Category Archives: Definitions

Dramatica Class 10

The following  excerpt is taken from

The Dramatica Class Transcripts

Dramatica : Any favorite topics tonight?

StephenHR : Yeah.

Dramatica : Whatcha got?

StephenHR : My MC has a “problem” of desire and when I build characters I selected from the quad with desire in it but he does not have it. He is the focus or direction.

Dramatica : I think there is a confusion of some terms…. First of all, when building characters, you can choose any elements you want for the Main Character. So, the desire element must have been available to you.

StephenHR : Yes.

Dramatica : It that accurate so far?

StephenHR : Yes.

Dramatica : Now, you use the term focus or direction, by saying that was what your Main Character was. How did you determine what was focus and what was direction?

StephenHR : Well, I was reaching with that one.

Dramatica : Well, are you talking about the MC focus and direction or the Objective story? And for that matter, are you talking about the MC or Objective problem?

StephenHR : All good questions.

Dramatica : Well, there is a relationship between the problem that drives the Main Character, and their role in the Objective story. Just because the Main Character has a problem, does not mean it is a problem in the story as a whole, though it could be. In fact, if you have a “change” Main Character, all you know so far is that in the objective story, the Main or Obstacle will contain the Objective problem element and the other character will contain the solution.

Which has which is determined by success and failure. When you have a steadfast Main Character, the Main and Obstacle will have either the focus or direction elements in the objective story. This is because the steadfast character shares a focus with the objective story, the changing character shares a problem. But whether they sit on problem or solution for change, or focus or direction for steadfast, depends on whether they are doing the right thing, which has to do with success or failure.

Main Character is really a point of view. It just means the player through whom the audience experiences the story first hand, as if it were happening to them. That “player” that contains the Main Character could also contain the Protagonist, or the Antagonist, Sidekick, or any archetypal or non-archetypal objective character. Keep in mind that while MC is just a point of view, a position of the audience, as it were, the objective characters are defined by their dramatic function in the plot. Just like looking at a battle from a hill, you see the soldiers not by looking through their eyes, but by the job they are doing.

So, the MC may or may not be the one leading the charge. But one thing is sure, the MC and the OC will both be involved in the central or crucial issues that will allow success or bring failure. The MC holds the key, even though another objective character may be the one who will ultimately use it. So, the MC and OC are each in a “player” and each of these “players” will have an objective function in them, sitting in the same “body” that the audience uses as its point of view, or in the case of the Obstacle character, in that body that is most in their face from the Main Character’s point of view.

That objective function will either be the problem or solution element in a change story, or the focus or direction element in a change story. In that manner, if the Main Character part of that “player” makes a leap of faith, it will have an “influence” on whether they keep that objective trait, or swap it for its opposite. In a sense, it’s kind of like magnetic poles, what happens in the MC’s choice at the leap of faith, will have an impact on that player’s objective function, which will open the door to success or failure.

Similarly, the objective player might be forced into a situation, in which it must trade its function for the opposite, and as a result, the influence causes the MC part of that player to have to change. Which way it goes depends on the story. In “Jaws”, the objective trait is swapped through Brody’s necessity of shooting at the shark. Behind the scenes, as it were, his MC part loses its fear of water. It was the objective part that caused the MC change. This is unlike “A Christmas Carol” where Scrooge must consciously make a decision to change, and as a result swaps miserliness for generosity, in the objective story. Does that give you some scope on the issue?

StephenHR : Yes, but we’ve got 64 characteristics…do they play once, twice , any amount?

Dramatica : I’m not sure what you mean by “play”…

StephenHR : Show up

Dramatica : Ah, the way it works, is that the objective characters represent the traits they contain for the entire duration of the story. They are constantly coming into play. The most important number of times, is enough to interact with the other three elements in the same “quad”. That is how the relative value of each of the four approaches in a quad can be determined, by seeing how well they fare against each other. But at this level the detail is so small, that it is apt to get lost in the storytelling.

StephenHR : Plus the three interactions with each player?

Dramatica : As a result, you can have more interactions than that for plot purposes without really hurting your story. Yes, there is a rule of thumb called “The Rule of Threes”. Basically, it states that although the author will always be aware of four items that stake out the corners of each dramatic interaction, the audience will be positioned on one corner, and “feel” three interactions. This is what creates the feel of a “three act structure” for an audience, among other things. So, with characters, if they are archetypes, each archetype must have three interactions with the other archetypes in their quad. But since they also have more than just motivations, since they also have methodologies, purposes, and means of evaluation, the audience will also stand on one of those levels, and expect to see three interactions per archetype with each of the other archetypes.

Dramatica : As an example, a protagonist will have three run-ins with the antagonist. The first will introduce the nature of the conflict, or the dramatic potential that exists. The second will be the actual interaction between them, the third will be the resolution to their conflict. Clearly, any of these three stages might be short or very long in how much time or how many pages you devote to it. That is a matter of storytelling. But for complex characters, it is much more of a mix-up, because the relationships occur in different quads, and therefore require more set up, which makes that part of the story more structured causing character-heavy pieces to have less space or screen time for plot issues.

StephenHR : What determines audience “feeling” position in a quad without the MC player?

Dramatica : The author’s thematic bias. The theme of the story, is going to be explored by the characters. When the author has determined their point of view on the story’s issues,

StephenHR : Is there a pointer?

Dramatica : the character that represents the author’s view is the one that would be the “anchor point”. No pointer at this time that happens automatically. As you know, Dramatica is a theory in ongoing development.

StephenHR : OK, just checking.

Dramatica : Although it does things for writers no other theory of story has been able to do, it is far from complete. The pointer you would like is just one of the future applications we hope to work out in theory so we can implement that extra functionality into the software.

StephenHR : OK, so I am launching out again into storyweaving…into the unknown…

Dramatica : Storyweaving… ya gotta love it!

StephenHR : yeah, but I’m all thumbs. Walk me through a logical progression…

Dramatica : Well, storyweaving is the part most author’s are already doing pretty well. Logic isn’t really the issue in this stage of the process.

StephenHR : That could explain a lot.

Dramatica : It’s all a matter of author’s interests and preferences. By the time you have a storyform and have encoded it, by illustrating the points in the software, they you have a really complete idea of all the things that are going to have to show up in your story. You have “developed” your concept, until it is a complete idea. At that point, it is not nearly so important what order you do things in, as long as you remain true and consistent to the message you have decided to send. I truly think that over “logic”ing or over structuring the storyweaving process takes all the heart and creativity out of it. As a checklist, you can look in some of the “progression” reports in the software, and create 3×5 cards with all the items that need to be explored.

Then, you can rearrange the order of the cards into the order you’d like to unfold those dramatic points to your audience. Its really as simple as that. The hard part is making sure the idea is complete to begin with, and that is what Dramatica was built to do. The rest is up to your natural abilities as a storytelling, so trust your feelings, Luke! Any other points you’d like to touch on?

StephenHR : I’m redoing the 3 X 5’s and checking them twice.

Dramatica : A good way to make the cards, is to look at the six thematic conflicts that will occur in each of the four throughlines. This comes to a total of 24 conflicts, which is just about the number of scenes you will find in a single, complete story. So, you can build your scenes around those thematic conflicts, which allows you to use the “feel” of the scene thematically, as the foundation for the dramatic points that will be played out against that background.

StephenHR : Got that.

Dramatica : Any other questions, answers, or whatevers?

StephenHR : When is the Beta due?

Dramatica : We are testing in-house, even as we speak. AND we have a release date for the finished version of April 3rd! In fact, “Dramatica” is now being split into two separate products. Dramatica Pro and Dramatica Lite. The reasons were that for beginning to intermediate writers, D Pro was MUCH too intimidating. As you know, it has so much in it, that it can be overwhelming.

StephenHR : I am proof.

Dramatica : So, D Lite was created to be a fully-functional version of Dramatica, with the exact same story engine, but that stays away from the more complex reports and dramatic points. Dramatica per se, is being replaced with D Pro, which will continue to add functionality and complexity. So, D Pro is definitely not for the novice. But if the novice wants to upgrade, they can buy D Lite, and then buy D Pro from Screenplay Systems directly, and deduct the full purchase price of D Lite from the cost of D Pro! We made D- Lite just to help new writers ease into this new concept.

StephenHR : Cute and a good marketing move for product introduction.

Dramatica : We didn’t realize just how much we had crammed into Dramatica, until we started creating Dramatica Lite. Then it became clear we had an industrial strength writing tool, and needed something for the novice!

StephenHR : I think I got what I wanted from Dramatica for my rewriting… a very tough but objective writing partner of sorts.

Dramatica : I hope so. There is still so much we are looking forward to adding that will support the actual writing process all the way to finished product. But, for now, we’ll have to settle for being a story development tool, where you work out your story’s dramatics, not a place where you write the story.

StephenHR : Now that I’ve paid the price of using it, I’m looking forward to having it along as I dive back into writing. All for me now. Thanks.

Dramatica : Okay. Well, let’s call it a night! Good writing!

StephenHR : Done. Good 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 9

The following  excerpt is taken from

The Dramatica Class Transcripts

StephenHR : Howdy. How about an example of a grand argument story: Good and or bad?

Dramatica : Wow! Just out of thin air?

StephenHR : Well?

Dramatica : Okay, Okay. You want one from me, or are you selling one?

StephenHR : From you.

Dramatica : Okay. The Fugitive is a Grand Argument story, as an example. The biggest clue to a G.A.S. is that you can find all four throughlines in it, and they all seem fully developed.

In The Fugitive, you can find Dr. Richard Kimble’s throughline, which is the Main Character throughline, which has to do with his remaining steadfast in the attempt to track down the killer of his wife. You can see the Objective Story throughline, which is about whether or not, the fugitive will be re-captured, or if his name will be cleared. Then, there is the Obstacle Character throughline, about how Girrard grows to believe that Dr. Kimble may be innocent.

Dramatica : (Hi Wolfman!)

Wolfman188 : Hi, Folks call me Ben.

Dramatica : Girrard says, “I don’t care” when told by Kimble that he is not guilty. Later, in the scene in the police car with Kimble, he admits to caring and says, “Don’t tell anybody”. He has changed while Kimble remained steadfast.

And finally, there is the Subjective Story throughline, which is the relationship between the Main and Obstacle characters, and clearly the impact of Girrard and Kimble on one another is fully developed. So, that is a good indication that The Fugitive is indeed a Grand Argument Story.

Dramatica : So, Hi, Ben! Now, Stephen, you also wanted to know about Good and Bad. Do you want the theory or some examples?

StephenHR : Examples. Hello Ben.

Dramatica : Okay. Let’s start with a simple one: Star Wars. Obviously, it ends in success, but does the Main Character resolve their inner conflict? Your best guess….

StephenHR : no

Dramatica : Why not? How about some reasons, and who IS the Main Character.

StephenHR : I was thinking that Luke is the MC.

Dramatica : That is correct, it is through Luke that the audience experiences what it is like to be in the story We see it through his eyes, primarily from his point of view. Now, why do you say he does not resolve his angst? Perhaps another couple of examples, will help clarify the issue…. In fact, we see Luke as resolving his inner conflict, which has to do with him having confidence in himself even when others say to do something else. He must trust the force, in effect, trust himself. All along he listens to his uncle, “That’s your uncle talking…” and then he listens to Obi Wan who tells him to take Obi to the space port.

Sure, he goes out and does heroic deeds, but he still does not believe in himself enough to put it all on the line, not trusting the computer or the mission control guys for the rebels. It is because he shuts off the computer and trusts the force that we can see he has changed. And after that change, not only does he find success, but the constant wondering of his “wanna be” nature is resolved. This is in contrast, to say, Silence of the Lambs.

In Silence of the Lambs, the objective goal is to stop Buffalo Bill. They must rescue the Senator’s daughter and catch BB. In fact, they do, so it is a success. But for Clarise Starling, her personal outcome is bad, because she has not resolved her angst or inner pain. If you look at the last scene before the titles roll, they are at the graduation party, something that should be a big joyous celebration. But the music is VERY somber… and instead of the fancy camera work we might expect, there are these long dolly shots that lower the mood s well. The phone rings, it is Hannibal Lecter. The first thing he asks is: “Clarise, are the lambs still crying?” She doesn’t reply. She can’t because the lambs ARE still crying. She is still carrying around the pain of that one lost lamb she couldn’t save. Her whole career is based on trying to save other “lambs” so maybe the pain will go away. Lecter even says he won’t go after her. He says “The world is a better place with you in it”. He changes, but she can’t.

Dramatica : (Hi Rene)

StephenHR : So Luke resolves the OS and the SS in the one action as the MC. Clarise resolves OS not the SS.

Rene Simon : Hello everyone. Sorry I’m late, my dog ate my….

Dramatica : LOL, Rene!

Rene Simon : Could someone briefly recap for me?!

Dramatica : Doing that now, Rene. Yes, Stephen. There are four combinations that are possible.

StephenHR : Who changes? Hannibal?

Dramatica : Yes, Stephen, Hannibal ALWAYS eats EVERYONE he gets to, but Clarise is the first he has let live.

StephenHR : Ah hah.

Dramatica : She remains steadfast in trying to save the lambs, but he changes. You’ll find that when you have a Main and Obstacle character, One will change and the other will remain steadfast. Clarise is Main, Hannibal is her Obstacle. The subjective story is the growth in their relationship as Hanibal (as Obstacle) forces Clarise to address the very issues that drive her.

Rene Simon : Does the main character have to remain steadfast? My story is the opposite?

Dramatica : No, Rene, Main can change or remain steadfast, but whatever they do, the Obstacle will do the reverse. Just like with Luke and Obi Wan, Obi Wan remains steadfast in saying “trust the force”, and Luke finally buys into to it, just in time to save the day.

Rene Simon : I see.

Dramatica : Now I mentioned four combinations that are possible between success/failure and good/bad. Success/good is a “Triumph” Failure/bad is a “Tragedy” Success/Bad is a “Personal Tragedy” Failure/Good is a “Personal Triumph”.

Rene Simon : Please forgive my seeming stupid questions, I’ve only recently purchased Dramatica

Dramatica : No problem, Rene, this is new to most everyone! Success/Good is like Star Wars Success/Bad like Silence of the Lambs. Success/Bad is also Remains of the Day

StephenHR : Why does Hannibal change? Do we know? Is it love? I am humbled often, believe me.

Dramatica : Stephen, we don’t see WHY Hannibal changes, which is often true of the Obstacle Character. From an audience perspective, the Main Character is “I” or “Me” Whereas the Obstacle Character is “You”. Audiences get their greatest benefit from learning when (in the author’s opinion) it is better to remain steadfast, and when it is better to change. But the pathway by which we can hold on to our resolve or arrive at change is important. In contrast, the only thing we need to know about the Obstacle character is if they will ultimately give in to us or not. Why and how CAN be shown, but doesn’t have to be. It’s not THEIR head we are occupying as an audience.

Rene Simon : After writing from a purely intuitive sense of story and structure, Dramatica is a very different method of construction. Is that in the audience subjective POV?

Dramatica : Tell you what, let me finish out the list of four combinations and then I’ll deal with the four perspectives an audience is provided in a story. We did success/good and success/bad.

StephenHR : Good.

Rene Simon : As in too many people in here….can’t think… goooo away!!!!! And all wannabe writers, what a collection!

Dramatica : Ha! When we do our classes in Burbank, we get 30 at a time! Quite an interesting affair, always.. Now, Failure/Bad. Hamlet, for example. Whereas, a failure/good story is Rainman, in which he fails to get part of the inheritance, but comes to terms with the hatred of his father. A personal Triumph. Remember, Good and Bad is not passing judgment on whether the success or failure is good or bad, it is only telling us if the Main Character is at peace or not by the end of the story.

As an example, there are two stories running side by side in Crimes and Misdemeanors, by Woody Allen. The Crime story is about a respected doctor who has his mistress killed in order to protect his reputation. Afterward, he goes through all kinds of angst dealing with the moral issues driven by his upbringing The misdemeanor story is a poor soul who wants to get the girl and keeps his morality no matter what it costs him. In the end, the two Main Characters come together for the only time, sitting side by side on a piano bench. The Crime MC tells his story in brief to the other. He says there was a guy who… and then tells the story.

He concludes by saying, you know, the police never caught him, and you know what? He woke up one morning, and was okay with it. It just didn’t bother him anymore. So his outcome was success/GOOD because he resolved his angst. While in the other story, the poor MC loses the girl, failure, and feels awful! (Bad)

Rene Simon : I’m sorry to keep interrupting, but is this class only 1 hour long?

Dramatica : Yes, just one short hour! So, old Woody Allen, has created a juxtaposition for the audience of two stories that go against cultural mores and conventions to say that sometimes the bad guys win and feel great, and the good guys lose and feel awful.

Rene Simon : Can you talk a bit about The Verdict? as pertains to these aspects of structure? Good point of view for Woody BTW given his choice in girls, huh?

