Part 6 of a 43 part four-hour audio program
Play or Download mp3
Category Archives: Definitions
Dramatica Theory Part 5 – The Obstacle Character
Dramatica Theory Part 4 – The 12 Essential Questions
Dramatica Theory Part 3 – Story Perspectives
Dramatica Theory Part 2 – The Story Mind
Dramatica Theory (Part 1) – Introduction
Dramatica Class 24
The following excerpt is taken from
The Dramatica Class Transcripts
Problem element as seen in the 4 Throughlines.
“Rainman” & “Unforgiven” ; Subjective and Objective story problem.
Difference Between Dramatica & Collaborator
Dramatica : This is Mark Haslett filling in for Melanie Anne Phillips.
Grn Skier : Howdy, Mel.
Dramatica : Hi Grn Skier, This is actually Mark Haslett filling in for Melanie.
Grn Skier : Hi Mark. Hope she’s doing well.
Dramatica : She’s being interviewed for Japanese Network TV and won’t be able to make it. But I should be able to answer questions pretty well. Any questions?
Grn Skier : Hopefully we’ll have a crowd tonight.
Dramatica : I hope so too. We did post a few notices that this would be the last of our 24 course meal. We have actually covered enough theory in these logs to last a long time.
Grn Skier : Tell me about how the Problem element traces through the 4 perspectives (I, You, We, They) I’m still digesting all of it.
Dramatica : O.K. The four perspectives, being the Main Character (I), the Obstacle Character (You) The Subjective Story (We) and the Objective Story (They) make the four throughlines in every story. Dramatica sees a story as an argument about the way ( the only way) to solve a particular problem. These four throughlines explore that problem. One way to see it is to ask: What makes a Main Character “Main?”. Well, in Dramatica the explanation has to do with their relationship over the story’s central problem.
Grn Skier : ?
Dramatica : Question?
Grn Skier : I’m a little deeper in that where you’re starting, so let me rephrase question
Dramatica : O.K.
Grn Skier : If, say Obj story is Physics, Obtaining, Morality vs. Approach
Dramatica : Yes,
Grn Skier : Subjective story is normally in Psych quad
Dramatica : Always. The Subjective Story and Objective Story are a dynamic pair and will always appear opposite on the chart.
Grn Skier : and I look at, say morality: Faith, Disbelief, etc. If Faith is problem in Obj, it must also be in Subj Correct?
Dramatica : Not necessarily.
Grn Skier : So, I’m looking at Wall Chart of Quads.
Dramatica : The relationship between the Obj. and Subj. Story is not as direct as the Main Character’s relationship to the Objective Story. (I hope you’ll pardon my clumsy fingers, they’re really slowing me down.)
Grn Skier : So, Faith would be MC’s Problem, but not necessarily, Subj Problem?
Dramatica : That’s correct. If the Subj. Story problem were also Faith that would be the result of a lot of other dynamic choices being set to say that the outcome of the Obj. Story will be similar to the outcome of the Subjective Story.
Grn Skier : Could you elaborate with your slow fingers.
Dramatica : We know that’s not always the case, look at Rain Man or Unforgiven. There will be a relationship always between the problem in the Objective Story and the problem quad for the Subjective Story, but that relationship has many variations.
There are actually appreciations in the software which we offer to describe the dynamics of the Objective Story which also exist for the subjective story, yet are not available to choose from. This is really due to our developing understanding of the theory and in the future they will be available also.
An example would be Success/Failure (Outcome) There can be success in the Subjective Story as there is in the Obj. Story. People just don’t think in those terms often.
Grn Skier : This is as opposed to the Good/Bad in the Subj we get now?
Dramatica : Right, If the relationship between the Main and Obstacle character turns out “positively” or in a way they would agree was successful that would be something like the SS appreciation for Outcome. Good/Bad is different. This judgment is made solely of the Main Character. Was the MC’s Resolve (Change or Steadfast) good or bad for the Main Character? Did they get rid of their angst?
It’s a little hard to imagine, but in a really twisted subjective story the Main Character might end up in Bad, yet have a “successful” subjective story if their Obstacle Character were trying to make their life bad. (how ‘m I doing?)
Grn Skier : Great. Let me bring up a related topic.
Dramatica : You bet.
Grn Skier : I’ve sensed that Dram is great for stories with heavy emphasis on Obj Story and less on Subj story e.g. (Hi HC) I’ve been reading Literary Novels that I’m trying to interpret with Dram and what you;re hinting at would answer some unresolved questions. The emphasis is almost wholly on a Subj Story, with Obj played down to being ’setting’
Dramatica : Well, there will always be more to discover but the Subjective Story gets a very thorough treatment in Dramatica theory.
Dramatica : Hi HConn
HConnor : Hello in here. I’d like to know what you think of collaborator software.
Dramatica : This is Mark Haslett filling in for Melanie Anne tonight.
Grn Skier : HC, I love Dramatica. Best study tool, I’ve found anywhere
Dramatica : Well, me too. I can compare it to Collaborator a little based on what I’ve seen. I have never used Collaborator, yet over the past year and a half I have been studying the theory in Dramatica. I graduated in film Critical Studies at USC the year before I came here and had never seen anything like it.
HConnor : I am mystified that you would not test a competitors product before working on one yourself.
Dramatica : It’s not that we haven’t, it’s that I, personally, haven’t.
Grn Skier : HC, the comparison is superficial to my mind. I have both, there is some overlap.
Dramatica : The thing is that their emphasis is storytelling and ours is story forming, or deep-structure.
HConnor : By the way, I already own Dramatica, so no need to sell it to me.
Dramatica : I’m not trying to sell, I actually have an enthusiasm which is hard to get across in a way that doesn’t sound phony.
Grn Skier : 2 weeks ago, Melanie and I spent evening here discussing Premise as in Lojos Egri – used as the basis for some of collaborator.
Dramatica : Premise, yes. Egri. It’s valuable stuff, for analysis.
Grn Skier : Dramatica lets you explore it, Collaborator only lets you state it.
Dramatica : That’s the difference I’m drawn to also. What is a blended concept in “premise” theory becomes many pieces which you have complete control over in Dramatica– the theory and the software. Theme is a tough thing to explain. Yet in Dramatica, there are many places to adjust it and see that it is working for you. It is also reassuring, (I find) to have a storyform reassuring you that it’s all working together.
