Dramaticapedia

Before the final version of “Dramatica – a New Theory of Story” there was an earlier draft which contained unfininished concepts and additional theory that was ultimately deemed “too complex”. As a result, this material was never fully developed, was cut from the final version of the book, and has never seen the light of day — until now! Recently, a copy of this early draft surfaced in the theory archives. The following are excerpts from this “lost” text.

CAVEAT:

Because the text that follows was not fully developed, portions may be incomplete, inaccurate, or actually quite wrong.

It is presented as a look into the history of the development of Dramatica and also as a source of additional theory concepts that (with further development) may prove useful.

Introduction

This segment represents a whole new, previously unmentioned aspect of Archetypal Characters. After developing the original eight Archetypes and their Elements with Chris, I went on to consider what the Archetypes might look like in the Methodologies, Evaluations, and Purposes. Theory-wise, if the Problem Element of the Objective Story falls in one of these other dimensions of characters, then the Elements in those dimensions would be the principal ones by which the Archetypes would be known. In effect, the set of 16 Elements which contains the Problem Element creates its own, unique “flavor” or variety of Archetypes.

Often, the original 8 Archetypes can seem limiting and lead authors into creating complex characters when, in fact, all that is really needed is another flavor of Archetypes.

This excerpt describes the second group of 8 of 24 new Archetypes.

Means of Evaluation

As there were Eight Simple Motivation Characters and Eight Simple Methodology Character, we might expect there to be Eight Simple Evaluation Characters, and so there are. A Character might evaluate using Calculation, or Guesswork. She could base her evaluation on Information or Intuition. She might consider the Outcome of an effort or the Means employed to achieve that Outcome. Finally, she might expand her considerations to include the Intent behind the effort and the actual Impact that effort has had.

Putting these Eight Simple Evaluations in Quad form we get:

The Eight Simple Evaluations

The Measuring Quad

INFORMATION
CALCULATION	INTUITION
GUESSWORK

 

The Measured Quad

OUTCOME
MEANS	IMPACT
INTENT

 

We can see the patterns of dynamic pairs created between the Eight Simple Evaluations. Let’s define each term for a more complete understanding of their relationships.

Calculation: The Calculating Character establishes an unbroken chain of relationships that leads to a conclusion. Her thinking will only carry her as far as the chain can be extended. As soon as she cannot make one thing lead directly to the next, she will not entertain any speculations beyond that point.

Intuition: The Intuitive Character forms her conclusions from circumstantial or nebulous input, rather than a definitive line of logic.

Information: The Character who relies on Information will entertain in her deliberations only definitive packets of data.

Guesswork: The Character who Guesses will fill in the blanks in her information with what appears most likely to go there.

Outcome: The Outcome measuring Character is only concerned with the immediate nature of the objective: whether or not, or how well it has been met.

Impact: Measuring Impact, a Character looks at the ripples in the big picture created by a particular outcome, or looks how well an objective accomplished that for which it was intended.

Means: The Character measuring Means in most concerned with how an Objective was met rather than if it was or how well.

Intent: When a Character measures Intent, she is concerned with the expectations behind the effort that led to the Outcome, whether or not the Outcome was achieved.

Again, these are aspects of Character we have seen before and are familiar with. In our case, their existence and definitions came as no surprise. Rather, we had just never previously considered them all at once as a group in which we could clearly see the relationships among them.

The real value to us as Authors comes in being able to mix and match Motivations, Methodologies and Evaluations. For example, should we be at work building a Character whose nature is best described as Guardian, we might select Dogmatic as her method and Calculation as her tool of evaluation. So this fellow might protect the Protagonist while stubbornly maintaining an ideology, but evaluating the progress of the quest in a very calculated manner: a Character of some individuality and depth.

What if we had the same Dogmatic Guardian who employed Guesswork instead. We can feel the difference in her nature as a result of this change. Now she would protect the Protagonist, stubbornly maintain an ideology, but base her evaluations of progress on conjecture rather than denotative relationships. Certainly, this person has a wholly different “feel” to her, without being wholly different.

The functionality of this is that the way we feel about a Character is based on the sum total of the combined effect of all levels of her attributes. However, when looking at these attributes as separate aspects, we can define the differences between Characters in a precise and specific way in terms of their content and determine if they are nearly the same or completely different. But when we see the dynamic view of the way in which a particular set of aspects merge to create the specific force of a given Character, even a slight change in only one aspect will create a substantially different “feel” to that Character.

When a Character oriented Author writes by “feel” she is sensing the overall impact of a Character’s presence. This is not very definable, and therefore dramatic potentials between Characters are often diminished by incomplete understanding of which levels are in conflict between two given Characters, and which are not.

We have already seen an example of this in our analysis of Star Wars. Han (as Skeptic) is only peripherally in conflict with Leia (as Reason). But Han as Dogmatic in directly in conflict with Leia as Pragmatic. If Han and Leia were to argue, there would be much more dramatic potential if they argued over trying a new approach than if they argued over whether or not they ought to take action.

Clearly, the ability to discern the specific nature of the attributes that make up a Character at all levels allows us to precisely define the nature of inter-Character conflicts, without losing sight of the overall feeling that each Character carries with her.

Evaluations in Star Wars

Looking at the Characters of Star Wars in terms of Evaluation only, the arrangement of attributes is a bit murkier. Since this is primarily a story of action, techniques of evaluation do not play a big role in the progress of the story and therefore have been more loosely drawn. Nevertheless, they are present, even if there is somewhat less consistency than at the Character or Method levels.

