) And what’s the theory behind the shift? Why is that particular
domain/variation quad chosen?

There is a simple answer and a complex answer. The simple answer is first:

The structure as seen in the chart is “at rest”. It contains no dramatic tension. When you answer the eight essential questions and the four structural choices (or any other combination of choices that arrives at a single storyform) you are not just picking points on the structure, but priming the story engine.

After your last choice, the engine has all the information it needs to run. The engine then twists and turns the structure like a Rubik’s Cube on steroids. All of the pieces get mixed up in ways that are directly the result of your choices. But because the choices influence each other at different levels and in different ways, the overall arrangement of items to one another (such as Types to Variations) is not consistent under all conditions (with all choices).

The complex answer is REALLY complex. It gets into the actual mechanism of the engine that applies the twists and turns to the structure as a result of your storyforming choices.

I’ll give you a brief overview, then point you to some pages on my web site which go into more detail if you want it.

Different choice you make in storyforming have different kinds of effects on the twisting and turning of the model. Some choice determine whether specific quads will be rotated in position (like turning a dial) to the right or the left one item (one notch). Others determine if items in a quad will be “flipped” in position, such as “logic” and “feeling” exchanging places. Other choices determine if the quads below an item will be carried with it when flipping or rotating or will be left behind in their original places while the item above flips or rotates in its own quad.

In fact, the effect of some choices is so complex that it doesn’t determine anything directly about the structure, but instead changes the effect of other choices! So, certain questions may determine if another question will cause a flip or a rotate.

Taken all together, the story engine is an elegant representation of the Dramatica theory. But even so, it is not representative of the WHOLE theory.

For example, part of the process of “winding up” the structure to create dramatic tension by answering questions involves the following:

There are actually TWO wind ups. One winds up around the Objective Story Problem Element, like a clock spring (using the kinds of flips, rotates, and “carrying the children” as explained above.) The other winds up around the Main Character Problem Element.

One of the wind ups is applied FIRST to the “at rest” structure, the other is applied SECOND. Which is first is determined by certain storyforming choices. The first wind up is closest to an “at rest” structure. The second is actually winding up a structure which is already partially wound up by the first. So, the second one is less close to “reality” than the first. You can see that this has an impact as to whether or not the audience will feel like the Main Character OUGHT to change or to remain steadfast, regardless of what he or she actually does.

The way the software is limited compared to the theory in this example is as follows:

The only two Domains which can wind up are the Main Character and the Objective Story. This is a Western Cultural favorite – so prevalent in fact that almost all stories told in Western culture use this approach. But there is no reason in theory as to why the Obstacle Character and Subjective Story might be the ones to wind, or even the Main Character and the Obstacle Character.

Clearly this would create a completely different feel for a story’s dynamics, since the order in which the items in the structure are explored and also the order in which they come into conjunction is quite different. But, this was just too much to incorporate in the original engine.

Now, one might think that the engine is quite large in the software because of all this complexity. But, as with a Rubik’s cube (which has only 27 pieces but creates 40,000,000,000,000,000 combinations – or thereabouts according to the label) the story engine creates all 32768 storyforms with only 28K of inter-related algorithms.

And, just as with the cube, it is hard to see at a glance at a finished pattern what twists and turns when into making it.

Someday, perhaps, other aspects of the theory will be incorporated into the software. For now, it is important to know that the software is right about 90% of the time – or put more accurately, the software is right for 90% of the stories you are likely to tell. But, if you have a story to tell that is running up against the software, ask yourself whether you are telling a story that is close enough to Western Cultural norms so that you should alter your story to match the storyform, or if you are telling a story so far from Western norms that perhaps you need to rely more on the theory than the software.

Well, that’s enough of the complex explanation. If you REALLY want more, visit the Mental Relativity Web Site.

There you will find the first few chapter of a book I am writing on the math behind the theory. The deepest exploration into these concepts in terms of the actual math can be found at:

http://storymind.com/mental_relativity/mrmath2.htm

Good luck!

Appreciate the time you took clarifying Male & Female perceptions of time and space. Now, if you have time for another question… What is the difference between a female mental sex way of viewing the world and an animal’s way of viewing the world? To use your (lovely) blustery-day-big-puffy-clouds example, wouldn’t a kitty cat get a sense of the flavor of the day without thinking about or being aware of any patterns? Wouldn’t changes in acceleration affect the kitty cat’s energy level?

I imagine this kitty cat getting playful, or frightened, or purring. It’s a fun thought so early in the morning.

Take care,

Mark

My Repy…

Yep, you’ve got the right idea about cats. And, in fact, dogs are much more male mental sex as a species. Returning to the idea that (to the extent we can see from our position INSIDE the universe) Space and Time form a continuum, then we not that this continuum might be looked at as a railroad track. The track from Space to Time is divided off in railroad ties. The perceptive “bandwidth” of any individual human can be represented as a box car of slightly differing lengths, averaging around seven ties long.

Now, that means that the average human sees only seven “ties” worth of the Space/Time continuum at any given moment (point in time along the track). But, if the individual focuses or diverts attention more toward space, the box car will move along the track in that direction. So, although the car will still only span seven ties, the portion of the track occupied will be more toward the spatial side than the temporal.

Male and female mental sex are like two different box cars, linked together. Since they don’t occupy the same position on the single track, one is more toward a spatial view and the other more toward a temporal. In any given environmental situation (position on the track), the male car will be more toward space, the female more toward time, but the two slightly overlapping where they link.

Up and down the track they move, each capable of seeing the same sights and getting to the same places, but never at the same moment.

Now, imagine a second and a third track running along side the first one. Each of these other two tracks is running in the same direction (say, Left to Right) as the first track, but they start at a different point to the Left and end at a different point to the right.

If Space is to the Left, then the Cat track will start a bit further to the Right (Time) and end a bit further to the Right than the Human track. This means that although Humans and Cats will run in parallel along portions of their natural route, Cats will also extend farther toward Time than the Humans. As a result, the Center of the Cat track, will be farther to the Right (Time) than the center of the Human track, and as the cars move back and forth, Cats, on the average as a species, will seem more toward the Female Mental Sex side (Time) compared to Humans. Similarly, the Dog track is a bit more, overall, toward the Left (Space) side, and therefore Dogs, as a species, on the average, will seem to be more Male Mental Sex than Humans, as a group.

Another notable difference among the species, is that while Human box cars may span seven ties on the track, Cat and Dog cars may span only perhaps four. This means that the “resolution” by which Cats and Dogs perceive their environment (and themselves) is less detailed (narrower bandwidth) than it is with Humans, even though we all share the same perspectives. This is why dogs seem so simple in their emotional responses, and cats so simple in their logic.

Dogs, being more Male Mental Sex as a species, have an edge in logic, masking the narrower bandwidth, but since their box car is not as wide, the emotional response is double whammied. The reverse is true for Cats.

Well, hopefully this little analogy might help people avoid having one track minds, eh what?