Category Archives: Dramatica
Examples of Story “Concerns”
In previous classes, we’ve looked at how to zero in on the nature of your story’s central driving problem or issue at the most broad stroke level by seeing it as being an external state or process (situation or activity) or an internal state or process (attitude or chain of thought). But we can delve even deeper into the story’s problem by further sub-dividing whichever of these four realms the story is in into four even more detailed categories. For example, we can sub-divide a situation into Past, Present, Future and Progress. Or, we could sub-divide a state of mind into Memory, Conscious, Subconscious and Preconscious.
Why these words – especially since some like Progress and Preconscious seem out of place or unfamiliar? I’ll get into that in a minute, but first, consider that Past is to Situation as Memory is to Attitude. And, Present is to Situation as Conscious is to Attitude. The point is that in order to look at your story at a more detailed level, you need to sub-divide the nature of the problem without bias or warping or changing your point of view. You must, as an author, remain objective when dealing with structure so that the sub-categories in one realm have exactly the same relationship to the parent category in each of the four realms. Only by being consistent in examining our structure can we accurately build it.
Finally, in answer to the question of “why THOSE words” – well the simple answer is that the Dramatica theory was built by taking that objective look at structure as deep as we could see with it, sub-dividing and then further sub-dividing the nature of the driving tensions of the dramatics until we could sub-divide it no more. The names of these sub-categories were chosen to be as unbiased as possible to keep each realm consistent. But, because every culture has its own biases built right into the language, we found that sometimes we had to slightly redefine a common word to get to the meaning we really wanted, and other times we had to use the closest match or even come up with a new word to fit the meaning that should be at a particular sub-category if it was to not introduce that cultural bias. So, Progress means how we measure how the situation is changing. Preconscious is how we measure how our attitude is changing. Preconscious describes the fixed filters of our mind to which we can compare how our overall outlook is changing.
Story Domain Examples
In previous classes we’ve talked about the problem at the heart of a story that drives all the dramatics – from character growth through plot progressino and even development of the message. In order to have the best control of our story, we need to know as much as we can about the specific nature of our story’s problem. In fact, it is the discovery of that nature of the problem and then the attempt to find a solution for it that describes that journey of the characters in the story as well.
As we found, the first thing we can do to zero in on the nature of the problem is to determine whether it is an external problem (like being trapped in a cave) or an internal problem (like having a bad attitude). Naturally, external problems can cause attitude problems and vice versa. But the question is: from where does the problem originate – where does it begin: externally or internally. That becomes ground zero for you story’s dramatics and all that happens in the other realm is best seen as ripples or ramifications of the problem.
Once you know if you are dealing with an external or internal problem, you can further clarify it by asking, “Is the problem with the way things are, or the way things are headed?” In other words, is you problem (regardless of external or internal) caused by the state of things or by processes that are going awry? An external state is a situation. An internal state is an attitude, prejudice or fixation. An external process is an activity. An internal process is a manner of thinking or train of thought. For example, even if someone has a great attitude, if their thoughts lead them down a negative path, they can end up in a depression for no good reason.
This much we learned in previous classes, and we named the external and internal states and processes, Universe (external state), Mind (internal state), Physics (external processes), Psychology (internal processes). In fact, those are the four top-level categories in the Dramatica table of story elements. To gain even more clarity about our story’s problem, we can continue to sub-divide the nature of the problem in each of these four areas, going down level after level in detail until we get to the heart of the matter – the elemental kernal that is the grain of sand at the core of the pearl – the big bang that resulted in the entier story world we are exploring.
Again, this much we have covered. But what we have not yet explored is that no matter how detailed our examination of the nature of the problem and its story-wide ramifications, this only describes what we are lookiing at as both author and audience. It says nothing about where we are looking from – our point of view, which is (essentially) where the author wants to position the audience in regard to the problem or subject under study.