Assigning the Eight Simple Evaluations to the Eight Simple Characters of Star Wars by their most common usage in the story, we generate the following list:

LUKE
INFORMATION

 

EMPIRE
CALCULATION

 

OBI
GUESSWORK

 

DARTH
INTUITION

 

HAN
OUTCOME

 

LEIA
INTENT

 

CHEWY
MEANS

 

C3PO
IMPACT

 

R2D2
———–

 

Attaching the Character names
to the Evaluation Quads we get:

The Eight Simple Evaluations

The Measuring Quad

Luke INFORMATION
Empire CALCULATION	Darth INTUITION
Obi GUESSWORK

 

The Measured Quad

Han OUTCOME
Chewy MEANS	C3PO IMPACT
Leia INTENT

 

Again, we can see subtle conflicts in techniques of Evaluation between Characters that are compatible at other levels. For the first time, we can see the tension that as an audience we feel between Darth and the Empire in the “Board Room” scene on the Death Star where Darth constricts the breathing of the general he is “bickering” with. The general says to Darth, “…your sorcerer ways have not helped you conjure up the missing plans…”, essentially arguing against Intuition.

Looking at Luke, we note that in his dinner table discussion with Uncle Owen he argues his point that he should be allowed to leave with Information: the new droids are working out, all his friends are at the academy, etc. Another example is the moment Luke bursts into Leia’s cell to release her. Rather than use any other technique, he describes the situation to her simply by imparting information: “I’m Luke Skywalker. I’m here to rescue you. I’m here with Ben Kenobi.”

Obi Wan, on the other hand, relies on Guesswork when the Millennium Falcon is chasing the lone imperial fighter after coming out of hyperspace. He sees the supposed moon, and guesses, “It’s a space station!”

Han is completely Outcome oriented, “I’m just in this for the reward, sister!”, and is thereby again in conflict with Leia as Intent: “If money is all you care about, then that’s what you’ll receive.”

Chewy can be seen to focus on Means, when he refuses to don the binders for Luke’s plan to rescue Leia.

C3PO is always evaluating impact: ” We’ll be sent to the spice mines of Kessel”, and, “I suggest a different strategy R2… Let the Wookie win.”

R2, as noted, does not represent a manner of evaluation. We can see by the feel of his Character that he is motivated and has a method, but he never evaluates anything for himself, you just point him and he goes.

Once again, since Star Wars is an action oriented story, the techniques of Evaluation were not as developed as Motivation and Method.

Sixteen Evaluations

As with the previous two levels of Character, the Eight Simple Evaluations can be divided into sixteen evaluations. In Motivation we had Action and Decision aspects, in Method we had Attitude and Approach. In Evaluation we have Passive and Active.

Calculation:

 

Passive:

The Calculating Character sees data as Expectations wherein an unbroken chain of relationships that leads to a conclusion.

 

Active:

To form an Expectation, Calculation develops Theories.

Intuition:

 

Passive:

The Intuitive Character sees the pattern of her observations in the form of a Determination.

 

Active:

To arrive at a Determination, Intuitive makes Hunches.

Information:

 

Passive:

The Character who revolves around Information will entertain in her deliberations only definitive packets of data she sees as Proven.

 

Active:

For something to be Proven, the Information Character will institute a Test.

Guesswork:

 

Passive:

Guesswork will consider even data that is, as of yet, Unproven.

 

Active:

The system she uses that allows her to accept Unproven data is to Trust..

Outcome:

 

Passive:

The Outcome measuring Character observes the Results of an effort.

 

Active:

To see the Results, she looks toward the Ending of the Effort.

Impact:

 

Passive:

Measuring Impact, a Character looks at the actual Effects of an effort, as opposed to how well it met its charter.

 

Active:

To determine the Effect, the Impact Character examines how Accurately the ramifications of the effort confine themselves to the targeted goal.

Means:

 

Passive:

Means is determined by looking at the Process employed in an effort.

 

Active:

Just as Impact examined Effects in terms of Accuracy, Means examines Process in terms of the Unending aspects of its nature. In essence, Effects are measured by how much they spill over the intended goal, and Process is evaluated by how much of it continues past the intended point of conclusion.

Intent:

 

Passive:

When a Character measures Intent, she is concerned with the Cause behind the effort.

 

Active:

She looks at the aspects of the Cause that do Not Accurately reflect the scope of the goal.

Let’s look at these sixteen evaluation techniques in Quad form.

Measured Active Set		Measured Passive Set
PROVEN		EFFECT
NON-ACCURATE	ACCURATE	PROCESS	RESULT
UNPROVEN		CAUSE

 

Measuring Passive Set		Measuring Active Set
EXPECTATION		THEORY
UNENDING	ENDING	TRUST	TEST
DETERMINATION		HUNCH

 

As before, these four groupings constitute the dynamic Quads of the Evaluation Set, and are subject to the same DRAMATICA rules as the characteristic and method sets.

Since all good things come in Quads, and since we have so far explored three sets of Character traits, we might expect a final set to round out that Quad as well. DRAMATICA calls that final set of characteristics, Purposes.

Methodology Archetypes 

Before the final version of “Dramatica – a New Theory of Story” there was an earlier draft which contained unfininished concepts and additional theory that was ultimately deemed “too complex”. As a result, this material was never fully developed, was cut from the final version of the book, and has never seen the light of day — until now! Recently, a copy of this early draft surfaced in the theory archives. The following are excerpts from this “lost” text.

