Dramaticapedia

A writer recently asked:

I’ve read what you wrote about slicing and dicing the Dramatica chart on your web site and in Dramticapedia. It’s very interesting.

Two questions if I may:

* Limiting depth: “When you limit depth, you simple don’t explore one or more aspects of a story: Character, Plot, Theme, or Genre.”

Q: If you don’t explore Plot, you don’t have the signposts. So how does your story move along?

* Limiting breadth: “Two throughlines provide a conflict. But three seems to be one conflict and another superfluous throughline that bounces off nothing.”

Q: In Dramatica I thought 3 throughlines — MC, OC and SS — were necessary to explore the conflict between the main and obstacle characters. I guess I didn’t get that right?

Examples of those two approaches would be great of course!

My reply:

In answer to your question on “Limiting Depth”:

Q: If you don’t explore Plot, you don’t have the signposts. So how does your story move along?

Two points: First, stories may be all about character growth. For example, a character may simply explore their feelings about life, people they know or thematic values and topics. There need be no events, happenings, or progress to illustrate how that character is growing, how the thematic message is evolving or how the genre is adding depth and richness as the story progresses. For example, look to the classic play, Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett. In this play there is no plot to speak of, yet the two principal characters progress along lines of growth or at least exploration of their feelings, make thematic points and establish a genre.

Other stories in a similar stream of consciousness style (as also used by Virginia Woolf) while including events, do not concern themselves with creating a full-story meaning for the happenings, but simply a series of random occurrences which transpire. This illustrates a second approach to writing without plot, per se: to have things take place, but not to use them to convey meaning. In such a story, one is not exploring plot – in fact, one has not created a true plot, just sequence of events. These serve to give the characters something to do other than talk, yet are intentionally presented so that the reader or audience understands no message is contained in the jumble of activities. Virginia Woolf’s Orlando is an excellent example of this style.

Also keep in mind that there is a big difference between a tale and a story. A tale is a simple linear progression of characters, plot, theme, and genre. A story uses each scene as a building block in a larger mosaic that creates a “big picture” message. So, even if the events make sense as a logical series of happenings and function well as a tale, this does not mean the events contribute as part of a story’s plot in terms of an overall message. Orlando, at times, does indicate a reason-based progression but its impact has little to do with the growth of the main character or the development of the theme. At most, it adds some elements to the genre, but in the storytelling sense, not structurally.

In answer to your second question on limiting breadth:

Q: In Dramatica I thought 3 throughlines — MC, OC and SS — were necessary to explore the conflict between the main and obstacle characters. I guess I didn’t get that right?

Actually, all three throughlines are indeed necessary to exploring that conflict, but what if you don’t explore the conflict? Suppose you have a one-person show where the Main Character presents just his own reasons for what he did and his own value standards that he questioned in the process. You might explore all four levels of the Main Character throughline without ever mentioning the influence of an Obstacle Character, any Subjective Story conflict between the two, or even an Objective Story involving anyone else.

Or suppose you have just a Obstacle Character explaining, “I had to change his mind… I knew he was on the wrong track. At first I appealed to his reason while sharing the bus together one day on the way to work. Failing any impact from that, I tried another tack, the passionate approach, and tried to invoke some sort of emotional response. And still, nothing.” This could be a wonderful opening to a story that only explored the Obstacle Character throughline without ever describing the Main Character’s point of view or the specific arguments between them.

Now here’s an advanced concept that applies to both Slicing and Dicing:

Just because characters are almost always built from elements doesn’t mean you can’t build them from the other levels of the Dramatica Table of Story Elements. At the level of the Table above the elements are the Variations. Though these are usually employed as the building blocks of the theme, they might equally be represented as characters instead. So, for example, you might have a character representing “hope” or “rationalization” or “wisdom”.

In a Sliced story with only the variation level, you might choose to illustrate the Variations as characters and simply have each stating his or her (or its) belief in the preeminence of the quality it represents. Or, in a Diced story with only one throughline, you could mix it up so that the Variations are represented by characters, the Elements by the plot, the top “Class” level would indicate the thematic issue (such as Physics, external processes, seen as the focus of the theme) and the Types become the Genre components.

Such stories are occasionally told, though they are not popular as they require an awful lot of work by the reader or audience to shift their minds around to see things in that way. It is not impossible, just difficult, and puts a burden of effort on the recipient of the story that normally resides with the author.