There are, in fact, four points of view: that of the main character who represents the “first person” angle on the story. It is through the main character’s eyes that the audience most personally and passionately experiences the nature of the story’s problem. Then there is the “second person” perspective – the “you” angle by which the audience is able to observe the opposing view point to that of the main character, not by stepping into another set of shoes, but by examining it from the outside as we would if looking at someone else and their view point. In stories, this represents that “devil’s advocate” voice within our own minds by which we consider changing our view on a particular issue or belief, but not by simply trying it on. If we did, we would have already changed. Rather, we look AT that piont of view and ask ourselves, “who would I be if I changed my view to that, rather than this?”
If we examine the give and take tug of war between those two views of the main character (“I”) and the influence character (“you”) we can see how each point of view struggles against the other for spremacy in the story’s mind, as it were. That battle between two ideals is a third point of view – second person plural or “we.” It is the battle in which boths sides of ourselves (represented by the main and influence character) have it out with each other. Like fighters circling in the ring, our two view points revolve around one another until we arrive at a decision to stick with our guns and hold on to the old view or to change and adopt the new one. We call this the “Subjective” view.
So far then, we have “I”, “You”, and “We.” But there is one more – “They.” This final view is of all the other characters in the story – those not involved in the philosophical argment because they don’t fall on either side of it. Rather, all the other characters represent the other aspects of our minds that are trying to solve the logistic nature of the problem while our sense of self (the main character) has it out with the opposite philosophic view that outlines who we might become if we changed (the influence character). In fact, both the main and influence characters also have objective roles.
You might think of it as that our own minds have different facets – a voice of reason, for example, or skepticism. These are represented by the charactes in a story so we can see, externally, how these different traits fare against one another and thereby the author can make an argument as to which of them is the best place to come from when trying to solve the particular kind of problem at the center of this particular story. But in ourselves, not only do we have these traits or qualities, but we also have a sense of self (“I think, therefore I am” – represented by the main character who is not a trait but that self awareness of our own existence – that inner eye that can cast itself upon our own nature).
So, the main character may be at any given time coming from any one of those trait positions. For example, in one story the main character may be attached to the character representing the voice of reason, meaning that the story mind’s sense of self is coming from a position of reason in regard to this particular problem. Such a main character would be the audience position in the story and would then make the philosophic argument that reason was the way to go about solving the story’s problem.
But, the opposite view, that of the influence character, would argue that emotion was the way to best solve the problem – though passion and humanity. So this forth and final view point of the objective story – the “they” perspective is about all the traits, as represented by characters. We do not occupy them, we observe them. This does not mean we will not care about them, but it is not the same as caring about yourself, which we only do for the main character.
Finally, the last piece of the puzzle is that for any given story, each of the four kinds of problems (Universe, Mind, Physics and Psychology) will be explored by one of the four points of view – I, You, We, and They – the main character, influence character, subjective story, and objective story. When we attach or associate a point of view with an aspect of what we are looking at, we create perspective. And it is this perspective that holds a story’s meaning – essentially, from here it looks like this, while from HERE it looks like THIS. And, when it looks like those things from all those points of view, it is better to stick with your original philosophic viewpoint or to change it.
Which is better is not determined by the structure, but simply by the author’s determination as to which messsage he wants to make. After all, structurally, there is no right or wrong. Rather, right and wrong come from which traits are appropriate in which contexts. When a structure is placed in a given context (a particular real-world subject matter) than a given philosophy or trait might be right in one set of circumstances but completely wrong in another. And that is the author’s message: that in these particular circustances, do this (or, conversely, don’t do that, whatever you do!)
In the end, structure simply makes a complete argument, leaving no stone unturned. The main character provided a touch point for our own senses of self as readers or members of the audience. The objective characters show how all the other traits or qualities of our minds come into play in this given scenario. Determining the nature of the problem tells us what the issue is, and the perspectives created by associated each point of view with a different angle on the problem replicates the way that problem looks in real life to all the different ways we might look at it.