CAVEAT: 

Because the text that follows was not fully developed, portions may be incomplete, inaccurate, or actually quite wrong.

It is presented as a look into the history of the development of Dramatica and also as a source of additional theory concepts that (with further development) may prove useful.

Introduction 

This segment represents a whole new, previously unmentioned aspect of Archetypal Characters. After developing the original eight Archetypes and their Elements with Chris, I went on to consider what the Archetypes might look like in the Methodologies, Evaluations, and Purposes. Theory-wise, if the Problem Element of the Objective Story falls in one of these other dimensions of characters, then the Elements in those dimensions would be the principal ones by which the Archetypes would be known. In effect, the set of 16 Elements which contains the Problem Element creates its own, unique “flavor” or variety of Archetypes.

Often, the original 8 Archetypes can seem limiting and lead authors into creating complex characters when, in fact, all that is really needed is another flavor of Archetypes.

This excerpt describes the first 8 of 24 new Archetypes.

Methodology Archetypes 

In Chapter One, when we began our exploration of Characters, we divided them into eight Simple Archetypes, based on their Motivations. Similarly, as we begin our exploration of Method, we discover eight Simple Methodologies that the Simple Characters employ. As before, we divide them into two quads: one reflecting Action Methodologies and the other, Decision Methodologies.

The Action Methodologies are Assertive, Passive, Responsive, and Preservative. Let’s take a look at each.

ASSERTIVE: The Assertive approach is based on the “first strike” concept. When one’s method is Assertive, she will take the initiative action to achieve her goal or obtain what she wants. .

RESPONSIVE: In Contrast, the Responsive will act only when provoked, but will then retaliate, seeking to eliminate the threat to her status quo.

PRESERVATIVE: The Preservative methodology is to build back what has been diminished and take steps to guard things against further encroachment. Unlike the Responsive Methodology, the Preservative approach will not strike back against the source of the encroachment but shield against it.

PASSIVE: The Passive approach will be to “go with the flow” and hope things get better by themselves, rather than attempting to improve them.

It is important to note that Assertive and Passive are not the Dynamic pair here. Rather, Assertive and Responsive complement each other. This can be seen by thinking in terms of the borders of a country. Assertive and Responsive will both cross the border, one for a first strike, the other only in retaliation. But Passive and Preservative will never cross the border, one allowing itself to be overrun, and one building defenses.

Whereas the Action Methodologies indicate the approach to manipulation of the environment that is acceptable to a given Character, the Decision Methodologies indicate the mental approach that will be acceptable. The Decision Methodologies are Dogmatic, Pragmatic, Cautious, and Risky.

DOGMATIC: The Dogmatic approach will only consider data that has been “proven” as being correct. Speculative or second-hand information is rejected out of hand.

PRAGMATIC: In opposition to that approach the Pragmatic Methodology widens their considerations to include information that may prove to be correct based on circumstantial evidence.

CAUTIOUS: When one decides in a Cautious manner, she determines the relative likelihood of various data, giving greater weight in her considerations to information that appears more certain.

RISKY: The Risky approach considers all information that is not definitely ruled out as incorrect, giving all data equal weight in the Decision process regardless of its likelihood.

In the Decision Methodologies, Dogmatic pairs with Pragmatic, and Cautious complements Risky. As a group these four Action and four Decision approaches constitute the Eight Simple Methodologies, and make up our first organization of Plot. We know these types, don’t we? They appear in our world, they appear in our stories, they appear in ourselves. They appear in our stories because they appear in ourselves. As with the Eight Simple Characters, they can be divided in Quads.

The Eight Simple Methodologies 

The Action Quad 

 

RESPONSIVE
PASSIVE	PRESERVATIVE
ASSERTIVE

The Decision Quad 

PRAGMATIC
CAUTIOUS	RISKY
DOGMATIC

As with the Eight Simple Characters: No Character should represent more than one Methodology in a given Dynamic Pair. In other words, just as one Character should not be the Protagonist and Antagonist, one Character should not be Assertive and Responsive.

Now you may have noticed that every time we talk about the Methodologies we speak of them as the ways in which Characters act or decide. The immediate question that comes to mind is whether or not these Simple Methodologies of Plot are tied to specific Simple Characters. Let’s find out.

 

Archetypal Methodologies in Star Wars 

Returning to Star Wars, we can analyze the Method each Simple Character employs to see if: a) they limit themselves to one, and b) if there is a match between Character Motivation and Character Method.

Certainly Obi Wan seems RESPONSIVE. He never attacks, just responds to attacks , such as the Cantina scene where he cuts off the creature’s arm after it had attacked Luke. But here the direct relationship breaks down. This time Obi is not balanced by Darth, but by the Empire which is the key ASSERTIVE Character in the story. This is exemplified in the Empire’s unprovoked attack on Leia’s home world of Alderan, and their efforts to track down and destroy the rebel base. Darth takes on a PRESERVATIVE approach, which works nicely with his charge to recover the stolen plans. Every step he takes is an attempt to get back to start. Even when he leads his fighters into the trench on the Death Star, he cautions his henchmen not to chase those who break off from the attack, but to stay on the leader.

Rounding out the Four Simple Action Methodologies, Luke fills the role of PASSIVE. Luke, Passive? Yep. When Uncle Owen tells Luke that he must stay on one more season, Luke argues, but does he accept it? When Obi tells Luke that he must go with him to Alderan, where does he end up? When the Cantina Bartender tells him the droids must stay outside, does he even argue?