HConnor : There has been some argument about how choices made in storyforming result in only one possible story care to comment?
Dramatica : Absolutely, The process of analyzing many stories has led to a
lot of discussions over competing storyforms for the same story.
HConnor : Assuming that you accept that if you get such a storyform in dramatica, it IS actually working together. That’s the premise, right?
Dramatica : Right. When you take a few appreciations from a storyform and see them working in your story you might assume that this must be the one storyform that Dramatica means for you to have. But you really need to challenge your storyforms. Take a peek at choices which you could have made differently. It’s when you have ALL of the appreciations working that you have the best storyform for your story. Hi One Daisy.
Grn Skier : Howdy daisy.
One Daisy : Hello Grn Skier. Hello Dramatica. I’m one of your avid students.
Dramatica : Great! This is Mark Haslett, filling in for Melanie Anne this evening. I was just suggesting how one might agree with any particular storyform Dramatica arrives at. The appreciations which are listed in a completed storyform are appreciations which appear in one way or another in all stories. Coming to the conclusion that you have arrived at the set of appreciations which describes what’s going on in your story emotionally and logically is the result of checking out what all the pieces of that storyform are supposed to mean.
A great place to look for more understanding of appreciations is in the story examples which are shipped with the program.
HConnor : Tell me how the work is coming along on the Windows version of Scriptor?
Dramatica : Windows Scriptor is on hold until after we can finish our current work of updating Movie Magic to Windows. It will probably be at least another year.
Grn Skier : Switch to Mac, you’ll never go Back.
Dramatica : Here here.
One Daisy : Too much invested in IBM compatible.
HConnor : Yes, but will MAC be the IBM-MAC company a year from now? It was fun to talk drama. Ciao for now.
Grn Skier : Mark, Could you give us an overview of advanced classes, What are they and describe what they cover?
Dramatica : Sure. This July, 8 & 9th there will be the Dramatica Intensive Weekend Workshop.
One Daisy : It’s all going to come together one way or another. It has to.
Dramatica : Daisy, this weekend will pull it all together and light it on fire. Bye HConner.
Grn Skier : Windows 95 looks more like Mac Sys 7.1 than previous Windows.
Dramatica : I don’t mean to push the seminar so much, it’s more that in two days, Melanie and Chris are going to cover EVERYTHING. And probably blow some people’s minds.
One Daisy : Give me the particulars, please.
Dramatica : July 8 & 9, here at Screenplay Systems in Burbank. The topics will be Basics, Character, Theme, Plot, Genre, Storyforming, Storyweaving, Story encoding, and Reception. We will screen “Witness” and analyze the storyform all for the price of $249.95.
Grn Skier : Tell Mel to make videos of the Classes, add graphic images, etc. Easier to absorb than audio tapes. Sell the videos for 50-80 bucks for the set
Dramatica : We are currently planning a CD-ROM of some kind which will be very much like you say.
Grn Skier : Great. I digest slowly.
Dramatica : We do sell audio cassettes on Basics, Plot and Character. and Dramatica is very meaty.
One Daisy : I like that idea. I’ve not been all that pleased with my CD-ROM selection so far.
Dramatica : We’ll count your vote. It’s something I’m personally hoping for too. But development is a rough business.
I have an interesting observation about the movie Die Hard 3, if your interested. I know it’s not “high art,” but this is the kind of story that could so easily be made 100 percent better with a little Dramatica. O.K. The interesting thing is that the film has a very strong Main Character in John McClaine, the embittered and veteran NYPD cop; and a very strong Obstacle Character in Sam Jackson.
One Daisy : Excuse me, but I haven’t had a chance to see Die Hard 3. Only recent film I’ve seen is Species.
Dramatica : (ooo, how is it?)
One Daisy : Run of the mill. Special effects are great, but basically it is an Alien come to Earth make over.
Dramatica : (oh, too bad.) If you see Die Hard, maybe, this observation will make sense. The point is that it also has a working Objective Story. So, anyway, Die Hard has these three really strong throughlines, but is lacking the Subjective story to tie them all together emotionally. There is plenty of material that should have been the subjective issue between these two characters, but they didn’t develop it.
One Daisy : Put Alien in quotes please. They needed Dramatica and a different ending. My observation at the end “Species II, the return of Ben”.
Dramatica : Ben the Rat?
One Daisy : Correct.
Dramatica : To sum up about Die Hard, it would have simply taken the notion that a Subjective argument exists solely between the Main and Obstacle Characters in order for the screenwriters to have been able to follow through on the dynamics they set in place and have a really entertaining and emotionally satisfying thriller.
Grn Skier : I’ll catch it on video.
Dramatica : Good idea.
Grn Skier : This genre usually is not satisfying in other than roller coaster fashion like that silly dinosaur movie.
Dramatica : I tend to agree, except for the kinds of exceptions which can successfully bury a good social commentary in their action.
Grn Skier : e.g. True Lies?
One Daisy : It was free: I was sent a free ticket. Some people paid $35. to see it.
Dramatica : I am a big fan of this new submarine movie.
Grn Skier : Oh, yeah, Crimson Tide. I live in Alabama – I haven’t seen it and that is sacrilege here just because of the University.
Dramatica : Please do, you’ll be pleasantly surprised. lol.
One Daisy : How was it? I mean have you had any feedback on it?
Dramatica : There’s a very tight emotional and logical argument going on in this thriller which happens to deal with the kind of dormant cultural issue of the Russian and US nuclear arms which are still very real.
I just got the signal that I’m going to have to wind this up. Probably just in time.
One Daisy : Hey, I have to run. Promised my daughter, I’d go on line with her at 7. See you next week if I can make it.
Grn Skier : Thanks for filling in Mark, Tell Mel, we all really appreciated her time and answers.
Dramatica : Nite daisy! You bet, Skier. She’ll be glad to hear it.
Grn Skier : Oh, this isn’t last night?
Dramatica : Yes, actually, this is the final class.
Grn Skier : Nite all.
Dramatica : Thanks for joining me. Nite!
One Daisy : Dramatica won’t be on next week?