Simple, really.
The Four Story Domains
The subject matter of any story that describes the nature of the central problem falls into one of four domains – Universe (a fixed state), Mind (a mind set or attitude), Physics (an activity), or Psychology (a problematic chain of thought).
All four domains must be explored in every fully developed story, but only one will be see as the source of the story’s problem and the other three will exhibit the ramifications of that problem as it ripples out to affect all of the characters.
The reason for this is easy to see if we consider a problem in real life. We might first ask ourselves, “Is the problem caused by something external (like the creature in the original Alien movie) or by something internal (like Scrooge’s outlook and attitude in A Christmas Carol).
An earthquake, an asteroid, and a shark are all external problems, but with one caveat – any of these might be seen as characters if they are imbued with human traits as opposed to being viewed as forces of nature.
So, if you actually try to get into the head of the shark in your storytelling or if you portray the asteroid as having a mind of its own – literally – then it becomes a character and as such whatever is driving it is an internal issue. But, under most circumstances these things would be seen as just that – things – and therefore would be appreciated by both author and audience as external problems.
Naturally, then, any story in which the central problem is caused by a character – by any entity that is host to human traits and considerations – then it is an internal problem. Essentially, the concept is, is it mind or matter. Or, as has been said, “What’s mind? No matter. What’s matter? Never mind.”
Once you have determined if your story’s problem (or any problem you encounter in real life) is caused by something external or internal you have a much better grasp of the nature of the beast, and therefore of which tools you’ll need to bring to bear in the attempt to find a solution and implement it.
That, in fact, is the real underlying message of a story – for this particular kind of problem, here’s the best tool set (means or methodology) for solving it. So, stories are about first identifying and then determining the best way to solve a problem.
Still, while we can learn much about a problem just by ruling out external or internal so we have a better focus on where the real issue resides, we can learn much more, even at this most broad stroke initial level of parsing the problem in our dramatics.
To do this, we can sub-divide both external and internal into two other categories: State or Process. An external state is a situation; an external process is an activity. The difference between the two is that a situational problem is unchanging, like being stuck in an overturned boat under the water, whereas an activity problem is like a bridge that is crumbling while you try to get your troops across it to safety. Both are external, and yet they are different “flavors” of external, and therefore will require different approaches and skill sets to solve.
Similarly, an internal problem can be a fixed state such as an attitude, outlook, fixation or prejudice that essentially never changes (at least until possibly at the climax of the story). While, on the other hand, an internal problem might be an activity – a manner of thinking or a process or chain of thought – that causes problems.
Hamlet, for example, is defined by the trait that he overthinks the plumbing. For example, he finds the kind kneeling alone in prayer and could easily kill him at that moment. But, he begins to reason, point by point, that he cannot act then because the king, being in prayer, would go to heaven and that is not sufficient for his revenge.
In another example, imagine a fellow about to interview for a job for which he is perfectly qualified and completely confident. But, he begins to think that maybe he is too perfectly qualified and therefore will be seen as not having growth potential and…. if he isn’t seen favorably, it will make him nervous and… if he gets nervous, he’ll become tongue-tied and… if the becomes tongue tied they won’t think he can communicate very well and… so on. Clearly, he didn’t have the wrong attitude, but the problem is because of the path his thoughts take – the process or activity of thinking itself: an internal activity.
To be clear, all four of these domains will be explored as the story unfolds, as we usually first become aware of the true nature of a problem by examining its symptoms. And only when we have used those symptoms to triangulate on and diagnose the problem are we certain of which of the four is the actual source. Only then can we bring to bear the proper tools to solve it, and, again, the story’s message, ultimately, is an argument as to which is the best set of tools for the job.
Story Perspectives
Genre, Theme, Plot and Character: each of them is a different level of appreciation of story structure. But each one needs to be seen from four different points of view in order to fully explore them.