Looking at the Decision Quad, Han reads very well as the DOGMATIC approach, which matches nicely with his role as Skeptic. Leia, on the other hand is clearly Pragmatic, adapting to new and unexpected situations as needed. Note the way Dogmatic Han screws up the rescue attempt in the detention block with his inability to adapt, compared to Leia blasting a hole in the corridor wall, manufacturing an escape route.

Interestingly, the joint Sidekick of R2D2 and C3PO is split by the Methodologies of RISKY and CAUTIOUS. R2D2 is always the one jumping into the fray, going out on a limb, trailblazing through blaster fire. In Contrast, C3PO doesn’t want to go into the escape pod, doesn’t want to go on R2′s “mission” to find Obi, and excels at hiding from battle whenever he gets the chance.

If we hang the Star Wars Character names on the Simple Methodology QUAD we get:

 

Action Quad 

RESPONSIVE – OBI WAN
PASSIVE – LUKE	PRESERVATIVE – DARTH
ASSERTIVE - EMPIRE

Decision Quad

PRAGMATIC – LEIA PRAGMATIC
RISKY – R2D2	CAUTIOUS – C3PO
DOGMATIC – HAN

For the first time we begin to get a sense of some of the conflicts between Characters that we felt in Star Wars, but were not explained by the Motivations of the Simple Characters alone. For example, we can see that in terms of Methodology, Obi is now in direct conflict with the Empire. Suddenly the scene where he is stopped along with Luke by the Storm Troopers on the way into Mos Eisley makes much more sense. As does the scene where he must avoid the Storm Troopers and deactivate the Tractor Beam.

From the Methodology standpoint, Luke is now diametrically opposed to Darth, and that defines that additional conflict between them that does not grow from Luke as Protagonist and Darth as Contagonist. The scene in the Trench where Darth attacks Assertively and Luke ignores him with calm Passivity is a fine example of this.

The antagonism (appropriate word) between Leia and Han has a firm grounding in the Dogmatic versus Pragmatic approach. This is what gives that extra edge between them that is not created by their Simple Characters of Reason and Skeptic.

Of particular note is how R2D2 and C3PO, who share a Character role of Sidekick, are split into a conflicting Dynamic Pair of Risky and Cautious. So many of their scenes have them diverging, even while loyally following Luke. The sniping that goes on between them is a direct result of their opposing Methodologies, and enriches what otherwise would be a flat relationship. After all, if they both agreed with each other’s approach AND were jointly the Sidekick as well, how could you even tell them apart, other than by the shape of their costumes?

Finally, notice how poor Chewbaca ended up with no Methodology at all. Perhaps that explains why he never really does anything.

From the chart we can see that the opposition of Dynamic Pairs between Characters is not necessarily carried over into their Methodologies. Indeed, some Characters might be in conflict over principles but not in approach, and vice versa. This relationship between the Motivation Level and the Methodology Level is the embryonic beginning of more believable “3 dimensional” or “well rounded” Characters. To get a more clear understanding of this phenomenon, we can put the Simple Character Quads side by side with the Simple Methodology Quad.

 

Driver Motivation Quad Action Methodology Quad

LUKE PROTAGONIST		LUKE PASSIVE
OBI WAN GUARDIAN	DARTH CONTAGONIST	OBI WAN RESPONSIVE	EMPIRE ASSERTIVE
EMPIRE ANTAGONIST		DARTH PRESERVATIVE

Passenger Motivation Quad Decision Methodology Quad

R2D2 + C3PO SIDEKICK		LEIA PRAGMATIC
CHEWBACA EMOTION	LEIA REASON	R2D2 RISKY	C3PO CAUTIOUS
HAN SKEPTIC		HAN DOGMATIC

When viewed in this manner, the ebb and flow of conflict can be seen as not a single relationship between Characters, but a complex multi-level interrelationship. Yet, we are still dealing here with Simple Methodologies. Just as we had found that each of the Eight Simple Characters contained two components, the Eight Simple Methodologies are composed of two aspects as well: Attitude and Approach. As before, let’s separate the Simple Methodologies into their respective components.

 

The Sixteen Methodologies

ASSERTIVE

 

Approach Plogistic:

The assertive character takes Proaction to upset a stable environment in order to achieve her goals.

Attitude Plogistic:

She Evaluates her situation to determine what action she should take.

RESPONSIVE

 

Approach Plogistic:

When Responsive, a character Reacts to changes in her environment.

Attitude Plogistic:

The Responsive Re-evaluates her environment in light of unwanted changes, and creates a goal to recapture stability.

PRESERVATIVE

Approach Plogistic:

This character employs Protection to prevent what she has from being eroded.

Attitude Plogistic:

She is driven by Non-Acceptanceof the diminishing of her situation.

PASSIVE

Approach Plogistic:

The Passive character exists in Inaction, making no move to counter threats against her.

Attitude Plogistic:

SheAccepts whatever comes her way. Attitude Plogistic: She Accepts whatever comes her way.

DOGMATIC

Approach Plogistic:

Dogmatic deals only in Actualities. Approach Plogistic: Dogmatic deals only in Actualities.

Attitude Plogistic:

She relies on Deduction to reduce data to an irrefutable conclusion.

PRAGMATIC

 

Approach Plogistic:

The Pragmatic concerns herself with Potentialities, looking at all alternative explanations that can be created from existing data.

Attitude Plogistic:

She employs Induction to generate alternatives.