Dramatica : No, I’m sorry. We have gone through 24 classes, completely covering the
theory in the process. The chat logs are available in the Writer’s Club, Non-Fiction Library on AOL and will continue to be.
One Daisy : Well, take care. I plan to get back to the work shops on Wednesdays, if they’re still available.
Dramatica : Users’ Groups will be. Take care.
One Daisy : Good nite!
The Dramatica Theory of story was developed by Melanie Anne Phillips and Chris Huntley, and was implemented into software by Chief Software Architect, Stephen Greenfield.
Dramatica Class 23
The following excerpt is taken from
The Dramatica Class Transcripts
24 Scenes; 4 Variations, 6 Sequences
Dramatica: Hiya, Skier!
Grn Skier: Evening Melanie. I’m not going to have you to myself again, I hope.
Dramatica: Forgive me while I wolf down some roast beef between sentences.
Grn Skier: Better than your pizza last week, sounds like. I’m at my usual – laundry.
Dramatica: I usually do the class from work, but decided comfort of my living
room the last weeks.
Grn Skier: Have to put some in dryer – be right back.
Dramatica: Okay, see ya in a bit.
Dramatica: This is the second to last Dramatica class on AOL, by the way. Just as there are 24 scenes as the minimum in a fully developed story, next week will be our 24th class, and we will have fully covered the Dramatica basics.
Grn Skier: Oh? Getting tired? Making too much money? Just kidding – I’ll miss the discussions. Sorry I joined so late.
Dramatica: I’ll miss them too, but since we covered all the chief topics, it’s time to put the resources elsewhere.
Grn Skier: Understand – I’m still digesting many of the transcripts I’ve downloaded.
Dramatica: All of the classes are available on America On-line in the Writers Club area. File libraries, non-fiction, and on our web pages at http://www.well.com/user/dramatic/ The web has the first few and we are converting and uploading more weekly. Well, any questions tonight on theory or software?
Grn Skier: I haven’t checked WEB site yet, waiting for AOL to get their act
together on Internet access.
Dramatica: AOL has browsers ya know, for both Mac and Windows.
Grn Skier: Do I enter above address or look for Dramatic?
Dramatica: Just enter the above address and you’ll go right to the main
directory. We’ve been getting hundreds of visits a week, in the first month of our web presence.
Grn Skier: Can I follow up on last weeks discussion of Thematic range/variations, etc.
Dramatica: Sure, dive in! Specific questions or topics?
Grn Skier: As I understand it the 6 comparisons from the 4 variations become
the basis for 6 sequences in story? The 24 scenes then are based on 4 POVs (I, you, we, they)?
Dramatica: Yes, each of the four throughlines will have its own six-sequence thematic progression or “argument”. This creates 24 thematic “scenes”. They are not the same as plot scenes which are ruled by events, but deal with the emotional growth of the characters.
Grn Skier: So each scene will cover one sequence from each of four domains?
Dramatica: Yes, each thematic scene is one thematic exploration in the overall thematic statement. I like to assign each throughline a color like red or blue and then create six 3×5 cards for each color. I list each of the thematic exploration “scenes” on one card so that the six cards of one color define the thematic argument in that throughline. Then, I determine the order in which I want to explore those thematic considerations. I arrange the cards accordingly. What goes into that decision is the “feel” of the progression… where do I want to focus the audience’s emotion attention at the beginning and then, at the end where do I want them looking?
Finally, to create the emotional flow that feels right for my story while still making sure I don’t miss any points of view the audience will expect me to take on the issue, I select the order of the intermediate cards between the beginning and the end. Once I’ve done that, I have one throughline’s thematic progression all laid out. Next step, is to do that for the other three throughlines. When I am finished, I have 24 cards, six of each color, with each color arranged in order. But often, as an author, I don’t want to just play six scenes with my Main Character followed by six with the objective story, for example. I’d rather intercut between all four so that the story is much less predictable
and so the growth in each throughline roughly keeps pace with all the others.
So, I take the cards and select an order for all 24. As long as the order of each color stays in the proper sequence, I could go with two scenes with my Main Character, then jump to one in the objective story, back to the Main Character, then two scenes with the Subjective story, etc. In the end, the audience will see the full thematic argument, six explorations from four different points of view and they will be able to see the thematic point I’m getting at. Each of the cards becomes a place for me to list the different dramatic appreciations that I want to discuss in my story. “Appreciations” is the term Dramatica theory uses for story points. So, you have goals, and requirements and Main Character Unique Abilities and such, and you want to “assign” them to the scenes in which you will expose that information to your audience.
Story points are items of information that the audience must know in order to see the structure of the logistics of your story. The thematic scenes are explorations the audience must take in order to experience the emotions that will provide a context from which to evaluate the meaning of the structure. So, you may decide to have the goal spelled out in scene one by the Main Character or you may hold off until the last scene so that the audience is always wondering what the goal is until you finally tell them. Or, you might decide to let the cat out of the bag a bit at a time so that the Main Character might hint at the goal in the first scene then several scenes later, in the Objective story theme some objective event occurs that provides a little more information about the nature of the goal. By the time you reach the final instance of information about the goal the audience is able to put it all together and figure it out.
So, there are over sixty dramatic appreciations “story points” that are dealt with in Dramatica, and each one must show up in at least one scene but may show up partially in many. By the time you place these appreciations or partial appreciations in the various thematic scenes by writing them on the colored 3×5 cards you have created a very extensive map of both the meaning and progression of your story. Any other ? on this or another topic?
Grn Skier: On Dramatic Appreciations? My Theory manual has Objective story apprciations About 18 listed and discussed.
Dramatica: Do you have Dramatica Lite or Pro?
Grn Skier: are the same categories applied to Subj story? Pre-Pro version, waiting for Update to arrive!
Dramatica: I believe all the updates were mailed as of today.
Dramatica: You’ll note that there are Objective Story Appreciations and then ADDITIONAL Story Appreciations.
Grn Skier: GREAT.
Dramatica: The Objective ones are duplicated in all four throughlines, but due to the difference of point of view in each throughline some of them take on slightly different meanings. For example, in the Objective and Subjective story throughlines there are two appreciations called “catalyst” and “inhibitor”. These act as the “gas pedal” and “brake pedal” for the speed of the progression of the story toward its conclusion in the objective story.