Finally, consider that many of the stories told are not really stories but tales. As referenced above, a tale is nothing more than an unbroken chain of events and/or experiences that make logical and/or emotional sense. Tales are free of the restrictions and requirements that bind stories, and so they can be far more free form, make incomplete arguments just for effect, and can include any number of random happenings either for intended impact on the readers/audience or for simple convenience to the author, or for stream-of-consciousness expression as part of the creative effort.

In such a case, any fragment or level of a story structure, sliced or diced, will easily mix into the overall word salad.

Melanie

Recently, a writer asked about the relationship of the Story Driver to the three Journeys in every throughline.  Here’s my response:

The Story Driver is one of the eight dynamic questions (the eight “essential” questions) that Dramatica asks, including Main Character Resolve (change or steadfast) and Story Outcome (Success or Failure).

Story Driver is Action or Decision. That means that the story is kicked off by either an action taken (such as a murder) or experienced (such as an earthquake) or by a decision made (such as to quit smoking) or arrived at (such as “I’ve gotta stop being a workaholic”)

The four signposts in each act are just that – signposts along the road from the inciting incident to the conclusion of your story. Moreover, each signpost can be seen as a town along the road. Each town has a particular nature (like “Learning” or “Understanding”) and somewhere between the two towns, the influence of one gives way to the influence of the other.

So, when you Journey from town to town you are gradually moving from the heart of downtown (greatest influence) of one through the area where their influence is equal until you arrive at the downtown (greatest influence) of the next town.

Four towns are along the road for each of the four perspectives. So, there are four Signposts spanned by three journeys.

Each Journey is kicked off by another incident of the Story Driver. So, if an action started the quest from the first town (signpost) the leads it to the second signpost, then things would stop right there unless the Driver kicks it into gear again with another incident. Eventually, the fourth signpost (the destination) is reached and the momentum is brought to a complete stop by a final Driver incident that bring all the inertia to a halt. So, the Driver starts it all and the Driver brings it all to a conclusion, and the Driver is what kicks off each journey and brings the whole quest to a conclusion.

A Dramatica user just asked:

I have reached a small roadblock in reference to SEQUENCE, in terms of a division of ACT and organization of SCENE. The term is not covered in your Dramaticapedia pages nor in your theory book online. I have an old reference manual (I bought the product in 2005) that covers the issue somewhat. It seems like an important concept to me since I am writing a novel.

I am confused about your use of Sequence as you talk about 4-ACT structure, since you talk about the Concern being looked at from the VARS of each type as it sequences through the 4 acts. Does this mean that in BEING you are looking at (CONCERN=BECOMING) as judged by [knowledge ability desire and thought]? Or am I judging BEING through those four variations:    as in     (BEING [knowledge, ability, desire & thought]) and applying that to BECOMING? 

When I look at this second interpretation it makes more sense, but I don’t want to force myself into overburdened complication (which I have a tendency to do).

My reply:

Actually, both of your statements are true:

The Concern is valid throughout the entire course of the story, so it is going to be shaded and better understood by experiencing it (learning about it) through all four variations of a given act.

Equally true, the attempt to get to the center of the story’s problem will be enhanced by looking at each Type in each Act through the four Variations of that act.  In this way, by the end of the story the location of the story’s central problem can be triangulated on (or actually quadrangulated, since there are four Acts and four Types).

But, it is not as complex as that sounds.  In truth, because all our minds work alike beneath the level of our personalities, in storytelling, all one must do is make sure that the Concern, each Act’s Type, and each Act’s Variations are all represented.  The reader/audience will assemble that information in the proper place all by itself so that the Variations act as “lenses” to clarify the location of the problem.

So, simply ensure that those elements are in the mix, and your reader/audience will actually do the hard work for you.

Melanie

The Concern of a story tends to revolve around a definable area of activity or exploration. This central hub may be internal such as Memory or Conceiving (coming up with an idea). Or, it may be external such as Obtaining or Progress.

When choosing a Concern it is often useful to ask, “What kind of things do I want the characters in my story to explore?”

Keep in mind that the Concern only describes WHAT is being looked at. HOW to look at it is determined by choosing the Thematic Issue.

The choice of Concern sets limits on how much dramatic ground the Theme can potentially encompass and therefore includes some kinds of considerations and excludes others.