Dramatica : Rene, Woody always puts himself up on screen. No shame there!

Rene Simon : You’re right, just kiddin’.

Dramatica : In The Verdict, the goal is to get proper compensation for the relatives of the vegetable and also to bring the culprits to justice. They achieve that. In fact, at the end of the trial, the jury asks if they can award MORE than was asked for! Now, Frank Galvin, the Main Character, starts out as a loser, and why? Because he no longer believes in the legal system. He USED to believe, but when he tried to believe, he was set up to take the fall for his superiors, he was almost disbarred, and after a short jail term, fell into drink and ambulance chasing. He is a man absolutely lacking faith in the system. When it comes down to it at the end, he must change. And he does.

He tells the jury that all of his evidence has been disallowed, and that the court has been biased against him. But today, they, the jury ARE the system. And THEY can make the difference. In effect, he realizes the system is made up of people, and he has faith in those people. So, by regaining his faith, he is able to make a closing statement that does the trick, wins the money and resolves his lack of faith.

Rene Simon : I’m very interested in this because my main character has a very similar arc to Galvin’s. Loss of faith. Then redemption.

Dramatica : He comes away centered again. Which is why he doesn’t answer the phone at the end You can also tell it is Good because of a very interesting trick in the sound effects. All through the story, Frank’s drink has ice cubes that clank on the glass. In the last scene – no clanking.

StephenHR : To go back, can you give a brief synopsis of the Fugitive’s subjective story?

Rene Simon : When I did my story on Dramatica it came down to one storyform. How do you go about finding a list of films that use the same storyform, and which of the reports is best for illustrating that.

Dramatica : I’ll talk about each of those points, Stephen and Rene… First of all, Stephen, Since Kimble is a steadfast character his resolve grows over the course of the story as he must hold out against larger and larger obstacles. The subjective story is about how this resolve changes the nature of the relationship between him and Girrard. Notice the scene in which Kimble helps the boy with the chest injury in the hospital. That is one instance in which the relationship grows because Girrard is unable to make that action fit with the view that Kimble is a killer.

Now, a moment for Rene… If you go into the DQS (Dramatica Query System), you will find that there is a bar of buttons in the middle of the question windows.

Rene Simon : The examples yes.

Dramatica : If you click on the “stories” button, that will call up any stories in the Examples folder that have the same dramatic story point you chose for your story. Now, there is not yet a way to search through the entire list of example stories and see which one is most like your story, simply because the storyform has no emphasis that makes goal more or less important than Main Character problem, for example.

Rene Simon : But isn’t there some kind of generic outlining for the entire storyform that breaks it down to the common elements for it?

Dramatica : Well, in the reports section, you can print out a list of all the story points, by dramatic function both for your story and any example story. It is important to keep in mind, that there are four stages of communication in Dramatica theory and software. Storyforming, Story Encoding, Story Weaving, and Reception. It is the last three that determine emphasis. Storyforming only says what points are in a story.

Rene Simon : This seems somewhat cumbersome, as the definitions that come with the reports are too long and all of the reports total way over 30+ pages. I’d love to see a brief 3-4 pg. report that outlines, connects your story to like stories in the same form.

Dramatica : Rene, you can shut off the definition in the reports. There are three buttons at the top of the reports window that allow you to shut off tutorial and definitions, and even remove your storytelling if you like, leaving only the raw report.

Rene Simon : Oh? How? In preference?

Dramatica : Not in preferences, but in the Reports window itself. Up at the top of the screen are three buttons with blue lettering. They toggle, so you can click them on an off in any combination. This can shorten your reports significantly.

Wolfman188 : Perhaps we students should observe protocol: type “?” and wait to be recognized.

Rene Simon : Hey Wolfie! You do talk, I thought you were like Chewbacca! Nothing personal, Wolfie. But seize the day!

Dramatica : Okay, more questions? Bring ‘em on!

StephenHR : What about the clanking? Chaos reigns.

Dramatica : Chaos WOULD reign if the clanking was in and out, but it is there in EVERY scene except the last one. All part of the effect, like the music in Silence of the lambs, without having to make a big point of it, they showed that Frank Galvin changed.

Rene Simon : That Pollack, he’s something else, eh!

Dramatica : You know, this is ALSO supposed to be one Dramatica user or interested writer talking to another. My fingers are getting stubby!

StephenHR : Where to begin?

Dramatica : Oh, anywhere…

Rene Simon : Can you tell me how to best use the program to define my conflicts and goals without becoming mechanistic. My main character that is!

Dramatica : Sure. Start by choosing your goals and conflicts. When you come to create a storyform, you can start with any story points are most important to you. And wherever you start, there will be no limitations whatsoever. So, to avoid feeling like your choices are causing the Story Engine to pen you into a box, Begin with your highest priorities, and then when the Story Engine starts to “predict” what else ought to be in your story, the issues won’t be as large.

Rene Simon : I’ve got about 60 pages of the script done, and the story is pretty well outlined, then what? Oh and I have one storyform already.

Dramatica : Okay, did you do the storyform before the 60 pages?

Rene Simon: No after about 50.

Dramatica : Okay….Keep in mind that Dramatica is designed as a Story Development tool, not a place to write. that’s why it works with all formats, not just screenplays.

Rene Simon : But the story has remained pretty much the same.

Dramatica : When you come to Dramatica after already creating a draft or part of a draft, you should think about what you have already created, and then look at the list of Dramatica story points, and answer the questions in order of importance to you when considering your story. Then, you can create a storyform that will encompass all your most essential points.

Rene Simon : Yes, but a good writer is developing and refining with every draft. NO?

StephenHR : I have some experience here! After trying to rewrite with Dramatica for a month.

Rene Simon : AHA!!!

StephenHR : I was led to break a rule.

Dramatica : Please share!

Rene Simon : which was?

StephenHR : Do storytelling first and work backwards.

Rene Simon : hmmm the cart before the horse method? Did it work?

StephenHR : It helped me be objective about what I had written.

Dramatica : Actually, we suggest that as one alternative. Sometimes, just by typing in the storytelling to the questions first, you can better understand which dramatic choices to make in the storyforming. If you aren’t aware, there is a button in the storyforming questions called “storytelling”. If you answer the storytelling questions first, then when you go to the storyforming questions, by pressing that button, all that you wrote on that storypoint will show up in the window, and help you choose the item for your storyform for that question.

Rene Simon : I’ve read from Truby’s method, that it’s very useful to go back and forth from writing to musing, what do you think?

StephenHR : I use Truby and I do the musing first.

Rene Simon : How do you think the two systems compare?

StephenHR : Dramatica is a system and an elegant, possibly inspired theory…

Rene Simon : aha!! aha!! And truby?

StephenHR : Truby is another viewpoint on being a writer especially in, well, social responsibilities?

Rene Simon : Yes I like that aspect.

StephenHR : He was a philosopher, you know. Of sorts.

Dramatica : Truby has some really fine tips for storytelling. When it comes to genre, and social impact, he excels.

Rene Simon : The moral question that each protagonist faces.

Wolfman188 : Melanie, did you get as far tonight as you expected?

Dramatica : Actually, Ben, I don’t have an agenda, I just hang out and answer questions and gather comments.

Rene Simon : Dramatica is exciting and this conversation has inspired me to explore it more. My learning curve is pretty steep, so I’ll be loaded with questions next week. Stubby fingers.

Wolfman188 : I can see that Rene and Stephen know lots more about Dramatica than I do.

Dramatica : Yes, well, I’ve been working with the theory for 15 years, and there’s always more nuance to learn.

Rene Simon : Did you actually develop the theory on your own or based on what?

Dramatica : Actually, Rene, Chris Huntley and I came up with a single inspiration in college. We worked with it on and off over the years.

Rene Simon : Which was?

Dramatica : About five years ago, we started working on it full time. It took four years of that time to finish the theory.

Rene Simon : I’m always interested in what gets us going on lifetime quests!

Dramatica : The concept is that every complete story is a model of the psychology of a SINGLE MIND trying to solve a problem or resolve an inequity. So that STORY MIND is not the author or the characters or the audience, but a map for our own minds to acquire as a path toward solving a specific problem. Characters are the motivations of that mind, Plot, the methods it employs, Theme, its value standards, Genre, the nature of the mind as a whole, what kind of mind is it that is considering the problem.

Wolfman188 : The NF library is still missing Log #6. I can’t be here again until April. Keep good logs!

Rene Simon : Hey Wolfie, BOW WOW, keep plugging Dude!

Rene Simon : Nothing personal, Melanie, but intelligent women are very very sexy!

Dramatica : Love it! I wish there were more men around these parts who thought so!

StephenHR : I do.

Wolfman188 : Patience, Mel, It’s frightening to be awake among sleepwalkers until you learn to pretend!

Dramatica : Point well taken, Ben! And thank you too, Stephen!

Rene Simon : Sorry to disrupt your discourse with frivolous asides.

StephenHR : Yo, stay with me. I’m still in the woods.

Rene Simon : You must be in L.A.?

Dramatica : Yep, L.A.

Dramatica : Well, that seems a good place to end for the night!

Wolfman188 : Folks, thanks — I’ve got to pack for an early trip. Good to meet you. See ya live in April.

Dramatica : I’ll be here next week… Same Dramatica Time, Same Dramatica Channel!

Dramatica : Niters!

Rene Simon : Thanks!! See ya next week.

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 8

The following  excerpt is taken from

The Dramatica Class Transcripts

Dramatica : If you have any topics about the theory or the software, I’m your gal!

StephenHR : I’m getting too worldly. I’m thinking….

Dramatica : Hmmmm… thinking can be bad for your health! “The more they over-think the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drains!” Well, definitely a quiet night!

StephenHR : Take my OC Act 1 type Progress…

Dramatica : Okay… What is your OC Act 2?

StephenHR : Future.

Dramatica : Alright. Every “Act” in a four-act structure, is not really descriptive of an activity, but is a sign post on the path of that throughline. If your Act I for your Obstacle Character is Progress, then it means they are starting at Progress. In other words, when we come to them at the beginning of the story, Progress best describes the principal area of their efforts and concerns. For an Obstacle Character, we measure them most by their “Impact” as opposed to what they, themselves, are paying attention to.

So, the Obstacle Character’s impact concerns “Progress” in Act one. But that is just where they start. Their impact shifts from Progress to Future. That is really what the first act of the three-act structure is all about. The OC’s impact “shifts” from Progress to Future over the course of the act. When the OC’s impact is fully on the Future, that is where we feel an “act break” in the story. Now, an impact on Progress, simply means that the OC is having an effect on Progress, everywhere they have an influence. They might be speeding up Progress, or slowing it down. Whichever way the impact, depends upon what is needed to ultimately bring the Main Character to consider changing their approach.

By impacting Progress, the Obstacle Character forces the Main Character into a position where they must abandon their approach in one area, and therefore, by the end of the act, the Main Character has “grown” a little closer to addressing the central issue of the story… the Obstacle Character has forced them to grow a bit, in order to avoid having to deal with that issue right here and now.

But as soon as the Main Character thinks they can relax, the act changes, and the OC’s influence can be felt in a new area; Future. Future is just the thing that will force the main Character forward in their growth to that ultimate decision to remain steadfast or change. And, Future will be able to do that without allowing the MC to back slide to where they started. It is important to keep in mind, that the OC may not even be aware of their impact on the MC. They might, of course, but they don’t have to be.

Sometimes just their presence can force the Main Character to address issues they would rather not. And by their continued presence, as the OC changes their relationship in response to the overall story, their impact changes in just the right way to keep forcing that MC closer and closer to the reason they feel impacted at all. Then, the MC will ultimately be changed, or remain the same, whether that happens in a “leap of faith”, or in a subtle way, where the audience sees that the MC has been changed, but the MC just grows into that change: they never make it consciously. Well, that should open up some questions…

StephenHR : My OC is also my Protagonist, and I was not considering his different effect in those roles.

Dramatica : Yes, it’s hard to keep from thinking of the Protagonist as the MC, even if they are the OC. Because they are so important to the logistics of the story as a Protagonist, we have a tendency to want to know what they are thinking and feeling. And there is nothing wrong with that, especially when they ARE the MC. But when they are the Obstacle Character, we won’t be standing in the Protagonist’s shoes. We, as audience, will be standing in the shoes of whoever the Main Character is, and we will be watching the OC as Protagonist, and evaluating what impact they are having on us, the audience (Main Character).

Of course, the Main Character view for the audience is the “first person” experience, where the experience feels like “I” or “me” to the audience, as if they are living the story themselves. From this perspective we, the audience, see the Obstacle Character as “you”. We watch what they are doing, and judge what it means to us. Then, the relationship between “I”, the Main Character, and “you” the Obstacle, is the Subjective story, “we”.

StephenHR : Maybe I have a problem (again) with my Storyform. The story is titled, “The Dreams of the Assassin”. The killer is the OC who forces the MC, a psychologist who tries to help him with his bad dreams and is forced to face his own “skeletons.” The problem with the killer as the OC is that we spend a lot of time in the killer’s head.

Dramatica : That is a very touchy storytelling problem.

StephenHR : His internal journey forces his external journey which forces the MC to make his own leap.

Dramatica : If you look at “Philadelphia”, which I haven’t seen, but Chris uses as an example, the MC is the change character. He talks of the scene where Tom Hanks is listening to the music.

StephenHR : Great scene…

Dramatica : Chris says that scene is shot in first person, but that the role of MC was muddied in the film, and as a result, it seemed very interesting, but somewhat odd, to be in his head at that moment. This seems something akin to the situation, in general, in your story as described. It is really a matter of perspective. You know that feeling you get as an audience when you are watching something happen to someone, and you feel as if it’s happening to you, versus the other kind of perspective where you see the same thing happening to someone, but you feel like you are watching it happen to them.

StephenHR : Yes.

Dramatica : Look to the “Freddy” horror films… You’ll see that in some of the films, several people get sucked into the dream world, but only one of them has us feeling that it is happening to us. When you are dealing with the Obstacle Character, we will care more ABOUT them than any other except the Main Character, but we will not feel as if what happens to them happens to us.

So, you need to keep your perspective somewhat “detached” from the OC, even when they are experiencing very personal things. The more personal you make their adventures, the more difficult the task of keeping the audience from identifying with them, instead of just sympathizing for them. So, you have constructed a very interesting storyline, but you will need to be very careful in how you present that character, to keep from muddling your throughlines. Did you see “Lawnmower Man”?

StephenHR : Yes.

Dramatica : Did you notice how the Lawnmower Man himself was not the Main Character? And this was true even though he had so much screen time. We never felt like we were this guy. Rather, even though we felt he got a bum shake, and was taken advantage of, during most of the story he is a very sympathetic character. Yet, we never identify with him. It is the rather obnoxious doctor we identify with. That is part of what made me not enjoy the viewing experience. I didn’t want to be the obnoxious doctor, I really wanted to be the Lawnmower Man. That would’ve been wonderful!

StephenHR : I found that film distant. too.

Dramatica : Then we could all engage in a tirade against the establishment, and feel somewhat justified, and even if it ended in tragedy, we would have gone down swinging, but instead, we end up winning, and feel like we lost! Still, they were very consistent in how they presented the Lawnmower Man, so they did a good job of storytelling, even though I think they made a poor choice from an audience reception stand point.

StephenHR : Well, this is the issue. I’m afraid to ask “you” to be the killer.

Dramatica : Why not ask us to be the killer? Look at “Natural Born Killers”, Look at “Pulp Fiction” Look at “Naked Lunch”. All of these have rather despicable characters as Main Characters, and we get into it being able to be bad without having to pay the price in the real world.

StephenHR : It’s weird. I feel guilty? This is about paying the price.

Dramatica : Sure, guilt can be a good reason. You have to write what works for you, but one reason a lot of writers are motivated to write, is to confront their own fears and prejudices, and work them out through the creative catharsis of storytelling.

StephenHR : Yeh, too true.

Dramatica : Holding back seldom made a revolutionary talent. But it can keep one employed in the machine as a staff writer.

StephenHR : Yeh.

Dramatica : As a staff writer, the LAST think you want is being revolutionary or cathartic.

StephenHR : OK, I’m going back into the Storyform. I’m not staff.

Dramatica : Good for you! Take some chances, and if they don’t work out, don’t show them to anybody. Safest thing in the world.

StephenHR : I was really let down by Lawnmower Man.

Dramatica : Me too. I thought it was a major cop-out. Hiya, IAM!

StephenHR : Yo

Dramatica : Welcome to the Dramatica Chat!

IAMWEALTHY : Hi, sorry to get here so late.

Dramatica : No problem, I’m here every Friday night from 9 – 10 PM Eastern. Do you have any questions about the software or the theory?

IAMWEALTHY : Can I ask if there will be another storyform?

Dramatica : What version of the program do you have, and MAC or Windows?