As described in previous classes, the four essential points of view in any story structure are Main Character (I), Influence or Obstacle Character (You), Subjective Story (We), and Objective Story (They). These represent the four “voices” we have within ourselves – First Person, Second Person, Second Person Plural, and third Person.
To completely understand any issue or problem, we need to consider it from all four of these points of view. But what are we really looking at? Again, as described earlier, there are four primary kinds of subject matter – External States, External Processes, Internal States and Internal Processes. In Dramatica, we call these Universe (the fixed nature of a situation), Physics (external activities), Mind (a fixed mind set such as an attitude, fixation or prejudice), and Psychology (a manner of thinking or path of thought).
So, when we examine one of these as the potential source of a problem and, therefore, where we might best look for the solution, we are going to see it from one of those four points of view. In other words, Universe might be the domain of the Main Character or it might be the domain of the Objective story or of the other two points of view.
Essentially, if Universe is the domain of the Main Character in a particular story, it means that we are looking at the external situation through the eyes of the Main Character – the most personal view point, the “I” which represents or provides the audience position within the story. This means that one of the other three remaining kinds of subject matter will be associated or attached to one of the three remaining points of view. In any complete story, therefore, all four points of view and all four kinds of subject matter will be explored.
In this way, every angle of the problem can be examined in the hunt for a solution. But, each point of view will only look at one of the four kinds of subject matter in any given story. It is this connection between where we are looking from and what we are looking at that creates perspective and therefore defines how the author positions the readers or audience in relation to the issues, thereby establishing the story’s message.
The Four Story Throughlines
A story “throughline” is a bit different than a story “point of view.” A point of view is an angle from which you wish your readers or audience to see the topics of your story. But a throughline is the entire unfolding of the story as seen from that point of view. Sometimes, this is calleed a “thread.”
In Dramatica theory we say “you spin a tale but you weave a story.” This is because tales are linear progressions, like threads, that carry you from a particular logistic and emotional situation along a journey stap by step to a different logistic and emotional situation. In other words, it is the unbroken chain of reason and emotion that holds the meaning, and it is the relative value of the destination to the point of departure that holds the message.
Think of “fairy tales” – a form of story in which a judgment is passed on the value of a path taken by comparing the starting point to the ending point. So, this is very like a “thread” and so we “spin” a tale. In a sense then, every tale is a single throughline following the events that unfold from a single point of view.
But a story is much more complex with a more complex message as well. In a story, many throughlines are woven together to form a fabric, like a tapestry, in which a bigger picture – a broader, more sophisticated message, can be seen. This occurs because (while it is easy to relate a simple chain of events in a tale), the message of a tale is nothing more than that a particular path is a good one or a bad one by virtue of how it ultimately imiproved or degraded a situation.
A story steps beyond that simple statement to tell the readers/audience that the path presented in not just good or bad, but is the best or worst that might have been taken. This is a much bolder statement. In fact, it is a blanket statement. As such, no readership/audience is going to accept it out of hand. They are going to demand proof. And so, they will want all other reasonable paths that might have been taken to be explored, or at least dealt with to show why the one path the author is promoting is indeed the best or worst. To cover the issue from all angle, then, an author needs multiple throughlines woven together – we weave a story.
The four throughlines presented in this video grow from the four most all-encompassing points of view – the four fundamental points of view, if you will: I, You, We, and They – descriptive of the four ways in which we classify ourselves and our relationships with others. Naturally, there are many other smaller, yet more detailed points of view within those, and that is why the Dramatica table of story elements was developed – to help map, define, and determine the relationships among them so an author would have a tool that would allow the creation of a complete and detailed story argument to support any level of underlying message.
Four Points of View in Every Story
There are four essential points of view in every fully developed story. They are the Main Character, the Influence Character (AKA the Obstacle Character), the Subjective Story, and the Objective Story.