Grn Skier: Can I postulate example?
Dramatica: and to the moment of truth in the subjective story. Sure.
Grn Skier: I was thinking as a story point, showing guy with poor mechanical ability – an inhibitor. Later he needs to fix car for get away – This sort of thing.
Dramatica: That’s not far off the mark, but needs a little tweaking….
Grn Skier: Please!
Dramatica: If ABILITY was the inhibitor in the Objective Story, for example, it would mean that every time you wanted to slow down the headlong rush of the story you could bring in an issue of ability. It doesn’t have to be not enough ability it could also be too much ability and it doesn’t have to pertain to only one character as this is the inhibitor of the Objective story in our example. So, you would have a situation, perhaps, where it always turned out that mechanical ability was needed, and nobody had it, or the converse, that the characters are about to make their final assault on the goal, but because of the skills that they possess (perhaps as martial artists) they are called away to help others in a way no one else can, or, because their ability at mechanics is so great they fix the derelict vehicle so well, that when they leave it behind the bad guys are able to use it also. That would definitely be an inhibitor or too much ability.
Getting back to the relationship of the appreciations from one throughline to another. These same appreciations of catalyst and inhibitor are called “unique ability” and “critical flaw” for the Main and Obstacle character throughlines. For the Main Character, unique ability is the quality that makes them uniquely able to clear the way toward achievement of the goal. This means they may not be the one who can accomplish the goal (remember, Main Character does NOT have to be the protagonist) BUT they ARE the one who possesses the quality that can clear the way to the goal, IF they use it.
Grn Skier: ?
Dramatica: Whether or not to use it, is part of the choice they make at a leap of faith. Yes?
Grn Skier: How is MC uniq Ability related to Sub vs. Obj Story
Dramatica: Unique ability is the same to MC throughline as catalyst is to Objective story, but there is another kind of relationship as well.
Grn Skier: i.e. does it solve Sub, but cause probs for Obj?
Dramatica: At the heart of the story is the “crucial element”
Grn Skier: Referring to specific – such as mechanical ability or lack thereof?
Dramatica: The single item that is truly the cause of ALL the story’s problems in ALL the throughlines. And it is in regard to this crucial element that each of these appreciations has its impact. So, when something happens in one throughline in regard to that central issue its reprecussions will be felt in the other three as well. That is why the story seems like a single endeavor, even though it is being approached from four different directions. The thing that keeps this from becoming formula in a story is that the exact way in which one appreciation will affect another changes depending on the impact you are trying to create on your audience.
So, there is no FIXED relationship, but if one relationship is one way, it has an influence on what other relationships will be. The more relationships between appreciations that are determined the more “firm” the story structure becomes until you finally make enough determinations about how things are going to relate that the structure solidifies into a fixed state. That is what happens as you start to work on a story. You determine what elements you are dealing with, then figure out how they are going to work together, and bit by bit, something that had infinite possibilities, ultimately becomes just one story. That is also the way the Dramatica Story Engine works to create the storyform for your story.
When you begin there are no limitations on your choices. But as you make choices, the impact begins to narrow the remaining available options. The storyform “firms up” more and more until you finally arrive at the single storyform that can support all of the choices you’ve made without contradiction. There is no structure to your story in Dramatica until you make it yourself. But once you have made enough choices that no other options remain that would not violate your previous choices. there are still a lot of appreciations that remain that have only one item left that is appropriate but you never picked it yourself. In fact, Dramatica can just read those out to you so that you will know the other ramifications of the choices you have made about your story’s dramatics so that you won’t just be looking at what you’ve thought about but also in all the other areas the audience is going to look for meaning. In the end, Dramatica tells YOU more about your story than you tell IT. Other ?
Grn Skier: Back on Crucial element . You weren’t referring to Appreciation I assume
Dramatica: Okay. The crucial element is going to be one of four appreciations it will either be the Problem, Solution, Focus or Direction. As it turns out, those same four items will reappear in each of the four throughlines, just in different contexts.
Grn Skier: But it seems that MC Critical Flaw is critical element.
Dramatica: No, Critical Flaw is just the counter-balance to the unique ability.
Grn Skier: OK.
Dramatica: You’ve seen those characters who do something positive, only to then do something destructive. Here’s a movie example…Sound of Music. The Captain and the family are hiding in the cemetery in the abbey. Rolf, the young boy who has joined the Nazis shows up and finds them. The Captain talks Rolf out of raising the alert and buys them enough time to get the family out of the locked gates, that is his unique ability at work. BUT then his critical flaw comes into play. He tells Rolf, Why don’t you come with us? You’ll NEVER be one of THEM! Immediately, Rolf blows the whistle (literally). The reason is that the Captain’s critical flaw of not being able to hold back his opinion has once again caused trouble. Now, that is not the problem of the whole story, it is just his critical flaw. If he had only said, Rolf, I appreciate the efforts you have made to do what is right, but we need you now very much, I know how much of a sacrifice it would be but could you please help guide us through the hills? Well, Rolf probably would have gone with them or at least not blown the whistle.
Also, keep in mind that the critical flaw does not HAVE to come AFTER the unique
ability. It can either scuttle the Ability, undoing the good, or it can be an obstacle that prevents the unique ability from being employed, like a guy who sneezes and splits the brain in two instead of doing delicate surgery he is capable of.
Grn Skier: The Critical Flaw cannot be violated during story? i.e. the butler in remains of day couldn’t express his feelings at all?
Dramatica: Well, that was his problem, not his critical flaw. That was the crucial element of the whole subjective story, not just an impediment. Remember Critical flaw is based on inhibitor, which is not the same thing as a road block; it is more like a detour.
Grn Skier: What then was his flaw? Perfectionism?
Dramatica: More than likely. To know precisely what it would be in Dramatica terms we’d have to look at the storyform.
Grn Skier: I’m beginning to see a light in the distance.
Dramatica: Now, let’s see if we can find his critical flaw, by trying to figure out what it is that either prevents or undermines his successful application of perfectionism. Perhaps his abrupt manner?
Grn Skier: His unexpressed feelings? perhaps. Hired his father,…
Dramatica: Perhaps his couching of every emotional issue as a logistic topic?
Grn Skier: That sounds more like him.