IAMWEALTHY : I mean the newsletter>

Dramatica : Oh, the newsletter! Yes, we are working on one right now. This will be issue #5.

IAMWEALTHY : Great!

Dramatica : We have had to limit our schedule to 3 or 4 issues a year, as we are all busy creating new things to go in the software, and have to take time from that to write the articles for the newsletter, but it WILL continue! In this upcoming issue, I hope to have an article on The Vampire Chronicles, and on The X Files, and a few other items we are working out right now. Examples from real stories or just like the scenarios we have in our Context help in the program.

IAMWEALTHY : I would also like to know if you have considered an example supplement for the dictionary? Any examples that would help illustrate…

Dramatica : No. Well, as you know, there are three or four dramatic illustrations for every storypoint in the software. You just click on the item you want illustrated and then select the “context” button in the Dramatica query System. There are about 2200 contexts, each with three or four examples! It took a team of six Dramatica Interns six months to write them all!

IAMWEALTHY : I’ll try it. Thanks.

Dramatica : As for real story examples, we ship about 20 stories with the software right now, and more are on the way, including Being There, and A Doll’s House. We post new ones all the time on your Dramatica BBS. You can download them at no charge.

IAMWEALTHY : I’m dealing with the Thriller genre.

Dramatica : Are you connected to the Dramatica BBS?

IAMWEALTHY : Yes.

Dramatica : Good. We just got a couple of notes from horror/thriller writers who asked about more storyforms in their genre. So, we have determined to do some Stephen King and Dean Koontz. As for thrillers, perhaps we should add Robin Cook or ? Do you have some films or authors you’d like to see done particularly?

IAMWEALTHY : None I can think over at the moment.

Dramatica : Well if some come to mind, post them on the Dramatica BBS, and we’ll give them priority.

IAMWEALTHY : Thanks.

Dramatica : We also just added a “Writer 2 Writer” conference on the BBS. So now you can post messages to ask questions or share information with other users. And, of course, we have the “User Storyforms” folder, where you can upload your own storyforms of well-known stories and see what other say.

IAMWEALTHY : Would it be alright to ask question that just pertain to my story?

Dramatica : Sure, ask away!

IAMWEALTHY : I’ll be prepared in the future, this is new to me.

Dramatica : Its new to most everybody. Chris and I have worked on it for 15 years, but the software has only been out 9 months. And already we’re in Wired and on CNN! Fast stuff!

StephenHR : Great chat. I think that this next dive into my Storyform will be fun. Thanks.

IAMWEALTHY : Bye

Dramatica : Okay, Stephen, good night! And thanks for joining us!

IAMWEALTHY : Thanks

StephenHR : Night.

Dramatica : Okay, so what’s your question, IAM?

IAMWEALTHY : No question today.

Dramatica : Oh, okay.. I get it now… Just wanted to know if it was okay to ask about your story… Yes, absolutely, just jump in with any questions about the software, the theory, your story, or whatever. If it has a Dramatica answer, I’ll try to bring it to you! Okay, well, its about time for me to roll up the carpets…So, unless there’s something pressing, I’ll see you next week…

IAMWEALTHY : Bye

Dramatica : Same Dramatica time, Same Dramatica Channel!

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 7

The following  excerpt is taken from

The Dramatica Class Transcripts

Dramatica : Evening Vee! Welcome to the chat.

Veeduber : Good evening. Glad to have finally caught you. The last 4 weeks I’ve tried & missed.

Dramatica : Major bummer! Glad you found us tonight. Got some questions on the software or theory?

Veeduber : Many, but not yet confident enough to state a defensible position. I did conduct an interesting experiment with Hamlet, Dramatica and four English majors. Results were four chaotic encodings.

Dramatica : That’s not surprising! Once you are dealing with a finished work, interpretation is the heart of the matter. Unless you can sit down with the author and ask them what they had in mind,(difficult in this case!) you’ll just have to see how all those symbols read to you.

Veeduber : In hindsight I believe I was in fact seeing reflections of their education and exposure to Shakespeare. As a systems analyst, I was hoping to gain additional insight into Dramatica’s method.

Dramatica : Well, for one thing, part of what makes Dramatica work are its non-linear and relativistic relationships in the matrix of the model. So, trying to back calculate what it is doing is impossible even for us! But whenever you are dealing with analysis, a person’s background and bias will have a huge impact In Dramatica, we call that level of appreciation, Story Reception, which is the fourth stage of communication.

Veeduber : You do you use the term non-linear? The matrix appears limited and fixed.

Dramatica : Ah, you are only looking at the structural half of the Dramatica theory…the part you can’t see are the dynamic relationships, which change depending upon what has come before, so it is not a hierarchy, but extremely non-linear in its arrangement.

Veeduber : At the moment, the structure is all I have to cling to. My published work has been in a technical field. I had hoped Dramatica would provide insights to plot and character relationships.

Dramatica : Well, that is what it does. You might want to look at the structure as a 3 dimensional map. The map shows all the things you might look at as important points in an argument. The dynamic half of the Story Engine rearranges where we are going to be positioned on that map as an audience.

In other words, the map is what we are looking at, the dynamics determine where we are looking from. Between the two of them, they create perspective, which “encodes” all the dramatic meaning in the story. The best way to find something useful in all this, is to ask a very specific question, which can be a jumping off point to other areas.

Veeduber : I have read the three books which came with the software quite closely. Since there are just the two of use please don’t feel you need to repeat what has gone before.

Dramatica : Oh, I just enjoy sharing what we have discovered. So, whatever will be helpful is just fine.

Veeduber : Speaking as an analyst, and purely for information, have you considered the need for an additional level to the software? Something which might make it more useful to someone having no literary background? (In software terms it would be called an ‘enabling layer’ or perhaps an interpreter).

Dramatica : What kind of level did you have in mind? You mean an intermediate interface in the software? Well, yes, but there is a problem with that. I’ll explain…The model of story can only work because it is very precise. If we were to make it 100% precise, it wouldn’t even have any words in it. In fact, to be right on the money, it would only exist as mathematical relationships. But no one could relate to that! Especially, writers who are more interested in being creative than being scientists!

So, we have chosen words to apply to the matrix in the model that have the closest possible meaning, based on position in the matrix. The structural side of the model is fractally produced, for example, if you look at the Type level and compare it to the Class level, Past is to Universe as Memory is to Mind. That KIND of relationship is echoed throughout the structure at all levels and resolutions. Now, if we were to try and put another level between the writer and what is already an inaccurate representation of an accurate model, well, that would breed misunderstanding.

Veeduber : Please allow me to interrupt here.

Dramatica : Sure, what’s on your mind?

Veeduber : In a way, you are preaching to the choir. In plotting my first detective/mystery I found myself plotting the characters in Boolean terms. The question of enabling software speaks to what you are addressing, but would speak in terms of choices an uninitiated user might understand. In effect, it would have to exist as a sub-set of the program, testing the user’s responses, explaining the options and pointing out errors (in the form of conflicts between those choices).

Dramatica : Yes, well, it all boils down to relationships that have meaning because they keep recurring. But, that would isolate the user even farther from direct control.

Veeduber : The reason I mention this is because of my own difficulty in understand your interpretations

Dramatica : Writers want to get right into it, and need very direct access. We considered calling Universe “Situation” for example. Instead of Universe, Physics, Mind, and Psychology, we thought how about Situation, Activities, Mindsets, and Manipulations.

Veeduber : I understand. I can also see the limits you imposed on yourself.

Dramatica : But, I think, you can already see the inaccuracies creeping in. So how about your story…

Veeduber : Indeed, yes. Which is why I have re-written much of your documentation.

Dramatica : Oh, how so? This is interesting!

Veeduber : Your reference to story is not clear.

Dramatica : Tell me more. We are constantly revising. Are you talking about story in general or the Grand Argument Story?

Veeduber : Excuse the delay, I had to dig out your manual for comparison to my notes. Ummm, getting out of sync here. You made a reference to ‘my story’ which was not clear.

Dramatica : Okay, I’ll let you set the phasing and join in on the upbeat.

Veeduber : I did not respond to your…. how about your story…’ because I didn’t know which you were referring to. But since it is in the hands of an agent, might we save it for later?

Dramatica : I just meant the story you are working on most currently. But I also want to hear about our definition of story and your re-documentation.

Veeduber : Fine; we are back on track. I made no comment with regard to your definition of story. Wit with regard to rewriting some of your documentation, it was to put it in language which I understood. (I have been in data processing since 1956). In effect, as I learned your software I was reverse-engineering it, not for any commercial purpose but simply to understand it. I had the most difficulty in the area of plot, theme and storyforming, largely because of wordiness, imprecision or apparent contradictions in the documentation. (Please don’t read this as criticism.) Having in effect translated the documentation, I then tested it and seem to have done the job correctly.

Dramatica : Well, I’d sure love to hear what those are. We are always rewriting as we find better ways to communicate the information. We certainly are aware it is quite dry. A vestigial leftover from our mindset when figuring it out. As a matter of fact, we have improved in our “delivery” of the concepts considerably since we have begun teaching live classes in the theory in June of last year. I look at the current books and cringe.

Veeduber : Perhaps I should mention that the bulk of my technical writing was for software documentation. (Computers, communications and command/control systems)

Dramatica : Well, you certainly come to it with a perfect background to see things that can be improved!

Veeduber : They do rather hint toward a work in progress, which was one reason I asked about additional layers, possibly upcoming in future upgrades. (And one reason I kept the package

Dramatica : But don’t keep it to yourself! E-mail to us at Dramatica@screenplay.com and we can use that input! Well, actually, the model hasn’t changed an iota in three years, but our understanding of it has. Its kind of like a Rosetta Stone of story. The information is all in the model, but understanding where to look for what and when is growing every day.

Veeduber : I found nothing wrong with the workings of the existing matrix, the difficulty lay in feeding the beast.

Dramatica : Yes, that is the problem, connecting traditional givens and understandings to something that truly doesn’t fit any existing molds.

Dramatica : Evening, Makito! Welcome to the Dramatica chat!

Makito7 : Thanks

Dramatica : Just jump in any time with a question or comment on the theory or software. Its pretty freeform conversation. Are there any areas of special interest or difficulty to either of you?

Veeduber : Good evening Makito. Please feel free; I am well satisfied so far.

Makito7 : How do I get more info on the software?

Dramatica : About what it does, its specs, screen shots, things like that?

Makito7 : Yes

Dramatica : What you do is send E-mail to Mark@screenplay.com. He is one of my assistants and will make sure you get a complete package. We also have our previous chats uploaded in the Writer’s Club File library. They are in the non-fiction area. We just uploaded a Dramatica critique of Jurassic Park. Next week we’ll put one up with our critique of Natural Born Killers. For Dramatica users we have our own BBS. It is free with the software.

Makito7 : I’ve reviewed some previous chats. Would like to see the NBK.

Dramatica : If you have the software and it didn’t ship with it, Vee, that is because we just started sending it in the package. But we have all KINDS of information up there, and the format is much like AOL.

Veeduber : — has visited your BBS

Dramatica : Glad to hear it! Send some e-mail sometime! So, can I offer any info specifically to either of you?

Veeduber : I do not wish to monopolize the screen. Makito, first please.

Dramatica : Uh oh! Puts YOU on the spot, Makito! Seriously, any question large or small is good for getting into some neat stuff!

Veeduber : Or, perhaps Makito would like to ask my impressions (as a new user of Dramatica)

Makito7 : I am interested in learning how software can juice the creative process.

Dramatica : Good idea!

Makito7 : Impressions are fine.

Veeduber : Mak: Do you write fiction?

Dramatica : Vee, you want to share what you’ve found on that point? I’ll jump in a bit later.

Makito7 : Yes

Veeduber : In coming to grips with Dramatica I tested it against a finished work. It detected a logical flaw in the plot! As to the creative process, if you are familiar with creating a workbook, 3×5’s etc,

Makito7 : Logical flaws abound in finished films

Veeduber : you are probably also aware of the ability to shuffle them about in search of a new angle, inspiration, etc. I believe (waiting for Dramatica to step in here) the software enhances that ability.

Makito7 : yes

Dramatica : Okay, I’ll plod on in here a bit…Dramatica is not where you go to write your story, but where you go to work out your story BEFORE you write, or AFTER you’ve written to look for leaks and inconsistencies. Dramatica sees four stages of communication. The first stage, “Storyforming” is where you come up with the unadorned idea or message of your story. This is what the software does best.

The second stage is Storyencoding. This is where you figure out how you want to illustrate a dramatic point in your story…how many ways could you come up with to have a goal about obtaining something? Which one you choose is encoding. Then, there is story weaving. Storyweaving, the third stage, is where you figure out how to unfold the information to your audience.

Veeduber : **

Dramatica : Question, Vee?

Veeduber : Two. First a suggestion to Makito; if you are not logging this, perhaps you should so you can examine it more closely after we are off-line. Second, I wanted to point out to Makito that many of the terms she will hear here are Dramatica-specific, their definitions contained in the software’s documentation. And 2-1/2, Dramatica matrix can provide 2-15th combinations , each unique, which helps to explain the need for Dramatica-specific terms.

Dramatica : Always a good idea.

Makito7 : Thanks, I’m just thinking it.

Dramatica : Very good thoughts, indeed. Okay, so we have the first three stages of communication: Storyforming, Story Encoding, Story Weaving, And then we come to reception. Each of us can make pictures in clouds, see faces in wall paper, and images in ink blots. We create meaning whether any was intended or not. So, the audience is to some degree, the author of their own reception. A finished creative work will contain all four stages, blended together. That’s what makes it hard for an author to see flaws in their work.

The author is the first audience of their own work. As we write, we don’t see the message as separate from the symbols we use or the way we relate it, nor how it effects us personally. So when things are going well, we can feel it, but when they are not working, we don’t know where its broken. If we know WHAT we are supposed to be writing about at any point, we can have a much more creative time of it, just figuring out how to say it.

Most re-writes are not done to make the words prettier, but to solve essential problems in the dramatic form. So, by storyforming first, Dramatica forces an author to consider ALL sides of their “argument”. Also, because it is “predictive”, you don’t just fill in blanks.

Makito7 : predictive?

Dramatica : You answer multiple choice questions about the direction you want your dramatics to go, how you want them to end up, or how you want to impact your audience. When you have answered enough, Dramatica is able to “calculate” what the answers MUST be in question you haven’t answered, in order to be consistent with what you have already told it. That is how Dramatica keeps Character, Plot, Theme, and Genre working together instead of against each other.

When you have answered sometimes only 12 questions,Dramatica can give you the answers to 50 other questions about the generic dramatic form of your story.

Makito7 : Then?

Dramatica : This information is also put into “conversational” toned reports. You can read about your story’s theme, your Main Characters plot line, or the Story’s goal, for example. By the time you have answered your questions and read what Dramatica said about the others, you know your story MUCH better than when you started, and that is the time to write.

Veeduber : **

Dramatica : Yes, Vee?

Veeduber : Given Makito’s question about creativity, this might be a good point to mention your spin the bottle option.

Dramatica : Actually, Its “Spin the Model”.

Veeduber : (not when I was a boy!)

Dramatica : When you have created a storyform that has all the questions answered, you might find that not all the answers “feel” like your story. Then you can go to Spin the Model. In this area, you are able to keep the items you like, and then open up all your options as far as they can go, within the constraints of what you have kept chosen, and Dramatica will arbitrarily fill in a combination of items that works with your kept choices. You can keep locking in the new parts you want, then spin things again and again, until you arrive at a storyform that really “speaks” to you. That way you can zero in on your story’s blueprint, rather than having to have it all worked out in advance. Any other questions or topics?

Veeduber : You have been most helpful. I do not wish to take up any more of your time, unless you feel a desperate need to be bored.

Makito7 : Does the program provide any formatting?

Dramatica : Not in its current version, Makito, it is not really where you write the finished product, although you are able to export any text you create in Dramatica to a text file that can be read by any word processor.

Makito7 : Thanks.

Veeduber : That raises a neat point. What about separate subplots? That might provide a means of story-boarding a rough idea.

Dramatica : Right now, Vee, we only support one plot at a time. We are, however, planning an enhancement in the future that would allow them all to be hinged together at the same time.

Veeduber : Understood. I meant breaking your story into linked subplots for the purpose of ‘boarding

Dramatica : For now, you need to have a separate file for each subplot. That’s a good concept, but keep in mind that each subplot is its own complete story, so to be predictive, Dramatica has to look at each one as a separate model. Later, however, we can hold several of these together in the software so we can interweave them!

Veeduber : Yes, that is the limitation of that method. (As I discovered.)

Dramatica : True. But, in fact, each must be a separate dramatic movement to feel complete. Now, a level above that, in a “Work “you might have several stories, all interweaving, but because there is no definite pattern that must be followed, there is no way to offer predictive help in how to combine them, that is more in the realm of weaving and reception. Reception itself is just short of chaos anyway.