Excerpted from
Dramatica Story Development Software

The Objective Story Domain is the throughline which describes how all of the story’s characters have been brought together. By choosing this Domain, the author sets the background against which the story will be told. Therefore, its influence is gently felt throughout the story.

A UNIVERSE story deals with an unacceptable situation – one in which the external environment is seen as problematic. This could be a job situation with poor working conditions, being trapped in a sunken ship, waking up as someone else, living next to an orphanage that keeps you awake at night with its screaming waifs or any other intolerable state of affairs.

Often, the best way to see a Universe Objective Story is in terms of the Types below the Class of Universe: The Past, Progress, The Future, and The Present. These Types will be of primary importance to all the Objective Characters in a Universe Objective Story.

A PHYSICS story employs an activity that needs to arrive at a solution. This might be the effort to steal the crown Jewels, win the love of your heart’s desire, make the Olympic team, or raise the money to buy the orphanage and evict all the screaming waifs.

Note that if the existence of the orphanage is the focus of the story, it is a Universe (Universe) Domain. However, if the effort to buy it is the focus, it is a Physics (Physics) Domain.

Often, the best way to see a Physics Objective Story is in terms of the Types below the Class of Physics: Doing, Learning, Understanding, and Obtaining. These Types will be of primary importance to all the Objective Characters in a Physics Objective Story.

In a like manner, the Mind Domain reflects a state of mind and the Psychology Domain describes a mental activity (or manner of thinking).

Mind Domain stories might be about prejudice, a lack of self-worth (if it is a fixed view), or a refusal to see the value of someone’s desires. Remember that, as an Objective Story Domain, these fixed states of Mind will be the source of the problems that everyone in the Objective Story deals with. This would be an Objective view of problems of fixed states of mind, and not looking at how it feels to have these fixations.

Often, the best way to see a Mind Objective Story is in terms of the Types below the Class of Mind: Memory, The Preconscious, The Subconscious, and The Conscious. These Types will be of primary importance to all the Objective Characters in a Mind Objective Story.

PSYCHOLOGY Domain supports stories where people take too many risks, are egocentric, or make light of serious situations. Objective Stories of this Domain will look at the effect of a person’s or persons’ thinking in these ways to manipulate others. Placing the Objective Story in this Domain means in essence that the story will objectify Psychology, taking an Objective view of these ways of thinking and their effects. The problems that everyone in the Objective Story deals with will come from ways of thinking and their manipulations.

Often, the best way to see a Psychology Objective Story is in terms of the Types below the Class of Psychology: Conceptualizing, Being, Becoming, and Conceiving. These Types will be of primary importance to all the Objective Characters in a Psychology Objective Story.

As a final note, it is important to keep in mind that stories are often not about a problem that exists but a desire to be fulfilled.

Stories of this nature can create a much more positive feel as exemplified in a Universe story in which an heiress must spend a million dollars in 24 hours to inherit 30 million more, a Physics story where a mountaineer hopes to be the first to scale a mountain on Mars, a Mind story of unconditional love, or a Psychology story about overcoming a dependence on sedatives.

The choice of Domain narrows the playing field of a story. Without actually putting up walls, choosing a Domain shifts the focus of audience attention by establishing the center around which broad scale dynamics will revolve. The Dramatica engine is calibrated to this center.

Excerpted from
Dramatica Story Development Software

Objective Story Domain: The scenario or dramatic background against which a story takes place.

Every story is set against the issues which arise from a single central problem. The problem itself will fall into one of four broad categories. If you want the problem to grow out of a situation, then choose Universe; if you want the problem to emanate from an activity, then choose Physics. If you want the problem to evolve from fixed attitudes and states of mind, then choose Mind; and if you want the problem to result from the characters’ manipulations and ways of thinking, then choose Psychology.

Excerpted from
Dramatica Story Development Software

Success and Failure are measurements of how well specific requirements have been met and are by nature Objective. In contrast, Good and Bad are personal value judgments based on an evaluation of the Main Character’s peace and fulfillment.

The rational argument of a story deals with whether an approach taken will lead to Success or Failure in the endeavor. The passionate argument of a story deals with whether or not the Main Character will find peace at the end of its journey.

If you want a “happy ending” story, you will want Success in the logistical part of the story and a judgment of Good in the passionate part of the story.