Dramatica: He fails in making everything come out perfectly with many people
because of that quality, which in turn has an influence on his inability to express his emotions.
Grn Skier: Couldn’t talk about so talked around emotions.
Dramatica: He did talk about his emotions, he spoke of them all the time, in logistic terms. So, his logistics were his critical flaw.
Grn Skier: That’s what I meant – ‘enjoy our chats’, etc.
Dramatica: Yes, that’s exactly how it showed up in the story. If he were to clear the way, to have a happy ending, his critical flaw would have to be overcome, thereby ALLOWING him to change, and shift the crucial element. All he would have had to do, is talk to her about ANYTHING in emotional terms and that would have cleared the way for him to express himself to her, about his feelings for her. If you plot out the math (and there is math in the story engine and theory) about the relationship between the critical flaw and the crucial element it turns out that the critical flaw is the cotangent and the unique ability is the tangent to the crucial element.
Grn Skier: I’d liked to see more on that, but it’s past your bedtime!
Dramatica: Yep, time to go, but here’s one final clue…based on the cotangent and tangent relationship you can see that the critical element is the angle theta, which says a lot about the relationship of appreciations to structural elements. And on that note…
Grn Skier: 90 deg phase relation. I’ve enjoyed the evening. You gave me
much to ponder.
Dramatica: I’ll close off the next to last class.
Grn Skier: Nite!
Dramatica: I’ll be back next week for the very last time!
Dramatica: Niters.
The Dramatica Theory of story was developed by Melanie Anne Phillips and Chris Huntley, and was implemented into software by Chief Software Architect, Stephen Greenfield.
Dramatica Class 22
The following excerpt is taken from
The Dramatica Class Transcripts
“Remains of the Day” – Success/Bad
Dramatica: Evening, Skier!
Grn Skier: Howdy, Sorry I missed last week – visiting family.
Dramatica: No prob. Got some questions for tonight?
Grn Skier: What topics were discussed?
Dramatica: You know, I can’t for the life of me remember. I go through this
material so many times…Guess we’ll both just have to check the log!
Grn Skier: Yea, I’d guessed you have to. I envy and admire your success to
date, but I’m sure it gets old.
Dramatica: It’s always nice to see somebody discover some of the new concepts,
but it’s like always playing your greatest hits on tour. There’s a lot more excitement when you get to do the new material.
Grn Skier: I’m afraid being on travel kept me from coming up with new
questions.
Dramatica: How about old questions?
Grn Skier: I probably won’t challenge you tonight. Here’s one related to Theory in general. What do you consider biggest breakthrough in D Theory?
Dramatica: In reference to story only or beyond that? Have you had a chance to check out the Dramatica Home Page?
Grn Skier: No, haven’t had a chance. Oh how was the trade show and will the upgrades be shipped soon??
Dramatica: As for the trade show, attendance was light, but we did smokin’
business!!! LOT’s of interest and lot’s of copies sold, based on our demos.
Updates have already started shipping yesterday.
Grn Skier: Great, glad to hear. But don’t make to many people good writers. I’m still a wannabe, and don’t need the competition – when I get to a publisher
Dramatica: Keep in mind, those are updates, not upGRADES. They fix known bugs, add a couple of features, and deal with some cosmetic issues. There are a few new reports, etc. The first major upGRADE will be in six months to a year, when we add a whole collection of new tools to assist in the actual writing process, rather than only story development. It’s going to be a humdinger of an upgrade, based on what we have planned!
Grn Skier: But the upgrade is D Pro? As stated in the form I sent in? Update, sorry.
Dramatica: Right, for anyone who purchased Dramatica before Pro came out and
sent in their registration card, they get a free update to Pro, if you pick it up, or free with a 9.95 shipping/handling charge if we mail it.
Grn Skier: I sent in the 9.95 weeks ago. I have yet to order updated theory
manual – 1st thing next week
Dramatica: I’m not sure, but I believe the Theory Book has been lowered in
price from 29.95 to 19.95 as of June 15th. Volume sales lead to lower prices.
Grn Skier: Great – I’ll save a few bucks for when the UPGRADE comes out
Grn Skier: I’m looking forward to that. I’ve learned I need help with Character Descriptions like Lagos Egris, If your familiar with his book.
Dramatica: We do a whole class on Egri describing why it is a very limiting system. What is said is valid, but it is too nebulous and doesn’t go far enough. So, it’s great for looking at a work and giving it a one sentence description, but not too good as a construction tool.
Grn Skier: In what way is he too nebulous Okay. I was thinking of his extensive Character Profile list. I agree on rest from my reading of his book
Dramatica: Any time you deal with a list, you are treating things as independent elements or concepts. Only if the items in the list are arranged in a more three-dimensional matrix can you see the interconnections, interrelationships and impact they have upon each other.
Grn Skier: Interconnections between characters? Or within a character?
Dramatica: Sure, not only between characters, but also within.
Grn Skier: Deep! I’m also studying Character types – Psych Profiles. I see the basis for IDing motivations.
Dramatica: Are you familiar with our concept of Objective and Subjective
characters? And also the difference between true archetypes and stereotypes?
Grn Skier: Yeap – That more than any other part of D is what convinces me
you’re on to somethin..It was a major revelation.
Dramatica: It’s always a hit at our demos of the software as well. The relationships between characters can be seen so graphically, that one can predict how they will react to one another simply by noting their relative position in the matrix.
Grn Skier: I’ve got a good 20 How-To books and none could explain why I cared
about one guy more than another
Dramatica: Yes, splitting the main character off as a separate concept from protagonist opens all the doors to the works we see but can’t explain by the
overly simplistic idea that every story needs a “hero”.
Grn Skier: The matrix part is still a little foggy – but words won’t help as much as time spent with D on stories. You examples are usually movies – My guess is that is because they usually have 1 Obj & 1 Subj Story, Where Novels often have multiple
Dramatica: We just released our new Writer’s Dream Kit at the show last weekend. It has the updated theory book, the 90 minute Dramatica Theory Basics audio cassette, AND a 60 minute cassette on Character, and a 60 minute cassette on Plot.
Grn Skier: Price?
Dramatica: On sale at $99.95, but now that the show it over, it retails at $149.95. It also contains a subscription to our journal, and 30 storyform analyses, of many stories OTHER than movies, like Sula, A Doll’s House, Hamlet, The Great Gatsby, and a number of others.