Veeduber : I also have trouble with larger casts (i.e. 20 and up) — had a case where agent thought sub-plot was main-plot. Seemed perfectly clear to me . . . (ahem!)

Dramatica : Great! Just make sure everyone sees it like you.

Dramatica : Yes, we can create 20 characters, but charting their appearances is not supported as much as it needs to be. That is also in the works.

Well, unless anything is pressing, its time for me to roll up the carpet for this week. If you have any mid-week questions, E-mail me at Melanie@screenplay.com,

Veeduber : Thank you again. And you, Makito.

Dramatica : and please drop by next week, same time with more questions or comments!

Makito7 : Thanks

Dramatica : Have a great weekend!

Dramatica : Bye now.

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 6

The following  excerpt is taken from

The Dramatica Class Transcripts

Dramatica : Hello, Stephen!

StephenHR : Hi. Electronic flat tire.

Dramatica : Well, that’s okay. We don’t have a very full house tonight anyway! It’s truly amazing, since our “live” classes are sold out well in advance! Any questions on the software or the theory?

StephenHR : OK, how are the character Motivation and other Quads selected by the Story Engine?

Dramatica : Well, the same elements appear in each of those sets of sixteen. The thing that changes is the arrangement. That is determined by which class your objective story is in. Since the objective story Domain is where the Objective characters are created, they will conform in their relationships to the kind of dynamics that are at work in that class, which is indicated by the different arrangements of the elements. Is that what you were getting at? Other questions?

StephenHR : Yes, but I can’t quite see how one arrangement would be “Motivation?”

Dramatica : Ah, I see what you are asking..Why would those certain words be motivations as opposed to methodologies, for example, right?

StephenHR : Yes!

Dramatica : Well, in this version of the Dramatica software, that is hardwired in to the perspective that biases itself toward our Western culture. That makes it right about 90% of the time in practice. However, in theory, that is only one match up. Other dynamics control which set of 16 elements will be seen as which of the four dimensions of character. That is going to depend on the kind of position you want to put your audience in. It changes the way they will look at the elements. A choice of that nature, is really operative at the Genre level, as it effects the bias of the Story Mind as a whole.

StephenHR : OK, that’s good. I suspected some bias and this is fine.

Dramatica : Yes, if you look beneath the surface of the software, you’ll find it has a CONSISTENT bias EVERYWHERE, which is as close as you can get to having no bias in a holistic system.

StephenHR : Yes.

Dramatica : That’s rather perceptive of you, by the way. No one else ever noticed that one before!

StephenHR : I am concerned that in answering some query questions I seem to be finding examples of several characters “learning” and I think I am in danger of repeating some of the appreciations/elements. Is this common?

Dramatica : How so? Do you mean the “Type” with the name of “learning” or the process of growth in a character? Let’s see. Oh, never mind, I think I see what you are getting at…Are you saying that as your characters grow over the course of your story, you find that you want to assign them elements that already belong to other characters?

StephenHR : I haven’t assigned the elements yet (this time) but I say Storytelling in the OS I have several characters Learning and this seems too…too…obvious somehow.

Dramatica : Well, using Dramatica’s structural terms, the only occurrence of “learning” is as a Type. Now, a Type is something that describes an aspect of the plot. In fact, in the objective story, each Type will represent the kind of activities or areas of concern that are explored in one act.

If you have a report that places your characters all in the process of learning, this just describes the overall nature of the kinds of activities they are doing in the act that, objectively, needs to explore “learning”. Keep in mind, you might have sub-stories, with sub-plots in which Objective characters are the Main Character in their own mini-story. Under those conditions, although each character will be involved in the “learning” as far as their Objective role, they may also have other interests of their own that to them, are much more important and of a larger scope.

How you balance that is up to the way you TELL your story, But the dramatic consistency of your story depends upon the characters fulfilling their objective role, even if it is underplayed. Also keep in mind that each element each character has will respond differently than any other in the same situations. So, if everyone is involved in learning, there will be a lot of different “takes” on it, with some pursuing learning, others avoiding it, etc.I hope that addresses the issue, but if I missed the mark, let me know.

StephenHR : When I look at the characteristics of the players, I have a hard time understanding when they “play” those particular roles? Is it as needed?

Dramatica : That’s a very insightful question as well! Here’s the scoop. From an author’s perspective, you have all these characters with all these characteristics, and they are sitting in the “bullpen”. You call them onto the playing field when you need their particular “talent”. The only problem with this, is that sometimes, characters that really NEED to be in the game to win, are not played because an author felt he didn’t need them.

In fact, to make a “complete” story argument, every one of those sixty four characteristics MUST be played against the other three in its “quad”. However, hardly any stories are written that do that. So, why do they feel okay anyway? Because most stories focus or concentrate on only one of the four dimensions of character: Motivation, Methodologies, Means of Evaluation, and Purposes. One of these will rise to the top. An author can ask themselves, “Do I want to do a story in which the problem is created because of what drives someone, or is their heart in the right place, but they are going about it all wrong.

That is what picks the set of sixteen elements that are “crucial” to the argument of the story. In a way, its kind of like limiting the scope of the story’s argument. As long as the audience is made aware of that limit, they won’t hold you to using absolutely every element. But you really better use all sixteen in the crucial set, because if you limit your scope below that, the argument becomes so simplistic at a character level, that the characters no loner seem like real people, and, in a reception sense, the audience will not be able to relate to the characters.

This kind of limit to only one dimension is often used in “action” or plot-oriented stories, that wish to use their screen time or number of pages available to explore the events that are happening, and only pay lip service to the characters, just enough to let the audience identify with them.

StephenHR : Each Player would also have Characters within that rise to the top, others “under.”

Dramatica : Hello, WMPATE! Welcome to the Dramatica Chat!

WMPATE : Hello

Dramatica : We’re just asking and answering questions, so if you have one about the software or theory, just jump on in, and if you have any more, Stephen, I’d love to hear them!

StephenHR : Hi, WMPATE.

Dramatica : If you run out of questions, I can always lecture on a topic, if you like. Stephen, you mentioned earlier about characteristics within characters “rising to the top”…That is very true. In the course of a story, especially one which uses all four dimensions of character, different dimensions will come into play at different times, And because characters can have antagonistic relationships at one level, and in another “dimension” will see eye to eye, they might fight about WHY they should do something, because they are in conflict in their Motivations, yet agree completely about HOW to do it, because of their compatible relationship in Methodologies.

StephenHR : Can any element be expressed in the negative: “Lack of _____ ” ? How does this affect the expression of other elements within the quad?

Dramatica : Bring Purposes, and Means of Evaluation into it, and that makes for really complex relationships. That’s another good question! Where do you come up with these??? Okay, here’s what’s happening in that….

StephenHR : Keyboard time.

Dramatica : When you are talking about the problem and solution elements in the Main and Obstacle characters, those elements are special. They are treated DYNAMICALLY….which simply means, that a Main Character’s problem can be due to too much FAITH or not enough FAITH, for example. This is a decision made by choosing “Start” or “Stop” in the Dramatica Query System. There is a difference between having Disbelief, or not having enough Faith.

StephenHR : OK…

Dramatica : Its the same difference between an atheist and an agnostic. But those dynamic aspects of not enough or too much are only functional in the Main and Obstacle characters. That’s what makes them special. When you look at the elements in the Objective Characters, those represent functions the characters must play in the drama, much as you would look at a battle from a hilltop and see the soldiers by their function as an infantryman or a horse soldier. In order to fulfill that function, they must exhibit that characteristic, not its lack. Does that cover that one for you?

StephenHR : So Start and Stop “qualify” the appreciation?

Dramatica : They do for some appreciations, particularly, some of the appreciations relating to the Main and Obstacle characters, such as Unique Ability, Critical Flaw, Problem, Solution, Focus and Direction.

StephenHR : OK, good, I’ll have to let this sink in.

Dramatica : It gets “worse” than that though, since how MUCH too much or too little is NOT called for by the Story Engine, but is up to the kinds of symbols you use to illustrate the point, and how strongly you drive it home with the audience. That’s what we call “storyTELLING”. Whether it is too much or too little is part of the storyFORM.

StephenHR : The 4th act is the climax or post….? i.e. the future?

Dramatica : Here’s a better way to look at it. If the Types that make up the Dramatica structure acts (four of them) are labeled A,B,C, and D, They are the signposts on a road from problem to solution. A is where you start, D is where you finish. Aristotle saw a beginning, middle and end. He saw A and D and called all the stuff in the middle. But there are really four signposts on this road. Yet, between them, they create three “journeys”. You start at A and move to B, that is the first journey or what is normally called Act 1. Then you go from B to C which is Act 2 and finally from C to D which is Act 3. So, when you experience a story as it unfolds, you tend to feel or look at it after it is over, you tend to see the four signposts.

StephenHR : Really, we’ve got four acts because the model is a quad?

Dramatica : Actually, the model is a quad because we’ve got four acts! I’m not being trite, its just that the quad pattern developed out of story.

StephenHR : Yes, I see that now.

Dramatica : We didn’t create a quad pattern and then try to impose it on story. We found that many authors have trouble trying to figure out what to do in Act 2…

StephenHR : I didn’t mean to imply that.

Dramatica : Oh, I know that, I just want to make the point for the log. But in Act 2, well that’s a real problem if you are using a beginning, middle and end, because all you see is where you start, using signpost A, then you see where you are going, signpost and EVERYTHING ELSE in your story is the middle, or Act 2!!! How can anyone write from that!! So, if you have a quad of four Types, each a signpost, then you can see Act one’s beginning and end (A to B) and so on.

Act two is clearly B to C, and for the first time, you know exactly where act two will start and stop, and the kind of transition it will represent. I’ve personally found this one of the most useful parts of the theory, because I’m personally good at communication, but rather lousy at knowing what to say next!

StephenHR : I can check that one off my list. I read and reread, but didn’t get it. I have not yet considered what those transitions might be like.

Dramatica : Well, its about closing time for tonight’s chat….Unless there are any pressing questions you can’t live without knowing the answer to…

StephenHR : Thanks again.

Dramatica : Yes, it takes some thought and simmering time!

Dramatica : Okay, well, I’ll be here next week, same Dramatica time, same Dramatica channel! Until then, happy writing!

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 5

The following  excerpt is taken from

The Dramatica Class Transcripts

Dramatica : Are there any particular areas of story you’d like me to cover? Plot, Character, Theme, Storyforming, etc.

Nawtigrl : Storytelling.

Dramatica : Okay, here’s some information on Storytelling. Stop me if you have any questions, or want to change the subject. First of all, Dramatica theory divides stories into two broad categories: Storyforming and Storytelling. To see the difference, look at West Side Story and Romeo and Juliet Both have essentially the same dramatic structure, but the storyTELLING is quite different.

Nawtigrl : How to handle all the resolutions with all the elements at once to move forward?

Dramatica : Ah! Dramatica has SO MUCH detail about your story, that to try and use it all as a blueprint, would smother your creativity. The heart of creativity is to blend many meanings into a single symbol. What we suggest is, that rather than trying to use the 150 pages of reports and all of the storypoints as a blueprint, just read the reports to get a “feel” for your story. The reports and storypoints are designed to shine some light into the areas you may not always think to look. Then, when you see what’s there, your instincts can take over again.

Nawtigrl : OK, I’m rewriting and ..

Dramatica : So you are coming to Dramatica with an existing draft, and want to know how to get some use out of the software in that case?

Nawtigrl : yes

Dramatica : Okay. When rewriting…authors, in their first draft, often don’t know exactly what they want their story to be, until they have completed the first draft. By following their personal muse, they are able, in the end, to discover the essence of what they want to say.

By that time, however, they have put a lot of work into things that may not all work, in light of the eventual message they discovered. So, the trick is, to locate things that are inconsistent, and things that are missing or redundant. Here’s how you can use the software to do that. There are two different approaches. Number one: go ahead and try to create a storyform that describes your story as you now see it, without actually referring to the draft itself, just from your personal understanding of what you are trying to achieve.

Nawtigrl : I’ve done 3

Dramatica : This works fine for drafts of any number. Once you have a storyform that is just what you wanted to say, then you go into storytelling and try to find parts of your story that “tell” each of the dramatic points you need to make, as indicated in the storyform. If there are points which you can’t find anything in your story that matches then you have left some holes in that draft, which need to be addressed.

By knowing what is missing, and by having done so much work and thinking about the story already, concepts and images that could fill those holes are often not hard to conjure up. You might find, however, (Hi, Dan!) that you have items in your story, which don’t fit anything that is required in your storyform dramatics,

Dan Steele : hi. Traffic!

Dramatica : In that case, those parts of your story are not really part of the drama, and unless the audience is made to understand by the way you present them that they are just entertainment, you may be confusing your own message. But as I mentioned, there is a second approach to rewriting, which I like even better. When you go into the software, go directly into storytelling without creating a storyform. Dramatica will present you with all the same storypoints, (goal, Main Character’s Concern, etc.) but will not have supplied any dramatic items to fill them in.

Goal will not be listed as “obtaining” or “becoming”, for example, but will be left blank. Now, you fill in the storytelling for each of these points, because every complete story is going to have to address them. Then, once you have found or written anew story illustrations that cover all of the dramatic points. You go into storyFORMING mode. When you are in the DQS (Dramatica Query System) If you select Storyforming, and then push the Helpview button in the middle of the screen that says “storytelling”, all of the storytelling you have already entered will show up in the text box beneath the storyFORMING question. In this way, you have your own words, describing your own story as a guide in selecting which of Dramatica’s choices would best describe what you have done.

Start with the story points that are most important to you. Those you are sure to get. But as you move from one question to the next, eventually, you may come to a question in which all the available questions are not appropriate to the storytelling you have already done. At this point, you need to make a decision. One choice would be to scrap what you wrote as being inconsistent, and write something else on that story point, that would be more in line with the available choices that Dramatica predicts you can use and still be consistent with what you have chosen already.

You may only have to rewrite a few scenes to accommodate this. But if your mark was WAY off, and your own biases got the better of you, you may find that there are a number of scenes that need to be rewritten to keep all your ideas in line with one another. But the other choice, is that even though this particular point is not perfectly what it ought to be, it is a meaningful scene to you, the author. And therefore, you might want to keep it in even if it will slightly weaken your argument.

You see, every story point doesn’t carry the same weight. And in different stories, that weight will shift around and redistribute from one story point to another. So, you can choose, for your particular story, to just ignore the inconsistency, and put in the scene or story point because it is entertaining, or fun, or the producer insists, and you will be confident it won’t do a lot of damage, and that the entertainment value might more than make up for it. But, of course, there are some storypoints, that even if you are off the mark a smidgen, it messes up your whole story. These are often crucial story points that occur near the end of your story, where the audience’s trust in you can easily be violated. That’s all on that point. So, hi again Dan! Nawtigrl and I are just covering some storytelling issues.

Dan Steele : okay!

Dramatica : Any questions or comments for either of you that you’d like addressed?

Dan Steele : none from me

Nawtigrl : I’ve got some changes I know I want to make? Like switching my main and obstacle?

Dramatica : Okay, that is not a problem to switch the two. Often, in the telling of a story, you come to realize that the character you want to have the audience looking through is not the one you originally intended. Since you are operating on a finished storyform, all you really have to do is change their names in the software, because the two points of view are not going to change, only which one represents which one.

The other thing you would want to do, is make sure you update your character information windows, and readjust any characteristics you have assigned in Build Characters. But the most simple way, is simply switch positions, by assigning Main as Obstacle and Obstacle as Main. Does that address that issue,

Nawtigrl : I can’t see how to connect the Build Characters choices with the DQS choices?

Dramatica : or is it more complex?

Nawtigrl : Yes, to your question.

Dramatica : Okay, here’s how the Build Characters area relates to the DQS. As you know, there are two types of characters we see in Dramatica Theory. Subjective and Objective. Objective characters are seen from the position of a general on a hill, overlooking a battle. The general identifies the soldiers by their functions and positions, not by their names or personalities. In stories, most characters can be looked at by their dramatic function. But then, there is the point of view of the soldier in the trenches. The audience experiences the battle first hand through their eyes. This is the Main Character.

And coming toward them through the smoke of the battle is another soldier. The smoke is too thick to see if they are friend or foe, So the Main Character cannot tell if they are coming with a bayonet to kill them, or a friend coming to warn them they are about to walk into a mine field. Obstacle characters can be friend or foe, trying to help or hurt, but the M.C. only knows one thing: the Obstacle is standing in their path. The choice then becomes to keep going that way anyway, and run over the Obstacle character, or to veer off and heed the obstacle’s “warning”.

Now, that “warning” is about a particular issue in stories. There is a central issue that is the source of the Main Character’s drive. In Dramatica, this is the “crucial” element. The software calls it the “problem” element, because it is this drive that makes the story’s problem an issue. Now, it might be best for the M.C. to change paths OR it might be best for them to keep on the way they were going. The general can tell from up above, but the soldier cannot. The soldier is like us in real life: they haven’t got a clue! So, there is a relationship between what the general sees is the best thing to do and what the soldier thinks is the best thing to do, because both are using different standards of measurement but about the same battle. Success or failure hinges on the soldier’s choice for the general. Personal fulfillment or continued angst are the stakes for the Main Character.