If you want a tragedy, you will want the effort to achieve the Goal to Fail and the Main Character’s journey to end Badly. However, life is often made of trade-offs, compromises, sacrifices, and re-evaluations, and so should be stories.

Choosing Success/Bad stories or Failure/Good stories opens the door to all these alternatives. If we choose a Failure/Good story, we can imagine a Main Character who realizes it had been fooled into trying to achieve a goal or a Main Character who discovers something more important to it personally in the course of trying to achieve the goal.

A Success/Bad story might end with a Main Character achieving its dreams only to find they are meaningless, or a Main Character who makes a sacrifice for the success of others but ends up bitter and vindictive.

Excerpted from
Dramatica Story Development Software

For certain stories, it may be desired to have a very positive feel to the outcome by having success matched with a positive judgment of that success. Other times, it may be desired to have a very negative feel to the outcome by matching failure with a negative judgment of that failure. In the first case, we create a “feel good” story (as they say in the ads). In the second, we create a tragedy.

But all stories do not fall at one pole or the other. Frequently, authors choose to have bad characters succeed, and show the regrettable result of that success. Other time authors choose to have a good characters fail, but show how that failure was really positive for them or others.

When deciding if you want your characters to succeed, think of the stories where the winner takes all. Also think of those stories where a valiant effort fails, yet the characters learn an important lesson about life.

When deciding if you want your characters to fail, think of someone getting their just desserts. Also think of those stories where a misguided success leads to a result opposite to what was hoped to achieve by the success. In short, both Success or Failure stories can be seen as an upper or a downer by the audience. The approach you take depends on the message you want to send.

Keep in mind that sometimes all the characters may not share the same exact goal but the same kind of goal. For example, all the principal characters in a story might be trying to get married. Some may succeed and others may fail. Whether the story as a whole is a Success or Failure depends on how you stack the deck. In this kind of story, Success or Failure is not an absolute, but a degree. The real question here would simply be on which side of the fence you want your audience to see the Outcome falling when all is said and done.

Excerpted from
Dramatica Story Development Software

A Story Limit works to bring the story to a climax and a conclusion. This Limit can be accomplished in either of two ways. Either the characters run out of places to look for the solution or they run out of time to work one out. Running out of options is accomplished by an Optionlock; a deadline is accomplished by a Timelock.

Choosing a Timelock or an Optionlock has a tremendous impact on the nature of the tension the audience will feel as the story progresses toward its climax. A Timelock tends to take a single point of view and slowly fragment it until many things are going on at once. An Optionlock tends to take many pieces of the puzzle and bring them all together at the end.

A Timelock raises tension by dividing attention. An Optionlock raises tension by focusing it. A Timelock increases tension by bringing a single thing closer to being an immediate problem. An Optionlock increases tension by building a single thing that becomes a distinct problem.

Both of these means of limiting the story grow stronger as the story progresses. Optionlocks limit pieces with which to solve the problem and can create a feeling of growing claustrophobia. Timelocks limit the interval during which something can happen and can create a feeling of growing acceleration. Both types of Limits bring the story to a climax.

One cannot look just to the climax, however, to determine if a Timelock or Optionlock is working. A better way to determine which is at work is to look at the nature of the obstacles thrown in the path of the Protagonist and/or Main Character. If the obstacles are primarily delays, a Timelock is in effect; if the obstacles are caused by diversions, an Optionlock is in effect. An author may feel more comfortable building tension through delays or building tension through diversion. Choose the kind of limit most meaningful for you and most appropriate to your story.

Excerpted from
Dramatica Story Development Software

The choice of Driver does not have to reflect the nature of the Main Character. In fact, some very interesting dramatic potentials can be created when the Story Driver and the Main Character Approach do not match.

For example, a Main Character who is a Do-er forced to handle a decision-type problem would find itself at a loss for the experience and tools it needs to do the job. Similarly, a deliberating Main Character who is a Be-er would find itself whipped into a turmoil if forced to resolve a problem requiring action. These mixed stories appear everywhere from tragedy to comedy and can add an extra dimension to an otherwise one-sided argument.

Do Actions precipitate Decisions, or do Decisions precipitate Actions? Since a story has both, it is really an issue of which comes first: chicken or egg? In the context of a single story, there is a real answer to this question. As an author, you can decide which it will be.

Excerpted from
Dramatica Story Development Software