Grn Skier: I was going to say it sounded steep, but the journal, etc. sounds
great. It’ll be my Father’s day gift to myself
Dramatica: LOL! It’s a quarterly journal, and we have a sample of some of the articles it contains up on our Web pages. Right now, we’re getting ready for our two-day weekend seminar on July 8 and 9. It’s billed as a “Theory-Intensive Workshop”, and that it will be! We have people coming from Australia and Belgium, and all over the country.
Grn Skier: Can you hold those in Alabama? You California types get all the good stuff.
Dramatica: We are thinking of taking it on the road later in the year or early next year.
Dramatica: Probably New York would be the first stop, but we haven’t really
determined if and when yet.
Grn Skier: I’ll keep an eye out – possible Nashville, Atlanta, Memphis – all in driving range.
Dramatica: Atlanta might be a really good choice in the future.
Grn Skier: You’d love the south – just don’t come between mid July and Sept 1- TOOOOO HOTTT
Dramatica: I spent ten days in the South once as director of a centennial film for a religious organization. Beautiful country!
Grn Skier: What part?
Dramatica: I was down in Tennessee, North and South Carolina, and just into Georgia.
Grn Skier: I was almost accidentally in Grass Harp (Mathau, Sissy Spacek) -Filmed near Montgomery AL. We wandered into a field where they were shooting – no signs.
Dramatica: And no force fields either! Not like filming in L.A.
Grn Skier: Currently filming Tom Sawyer 10 miles away. Lots of locals got bit parts.
Dramatica: I love that book. Never been too happy with any of the filmic versions though.
Grn Skier: Hollywood Alabama – real name is only 25 miles away
Dramatica: Now that I did not know. I was very close to Dollywood, but didn’t have time to stop by.
Grn Skier: CA sued to force name change, but local town is MUCH older
Dramatica: No kidding! And the Lone Ranger couldn’t wear his mask, either….What an industry.
Grn Skier: Could you address dif in Classical THEME and D’s use of the term?
Dramatica: Sure…
Dramatica: Since you mentioned Egri, let’s look at his concept of premise, and then see where Dramatica expands it. (In between slices of pizza, of course…) First of all,The Egrian premise consists of three parts…The topic, the journey, and the conclusion.
Grn Skier: I’m doing laundry – My shore in exchange for getting to listen in…While my wife watches our kid.
Dramatica: A typical Egrian premise might read as follows…”Greed leads to self-destruction”. “Greed” is the topic, “leads to” is the journey, and “self-destruction” is the conclusion. Let’s take each part separately, and see how Dramatica theory deals with similar concepts in more depth. First of all, the topic…Dramatica does not see the thematic topic as a single item like greed, but as a conflict, such as self-interest vs. morality. A lot of authors when asked about their theme say things like “My story is about Death”. or about “Greed”. But what about it? What is the alternative? What is it to be compared to so that we, the audience, come away from the story knowing that greed is good or greed is bad, or greed is not all good or bad, but is better or worse than some other issue. So, in Dramatica, we ask you to pick the thematic conflict. And THEN, once you know, for example, that you are dealing with self-interest vs. morality, which one comes first? The one that comes first in that group of two will be the one that is used as the baseline by the audience. In other words, The subject is “self-interest”.
NOW we’re going to see how self-interest holds up as an approach against “morality”. So, “self-interest” becomes the thematic topic or thematic focus, or what we call in Dramatica, the thematic “range”. We call it a range because it describes the scope over which the thematic argument will “range” in the story. Now, Egri gives us a topic and a conclusion, self-destruction. But the “leads to” part is so undetailed, that there is no way to use it to figure out what steps must occur in order for greed to lead to that conclusion. It’s the same problem you encounter in plot, where it is difficult though Aristotle’s view to figure out what ought to happen in act 2 (the middle).
Dramatica says its not just a journey (leads to) but an argument. A THEMATIC argument. Because the point is not that one thing is causally related to
another, (that is much more like plot) but the purpose of theme is to show that one thing fares better than the other, when it is used as a technique to try and solve the story’s problem. What makes up this argument? Well, if you look at a Dramatica chart of thematic elements, you’ll find they come in families of four. For example, Morality, self-interest, attitude, and approach. The way they are arranged in a grid of four is important. Because position determines relationships, as we mentioned earlier regarding characters. Suppose you take a square and divide it into four little squares.
Morality might go in the upper left square, and self-interest would be in the lower right, so that they are diagonal, one to another. In the upper right you might find approach, and in the lower left, would be attitude. Now, in this “quad” of four items each one needs to be compared to the other three in the same family in order to ultimately determine which of the four is best over-all, and/or which is worse. So, there are six kinds of comparisons that will be made.
Grn Skier: Can you define Attitude and Approach in this context?
Dramatica: Sure….Attitude is having your heart in the right (or wrong) place, Approach is using an appropriate or inappropriate method in order to serve either morality or self-interest. Together, they make up a family of thematic concerns.
Grn Skier: Attitude as in I hate doing this, But I have to look out for myself? Or Greed Is Good?
Dramatica: Attitude such as…Sure, he gets the job done (approach) but he’s a bastard to work with (attitude). But is he doing it for his own benefit (self-interest) or for the good of others in spite of themselves (morality)? Now, in this quad, there will be two diagonals, two horizontal pairs, and two vertical pairs, and if we take each pair as a thematic conflict, by the time we go through all six thematic conflicts, we have seen how each item fared in all “appropriate” or “significant” contexts, within the family. It is at the end of such an exploration that the audience can take the “mean average” of each of the six independent thematic “arguments” and determine which (if any) comes out better (even if only slightly) than the other three. All this is a LOT more definitive than “leads to”.
Grn Skier: Can I list sample arguments to help clarify to myself?
Dramatica: Sure…
Grn Skier: Get Job done – But Bastard. Job Done but only to Get Promotion.
Dramatica: Right, approach vs. attitude, followed by approach vs. self-interest.
Grn Skier: Job Done to help Company/Team.
Dramatica: approach vs. morality.
Grn Skier: Get Promotion – what a bastard
Dramatica: self-interest vs. attitude.