CAUTIOUS

Approach Plogistic:

The Cautious character bases her decisions on Probabilities: the most likely of alternatives.

Attitude Plotgistic:

She uses Reduction to narrow the field of conceivable alternatives.

RISKY

Approach Plogistic:

The Risky character considers all Possibilities equally, regardless of their relative likelihood.

Attitude Plogistic:

She processes information with Production to create any alternatives that are not ruled out by known data.

Placing these Plogistics in a Quad table we get:

Internal Approach		External Approach
ACTUALITY		PROACTION
PROBABILITY	POSSIBILITY	PROTECTION	INACTION
POTENTIALITY		RE-ACTION

 

Internal Attitude		External Attitude
DEDUCTION		EVALUATION
REDUCTION	PRODUCTION	NON-ACCEPTANCE	ACCEPTANCE
INDUCTION		RE-EVALUATION

Looking at these sixteen Methodologies, it is important to remember what they represent. DRAMATICA looks at each and every element of story structure as an aspect of the Story Mind dealing with a problem. And we can clearly see that these sixteen points represent part of that process.

When examining our environment, we all make Evaluations, Re-Evaluate in light of a changing situation, choose whether to Accept our lot or Not Accept it. We all employ Deduction to determine what we know, Induction to keep our minds open to other explanations, Reduction to determine what is most likely, and Production to be creative. From these we establish what we see as Actuality, Potentiality, Probability, and Possibility, as well as the need for Proaction, Reaction, Protection, or Inaction.

Once again, in stories, these Methodologies can be illustrated in individual Characters or combined in ways that do not violate their potential. The DRAMATICA rules for combining characteristics apply here as well.

Based upon these rules, we can easily create our own multi-level Characters. Let’s return to the simple story we wrote about Joan, the Screenplay writer.

As you’ll recall, we created Joan, the Protagonist, who wants to write a screenplay. She was in conflict with the Studio Executive, our Antagonist, who wanted to sell a screenplay of her own instead. Joan’s father was a Skeptic, not believing in his daughter’s talent, but Joan’s writing teacher was her faithful Sidekick. As Contagonist, we created Joan’s friend, the Computer Whiz, who tempts Joan to use “the System”. Guardian to Joan is the Seasoned Writer, who keeps the execs of her tail and counsels her to be true to herself. The Prostitute, a student of the Classics served as Reason, and the Avaunt Guard Artist was Emotion.

As an exercise, let’s assign each of these Eight Simple Characters one of the Eight Simple Methodologies. As we’ve already determined, there is no requirement that a particular Methodology must be matched to a particular Character. So, if we start with Joan who is of primary importance to us, which one of the Methodologies do we like best for our Protagonist? We have a choice of Assertive, Reactive, Preservative, Passive, Dogmatic, Pragmatic, Cautious, and Risky.

Try each one against what we know of Joan. It is clear that any of the eight would create a believable and much more three dimensional Character than the simple Protagonist by herself. And yet, there will be some combinations that will appeal to one Author that are not at all acceptable to another. Protagonist Joan as an Assertive young writer, or Protagonist Joan as Risk taker? Our hero, the adamant, close minded Dogmatist, or the Passive putz? Is she to be Reactive to every ripple in her pond, or Cautious about every move she makes. Doe she try to Preserve what she already has, or take a Pragmatic approach, adapting to a changing scenario? The choices are all valid, and all open to you, the Author.

For our tastes (where they happen to be after lunch as we write this) let’s pick a Risky Protagonist. So Joan, the “wanna-be” Script Writer is a real Risk taker, jumping across the stream and looking for the next stone while in mid air. So what kinds of things will this reckless writer do? She’ll wager her contract on being able to make a waitress cry with the sentence she scrawled on a napkin in the diner. If her mother’s health is failing because she can only afford half the dosage of essential medication that she needs, she’ll spend the medication money to fix her broken typewriter so she can finish her outline and get enough of an advance (if they like it) to buy her the full dose. Real Risk taker, our Joan!

So now, we have the rival Studio Exec, our Antagonist. And she can be any one of the seven remaining Methodologies. We could put her in direct conflict of Methodologies as well as Characteristics, by making her the Cautious type. As such, she would lay out all the ground work to assure that her script will be chosen, leaving nothing to chance. Or she could be Responsive, and attack Joan every time she sees Joan’s advancement as threatening her own. Or she could be Assertive and attack Joan without provocation, because she feels it will help her own cause. We’ll pick Assertive, because we want an Action story, and our Protagonist is not an action Character.

We continue in this manner until we have assigned a Simple Methodology to each Simple Character. So, finally, we have Risky Joan, who wants to write a screenplay and is embattled against the Assertive studio Executive who wants to stop her, opposed by her Preservationist Father, supported by her Passive Teacher, tempted by her friend, the Cautious Computer Whiz, protected by the Responsive Seasoned Writer, counseled by the Dogmatic Prostitute to copy the classics, and urged by the Pragmatic Avaunt Guard Artist to break new ground.

This is beginning to sound a lot less like other stories we’ve seen before. And that is just with the Simple Motivations and Methodologies. When you figure in complex Motivations and Methodologies by mixing and matching sixteen Motivations with sixteen Methodologies, then group them together in uneven ways: more to some Characters and fewer to others, you can begin to see the great variety of Characters that can be created using the DRAMATICA structure. And that is the real beauty of DRAMATICA. Because it is a system of interrelationships, a relatively small number of variables creates an astronomical number of specific structures. Form without Formula. And it works because it mirrors the structure and functioning of our own minds in the Story Mind.