It turns out, that there is a relationship between the nature of the Main Characters Drive (Main Character problem element) and the cause of the story’s difficulties at large – (the Objective Story problem element). If the soldier decides to stick with their drive and it leads to success and fulfillment, then they made a pretty good choice, but any combination of Success or Failure and Good or Bad can result from Change or Steadfast depending upon what the author is trying to prove.

Now, this soldier not only has their internal personal drive (or problem element) but they also have a function in the battle plan, as seen by the general. So, in a sense, they do double duty. All the functions of all the soldiers in the battle are represented by the elements in the Build Characters window. This is where you build your Objective Characters. But the “player” or “body” that you choose as your Main Character must also have an objective element attached to them as well. So that the “player” has both an objective and subjective role within them. It turns out, that in some cases both the objective story and the Main Character are “driven” by the same element in other cases, the Main and Objective story are related so that the Main Character is driven by one thing personally, but represents the opposite element (solution element) objectively, or vice versa.

But problem and solution are not all. The “quad” of elements that contains the problem and solution also contains two other elements. The Focus and Direction.

Think of it this way: If Problem is seen as the disease, Solution is the Cure but Focus is the primary Symptom of the disease, and Direction, the treatment for that symptom. Sometimes a body (the story as a whole) can only be cured by finding the exact cure to the disease. But sometimes, no direct cure really exists. In that case, you might be able to treat the symptom until the body regains enough strength to heal itself. Often, the body (story) can heal itself if you just take the pressure of the symptom off long enough.

So, that is the choice of Change or Steadfast for the Main Character. Do they remain steadfast trying to treat the symptom or change and try to find the cure? This will affect Build Characters as follows: In a change story, the Main Character and Obstacle Character will each represent objectively, either the problem or solution element in the objective story as well. In a steadfast story, the Main and Obstacle will be on either the Focus or Direction, in Build Characters. This means that as characters, they are diametrically opposed in either case, but in one kind of story, the audience attention is on what is driving the Main Character and in the other kind, it is on the Main Character’s response to the problem. Or in other words, what the Main Character’s drive cause them to do, by means of approach.

Dramatica : Well, any questions on that?

Dan Steele : I am afraid I will have to buy the book, as the last two sessions have kind of lost me, in particular because of difficulty in absorbing the meanings of new terminology and the contexts of their use

Dramatica : Sorry about that! The book is a good source, and so is the audio cassette of our in-house classes.

Nawtigrl : How do I know if my build character choices are in line with my storyform?

Dramatica : Its a pretty big new paradigm. The only choices that matter are that you assign the proper elements to the Main and Obstacle. All the other characters are simply a collection of dramatic functions or “essential traits” that must be represented in your story to fully explore the issue at hand. You can combine them any way you like, and you will not violate your storyform. A future version of Dramatica will calculate which elements the Main and Obstacle ought to represent objectively, and start you out by placing their icons on that spot. Of course, you can override it. But for now, Main and Obstacle on Problem and solution if CHANGE

Nawtigrl : What exactly to I have to match here?

Dramatica : and on FOCUS and DIRECTION if STEADFAST.

Nawtigrl : O.K..

Dramatica : First, look at the output of the story engine. You can see if it is change or steadfast. In the storypoints report, you will see what the objective problem solution, focus, and direction are. Now, if you have a steadfast character and the story ends up as failure, you know they were not standing on the right spot. Its pretty easy to do for the change character. For change, if it is success and they changed, they must’ve started on problem, and jumped to solution in the end. So the MC will be on the Objective Problem element in build characters and the Obstacle will be on Solution.

In that case, the Obstacle was a friend trying to help the misguided MC see the light and change course, so the Obstacle was on the solution element all along. The main was on the problem and changed in the end. But if the change results in Failure, then the MC was on Solution all along, the Obstacle was on Problem, was a true foe, and the MC jumped FROM solution to Problem, causing the story to end in failure. Steadfast stories are bit more complex, because the terms “focus” and “direction” don’t carry any intrinsic positive or negative feel to them like problem and solution do. In fact, it is the judgment of Good or Bad that determines which of the two elements the MC and OC are on in a steadfast story. Focus is seen as the symptom, direction is seen as the treatment. If you have a steadfast Main character who ends up still having their angst (bad) did they stick it out on the treatment or on the symptom? In fact, they are stuck with the symptom. So, they would reside on the direction element. I’m sorry, I meant to say the focus element. (See how complex it is?) This is why we are writing that one into the software!

But if the character remains steadfast, and they are over their personal angst. then they are stuck on the treatment, which means they still have the resources. Now, as more of the Dramatica theory is implemented into the software, even MORE appreciations (storypoints) will be offered that give an even MORE Dramatica : detailed view of your story. But not more terms like these.

Nawtigrl : I make my choices, seems like the objective players are in the wrong scenes in the ‘form?

Dramatica : The current software is more of a framework for a story, but the enhancements will deal more with the perspectives like Greed and lust, and love, etc. Then, we can be more accurate about where the Main and Obstacle will be. You mean the report that says when which elements need to come into conflict?

Nawtigrl : Well, not exactly.

Dramatica : Which form? The storyform?

Nawtigrl : The storyform. I’m trying to figure it out. How to sequence to the original draft.

Dramatica : Remember that the storyform itself says nothing about the objective characters. It only talks about the objective STORY, the subjective story between Main and Obstacle and Main and Obstacle alone. So, the order in which the objective characters appear, is not dictated by the storyform per se. But the Main and Obstacle have definite orders to their growth or personal exploration. The storyform does not say the characters have to be in the same scene, but only impacted by one another. It is their personal growth that cause their relationship to grow and change. The acts suggest the order in which that growth will occur.

Nawtigrl : But the acts dictate order?

Dramatica : But keep in mind that in stories like “Remains of the Day”, the storyTELLING order, the order in which the audience is shown the various parts of the story, can be quite different that the order of the internal logic of the story, part of which is the character’s growth.

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 4

The following  excerpt is taken from

The Dramatica Class Transcripts

Dramatica : I’m going to start tonight with the four stages of communication.

Pete P 432 : Okay

Dramatica : In Dramatica theory, we see all communication as having four distinct stages. Now, its important to realize we are talking about “communication” here. There are all kinds of artistic endeavors that are not attempts to communicate. For example, you might just want to follow your muse, document the path, and let the audience make of it what they will.

Many fine works are great not because the “communicate” but because they provide a fertile environment for conjecture. Dramatica deals only with the act of communication. Now to communicate, it means you must have an idea you want to get across. That idea may be a point of view on an issue, a logical conjecture, a feeling that you want to share, or an emotional result that will change your audience.

But only if you, the author, know what it is that you want to get across, (Hi Moon!)

MoonBailey : hi!

Dramatica : will you be able to figure out how to communicate it. Moon, we are working our way into plot, by way of the four stages of communication.

Stage one is to have an idea in the first place, that you want to communicate.

MoonBailey : OK, I’m interested to see how it works

Dramatica : This is true of ANY kind of communication. When we are talking about communicating through the medium of stories, Dramatica calls that first stage StoryFORMING. Storyforming is the process of working out just what it is you want to say. Once you have completely FORMED your idea, you move to the second stage of communication, StoryENCODING.

Encoding is where you symbolize what you are trying to communicate, so it can be transmitted over a medium, and understood by your intended audience. Now, what is this symbolizing process? Suppose you have a feeling that you want to impart, Well, then you know how you feel, that’s a Storyform. But what kinds of things do you have to show your audience, that will make them feel the same thing. You can’t just come out and say what you feel, as there is no single word for it.

Perhaps it is a feeling that you felt on a particular rainy day as a kid, and only then, never again. No single word or event in the world, will be able to handle that kind of description. So, you come up with some kind of setting or progression of events that makes it happen again for you. And then hope your audience will be similarly affected by what you have presented them. For the very first storytellers in ancient times, They might be hungry or looking for something in the distance, and have to find non-verbal symbols, like rubbing their stomachs while pointing at their open mouths, or holding their hands to shade their eyes and pointing, to symbolize what they meant.

And they would assume that any other human being would be able to tune in to that, and understand the meaning. But they were just describing things, or physical states. And because we all share the same basic physiology, and live in the same physical world, we can assume that the nature of our physical selves, being much the same, would lead to an understanding at an intuitive level of the symbols we use. But the minute you want to get across logic, or feelings, those are both internal. How can it even be possible?

In fact, the very fact that we CAN communicate such things, seems nothing short of miraculous. Unless…there is something just as similar about our minds, as there is about our bodies. And that is the case. We don’t all think the same things, but we think the same way. So, when we want to communicate, a society first begins to build symbols, that describe the basic feelings, and logical givens that are common in that society. We fashion words and scenarios, that each of us learns through cultural indoctrination, that generate within us, a predictable logical or emotional response.

MoonBailey : What about serendipity or having things emerge from the characters as you write?

Dramatica : Serendipity in message or symbol?

MoonBailey : message

Dramatica : As we write a work, in any format, we are telling about the pieces that make up our message, and also about the way they hang together to create the “big Picture” message of what it all means when the smoke clears. Since we do not write the story all in one moment, we are only describing a piece of it at a time, and because a partial message always has many options, that only close down as we add constraints through additional influences that we describe in our work, then we have the opportunity to change our message anywhere within the remaining options, without violating, the integrity of the finished product. But if we become “inspired” and do something that is not consistent, then we will either have a work with holes, or we will rewrite what came first or not do what we were inspired to do.

MoonBailey : Good. I agree with your premise, I just think there is also self-discovery in writing/art

Dramatica : Yes, self-discovery is very important to many, but not all, writers. For example, James A Michner, works out all of the details of what he wants to write about before he writes a word, then he just describes the outline he has created. But other writers like to explore their topic, until they understand how THEY feel about it, and then go back and either write from scratch, or rework what they have so far to conform to the way they now see what their message is. The final kind of writer, just wants to document the journey, and doesn’t care a hoot about internal logic. just wants to document the journey, and doesn’t care a hoot about internal logic. And that is just fine too, and can be very moving and entertaining. It just won’t come to a point.

MoonBailey : Yes, you must create consistency and internal logic.

Dramatica : Okay, so we have stage one as coming up with the message. Storyforming, whether it is done before you write or in rewrite, but ALWAYS before the work is given to the audience, if your purpose is to communicate. The second stage is Storyencoding. Where we symbolize what we want to communicate in culturally specific symbols that we have learned have a particular meaning in our society.

Narrative theory has it that stories are transportable from one medium to another. But as we all know, that doesn’t always work in practice. That is because each storyform, is the same in any culture or time, but the symbols used in the finished work, are culturally specific, and perhaps even medium or format specific. This is why books don’t always translate to the screen and vice versa.

Now, for stage three. Once we have these symbols, how do we unfold them for our audience. Suppose our goal is to Obtain the stolen diamonds… Do we have someone come out and tell us that in the first scene, or do we have a bunch of people involved in some unknown activity, and only make it clear what they are doing, as the story winds down to the end. Only in the last scene does our audience realize what everybody was after. And do we want to tell our audience the whole truth, or through them red herrings and put things out of context, so that they think things have one meaning, and then we spring a larger context on them that shows the friend was really the foe, etc.

Well, how and when we unfold the true dramatics of our story, is the stage three process, of StoryWEAVING. Now, it is important to note, that the internal logic of the storyform or message, REQUIRES a particular order and meaning for events. For example, a slap in the face followed by a scream, is not the same as a scream followed by a slap in the face! The order makes a difference. When we are constructing our story each series of events, scene by scene and act by act, scans across the mind of the audience, like the scanning lines on a TV set.

By the time they have all been played out, the audience can stand back in retrospect and see the big picture created by the lines they had followed one by one. Each line must make sense in and of itself. Colors and shading must come in the right order that does not violate the “givens” of the story, nor the givens of the audience. But they also must do a double duty. When all the parts have been laid out, they HAVE to describe the message you started out to tell.

This happens in all linear-progressive art forms. You don’t see the finished product all in one moment, but strung out over time, and then you reassemble it. So, you start with the message, stage one, encode it into symbols, stage two, and then transmit it through storyweaving, stage three. But the order of transmission can be scrambled, so that the audience needs to decode it in time as well as space, to put the internal logic of the story back together. So, the storyform actually calls for the order of dramatic events, but storyweaving allows the author the ability to play with their audience by choosing what order and how much for these events in the telling.

And finally, we have stage four. Reception. We all see pictures in clouds. We make figures out of constellations, we look at ink blots in which there is no intended meaning, yet find some. This is because we seek order out of chaos. The mind IMPOSES patterns on that which it observes. So it is with the audience. An audience will seek to find meaning in the story being presented to it. BUT Each member of the audience is coming to the story with its own preconceptions, its own experiences. So, the symbols it sees, may not be interpreted the same as the author intended.

This means, that when you want to communicate, the more broad your symbols, the wider the audience that will see them the same way, but the more specific your symbols, the more narrow your audience. As a result, to get complex concepts and feelings across to a mass audience, we must use broad symbols, each of which, does not do the job, but taken together, in the order in which they are presented, build up an understanding in the audience, much like winding string in a circle will build a baseball.

We use our inexact symbols, to get all around the issue, like a dot to dot picture. By the end of the story, we hope our audience will connect the dots and then make the intuitive leap and say, “If this is where all these things are, then THIS must be what’s at the center of it.” And that thing at the center is what you wanted to communicate in the first place. Questions at this point?

Pete P 432 : not yet.

Dramatica : Okay,

Dan Steele : the film writer must also worry about how the chosen encodings could be changed during that last stage is Stage four: Reception.

Dan Steele : the production process

Dramatica : Yes, Dan, for the film writer, their audience is not the good folks that sit in the chairs in the theater, but the cast and crew. You tell your story to the artists and technicians, you hope they get your intent, and then they go out as your messengers and hopefully interpret your work correctly.

Dan Steele : which is why film writing differs from books, in part

Dramatica : It is one of the BIGGEST differences in writing for film vs. books. Okay, so with these four stages of communication, we can see how the StoryWEAVING phase is what is commonly thought of as plot, but is really only half of what is going on. The essential internal logic of the story contained in the StoryFORM, is the first part, and the order in which it is presented is the second.

Now when it comes to the Storyweaving part, Dramatica can make some suggestions, but it is really up to the desires of the author, because it is an unlimited opportunity to play around with the order of things. Like flashbacks or flash forwards for example. Take a flashback that moves the essential dramatics along, one in which the characters are aware they are “flashing back” or remembering, and it is part of the storyform, because the characters ARE aware and therefore, it effects them after they have flashed back.

But take something like “Remains of the Day.” The characters know nothing about the flashbacks. They are only seen by the audience. So flashbacks IN the story are Storyform, Flashbacks OUTside the story are Storyweaving. It is the storyforming part that Dramatica can be very specific about Do either of you have the structure charts?

Dan Steele : no

Pete P 432 : no.

Pete P 432 : ?

Dramatica : Well, there is a four level structure in Dramatica. Keep in mind, Dramatica is not just a structure, You might consider including the chart when you separately issue the book, by the way half of it is dynamics that rearrange the structure. Actually, Dan, the chart is in the book already, and the book is already available. Anyway, the top level of the structure is most akin to Genre, the next level down is most akin to Plot.

Pete P 432 : which book? The ones with the program?

Dan Steele : At end tell title and availability

Pete P 432 : I do then have the chart, but I haven’t looked at it. I will tonight.

Dramatica : We have written the Dramatica Theory Book, which comes with the software, but is also available for $24.95, I believe, as a separate item. Now this plot level, consists of sixteen “Types”. These are called “Types” because they are the Types of things that will be going on in the plot at any given point. And in fact, all sixteen will show up in every complete story. Its just that they will show up in different orders, depending on the overall impact (big picture message) you are trying to create at the end.

These sixteen types are divided into four groups, called quads. One of the groups is in the Universe Domain, which just means they describe a situation. They are Past, Present, Future, and Progress.

Pete P 432 : okay, now I remember what you mean.

Dramatica : Good. There are four others in the Mind (or attitude) domain, Conscious, Subconscious, Memory, Preconscious.

Dan Steele : what would a parallel world correspond to in that scheme? It is not past, present or future, or progress but alternative, as in maybe Mad Max

Dramatica : Well, a parallel world would depend on whether you wanted it to be A: A situation in which the characters find themselves B: an activity where one world is taking over from another, pushing the first one out (that would be Physics Domain for B) C: an alternative world where the problem is created by two opposing attitudes by the leaders.. Which would be Mind (a fixed attitude or prejudice) or D: an alternative world that has supplanted the old world, and the problems are caused because the way one responds to problems, (psychology domain) is no longer appropriate to the new world.