Grn Skier: Helped Company – but still a bastard?
Dramatica: morality vs. attitude. That’s five, what’s left…the principle argument of
self-interest vs. morality
Grn Skier: Get Promotion but helps company
Dramatica: Gets promotion OR helps company…The nature of the conflict, is to determine just how far apart the two really are. If you have a benevolent dictator, the two are nearly one and the same, but if you have a despot, the two are very far apart.
Grn Skier: AH – one or the other. I thought my logic flawed
Dramatica: By comparing both Morality and Self-interest to three other items the audience can judge not only which is better when compared to its dynamic opposite but also how far apart they are. And that is the essence of the thematic argument that is described by Egri as “leads to”. So, it DOES lead somewhere, but as I mentioned earlier, that is too simple and not enough. But wait! We still have the conclusion to deal with. Egrian conclusions are like “self-destruction”. Simply the inexorable end-product of starting with the topic as a quality one contains.
In Dramatica, conclusions are not that simple. We ask two questions about endings in Dramatica…First, do the efforts of the characters end in success or failure in relationship to the goal they have been trying to achieve, and second, irregardless of success or failure, does the main character resolve their personal angst or not (good or bad?)
Grn Skier: I’m back on safe ground now.
Dramatica: For example, in Remains of the Day it is clearly success (they maintain the household through change in politics, new owners, many years of history) but it is BAD for our main character because he does not change and open himself to love.
Grn Skier: I wanted to slap those two. They couldn’t just say I like you, let alone love!
Dramatica: He is a steadfast character. It was also an option lock, because it didn’t matter how long it took…there was no ticking clock, it was more an issue of trying all the ways they could to make the relationship work and once those were exhausted, it would or it wouldn’t.
Grn Skier: But they didn’t exercise the most important option – just say Love
Dramatica: Well, that was not an option, that was the personal goal, Not the goal of the Objective story, but the goal of the Subjective story. That is why the judgment is bad, although outcome is success.
Grn Skier: That’s why I wanted to slap ‘em
Dramatica: Unlike Rainman, in which he fails to get the inheritance, but the ending is also good since he loses his hate for his father, and learns to love the brother he didn’t know he had. In Dramatica, we call Success/Good stories triumphs. Failure/Bad stories Tragedies. Success/Bad stories Personal Tragedies and Failure/Good stories Personal Triumphs.
Grn Skier: Like those names.
Dramatica: This is MUCH more finessed than a static concept such as “self-destruction”. Because once you have determined in Dramatica the nature of the Main Character’s central issue (problem) each of the sixty four problem elements might be any of the four outcomes. Creating all the sophistication of the emotional assessment we walk away with from every well argued thematic story. So, putting it all together, A thematic conflict (self-interest vs. morality) argued through six thematic sequences (the six pairs in the quad) leading to a conclusion with four different emotional impacts, creates a much more constructive outline for determining what the course of a story’s passionate argument will be, than X leads to Y, as in Egri. And guess what? It’s seven o’clock, PST and time for me to close up shop!
Grn Skier: A most satisfying evening. showed write a book – Egri explained.
Dramatica: I’ll be back next week. Think up some good questions and I’ll see you then!
Grn Skier: Thanks and have a great evening – must get back to the laundry.
Dramatica: (and good luck with the laundry)
Grn Skier: Night.
The Dramatica Theory of story was developed by Melanie Anne Phillips and Chris Huntley, and was implemented into software by Chief Software Architect, Stephen Greenfield.
Dramatica Class 21
The following excerpt is taken from
The Dramatica Class Transcripts
Change and Steadfast Main Characters
Leap of Faith vs. Non Leap of Faith Stories
Dramatica: Evening, Star!
StarFish76: Hi Dramatica.
Dramatica: Light crowd tonight!
StarFish76: I was Just surfing the Net with little one, otherwise, even I wouldn’t’ve made it!
Dramatica: Ah! Any favorite spots on the Web?
StarFish76: I don’t have anything specific, just working on some projects. No favorite spots.
Dramatica: Have you checked out the Dramatica Home Page?
StarFish76: Not yet. I can’t get there from AOL, can I?
Dramatica: Sure you can. AOL has a browser for both Windows and Mac. Did you download the browser software?
StarFish76: Ya learn something nu every day. No.
Dramatica: Just go to the Internet connection from the Main Menu, and click on World Wide Web. You’ll be taken to a place to download the web browser. Just follow the instructions in the file download message and you can update your software to include a browser. Then, to get to Dramatica’s Home Page, just point your URL at http://www.well.com/user/dramatic/ Note there is no “a” at the end of Dramatic. We have all kinds of theory help, past logs of this class, and all kinds of good stuff for writers.
StarFish76: Gotcha. Will do; I’ve got some Dramatica Questions.
Dramatica: Okay, what are your Dramatica Questions?
StarFish76: I’ve been on a project that is giving me a story form which says
my OS problem is Control.
Dramatica: Okay.
StarFish76: 2 weeks ago, I broke it down and my OS problem was UNcontrol. I
have trouble discerning when its a “lack of thing or a “too much” thing.
Dramatica: Okay, let’s look at the difference between too much and too little control, and too much and too little UNcontrol…
StarFish76: OK.
Dramatica: Clearly, control is keeping things on a rigid course or in a rigid
pattern. Firm guidance. Now, if the problem is caused by too MUCH of that, it is not the same thing as too little UNcontrol. The question is, does the audience perceive the problem as something that has to stop, or as a problem that can only be resolved if something starts. It is the start/stop issue that is difference between too much control and not enough UNcontrol.
StarFish76: My fav.
Dramatica: So, the way to read it is to determine how you want your audience to feel -are they supposed to be waiting for something to begin or something to end. Which one causes the dramatic tension?
StarFish76: With my MC, it’s something 2 end.
Dramatica: Okay, so first of all, is your MC change or steadfast, because that changes the meaning of start and stop.
StarFish76: Chng.
Dramatica: Okay…
Dramatica: So as a change Main Character, and being a STOP Main Character as well, They could be described as having a chip on their shoulder, rather than having a hole in their heart.
StarFish76: Gotcha.
Dramatica: It is their pro-action or overabundance of something that keeps causing the problem. If they would just STOP, things would be okay.
StarFish76: The MC Prob is Avoid.