Continuing along that parallel, we can see that the Story Mind in dealing with a problem will not only be motivated and apply a methodology, but will also monitor feedback to determine the effectiveness of the method and the propriety of the motivation. This function is defined by our third level of Character, Evaluation.

Dynamic Pairs and Quads

Prologue

Before the final version of “Dramatica – a New Theory of Story” there was an earlier draft which contained unfininished concepts and additional theory that was ultimately deemed “too complex”. As a result, this material was never fully developed, was cut from the final version of the book, and has never seen the light of day — until now! Recently, a copy of this early draft surfaced in the theory archives. The following are excerpts from this “lost” text.

 CAVEAT:

Because the text that follows was not fully developed, portions may be incomplete, inaccurate, or actually quite wrong.

It is presented as a look into the history of the development of Dramatica and also as a source of additional theory concepts that (with further development) may prove useful.

Note: This excerpt errs in describing the Objective Characters as being defined by their relationship to the Protagonist. In fact, the Objective Characters exhibit their characteristics in relation to the story as a whole.

Dynamic Pairs and Quads

The simplest expression of story dynamics is represented by the Dynamic Pair — two opposing forces between which an Inequity can be measured — which forms the basis of conflict. Examples include: Chaos and Order, Logic and Emotion, and Morality and Self-Interest. At the most global level, Mind and Universe form a Dynamic Pair, one being internal, the other being external. The combination of two Dynamic Pairs form the basic building block of the Dramatica Theory — The Quad. A quad consists for four dramatic units that share a defined relationship with each other.

Example: Let’s look at a typical Motivation Quad –

SUPPORT	HELP
HINDER	OPPOSE

 

Let’s say you have a character in your story who is going to serve the function of Supporting your Main Character’s goal. You can judge how supportive this character is by how her or his actions Help or Hinder the progress of the Main Character towards her or his goal. The more supportive you want this character to be, the more she or he will help the Main Character rather than hindering the Main Character.

The way Dramatica represents these relationships it to assign the dramatic units to characters. In Star Wars, Luke’s Objective goal is to become a hero. The Robots Support his quest to become a hero, while Han Opposes his quest because he doesn’t want to come along for the ride. Obi Wan’s guidance Helps Luke’s quest, while Darth Vader’s interference Hinders it. Each of these attitudes illustrates the characters’ Motivations, which will affect their actions during the course of the story.

 IN CONCLUSION

This brief introduction has touched but lightly upon the most broad and basic tenets that form the Dramatica Theory. The remainder of this book will examine these concepts in ever deepening detail as the chapters progress until all aspects and nuances are fully explored.

Please keep in mind that story structure is not the same thing as the talent of storytelling. Dramatica provides a flexible structure that presents both the structure and dynamics of the Story Mind. Dramatica will not make you a more talented storyteller but will keep faulty structure from undermining your creativity. This allows any author to create a flawless structure that has “form without formula.”

 

Problems & Dilemmas

Prologue

Before the final version of “Dramatica – a New Theory of Story” there was an earlier draft which contained unfininished concepts and additional theory that was ultimately deemed “too complex”. As a result, this material was never fully developed, was cut from the final version of the book, and has never seen the light of day — until now! Recently, a copy of this early draft surfaced in the theory archives. The following are excerpts from this “lost” text.

CAVEAT:

Because the text that follows was not fully developed, portions may be incomplete, inaccurate, or actually quite wrong.

It is presented as a look into the history of the development of Dramatica and also as a source of additional theory concepts that (with further development) may prove useful.

NOTE: This excerpt errs in describing Mind and Universe almost as if they were points of view, rather than the areas which are observed. In actuality, it is the combination of a point of view with an area under observation which creates perspective – the foundation of dramatic meaning.

Problems

Without a problem, the Dramatica Model, like the mind it represents, is at rest or Neutral. All of the pieces within the model are balanced and no dramatic potential exists. But when a problem is introduced, that equilibrium becomes unbalanced. We call that imbalance an Inequity. An inequity provides the impetus to drive the story forward and causes the Story Mind to start the problem solving process.

Work Stories and Dilemma Stories

In Dramatica, we differentiate between solvable and unsolvable problems. The solvable problem is, simply, a problem, whereas an unsolvable problem is called a Dilemma. In stories, as in life, we cannot tell at the beginning whether a problem is solvable or not because we cannot know the future. Only by going through the process of problem solving can we discover if the problem can be solved at all.

If the Problem CAN be solved, though the effort may be difficult or dangerous, and in the end we DO succeed by working at it, we have a Work Story. But if the Problem CAN’T be solved, in the case of a Dilemma, once everything possible has been tried and the Problem still remains, we have a Dilemma Story.

Mind and Universe

At the most basic level, all problems are the result of inequities between Mind (ourselves) and Universe (the environment). When Mind and Universe are in balance, they are in Equity and there is neither a problem nor a story. When the Mind and Universe are out of balance, and Inequity exists between them, there is a problem and a story to be told about solving that problem.

Example: Jane wants a new leather jacket that costs $300.00. She does not have $300.00 to buy the jacket. We can see the Inequity by comparing the state of Jane’s Mind (her desire for the new jacket) to the state of the Universe (not having the jacket).

Note that the problem is not caused solely by Jane’s desire for a jacket, nor by the physical situation of not having one, but only because Mind and Universe are unbalanced. In truth, the problem is not with one or the other, but between the two.