As you can see, the concept of an alternative or parallel world is a storytelling one, as all “high concept” ideas are. For example, do you want to do a story about a State of war, which would be Universe, or the activity of waging war, which would be Mind. Either one is just fine, but Dramatica forces you to consider, just what kind of problem you are talking about that drives the struggle in YOUR story. At the Type level, we see groupings of these sixteen Types in four quads that help us see the kinds of concerns that will come up in each different domain, each different kind of story. And, in fact, all four domains will be in every complete story as well. One will be the Domain of the Objective Story. This is the area in which ALL the characters are involved. For the audience, it is the THEY perspective.

Dan Steele : so there are what, maybe 4×4×4×4=256 different basic story types?

Dramatica : Actually, Dan, by the time you get down to the element level where characters are created, there are 32,768 different unique storyforms. The other three perspectives are the Main Character Domain (Me, to the audience) The Obstacle character Domain (YOU to the audience) And the Subjective Story Domain about the relationship between the Main and Obstacle Characters. (WE to the audience)

All four Domains and therefore all sixteen types will be in each story, but with point of view gets involved in which TYPES of activities, describes the most broad stroke, overview of your story’s plot.

There is MUCH more to say about plot in Dramatica, but we’ve run out of time for tonight!

Dan Steele : how does Dramatica SW handle bookkeeping for subplots? whoops, okay

Dramatica : Here’s an answer, Dan.. Right now, Dramatica only carries you through encoding. To weave, you take out the old 3×5 cards and begin figuring out which “appreciations” from the Dramatica reports, you want to illustrate in which scenes. Then you can change the scene order around for your storytelling.

Dan Steele : so I would have to set up subplots as separate stories with Dramatica oh, I see

Dramatica : Yes, Dan, each subplot should have its own separate storyform. We are working right now on a future upgrade, that will allow all that kind of manipulation to be done within the program, with the goal of making Dramatica capable of carrying the author from forming through encoding all the way through weaving.

Pete P 432 : Great, when will we see it?

Dramatica : Well, I hope to see that version out this year. Its a lot of complex work, but we recognize the value.

Pete P 432 : One quick question?

Dramatica : Sure, shoot!

Pete P 432 : After Storyforming, when D asks me to illustrate something I’ve answered in SF, Do I think in very specific terms or more symbolically

Dramatica : Yes. Each storyform point needs to be illustrated in your story, or the audience won’t know about it. There will be a hole. Think specifically at this point for example, Suppose your goal is “obtaining” Obtaining WHAT? You must pick the specific way in which Obtaining is the goal in YOUR story. Once you know that, you know a great deal about a lot of other things that must happen to support and grow from that.

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 3

The following  excerpt is taken from

The Dramatica Class Transcripts

  • Recap: A New Theory of Story  
  • The Dramatica Structure: Dramatica explores both the Structure AND Dynamics of dramatics. In this class, the structural side is mapped out.  
  • The Four Throughlines: Objective, Subjective, Main, and Obstacle, “I”, “You”, “We”, and “They” perspectives.  
  • Body Heat Throughlines.  
  • Archetypal characters. How many are there? What are they? WHY are they? How do they relate to complex characters?
 

 

Dramatica : Well, let me just do a brief recap, then get into the new material. First of all….Dramatica is two things: a new theory of story, and the software that bears its name. This class focuses on the theory, but I’ll be happy to answer questions about the software at any time. There is a central concept to Dramatica, that every COMPLETE story is an analogy to a single human mind dealing with an inequity.

Dramatica : Hiya, RDC!

RDCvr : Hey.

Dramatica : This has come about because in order to make a complete argument, or a complete exploration of an issue, an author must address all other ways of looking at the issue other than the one they are touting, and this leads to documenting all meaningful ways of looking at the problem in the story itself.

It becomes a defacto “map” of the mind’s problem solving processes. There are two ways to look at this “Story Mind”. From the outside, and from the inside. When we look from the outside, it is like the view of a general on a hill watching a battle. This is called the “Objective” view in Dramatica. But when we look through the eyes of a soldier in the trenches, that is the Subjective view, where we look FROM the Story Mind, as if it were our own, through the eyes and heart of the Main Character.

Dramatica sees, character, plot, and theme, as the thoughts of this Story Mind as it tries to work out its problems. Dramatic tension is built out of the “parallax” between how those problems look subjectively compared to objectively. That is where dramatic meaning is generated.

Dramatica : (hiya, Dan!)

Dan Steele : Hi.

Dramatica : To create meaning, Dramatica asks authors to make choices about how they want things to look, from the Objective and Subjective views. Then, the Story Engine in the software, keeps limiting remaining choices to those that are compatible with what has already been chosen. This happens until there are no more options left, because everything has been locked in, to one unique storyform. Now, this could become really formula, accept that there is no fixed pathway through the questions, no steps one has to take. You can start anywhere and skip around, because the model of story is holistic, more like a cross between a Rubik’s cube of story, and a periodic table of story elements.

There are 12 Essential Questions that get to the heart of the matter most quickly, so although you don’t need to answer these at all, if you’d rather not, they will form up a storyform and choose your dramatics, faster than any other path. Four questions are about character, four about plot, four about theme, and Genre is the relationship between character, plot, and theme. We covered the four character questions already in an earlier class.

RDCvr: Question?

Dramatica: Yes, RDC?

RDCvr: When you answers the twelve questions do they lead to the quads?

Dramatica: Four of the questions ask you to choose items from the quads. They are the thematic questions.

RDCvr: What about the characters and elements?

Dramatica : Is everyone familiar with the “quads”?

Phyll10837 : No, I’m not.

Dan Steele : No.

Pete P 432 : No.

Dramatica : RDC, Objective characters are created from the elements at the bottom of the Objective Story Domain, which is represented by one fourth of the Story Mind.

William S1 : Aren’t the quads like sets of opposing characteristics, elements?

Dramatica : Let’s talk about quads for a moment. Imagine a square, divided into four parts. (Hello Jenny!)

JennyCrusi : Hi, sorry I’m late.

Dramatica : No prob, Jenny!

William S1 : You lose a letter grade!

Pete P 432 : Hi Jenny!

Dramatica : So, we have effectively, four little squares that make up one big square. Now, take the following items: Put “Universe” in the upper left square of the quad. Actually go ahead and draw this, if you don’t have the software and it will help you visualize. Now, put “Mind” directly opposite “Universe”, diagonally, in the lower right hand corner. Put “Physics” in the upper right hand corner. And put “Psychology” in the lower left, across from physics. Everybody have that in front of them?

Dan Steele : My mind is in the lower right corner and my keyboard is in front of me, yes, okay.

Dramatica : Notice that the top two items are both external.

William S1 : Absolutely…

Dramatica : And the bottom two items are internal. So, one of the relationships we see in the quad, is that horizontal pairs have a relationship. Horizontal pairs are called “companion” pairs in Dramatica quads, because they are most compatible. Now, notice that Universe means a situation, or fixed state of things. Physics means “an activity”. Mind is a fixed state of mind (prejudice, fixation) and Psychology is a manner of thinking or manipulation.

Universe and Mind are both “states” which means they are unchanging. Physics and Psychology are both processes, which means they are always changing. So we have a new relationship in the quad, a diagonal pair of states, and a diagonal pair of processes. Diagonal pairs in Dramatica are called Dynamic Pairs. Because they are most opposed. Now this quad I have given you, is at the top of the Dramatica structure. But keep in mind that structure is only HALF of Dramatica. The other half is the dynamics, represented by the questions we have been talking about, like, does your Main Character change or remain steadfast? Is your story drawn to a conclusion by a timelock or an optionlock? and so on.

The structural half of Dramatica, starts with these four items, and says, that any problem you might want to classify has got to be found in some combination of these four things: an internal or external state or process. There is just no other place a problem could reside.

William S1 : Does the “pairs” relationship hold as the quads are broken farther and farther down into other quads?

Dramatica : Yes, William, but not with the same meanings as internal, external, etc. In fact, that is what is really changing as we look deeper and deeper into one of the four “Classes” of problems. Each “Class” is like a filter on the problem. We look through it and try to make out what is going wrong at the bottom. So, if you see a diagram of the Dramatica structure, you’ll see that each of these four breaks down into four sub-classes called Types, and each Type breaks into four Variations and each Variation breaks down into four Elements. This creates four “levels” of the story mind.

RDCvr : Could you give a concrete example of how this works?

Dramatica : Sure, RDC…The top level, the Class level, is most like Genre, the Types most like Plot, The Variations feel most like Theme and the Elements are where characters are created. This just says what their “topic” is, but the dynamic questions determine how that topic grows and evolves over the course of the story. RDC, I’ll break down the structure further on, but for now, I want to describe something else about the four classes we’ve identified.

RDCvr : Okay.

Dramatica : Remember I talked about the Objective and Subjective views of story? Well, another way to look at that is the Objective view is what you are looking at, and the subjective view is where you are looking from. So, the structure represents, the four items or topics we might look at in a story to see the problem at the most broad stroke, unrefined level. But where are we looking from? The question really is: how do you want to position your audience in relationship to each of these potential places the problem might be?

Well, there is a DYNAMIC quad of four points of view. Step out of the role of author for a moment, and pretend you are the audience. You are looking at the story. When you look through the eyes of the “Main” Character, the audience feels as if the story is happening to them, so they are looking from the first person singular point of view, which is “I”. They feel as if, “this is happening to ME”. Which is why people drive their cars funny after an action movie! But if you are the soldier in the trenches, there is the other soldier coming at you through the smoke. You can’t see to tell if they are friend or foe, but they ARE coming at you! This is the character Dramatica calls the “Obstacle” character, because they stand in the path the Main Character would like to take. They might be an enemy, but they might also be someone who cares for you and wants to steer you away from something dangerous or bad.

When the audience sees through the Main Character’s eyes, and sees the “I” point of view, the Obstacle character looks like “you”. And that is the relationship the audience has to them. Second person singular. Some famous Obstacle Characters are Obi Wan Kenobi from Star Wars, or Girrard in The Fugitive, for example. They don’t HAVE to be the antagonist, or the enemy, these are SUBJECTIVE characters, because they are defined by their point of view.

Now the Main and Obstacle are a dynamic pair, not of items or topics but of points of view. To fill out this POV quad, we still have two more points of view that show up in all complete stories. What about the relationship BETWEEN the Main and Obstacle characters? This is called “we” and is the realm of the Subjective Story throughline. You can hear Main and Obstacle all the time saying, “We don’t agree on this”. or, “This is the center of our problems”. The “We” or subjective story POV, is where the “passionate” argument of a story is made.

Eventually, one of the two parties to that argument will be won over, one will change, the other will remain steadfast. That is how the argument ends. But there is one final point of view. “They”! This is the objective view of the general on the hill. It is where the audience observes characters as if they were not actually in the story, but watching a play on a stage. We might care about the outcome, but we are not actually involved directly. You can feel these four points of view in EVERY complete story.

Now….Objective and Subjective are another diagonal, dynamic pair: The subjective story is the passionate argument, the objective story is the dispassionate or “analytical” argument of the story. Reason and Emotion. Sometimes they agree, sometimes they come to different conclusions, and that is where dramatic tension is created. But wait, there’s more! Now how much would you pay! (Just kidding, couldn’t resist!)

What you need to do, is determine which POV gets attached to which topic. In other words, MC, OC, OS, SS, the four points of view, each will be attached to one of the four classes. This positions the audience in relationship to the story’s problem. Questions on this part before I talk about the actual attaching of the POV’s?

William S1 : How about applying all this to a film… say Gump or The Client or The Piano?

Dramatica : Well, let’s apply it to oh, say, Body Heat for example…

Dramatica : Are you all familiar with that film?

RDCvr : Yes.

Dan Steele : Okay.

Phyll10837 : Yes.

JennyCrusi : Yes. And this is terrific by the way.

Dramatica : All right…Now the Main character is going to be one of the four classes, and each of the other points of view will be attached to the rest. First of all, if you had the Dramatica structure chart, you would see that under the Physics class, one of the types is “obtaining”. And sometimes looking at the types help choose the class, by getting into a bit more detail. The Objective story in Body Heat is what? Anyone want to paraphrase?

William S1 : Murder and sweaty lust.

Dramatica : That’s more thematic, WIlliam, but Objectively, the story is about Ned and Mattie trying to get her husband’s money. That’s one fourth of the story. The objective part. The analytical part. The efforts and activities they go through (the bomb, the break in, etc.) are all pretty much “physics” in nature, and the TYPE of physics is geared toward “obtaining”.

So Dramatica sees the Objective throughline (they) as being attached to the Physics class. Now, since Objective and subjective are dynamic pairs, we would expect to find the subjective story in the square diagonal to physics. And that would be Psychology. The subjective story is about the relationship between the main and obstacle characters. And I would say that Psychology pretty well describes the relationship between Ned and Mattie. As you’ll recall, one of the definitions of Psychology is “manipulations”.

Now, we have Mind and Universe left over, and one is going to be Main Character and the other Obstacle. Any guesses on who’s which? Look at the yearbook from Mattie’s high school, that we see at the end, it gives us a big clue. She is quoted as saying, “I want to be rich and live in an exotic place.” Now, she has kept that dream all these years, everything she has done has been driven by that fixed mind set. She is a mind character to the hilt. Whereas, Ned Racine, is in this because of his “situation” (the definition of Universe). He bungled a will in the past, as a result, he is the only one who can help Mattie accomplish her plan, which requires a bungled will.

As further “proof”, Under the Universe class, are the four Types: Past, Present, Future, and Progress. Even in the opening scene, Ned voice overs…”That’s my history burning up out there”. Which is Kasdan’s way of illustrating both past and progress in one symbol. Its quite a succinct story!

Keep in mind, that there are three levels below the class level, so each of the throughlines gets more and more detailed, as Dramatica asks you to make more refined choices about the nature of your story’s problem. Ultimately arriving at the character level(elements) where the source of the Dramatica potential truly resides. Questions on any of this?

William S1 : Could you touch on Contagonist?…

Dramatica : Sure, William! First of all, Dramatica sees 8 archetypal characters. But, Dramatica also sees Millions of non-archetypal characters. It all depends upon how the character elements are combined. The elements fall into “families”, by their natures. Some are Motivations, Some are Methodologies, Some are the character’s Purposes. Others are their Means of Evaluation. There is an internal and external trait, in each of these four categories, and there are sixty four elements all together (by the time we divide Universe, etc., down four levels.

That means that there is one special arrangement in which, eight character each get eight traits, internal and external from each category. And when all eight traits are from the same “family” it forms an archetypal character. These archetypes even form quads! Two quads of four! But they are easiest to see by their dynamic pairs. Protagonist / Antagonist, Reason / Emotion, Sidekick / Skeptic And Guardian / Contagonist. Darth Vader is a Contagonist.

These characters are defined by the elements they contain. Guardian has Conscience, and Help. Contagonist has the dynamically opposed elements of Temptation, and Hinder. Reason has Control, and Logic. Emotion has Uncontrolled and feeling. As you can see, each of these archetypes, has the same elements as more complex characters, just in a consistent or more simplified arrangement.

William S1 : What is the difference between the dramatic purpose of Antagonist and Contagonist?

Dramatica : Now, the contagonist is not the antagonist. The Antagonist is made up of Avoid (or prevent) and Re-consider. This is dynamic to the Protagonist who is Pursue, and Consider. In other words, the antagonist is out there to stop the Protagonist, the contagonist is just trying to push them off the path, Look at conscience and temptation fighting it out. That is the job of Obi Wan and Darth.

William S1 : Can the Contagonist be thought of as the Antagonist’s ally?

Dramatica : Actually, William, it is only a story telling convention, that often the Contagonist is the Antagonist’s ally. But they might also be attached to the Protagonist as well. You see, when we are looking at objective characters, we are not seeing them by their relationship to the Protagonist, but by their function. The contagonist Tempts and Hinders. They will do it to everyone everywhere, not just to the Protagonist. This is often confusing, because most people think the Protagonist has to be the Main Character.

Dan Steele : if viewed from goal standpoint – is antags goal to stop protag, while contag’s goal is to achieve his own objective?

Dramatica : Yes, Dan, in reference to the goal, Protagonist functions as Pursue, and the antagonist functions as Avoid. So, you can see that when we have a Main Character, who is also performing the function of preventing the giant corporation from building a shopping mall in the ecological park, they are a Main Character and an Antagonist! They are trying to stop someone’s goal. The effort to pursue is there first, THEN this character responds. Well, looks like time to stop lecturing…. Any questions?

Dan Steele : yes – on getting the log of chat – where is it posted?

Dramatica : If you want to receive a copy of the Dramatica structure, nicely printed, E-mail Dramatica@screenplay.com, and I’ll see that you get one in the mail, BUT this only goes for those who attended this class!

Dan Steele : I’ve been bumped each Friday in mid-session and need to look at what I missed.