The Objective story is the most familiar to audiences/readers for it is the view from the outside looking in, like that of a general on a hill watching a battle down below. It is often thought to be the story’s plot, but in fact it the the objective (or must structural) view of characters, theme, and genre as well.
The Main Character is not necessarily the protagonist. While the protagonist is the character leading the charge to accomplish the story goal, the Main Character represents the audience position in the story – it allows the audience to step into the shoes of the pivotal character to experience the story first hand and much more passionate in its danger and immediacy than the view of the general on the hill.
The third point of view is that of the Influence Character who represents a different philosophy, outlook, or moral code than the Main Character. Just as in our own minds we balance who we are against who we might become if we change our outlook on a particular issue, so too the Story Mind struggles with this conflict of ideals which is made tangible in the structure of the Main and Influence characters.
Finally, we consider the nature of that struggle itself – the personal passionate skirmish between one world view or paradigm for living and its opposite. This is the subjective story and it is where the story’s message or moral resides.
The Main Character, because of its first hand view is the “I” perspective. The Influence Character whose view we might adopt is “You” for we have not yet become that person or shared its view. The struggle between us, between who we are and who we might become (philosophically) is “We.” And the general on the hill and all the other soldiers on the field who are not involved in our personal philosophic skirmish are seen as”They” – as if from the general’s “objective” eye.
Taken together, all four view provide the essential minimum parallax on the story’s issues so that they are fully examined from all crucial angles, leaving no whole in the story’s argument and no stone unturned in consideration of the central issues.
Motivations, Methodologies, Evaluations and Purposes
Every story has a mind of its own, as if it were a single chcaracter, a single person. The Dramatica theory of story structure includes a chart, sort of a “periodic table,” that maps out four different levels of consideration of the story mind. T
he bottom level (Elements) describes the story mind’s motivations, and has the greatest impact on character. The next level up (Variations) represents the story mind’s value standards and is seen the story’s theme. The third level from the bottom (Types) describes the story mind’s methods of problem solving and is made manifest in the plot. At the top, the fouth and final lvel (Classes) ourlines the story mind’s purposes and has the greatests structural impact on genre.
Taken together, all four levels can be seen as a map of the topical or thematic aspects of all the dramatic elements in a story.
Levels of the Story Mind
The mind of your story, as with our own minds, can be seen to have four levels of consideration which fall into four topic categories describing the kind of thing that is being considered.
For any topic, the mind considers in terms of its Motivations (created at the character level), Value Standards (at the thematic level), Methodologies (at the plot level), and Purposes (at the genre level).
The four primary topic categories are Universe (an external state or situation), Mind (an internal state, attitude or fixation), Physics (an external process or activitiy), and Psychology (an internal process or manner or pathway of thinking).
Picking one of these four topic categories as being the nature of your story’s problem determines where your reader or audience will be looking. Picking one of the four levels of consideration determines where they will be looking from. The combination of what you are looking at and where you are looking from creates perspective and it is that perspective that defines the very nature of your story’s unique underlying dramatic structure.
Story Outcome and Judgment
Your story’s “Outcome” is determined by success or failure in the attempt to achieve the overall goal. But this is independent of whether or not everyone is feeling good about the outcome, even if success is achieved. Often the costs of achieving a goal outweigh the benefits. And in some stories, achieving a goal may turn out to be a hollow victory.
Similarly, failing to achieve the goal may not be an emotional distaster as well if the characters learn something of greater value or grow in ways that is far more meaningful than the failed attempt to achieve. Put these in combinations and you get the Success/Good story (a triumph), the Failure/Bad story (a tragedy), the Success/Bad story (a personal tragedy), and the Failure/Good story (a personal triumph).
Using the two dramatic elements of Outcome and Judgment and adjusting the degree of success or failure and of personal fulfillment or devestation , one can create any variety of conclusion for a story from the “happy ending” to the “sad ending” and every bitter-sweet combination in between.