There are two ways to remove the Inequity and resolve the problem. If we change Jane’s Mind and remove her desire for the new jacket — no more problem. If we change the Universe and supply Jane with the new jacket by either giving her the jacket or the money to buy it — no more problem. Both solutions balance the Inequity.

Subjective and Objective Views

From an outside or objective point of view, one solution is as good as another. Objectively, it doesn’t matter if Jane changes her Mind or the Universe changes its configuration so long as the inequity is removed.

However, from an inside or subjective point of view, it may matter a great deal to Jane if she has to change her Mind or the Universe around her to remove the Inequity. Therefore, the subjective point of view differs from the objective point of view in that personal biases affect the evaluation of the problem and the solution. Though objectively the solutions have equal weight, subjectively one solution may appear to be better than another.

Stories are useful to us as an audience because they provide both the Subjective view of the problem and the Objective view of the solution that we cannot see in real life. It is this Objective view that shows us important information outside our own limited perspective, providing a sense of the big picture and thereby helping us to learn how to handle similar problems in our own lives.

If the Subjective view is seen as the perspective of the soldier in the trenches, the Objective view would be the perspective of the General watching the engagement from a hill above the field of battle. When we see things Objectively, we are looking at the Characters as various people doing various things. When we are watching the story Subjectively, we actually stand in the shoes of a Character as if the story were happening to us.

A story provides both of these views interwoven throughout its unfolding. This is accomplished by having a cast of Objective Characters, and also special Subjective Characters. The Objective Characters serve as metaphors for specific methods of dealing with problems. The Subjective Characters serve as metaphors for THE specific method of dealing with problems that is crucial to the particular problem of that story.

 

A STORY MIND

Prologue

Before the final version of “Dramatica – a New Theory of Story” there was an earlier draft which contained unfininished concepts and additional theory that was ultimately deemed “too complex”. As a result, this material was never fully developed, was cut from the final version of the book, and has never seen the light of day — until now! Recently, a copy of this early draft surfaced in the theory archives. The following are excerpts from this “lost” text.

CAVEAT:

Because the text that follows was not fully developed, portions may be incomplete, inaccurate, or actually quite wrong.

It is presented as a look into the history of the development of Dramatica and also as a source of additional theory concepts that (with further development) may prove useful.

NOTE: This excerpt errs in seeing only two points of view – the Main Character (Subjective) and Author (Objective). Later it was discovered that there are four points of view – Main Character, Obstacle Character, Subjective Story, and Objective Story.

Stories have traditionally been viewed as a series of events affecting independently-acting characters — but not to Dramatica. Dramatica sees every character, conflict, action or decision as aspects of a single mind trying to solve a problem. This mind, the Story Mind, is not the mind of the author, the audience, nor any of the characters, but of the story itself. The process of problem solving is the unfolding of the story.

But why a mind? Certainly this was not the intent behind the introduction of stories as an art form. Rather, from the days of the first storytellers right up through the present, when a technique worked, it was repeated and copied and became part of the “conventions” of storytelling. Such concepts as the Act and the Scene, Character, Plot and Theme, evolved by such trial and error.

And yet, the focus was never on WHY these things should exist, but how to employ them. The Dramatica Theory states that stories exist because they help us deal with problems in our own lives. Further, this is because stories give us two views of the problem.

One view is through the eyes of a Main Character. This is a Subjective view, the view FROM the Story Mind as it deals with the problem. This is much like our own limited view or our own problems.

But stories also provide us with the Author’s Objective view, the view OF the story mind as it deals with a problem. This is more like a “God’s eye view” that we don’t have in real life.

In a sense, we can relate emotionally to a story because we empathize with the Main Character’s Subjective view, and yet relate logically to the problem through the Author’s Objective view.

This is much like the difference between standing in the shoes of the soldier in the trenches or the general on the hill. Both are watching the same battle, but they see it in completely different terms.

In this way, stories provide us with a view that is akin to our own attempt to deal with our personal problems while providing an objective view of how our problems relate to the “Bigger Picture”. That is why we enjoy stories, why they even exist, and why they are structured as they are.

Armed with this Rosetta Stone concept we spent 12 years re-examining stories and creating a map of the Story Mind. Ultimately, we succeeded.

The Dramatica Model of the Story Mind is similar to a Rubik’s Cube. Just as a Rubik’s Cube has a finite number of pieces, families of parts (corners, edge pieces) and specific rules for movement, the Dramatica model has a finite size, specific natures to its parts, coordinated rules for movement, and the possibility to create an almost infinite variety of stories — each unique, each accurate to the model, and each true to the author’s own intent.

The concept of a limited number of pieces frequently precipitates a “gut reaction” that the system must itself be limiting and formulaic. Rather, without some kind of limit, structure cannot exist. Further, the number of parts has little to do with the potential variety when dynamics are added to the system. For example, DNA has only FOUR basic building blocks, and yet when arranged in the dynamic matrix of the double helix DNA chain, is able to create all the forms of life that inhabit the planet.

The key to a system that has identity, but not at the expense of variety, is a flexible structure. In a Rubik’s cube, corners stay corners and edges stay edges no matter how you turn it. And because all the parts are linked, when you make a change on the side you are concentrating on, it makes appropriate changes on the sides of the structure you are not paying attention to.