Dramatica : Dan, the logs are in the Non-fiction Library section, of the Writers area. Both of the previous logs are up there right now.

Dan Steele : Thanks.

William S1 : To whose attention at Dramatica?

Dramatica : Attention it to Melanie Anne Phillips (me).

William S1 : Thanks.

Dramatica : Okay, any last questions?

Dan Steele : When you say mail – you mean physical mail?

Dramatica : I’ll send you snail mail with a printed copy of the structure enclosed. And other lit about Dramatica if you like.

Dan Steele : Oh.

William S1 : See ya!

Dramatica : Its too detailed to read as a GIF.

RDCvr : Really good tonight, thanks Melanie.

Dramatica : Niters William!

Dan Steele : Thank you then and goodnight!

Dramatica : You’re welcome, RDC!

Dramatica : Nite, Dan!

Dramatica Class 2

The following  excerpt is taken from

The Dramatica Class Transcripts

Dramatica : I’ll start tonight with a brief review of last week’s class. First of all, Dramatica is two things… A theory of story and the software that implements it. Welcome William! Jump in with questions at any time!William S1 : hello

Dramatica : This class focuses on the theory, although I will be happy to answer any software questions that you may have. We began last week with the concept of the “Story Mind”. That is the central concept of Dramatica.

William S1 : After working so long in 3-act structure, I’m unclear on Dramatica’s four-act structure.

Dramatica : Okay, let’s address that question… Dramatica sees both a structural and a dynamic view of “acts”… In the dynamic view, we “feel” the progression of a story as falling into three distinct phases. These are the same “movements” that Aristotle saw when he talked about a beginning, a middle, and an end.

An alternative is a structural view. Imagine for a moment, four signposts, along a path. One marks where you start, two in the middle, and one at the end. If you start at the first one, there are three journeys to make.

William S1 : Is act I (set up), act II (confrontation/obstacles) and act III (resolution) applicable?

Dramatica : William, yes, in the traditional understanding of story. There’s a bit more to it in Dramatica. When you move between the four signposts you take three journeys.

William S1 : Why make storytelling more complicated than it is?

Dramatica : Why make it less complicated than it is? When you look at a story as a “done deal”, when you see all the dramatic potentials, rather than concentrating on the events. That is where you see the meaning. Its kind of like scanning out lines on a TV picture. Scene by scene, act by act, you create drama that flows from one point to another. But in the end, you want to be able to connect all the points, and see what kind of picture you have created. By using both a 3 and four act structure and dynamics, Dramatica allows an author to approach a story either through the progression of events or the meaning they want to end up with.

The software has an “engine” that keeps the two compatible, so when you make decisions or changes in one, the effects on the other are shown.

William S1 : What is the 4th act?

Dramatica : The fourth act is the ending, which is the same as the denoument or author’s proof. Any other questions before we continue?

DC Finley : So, the traditional second act is now the second and third acts, right?

Dan Steele : So the event sequence is managed separately from the psychological chain of motivations?

William S1 : Then what is the dramatic purpose of the traditional third act?

Dramatica : Dan, they are managed separately, but intimately tied together. They affect one another.

Dan Steele : Yes.

Dramatica : DC, and William, here’s an answer to you both…If we look at a story as having a beginning, middle and end, then the beginning is static.. it is really the sign post where everything begins. The end is also static, the destination. But the “middle” is seen as the whole development of the story from that starting point to ending point. Now, that is really “blending” half dynamics and half structure. Two points and a string between them.

William S1 : But the beginning is NOT static.. the story usually enters in the middle of a life, event or sequence of events.

Dramatica : Yes, it enters in the middle of a life, but is thought of as the set of potentials that are already wound up that will evolve into the story line.

William S1 : Okay.

Dramatica : Dramatica sees the first act as MUCH more dynamic than that! In fact, we have 7 things to think about!

William S1 : Bring it on.

Dramatica : Let’s label the four structural acts as A,B,C,D. The familiar dynamic acts are 1,2,3. The beginning point is A then we move through 1 to get to B then we move through 2 to get to C. Then we move through 3 to get to D. Now, A,B,C,D and 1,2,3 all have to be there, in order to tell the whole tale.

DC Finley : Je comprende.

Dramatica : Any other questions about this.. oh, just a point. TV often looks at a five act structure. What they are really seeing, is point A followed by 1,2,3 and ending with D. It is not that B, and C are not there, but the commercial breaks emphasize those five and downplay the others. That’s why writing for TV is significantly different than writing for film. And BOTH are a lot different than writing prose. Okay, shall we move on?

DC Finley : Yes.

Dramatica : Okay, the central concept of the Story Mind. Dramatica sees every complete story as being an analogy to a single mind, dealing with a problem, or exploring a particular topic. This is because in order to fully look at an issue and not leave any holes, an author has to include in the work all the alternatives to his message that the audience might think of. And once they are included, they represent all appropriate ways to look at that particular issue, or if some are missing, the audience won’t buy it logically or emotionally.

And there are two views of this story mind that the author affords the audience. One is the Objective view as we look AT the story mind. The other is the Subjective view as we look FROM the Story Mind, through the eyes of a Main Character. The Objective view is like that of a general on a hill watching a battle, the Subjective view is like that of the soldier in the trenches. By the way, the log of the last class is in the Library folder in the writer’s club area in Non-fiction, if you want more detail on these subjects from last week.

Talking about the Main character, last week we asked two important questions… Does the Main Character change or remain steadfast, by the end of the story. In a “leap of faith” story, the Main Character will have to make a conscious choice to change, like Scrooge does, or to remain steadfast like Dr. Richard Kimble or Job, in the Bible. In a non-leap of faith story, the character will find themselves at the end of the story, in a situation similar to one at the beginning, and the audience will be able to see by their response, if they have been changed by their experiences or not.

There is no big choice by the Main Character in this kind of story, but the audience still gets to see the results of the drama on the character. The second question we asked was…Does the Main Character have to grow by starting something or stopping something. We have all seen stories in which the Main Character is the cause of the problem, and if they would just stop, things would be okay.

We have also seen stories in which the Main Character holds the solution, and if they would just start using it, everything would be okay. This is for a character that changes. For a steadfast character, its a bit different. Since the audience is not focusing on the character to change, they look at the plot situation instead. For the steadfast character, they must grow in their resolve to hold out or work for something to start or something to stop. Either way, change or steadfast, the character must grow.

So the notion that a character must change to grow is not accurate, as some characters must grow in their resolve. Finally, last week, we talked about the limit that draws a story to a close. Why does it end? Because the characters either run out of time, or run out of options. 48 hours is obviously a time lock. Remains of the Day is an option lock. Any questions on this before we jump into some new material? No?

Okay…Let’s put these questions into perspective…Dramatica theory has MANY questions from which to approach a story. But out of all of them, there are 12 that get right to the heart of a drama (or comedy). We call them (rather pretentiously) the 12 Essential Questions! You have just heard 3 of them. In fact, they break into three groups of four questions. The first group pertains to the Main Character. The second group to the plot. And the third group to the theme. Genre is the relationship created between character, plot and theme.

The four Main character questions are: Resolve: change or steadfast? Direction of growth: start or stop. Approach: Do-er or Be-er? Mental Sex: Male or Female (more on this later!) The four plot questions are: Work: action or decision? Limit: timelock or optionlock? Outcome: Success or Failure? Judgment: Good or Bad? The four Theme Questions are more structurally based, and we’ll deal with them when we get therein a later class… Any questions before we finish up the remaining two character questions we need to discuss? Well, either you’re all logging and in the other room, or I’m doing a heck of a job explaining it!

Dan Steele : I’m here.

Dramatica : Ah, that’s sweet!

Pdmedia : Me, too

DC Finley : Woof.

RDCvr : Me, too.

Dramatica : By the way, I’m Melanie Anne Phillips, the gal from the theory book!

William S1 : Nice to meet you. It just seems most of this is in the manual.

Dramatica : Yes, most of this is in the book, just explained more conversationally. That’s why I’m MORE than happy to answer questions!

Dan Steele : What theory book, by the way? The manual for Dramatica? Or do you explain the theory in a separate book?

Dramatica : Dan, there is a theory book that comes along with the software, and we will also be marketing it by itself soon.

Dan Steele : Okay.

Dramatica : Okay, time for us to move on to Do-er or Be-er…Dan, you won’t need Dramatica to answer any of these questions, though the software does employ them to “calculate” dramatics. Is your Main Character a Do-er or Be-er? This doesn’t mean active and passive. It doesn’t mean male or femaleIt means, does the Main Character PREFER to work things out through actions or through mental or emotional work?

Be-ers have a bad name in our society. They appear often as victims. But, for example, a mother who must hold on to an appearance for the sake or her children, is doing as much work internally, as someone climbing a mountain. Look at the Dad in the original “Bethoven”, He had this dog tearing apart his house, but he tried to hold it all inside until the problem went away. That’s why it is so powerful when he hits the evil vet! It’s completely unlike him.

Clint Eastwood likes to play both kinds of characters. Dirty Harry is clearly a do-er…act first, think later. But William Muney (in Unforgiven) is a be-er He only kills the young boy to put him out of his misery. When beaten up, he doesn’t respond. (A victim again!) Caine in the original Kung-fu was a be-er. But in our western cultures ideals, he usually just holds out until there is no other way, then beats the tar out of the bad guy. But be-ers can be just as strong. And not resort to the physical. Any more on that question or move on? Move on, I guess!

William S1 : Musn’t one be before one can do? Then one is be-ing and do-ing.

DKahane : Any examples of strong Be-ers?

Dramatica : William, how about when one acts from instinct? Also, when one acts from conditioning. The conditioning is just the network of responses, but does not require conscious consideration. The be-er character must make a conscious effort to resolve the problem by copping an attitude, or by pretending to feel a certain way.

William S1 : Okay.

Dramatica : Passive-aggressive personalities are of this type. And as for a strong be-er, how about Hamlet? All he does is think and try to come to terms! Okay, we move on to Mental Sex…

This question is not about the gender of the main Character. And, it is not about their sexual preferences, AND, it is not about masculine or feminine. It is about problem solving techniques,linear, or holistic. More often than not, if you have a male gender, they are male mental sex, and female gender is female mental sex. Sometimes this is not true. Ripley, in the original Alien, was male mental sex. In fact, the part was written for a man,they just changed the names and gender references, but kept the problem solving techniques intact.

That’s why it is so odd when she goes back for the cat! Not that a man wouldn’t go back, but just that they had not given male reasons to, they just assumed she was a woman, so she would go back,but they had created her as male mental sex.

Now, men or women can easily learn to respond in the opposite sex techniques, but underneath it all is a tendency or bias to adopt either spatial or temporal problem solving techniques.

Clarisse Starling in Silence of the Lambs is another male mental sex character, whereas, Tom Wingo, the Nick Nolte character in Prince of Tides, is Female mental sex. Again, most often, go with what you expect.

PGThomas : Wasn’t Ripey saving the cat meant to build horror suspense, regardless of “mental sex”?

Dramatica : But be aware that it will have an influence on the way your main character goes about solving the problem, not the conclusions they come to.

PGThomas : How could they have established that action for Ripley?

Dramatica : Yes, PG, that is the author’s intent, but if the action is out of place to the established character, even though it may build tension, it rings untrue.

Dan Steele : how do linear/holistic relate to spatial/temporal? not clear.

Dramatica : Well, Dan, female mental sex tries to hold it all together, male tries to pull it all together, female tries to “tune-up” the situation with leverage,male determines steps that lead to the desired outcome. And so on, women look at things holistically, because they think with the time side, men look at things in sequence, because they are using the space side to think with.

PG, all they would have needed to do, is to have Ripley have said to Jonesy, the cat, at some earlier time, that no matter what, she would never leave him.

PGThomas : Gotcha

Dramatica : Then, she would have made a commitment, and that is a male contract.

PGThomas : “Commitment” a male contract? Don’t tell my girlfriend that!

Dan Steele : But there are time sequences ie., do a then b then c; and men do that.

Dramatica : Yes, men stand on space to see time, women stand on time to see space.

William S1 : What?

Dramatica : It all goes back to inside the womb in the 12th to14th week of pregnancy…There is a flush of testosterone or estrogen over the brain of the developing fetus. Testosterone boosts serotonin, the neurotransmitter that is an exciter. Estrogen boosts dopamine, the neurotransmitter that inhibits. This does not affect the body, which is controlled by XX and XY chromosomes, but just the foundation upon which the mind is built.

Dan Steele : hmm, going to run into my resistance on these views of male/female intelligences, but not going to make issue.

PGThomas : Does this flush determine the sex of the baby, or vice versa?

Dan Steele : The stand on space to see time thing versus time to see space is too vague for me without clarification, can’t buy it

Dramatica : One sees easily the arrangement of things, and works to figure out how things are going (paths). That’s seeing logic and figuring the emotions. The other sees emotions clearly, which give meaning, but need to work to see what the mechanism is. Again, its only an influence, and training can counteract it, though not eliminate it.

PGThomas : So a male baby could conceivably get an estrogen flush? And vice versa?

Dramatica : Yes, PG, that is true.

Dan Steele : are you saying that basic difference this theory builds on is that men see objects, logic, order, and women see emotion, reasons?

Dramatica : More precisely, Dan, that is just an aspect of the theory, only one of perhaps 80 questions, and it is not exclusive, it says men see linear logic more clearly, and women see holistic logic more clearly, and they lead to different approaches to problem solving. This is always the controversial question, but we found it in our model and can’t deny it.

Dan Steele : Am still bothered by definition of “holistic logic” and the contrast. Is stereotyping people too much I think. But dropping issue now so we can move along.

William S1 : Relax… for the most part males think in male patterns, and females think in female.

Dramatica : Tell ya what Dan, I’ll email you a whole article I wrote on the subject for our newsletter, that can go into more detail than I can here.

Dan Steele : Sure, helpful.

Dramatica : How about an easy question?

PGThomas : Is it possible to have a character equally male AND female mental sex?

Dramatica : PG, when a character switches between the two, they move from problem solving to justification, And that is, in fact what hides problems from the main character, creates a blind spot, and winds up the engine of potential. Its not a sex issue at that point, just like saying things are rotten now, but the reward is worth it, or I don’t care if this leads anywhere, I’m having fun.

William S1 : Don’t we all think in some parts male and female?

Dan Steele : Ah – men tackle problems head-on, women work around them. Confrontational versus nurturing.

Dramatica : There are four levels of the mind, and this only affects one of them. The other three questions about the Main Character, create dynamics for the other three levels. What’s nice is, once you answer enough questions to determine the shape of the message your working toward, Dramatica, the software, starts to see that pattern, and limit out choices that would no longer be consistent with the direction you have chosen. Eventually, it fills in the rest of the blanks, and tells you things about your story you didn’t tell it, and the things “feel” right! This could be formula,but you can start with any question and take any path through them, so there is no bias built into the software at all.

William S1 : What impact does Dramatica have on the intuitive creative process?

Dramatica : That depends on the particular author, Willam, first of all, some writers like to use it right off the bat, to figure out their dramatics so they know where they are going. But others like to write a draft first, then go to Dramatica to look for leaks and inconsistencies. And for the “chain of consciousness” writer, since they are not consciously trying to convey any overall meaning,but are just exploring a path and leaving a trail, then Dramatica has no value to them at all.

Pdmedia : Can Existing scripts be imported into Dramatica ?

Dramatica : PD, you can not import a whole script, as Dramatica is not a tool for the actual writing.

DKahane : Gotta go. When will tonite be on your BBS?

Dramatica : Bye DKahane!

PGThomas : Pd – I’m teaching myself Dramatica by inputting the details of a script I already wrote That way, I’m already familiar with the story and am happy with, just curious to see what Dramatica has to say about it.

Dramatica : But you can import text as you illustrate the dramatic points that Dramatica has shown based on your choices. That’s a good way to go, PD. Just go into storytelling BEFORE you even create a storyform, put in what those dramatica points are in your story, then use that information to make dramatic choices to double check!

Pdmedia : Thanks for the ideas.

Dramatica : Well, its about time to quit for tonight! I’ll be here again next week at the same time. And you can reach me at work at melanie@storymind.com.

PGThomas : When will the BBS have this session posted?

Pdmedia : When will you be on next ?

Dramatica : Probably this session will be up on the boards next Friday. Last week just came up early today.

PGThomas : Thanks. Bye!

William S1 : See ya next time.

Dramatica : Thanks for attending, and tell your friends, if you think they’d like this.

Dan Steele :Thanks; am waiting for Dramatica 8.0, the one that talks and types for you…

Dramatica : Never happen Dan! Don’t even SAY such a thing!!!

Dan Steele : LOL

Dramatica : I’m a writer too, ya know! Niters all!

Dan Steele : But 8.0 would be tailor-made for producers.

Dramatica : Arizona! Ya just missed us! We’re just closing down for the night.

