Category Archives: Dramatica Theory

The Story Mind (Part 7) – Story Structure vs. Storytelling

By now, you’re likely pretty familiar with the concept that every story has a mind of its own – a psychology (the structure) and a personality (the storytelling). But, if you are like many authors, knowing that and being able to identify the difference in a finished story may be something of a problem.

Until you can almost intuitively see the difference between story structure and storytelling in a completed story, you stand little chance of being able to employ that knowledge in creating your own stories.

So, in the seminar I teach on Dramatica Theory, our interns came up with a video we show in class that illustrates the point quite clearly. The short segment compares two films that have almost identical structure – “Cyrano de Bergerac” (Jose Ferrer, 1950) and an updated remake of the story, “Roxanne” (Steve Martin, 1990).

In Roxanne, the names have been slightly altered (Chris for Christian and Charley for Cyrano), the wardrobe is contemporary, the setting is in a modern city and the language is plain old American English.

Still, for all these differences, the underlying structure remains the same – the Cyrano character is in love with a girl, believes he is undesirable so does not approach her, but when he learns of another’s love for her he helps the fellow by writing flowery love sonnets to express his own love, thereby satisfying partially his need to share his soul with her. Ultimately, the ruse is discovered, the other suitor rejected, and the girl realizes that Cyrano (Charley) is the one she truly loves.

There is, however, one major structural difference between the two. In the original Cyrano, it is the title character’s suggestion that he write the letters for Christian in order to impress the girl. In Roxanne, it is Chris’ suggestion that Charley (the Cyrano character) write the letters.

As a result, the person who is responsible for all the troubles that follow has changed. Therefore, in the original movie Cyrano does not get the girl and in fact is mortally wounded. But in Roxanne, since it was not he idea to perpetrate the deception, Charley does get the girl and lives to enjoy her love.

When you make a change in one part of a structure, it will almost certainly require changing at least one other aspect of the structure to keep things in balance. The writers of Roxanne intuitively knew this, though they were likely

simply trying to create a film with a happy ending, and yet, they didn’t just change that part. They went right back to the beginning and gave the onus of hatching the plan to Chris rather than Charley.

Writerly instincts or intentional structural design, I do not know. But, in your stories, the more you are able to perceive what will have a structural impact and what is simply a storytelling choice, the more you will be able to ensure that your stories’ structures are sound.

Melanie Anne Philips
Co-creator, Dramatica

Dramatica Unplugged (Part 9) – The Story Mind Revisited

In this episode of our 113 part video program on story structure, we return to the Story Mind concept to learn how we can apply the concept of seeing a story’s structure as a model of the mind’s problem solving process toward practical story development.

(Click here to purchase your own copy of the entire twelve hour series)

Dramatica Unplugged (Part 8) – Writing Remakes & Adaptations

In this episode of the 113 part videos series, we explore how remakes and adaptations can go awry, and how to prevent it. Perhaps the biggest mistake made when remaking or adapting an earlier work or one in a different medium is to make changes to the story without considering whether those alterations are to just the subject matter, just the story structure, or both.

If subject matter, setting, timeframe and so on are all that is changed, then anything goes, as long as it works for both author and audience. But if an underlying structural item is change and the rest of the structure is not altered to support that different dramatic force, then what was a sound structure in the original will became a flawed structure in the new work.

Dramatica Unplugged (Part 7) – Story Structure vs. Storytelling

In this episode of the 113 part video series we explore one of the most useful, yet most difficult, tools an author can possess: the ability to tell the difference between story structure and storytelling. Typically, authors think of their stories in terms of the people in it, how they relate, what happens to them, and what it all means. But this is mixing storytelling with story structure because all subject matter is storytelling.

To see this, consider a Protagonist – a structural character. The Protagonist is the prime mover of the effort to achieve the story goal – a structural function. But, whether the Protagonist is man, woman, child, animal, or a cloud is all storytelling. Now consider that the the Protagonist is married, or has a relationship with his boss, or has one leg, or possesses special powers – all storytelling. None of this changes that the Protagonist is the prime mover of the effort to achieve the goal.

But, consider the Reason archetype. They provide the story with the logical point of view, so that the story does not seem lacking in exploring that perspective, for certainly every reader or audience member is using logic as one of the ways he or she is examining the story. The Reason archetype is another structural character. And it doesn’t matter if it is a man, woman, child, animal or cloud; it doesn’t matter if the Reason archetype is the Protagonist’s spouse or boss or has one leg or possesses special powers – the structural relationship between Protagonist and Reason is that the Protagonist provides the drive and the Reason archetype provides the logical perspective.

Structure ends there and any subject matter, personality traits, physical attributes, history, intelligence or real world relationships are all storytelling.

By being able to separate story structure from storytelling, an author can get down to the underlying mechanics that makes their story make sense and ring true. By possessing this ability, and author can tell whether a problem with a story is caused by what is being said or how it is being said. And most important of all, dividing story structure from storytelling enables an author to ensure the framework of their story – its foundation – has no holes or inconsistencies that weaken it.

Think of structure as a platter upon which your subject matter is served, and the manner in which you serve it is your style. Think of structure as a carrier wave upon which a song is transmitted over the radio, think of the music and lyrics as the subject matter and the performance as the style.

Clarifying this understanding in your mind will help focus your work without undermining the serendipity of your Muse.

Melanie Anne Phillips,
Co-creator, Dramatica

Each Archetype is an Equation

For all you Dramatica “theory hounds” out there, here’s one of the newest parts of the theory which grew out of my ongoing development of the new dynamic model of story structure.

Dramatica theory has always had eight equations that describe the relationships among elements in a quad.  They are all based on permutations of the initial equation we discovered, which was T/K = AD.

Turns out, the dramatic nature of each of the eight archetypal characters in Dramatica is described by one of the eight equations.  Now that’s pretty amazing – that characters who represent families of thought within our own minds can be described mathematically.

I’m writing a complete and lengthy article on this right now, but it will take a week or so, and I couldn’t wait to share this new insight with the Dramatica Theory Hounds.  You guys are such avid and loyal students of the underlying principals of Dramatica, that I’ve decided to let you in on every new insight, even before I have time to properly work out the details and present a solid argument for it.

I’ll end by saying the while the eight equations describe the natures of the eight archetypes, they do not describe their functions.  For that, eight other equations are needed.  And these dynamic equations are at the heart of the dynamic model.

They are the process of justification and can be seen in how the quad of Knowledge, Thought, Ability and Desire evolves through three other quads beginning with Can, Need, Want and Should, on to Situation, Circumstances, Sense of Self and State of Being, and ending in Commitment, Rationalization, Responsibility and Obligation.

I’ve touched on this process of justification in previous articles, and in fact it was worked out even before we created the Dramatica Table of Story Elements some twenty years ago.  But, we moved away from the justification process to focus on the structural elements and then flipped and rotated the structural model to show the effects of justification and how it influenced the relationships among dramatic elements to create a storyform.

But, in truth, it did not describe why those forces are at work, and that is the issue at hand in the dynamic model.

All for now, gotta go talk a walk in the woods.

More for you DTH folk soon.

Melanie