Dramatica: Okay, so the MC is avoiding too much.
StarFish76: So is the OS prob.
Dramatica: If they would just stop avoiding, everything would be okay.
They don’t have to pursue anything necessarily, just stop avoiding. Now earlier you said the OS problem was Control or Uncontrol…That would be different that if it is avoid.
StarFish76: Sorry focus is control and dir is UN
Dramatica: Of course, both could come up in different attempts at getting the
final storyform. Okay….Now, in a CHANGE story, the focus and direction are less emphasized… The story will be paying more attention to the MC who is going to
change, and therefore, the real issue of too much or too little will be most intense
there. But, the focus and direction WILL come into play…Now, in a CHANGE story, focus and direction will not have much impact in terms of too much or too little, but the way to read it is this…Focus in the Objective Story can be considered the principal symptom of the real problem. And direction is the treatment for that symptom. So, in a sense, the Objective Problem is the disease, the solution is the cure, focus is the symptom, and direction the treatment for that symptom. In a change story,
StarFish76: What’s the diff between cure & treatment?
Dramatica: Okay, let me answer that first…Let’s use an analogy to the human body…Suppose someone has a disease. Sometimes that body can only be healed by applying a cure. If you treat the symptoms, you just make them more comfortable but they’ll die anyway without the cure. But other times there really IS NO cure! And in fact, the only reason the body is dying is that it is being run down by the disease. If you treat the symptoms, you take the pressure off the body long enough for it to rebuild its reserves and then it can heal itself. So the question in the objective story always is do you spend all your resources and time looking for the cure or trying to treat the symptom. That’s where the characters come to blows, arguing apples and oranges.
Now, focus is simply the place where the problem has its most manifest irritation in the story: where it cause the most difficulties. That is where everyone will be looking as it garners their attention. Direction is how the characters respond to that irritation. They move in a particular direction, or in other words, they chart a particular course or take a particular response to the focus or symptom which is right in their face, and in the end, depending upon whether or not the MC changes, they will cause the OS story to stick with the focus and direction or jump ship and try for the cure at the last moment. That is how the MC has sway over the eventual outcome of the Objective story, even if they are not the protagonist, or even if they are not a major objective player at all.
So, with a change story, the emphasis is much more on the start/stop nature of the MC than on that of the Objective Story. But you can still make a good guess as to whether the symptom is something that is too much of something or too little. Looking at your MC, we have determined they are having problems because they avoid too much. Now, for that character, which would put more dramatic pressure on them…to be in a situation where the greatest irritant is too much control, not enough control too much laxity or not enough laxity? That’s one you need to determine. The software won’t carry it that far for you at this point.
StarFish76: Too much control.
Dramatica: Okay, so the environment in which this character avoids things too
much, which is what causes all his or her difficulties, is one of great control. In a sense then, it is their overabundance of effort in avoiding this control that is causing the problem, and if they would only accept a little more control and not try to sidestep it quite so much, things just might work out. And if fact, that is either what they must decide at the moment of the leap of faith, or it is what the audience can determine about their character in a final scene in which a similar scenario to an earlier scene in which we first became aware of their problem comes around again and the audience learns if they respond the same way or not. That is called a “non-leap-of-faith” story. Anyway, that’s how those particular dramatics hang together.
StarFish76: Mine IS a leap-of-faith stry. At least I want it to be
Dramatica: In later version of the software, it will incorporate even more of
those connections, so it can offer some suggestions. Leap of faith stories build to a decisive moment of truth.
StarFish76: Y
Dramatica: in which the MC must CONSCIOUSLY make a decision.
StarFish76: Y
Dramatica: NON leap of faith stories build to a moment of truth in which the MC is unaware they have returned to the same situation that their problem centered on, and responds the same way or differently, because they may have been changed by the experiences they had over the course of the story. Both kinds can have major tension or be played lightly.
StarFish76: Mine is L-O-F.
Dramatica: Okay, so your MC will have to make the conscious choice.
StarFish76: For me it’s both. They’ve been changed, but consciously make a
decision
Dramatica: The Obstacle character will have created an alternative paradigm
to the MC’s belief system that the OC has slowly built up over the course of the story.
StarFish76: Y
Dramatica: The MC is faced with choosing between their life-long tried and true approach, which has a great history, but seems to be failing at the moment, or the new, untried, unknown paradigm offered by the OC’s impact, which seems to explain more including this exceptional situation, but has never been put to the test. Apples and Oranges… that’s why it is a leap of faith, rather than a logical decision.
StarFish76: OK I’m with you.
Dramatica: You can’t logically compare the two. Also, the Obstacle character need not even know they have had this impact. They might be totally unaware that their actions and responses have created this alternative understanding that tempts the MC to abandon their long-held views. Or, they may be quite aware and have been doing it all on purpose. As you can see, that is the OC equivalent of a Leap of Faith or NON leap of faith story: are they consciously aware of their IMPACT or not? So, this gives you four kinds of climactic moments…
StarFish76: Intahrestuing…
Dramatica: MC makes a conscious decision based on an OC’s intentional
manipulations, MC makes a conscious decision based on the OC’s unintentional
impact, MC is not aware they are in the same situation, and the OC has intentionally brought them there. Or, MC is not aware they are in the same situation, and the OC brought it about through unintentional impact.
StarFish76: Good.
Dramatica: The climax of a story can fall into four categories!
StarFish76: I’m going to dwnld this convers.
Dramatica: Good. We’ll also have it posted on AOL next week some time. And soon on our Web Pages. Any other questions tonight?
StarFish76: You’ve been vry helpful. I have a stry meet w/ a writer to rewrite a project this Sun Morn.
Dramatica: Well, I dare say you’ll have some things to talk about!
StarFish76: And now I’ve got a b better understanding Thnx.
Dramatica: Sure enough. Well, if you haven’t any other questions at the moment, I’ve got tickets to Congo, so I’ll just wrap it up and go see the show.
StarFish76: I’m gonna bail. get back 2 wrk bye. Enjoy.
Dramatica: Niters! And good luck!
StarFish76: Toodaloo!
The Dramatica Theory of story was developed by Melanie Anne Phillips and Chris Huntley, and was implemented into software by Chief Software Architect, Stephen Greenfield.