ArizonaRay : I know….disappointed….tried my best…..next week?

Dan Steele : Nite.

RDCvr : Goodnight.

Pdmedia : Stay dry

Dramatica : The log of last week’s class is in the writer’s club library, non-fiction library. We’ll be here next week, same time, and this log will be uploaded by next Friday too (I hope!)

ArizonaRay : Great!

Dramatica : See ya now!

Story Structure Class 1 Transcript

Story structure is something we all feel, but when it comes to defining its parts and how they work to create a sound narrative, the simplicity vanishes. Still, if we are to be able to use structure as a tool when our intuition fails, the more we know about the elements of structure the more we can improve our stories.

The following transcript is from a series of online story structure classes that present the Dramatica approach to story development.

Topics covered in this class include:

  • The Story Mind
  • Why the Main Character does not have to be the Protagonist
  • Does your Main Character “change” or “remain steadfast”?
  • Does your Main Character grow by “starting” something or “stopping”something?
  • Is your story brought to a conclusion by a “timelock” or an “optionlock”?

Dramatica : Welcome to the Dramatica class! Dan, do you have any questions you’d like to pose before I bring up some topics?

Dan Steele : None, just am here to see what you have to say.

Dramatica : Okay, well, let me get started. We didn’t put out a lot of advance notice, so I don’t expect a large crowd. Normally, we teach our classes here at Screenplay Systems in Burbank. We have a four-hour Basics class in the theory, followed by eight two-hour Focus Workshops.

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.

The focus workshops cover Character, Plot, Theme, Genre,Storyforming, Storyencoding, Storyweaving, and Reception theory. That’s 20 hours of material, spoken; so as you can see, we’ll just scratch the surface tonight. Please feel free to jump in at any time with a question or comment.

First off, let’s separate the Dramatica theory from the Dramatica software. The Dramatica theory has been in development for over 15 years, the software implements the theory. This class focuses on the theory, though I will answer questions about the software you may have. The Dramatica theory is not a theory of screenplay, but a theory of story. As such, it can be used equally well for novels, plays, song ballads AND screenplays.

The central concept of the theory is called The Story Mind. This means that Dramatica sees every complete story as an analogy to a single mind, trying to deal with a particular inequity. In fact, stories are an analogy to the mind’s problem solving process. With me so far?

Dan Steele : yes

RDCvr : Yes

Dramatica : Is this boring, or an okay rate of information for you?

RDCvr : good.

Dan Steele : I can take it in as fast as you wish to deliver it.

Dramatica : Great! Here goes… stop me if you have questions… The theory sees Character, Plot, Theme, and Genre as being the thoughts of the Story Mind, made tangible, so we can look at our own mental processes from the outside, more objectively. Characters are the motivations of this Story Mind. Plot is the problem solving methods the Story Mind uses. Theme is the standard of values the Story Mind uses to determine what is favorable or unfavorable. And Genre describes the nature of the Mind itself: what kind of mind is it?

We think the Story Mind came into being as follows: First of all, no one would ever sit around trying to create an analogy of the mind. Rather, the first stories were simply statements that a particular path led to a particular outcome. In and of itself, this statement (or what Dramatica calls a “tale”) is great for that one particular situation that it describes. But what about extending that?

Suppose we as authors want to say that what happened in our tale was true for all such similar situations? Well, our audience might not buy that kind of blanket statement. They would question us and ask, “what about THIS particular case”, or “what about THAT case”? If we were telling our story “live” in front of the audience, we could counter each rebuttal to our blanket statement one by one. If our argument were well thought out, we would eventually address the concerns of everyone in the audience so that they would buy into what we were saying.

However, when we record our story, either as written words, or a screenplay or book, we are not there to counter the rebuttals to the blanket statements we might make. So, we have to incorporate all possible counters to all possible rebuttals in regard to the point we are making, right in the body of the work itself. This way, any issue anyone in our audience might take with us is covered already and dealt with. This is what makes a story complete: That the central issue of the story is seen from all essential logical and emotional points of view.

When we create a work of that nature, it is not a statement or tale, but a full argument. And that is how Dramatica defines a story. Since all the ways anyone might look at the issue have been incorporated, Since all the ways anyone might look at that particular issue are incorporated, the story actually maps out all the perspectives and considerations ANY mind might take on the issue. This is what creates the analogy of the mind.

Dan Steele : bacl – AOL just booted me off

Dramatica : No problem, Dan!

Dan Steele : wait

Dramatica : Yes?

Dan Steele : obviously you cannot give in the story all possible outcomes of an event.

Dramatica : True, outcome is the author’s bias on the issue.

Dan Steele : do you perhaps mean that the story maps out the end result of all perspectives?

Dramatica : The author chooses which outcome out of the infinite number will occur in HIS story. But the road that leads to that outcome must be fully described.

Dan Steele : oh, so at the story level all the outcomes exist, but at the presentation level one is selected by the author to be shown.

Dramatica : Absolutely correct. If a path is not taken that is an obvious alternative, the audience will cry, “foul” and you will have a plot hole. In other words, all the possible considerations along this path must be addressed, to make a complete argument. Now, even after making the argument, the audience may discount your concept and reject it out of hand, but they cannot argue with the internal logic of your message or claim that the characters are not consistent.

Okay, that’s the first concept out of several hundred. How we doing?

Dan Steele : okay so far

RDCvr : hanging in

Dan Steele : Obviously you have to condense things a lot, but okay so far.

Dramatica : Alright, lets take this concept of the Story Mind, and see what it does for us as authors. Let’s take this mind and hold it out in front of us. Kind of like a visible mind. We have two views of that mind: One view is from the outside looking in. This is the Objective view of the mind. Its kind of like a general on a hill watching a battle., You care about the outcome and the pain of your troops, but you are not personally involved in the action.

But there is a second view of the Story Mind that we share with the audience. That is the Subjective view. It is as if we take the Story Mind and make it our own, so we think its thoughts and feel its emotions. This is more like the view of the soldier in the trenches. He can’t see the whole battle like the general on the hill, but he is much more personally involved with the guy coming at him with the bayonet! This is the view through the eyes of the Main Character of the story. The audience sees through their eyes and feels through their heart. The other character coming at him, by the way, is what we call the Obstacle Character. Any questions on this part?

RDCvr : I’m okay.

Dan Steele : No,no questions.

Dramatica : Okay, Now the Main Character is not necessarily the Protagonist. First of all, a Protagonist is an archetypal character, and although archetypes work just fine, there are an infinite number of other kinds of more complex (and more simple) characters that can be created. But suppose we have a story with a Protagonist, and the Protagonist is NOT the Main Character… A story like To Kill a Mockingbird.

The Protagonist of a story is the driver of the Objective story. In other words, they are the most crucial soldier on the field. But we don’t have to see they battle always through their eyes. Just like we don’t always have to identify only with the quarterback in a football game. In To Kill a Mockingbird, Atticus, the Gregory Peck part in the movie, is the Protagonist. He is the driver of the Objective story – the story all the characters are concerned with. He is the one who wants to have the black man wrongly accused of rape freed. Do the two of you know the story?

Dan Steele : Unfortunately, not too familiar with the plotline.

RDCvr : Sort of, saw the movie a long time ago.

Dramatica : Well, the parts we are interested in are pretty simple, so it shouldn’t hold things up. The antagonist of the story is Bob Ewell, the father of the girl who was supposedly raped. He wants to have the man executed or at least lynched. But, the Main Character, the one through whose eyes we see the story through is Scout, Atticus’ little girl. The audience identifies with her, and even the camera angles in the movie are from her eye level whenever she is in a scene.

In this story, the Obstacle Character is not the antagonist either. The Obstacle character is Boo Radley, the “boogie man” from next door. The author of the work, in dealing with prejudice, did a very clever thing, in separating the Main and Obstacle from the Protagonist and Antagonist. No one wants to admit they are prejudiced. So, in the Objective story, the audience looks AT Atticus and Bob Ewell, and passes judgment on them. But at the same time, we are sucked into being prejudiced ourselves from the very first scene, because of the way Scout feels about Boo.

At the end of the story, we realize emotionally, that we were just as wrong as the objective characters were. Very clever technique! About to change subject, any questions?

Dan Steele : Okay, clear on the functions/differences of Main/Protagonist/Obstacle Chars.

Dramatica : Great!

RDCvr : what is the difference between obstacle character and antagonist?

Dramatica : The Antagonist tries to prevent the Protagonist from achieving the story’s goal, the Obstacle character tries to get the Main Character to change their belief system.

RDCvr : Okay.

Dramatica : They do this by building an alternative paradigm to the one the M.C. has traditionally used. More often than not, the M.C. and Protagonist characters are put in the same “body” and so are the Antagonist and Obstacle.

Dan Steele : Fine, but what if the antagonist is the protagonist, as in man against himself?

Dramatica : In Dramatica, we call any body that holds a character a player. Actually, you have touched on some very important theory points. First of all, when it comes to the Antagonist and Protagonist and all the other “objective” characters, the audience sees them “objectively” from the outside. Therefore, we identify them by their function in the story.

Again, we can feel for them, but we must see their function in order to understand the meaning of the battle. So, putting two objective functions that are diametrically opposed into the same player, mask the function of each, and make it VERY difficult to see what their purpose is. However, in stories like “Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde”, or Sibyl, there are many objective characters in the same body, but not at the same time!

In fact, each is identified as a separate character, and each has its day in the sun. But the Main and Obstacle characters are not identified by function, but by point of view. The Main Character is I to the audience, first person singular. The Obstacle character is you. Second person singular. So, the Antagonist might be the Main Character, or the sidekick, or the Guardian or any objective character.

Dan Steele : Hmm. Am wondering though how this copes with internalpsychological conflicts of a “tormented” Main character no, make that a Protagonist.

Dramatica : Well, the Main character, being a point of view is where all that internal conflict is seen.

RDCvr : But usually you also have external conflict which reflect or push the internal, no?

Dramatica : It is important to remember that when you combine a Protagonist in the same body as a Main character, the Protagonist part tries to drive the story forward to the goal, but the M.C. part is the INTERNAL conflict of the story, and can be full of angst.

Dan Steele : Okay.

Dramatica : They just don’t HAVE to be in the same body. Dramatica needed to separate the Objective or analytical part of the story’s argument, from the Subjective or passionate part of the argument in order to map out all of each side. In a finished story, of course, they are all ultimately blended together through storytelling.

Now, to jump ahead, Now that we have an understanding of how the Main Character differs from the Protagonist, Dramatica has four very important questions it asks about the Main Character. These questions are used by the software to arrange the relationships between character, plot, theme, and genre. Its kind of like a “Rubik’s” cube of story, as it were. These answers twist it into your unique arrangement.

Question one: Main Character Resolve. At the end of your story, has your Main Character changed or remained steadfast? Change or Steadfast is the question. Now some stories have a leap of faith where the M.C. must consciously choose to stick with their guns, or realize THEY might be the cause of the problems and CHANGE.

Scrooge is a change character. So is Luke Skywalker. Dr. Richard Kimble, or Job in the Bible are STEADFAST characters. Hollywood often has it that a character must CHANGE to grow. But Dramatica sees that a character can grow in their resolve as well. That’s why James Bond doesn’t seem to change but still works as a character. But there is always someone in the story who WILL change. In fact, if the Main Character changes, the Obstacle character will remain steadfast, If the Obstacle character changes, the M.C. will remain steadfast.

Who is Dr. Richard Kimble’s Obstacle? Who changes in The Fugitive? Any thoughts?

RDCvr : The policeman.

Dan Steele : Yes.

Dramatica : Right, Gerrard, the Tommy Lee Jones character. He starts out the first time he meets Kimble saying, “I don’t care!” And Kimble even brings it up to him in the police car at the end. And he says to Kimble, “Don’t tell anybody”, meaning that now he cares, he has changed. But Kimble didn’t! He never gave up… NEVER! In Goldfinger, if James Bond is steadfast,who changes? Who is the Obstacle Character?

Dan Steele : So one char. or the other HAS TO change their belief system by the end.

Dramatica : Yes, Dan, that is the nature of the author’s bias in the argument.

RDCvr : Goldfinger.

Dan Steele : Does Goldfinger dying count as a change in bel sys?

Dramatica : No, Goldfinger is an objective character – the Antagonist, in fact. Actually, Its Pussy Galore, the one who flies the plane – Honor Blackman.

Dan Steele : Oh, okay – yes

Dramatica : She changes from helping Goldfinger to helping Bond. Its not big, but it is there! It HAD to be there! Of course it is downplayed in an action story, and also the Obstacle character change is often underplayed because the M.C. is more important to the audience. But even Bond is asked at the end why she did it, and he replies, “I must have appealed to her maternal instincts”. It was important to make sure the audience knows that Bond was the one that changed her.

Dan Steele :So the antagonist provides the force against the main goal, but the obstacle char provides forces for belief system change?

Dramatica : Yes, Dan, exactly! That is the essence of the first question of Dramatica. Which kind of story do you want? The one where the M.C. sticks with their guns, or the story in which they are convinced to change? By making that choice, you not only know a lot more about your story and where it will go, but you have also had some impact on theme, plot, and genre as well. This doesn’t mean the M.C. will end up in a story filled with success. For example, by changing, they might give up just before they were about to win! So, outcome is a completely different thing. The question is not what they SHOULD do, but what they actually DO!

Dan Steele : So Resolve: change means MC sticks to guns, but Resolve:steadfast means either : 1) MC is convinced to change, or 2) MC changes another?

Dramatica : Right, Dan, that’s how it works.I don’t know how long you want to hang out tonight, but I can do another question if you like.

RDCvr : Yeah.

Dramatica : Okay, question number 2.

Dan Steele : An hour is plenty for a volunteer effort by you, thanks! But continue as long as you wish!

Dramatica : Question 2: about the Main character: Direction…. Start or Stop? This question means something different depending upon whether you answered change or steadfast. For a change Main Character, the question is: Do they have to grow by Starting something they aren’t doing, or stopping something they shouldn’t be doing? In other words, Do they have a chip on their shoulder or a hole in their heart?

We’ve all seen stories in which the M.C. is causing problem because of what they do, and other stories in which they allow a problem to grow because they don’t do anything! The Direction of character growth is just as important as Change or Steadfast. For a steadfast character, the question is different. Since the character is not changing, the question is, are they working or holding out for something to stop, or something to start?

In other words, is there a problem they are trying to get rid of, or is there something good they want to make happen. A simple question, but one that carries a lot of clout on your dramatics!

Dan Steele : Okay, makes sense.

Dramatica : Now, I’ll jump ahead for a moment and look at a couple of plot questions…. First of all, is your story forced to a conclusion because your characters run out of time, or run out of options? This is Timelock or Optionlock. We all know what timelocks are…The ticking clock, 48 hours, etc. But what about stories like Remains of the Day? What was the time limit in that? There was none. So why didn’t the story go on forever? Because it was set up to have a limited number of opportunities for the characters to try and make a relationship happen. And when all the opportunities were exhausted, that’s when the story ends. Its important for the audience to know this right up front… they have to know the scope of the argument.

In Speed, the movie, they actually change from one lock to the other and this is confusing…The set up is, that the bomb will go off at 11:30 no matter what. So, the audience gets their sense of tension from the ticking clock. They expect that to be the moment win or lose will happen. All the other “constraints” about the speed of fifty miles per hour, and not being able to take anyone off the bus, are just that, constraints, but the bus could keep going forever with refueling, if it were not for the time bomb. But at the end of the story, what brings the moment of truth? Not the time bomb…. In fact, the bus slows down below fifty as it hits the plane. The LED numbers that are ticking down are the speed, not the time! So, the timelock is not honored.

Then we don’t know WHEN the story is going to end for sure. We assume maybe when the bad guy gets it. But that wasn’t where our tension was headed. Where the tension was built toward at the beginning, and therefore its something of a cheat and bit of a disappointment.

Dramatica : Actually, barring questions, I’ll have to stop there for now, as I have a class of 30 eager writers coming here to Screenplay for a class tomorrow morning.

Dan Steele : is “reception theory” the psychology of the audience?

Dramatica : Yes, Dan, its like this.. We, as an audience, can see pictures in clouds, wallpaper, constellations…We try to order our world, When we see a finished work, we look for pattern. Sometimes we see what the author intended, Sometimes things the author never intended that may or may not be in conflict with the intended message. And sometimes, we see no pattern at all. It may be the Storyform was flawed, missing apiece. Or it may be that the storytelling just didn’t convey it, or it may be that the audience just isn’t tuned into the symbols the author chose to use.

Dan Steele : Well, thanks, Melanie

RDCvr : Okay, next week.

I’ll be here next week, and please, tell your friends, if you think they’d like this class.

Dan Steele : I’ll come by next week and I’ll see if I can motivate others to stop by.

Dramatica : Great! Have a terrific weekend, both! Niters!

Dan Steele : nite

RDCvr : bye.