And THAT is the value of Dramatica to an author: that it defines the elements of story, how they are related and how to manipulate them. Plot, Theme, Character, Conflict, the purpose of Acts, Scenes, Action and Decision, all are represented in the Dramatica model, and all are interrelated. It is the flexible nature of the structure that allows an author to create a story that has form without formula

Before the final version of “Dramatica – a New Theory of Story” there was an earlier draft which contained unfininished concepts and additional theory that was ultimately deemed “too complex”. As a result, this material was never fully developed, was cut from the final version of the book, and has never seen the light of day — until now! Recently, a copy of this early draft surfaced in the theory archives. The following are excerpts from this “lost” text.

CAVEAT:

Because the text that follows was not fully developed, portions may be incomplete, inaccurate, or actually quite wrong.

It is presented as a look into the history of the development of Dramatica and also as a source of additional theory concepts that (with further development) may prove useful.

Introduction

Everybody loves a good story.

“Good” stories seem to transcend language, culture, age, sex, and even time. They speak to us in some universal language. But what makes a story good? And what exactly is that universal language?

Stories can be expressed in any number of ways. They can be related verbally through the spoken word and song. They can be told visually through art and dance. For every sense there are numerous forms of expression. There almost seems no limit to how stories can be related.

Yet for all of its variety, the question remains: “What makes a good story, “good”? What makes a bad story, “bad”"?

This book presents a completely new way to look at stories – a way that explains the universal language of stories not just in terms of how it works, but why and how that language was developed in the first place. By discovering what human purposes stories fulfill, we can gain a full understanding of what they need to do, and therefore what we, as authors need to do to create “good” stories.

To that end, Dramatica does not just describe how stories work, but how they should work.

Storyforming vs. Storytelling

Before we proceed, it is important to separate Storyform from Storytelling. As an example of what we mean, if we compare West Side Story to Romeo and Juliet, we can see that they are essentially the same story, told in a different way. The concept that an underlying structure exists that is then represented in a subjective relating of that structure is not new to traditional theories of story. In fact, Narrative Theory in general assumes such a division.

Specifically, Structuralist theory sees story as having a histoire consisting of plot, character and setting, and a discours that is the storytelling. The Russian Formalists separated things a bit differently, though along similar lines seeing story as half fable or “fabula”, which also contained the order in which events actually happened in the fable, and the “sjuzet”, which was the order in which these events were revealed to an audience.

These concepts date back at least as far as Aristotle’s Poetics.

In Dramatica, Story is seen as containing both structure and dynamics that include Character, Theme, Plot, and Perspective, while classifying the specific manner in which the story points are illustrated and the order information is given to the audience into the realm of storytelling.

Storyforming: an argument that a specific approach is the best (or worst) solution to a particular problem

Storytelling: the portrayal of the argument as interpreted by the author

Picture five different artists, each painting her interpretation of the same rose. One might be highly impressionistic, another in charcoal. They are any number of styles an artist might choose to illustrate the rose. Certainly the finished products are works of art. Yet behind the art is the objective structure of the rose itself: the object that was being portrayed.

The paintings are hung side by side in a gallery, and we, as sophisticated art critics, are invited to view them. We might have very strong feelings about the manner in which the artists approached their subject, and we may even argue that the subject itself was or was not an appropriate choice. Yet, if asked to describe the actual rose solely on the basis of what we see in the paintings, our savvy would probably fail us.

We can clearly see that each painting is of a rose. In fact, depending on the degree of realism, we may come to the conclusion that all the paintings are of the same rose. In that case, each artist has succeeded in conveying the subject. Yet, there is so much detail missing. Each artist may have seen the rose from a slightly different position. Each artist has chosen to accentuate certain qualities of the rose at the expense of others. That is how the un-embellished subject is imbued with the qualities of each artist, and the subject takes on a personal quality.

This illustrates a problem that has plagued story analysts and theorists from day one:

Once the story is told, it is nearly impossible to separate the story from the telling unless you know what the author actually had in mind.

Certainly the larger patterns and dramatic broad strokes can be seen working within a story, but many times it is very difficult to tell if a particular point, event, or illustration was merely chosen by the author’s preference of subject matter or if it was an essential part of the structure and dynamics of the argument itself.

Let’s sit in once more on our first storyteller. She was telling us about her run-in with a bear. But what if it had been a lion instead? Would it have made a difference to the story? Would it have made it a different story altogether?

If the story’s problem was about her approach to escaping from any wild animal, then it wouldn’t really matter if it were a bear or a lion; the argument might be made equally well by the use of either. But if her point was to argue her approach toward escaping from bears specifically, then certainly changing the culprit to a lion would not serve her story well.

Essentially, the difference between story and storytelling is like the difference between denotation and connotation. Story denotatively documents all of the essential points of the argument in their appropriate relationships, and storytelling shades the point with information nonessential to the argument itself (although it often touches on the same subject).

In summary, even the best structured story does not often exist as an austere problem solving argument, devoid of personality. Rather, the author embellishes her message with connotative frills that speak more of her interests in the subject than of the argument she is making about it. But for the purposes of understanding the dramatic structure of the piece, it is essential to separate story from storytelling.

Traditionally, theories of story have looked at existing works and attempted to classify patterns that could be seen to be present in several stories. In fact, even today, computer scientists working in “narrative intelligence” gather enormous data bases of existing stories that are broken down into every discernable pattern in the attempt to create a program that can actually tell stories.

Dramatica was not created by observing existing stories and looking for patterns, but by asking new questions: Why should there be characters at all? What is the purpose of Act divisions? What is the reason for Scenes? In short, Why are there stories in the first place?

Rich asks:

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

Answer:

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

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

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

First, the visualization:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry about that!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for asking!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  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!