One of the easiest ways to identify the four Domains in your story (Objective Story, Subjective Story, Main Character, and Obstacle Character) is by looking at the characters that appear in each Domain. Who are they? What are they doing? What are their relationships to one another? Clearly identifying the characters in each throughline will make selecting the thematic Domains, Concerns, Ranges, and Problems for the throughlines much easier.
From the Dramatica Theory Book
When an author begins work on a story, he seldom has the whole thing figured out in advance. In fact, he might start with nothing more than a bit of action, a scrap of dialogue, or perhaps only a title. The urge to write springs from some personal interest one wants to share. It could be an emotion, an experience, or a point of view on a particular subject matter. Once inspiration strikes, however, there is the compelling desire to find a way to communicate what one has in mind.
Another thing usually happens along the way. One creative thought leads to another, and the scope of what one wishes to communicate grows from a single item into a collection of items. Action suggests dialogue which defines a character who goes into action, and on and on. Ultimately, an author finds himself with a bag of interesting dramatic elements, each of which is intriguing, but not all of which are connected. It is at this point an author’s mind shifts gears and looks at the emerging work as an analyst rather than as a creator.
The author as analyst examines what he has so far. Intuitively he can sense that some sort of structure is developing. The trick now is to get a grip on the “big picture.” Four aspects of this emerging story become immediately apparent: Character, Theme, Plot, and Genre. An author may find that the points of view expressed by certain characters are unopposed in the story, making the author’s point of view seem heavy-handed and biased. In other places, logic fails, and the current explanation of how point A got to point C is incomplete. She may also notice that some kind of overall theme is partially developed, and that the entire work could be improved by shading more dramatic elements with the same issues.
So far, our intrepid author has still not created a story. Oh, there’s one in there somewhere, but much needs to be done to bring it out. For one thing, certain items that have been developed may begin to seem out of place. They don’t fit in with the feel of the work as a whole. Also, certain gaps have become apparent which beg to be filled. In addition, parts of a single dramatic item may work and other parts may not. For example, a character may ring true at one moment, but turn into a klunker the next.
Having analyzed, then, the author sets about remedying the ailments of his work in the attempt to fashion it into a complete and unified story. Intuitively, an author will examine all the logical and emotional aspects of his story, weed out irregularities and fill in cracks until nothing seems out of place in his considerations. Just as one might start with any piece of a jigsaw puzzle, and in the end a larger picture emerges, so the story eventually fills the author’s heart and mind as a single, seamless, and balanced item, greater than the sum of its parts. The story has taken on an identity all its own.
Looking at the finished story, we can tell two things right off the bat. First, there is a certain logistic dramatic structure to the work. Second, that structure is expressed in a particular way. In Dramatica, we call that underlying deep dramatic structure a Storyform. The manner in which it is communicated is the Storytelling.
As an example of how the Storyform differs from the Storytelling, consider Romeo and Juliet and West Side Story. It is easily seen that dramatics of both stories are essentially the same. Yet the expression of those dramatics is completely different. Storytelling dresses the dramatics in different clothes, couches the message in specific contexts, and brings additional non-structure material to the work.
The structure of a story is like a vacant apartment. Everything is functional, but it doesn’t have a personality until someone moves in. Over the years, any number of people might occupy the same rooms, working within the same functionality but making the environment uniquely their own. Similarly, the same dramatic structures have been around for a long time. Yet, every time we dress them up in a way we haven’t seen before, they become new again. So, part of what we find in a finished work is the actual Grand Argument Story and part is the Storytelling.
The problems most writers face arise from the fact that the creative process works on both storyform and storytelling at the same time. The two become inseparably blended, so trying to figure out what really needs to be fixed is like trying to determine the recipe for quiche from the finished pie. It can be done, but it is tough work. What is worse, an author’s personal tastes and assumptions often blind him to some of the obvious flaws in the work, while over-emphasizing others. This can leave an author running around in circles, getting nowhere.
Fortunately, another pathway exists. Because the eventual storyform outlines all of the essential feelings and logic that will be generated by a story, an author can begin by creating a storyform first. Then, all that follows will work together for it is built on a consistent and solid foundation.
To create a storyform, an author will need to make decisions about the kinds of topics he wishes to explore and the kinds of impact he wishes to have on his audience. This can sometimes be a daunting task. Most authors prefer to stumble into the answers to these questions during the writing process, rather than deliberate over them in advance. Still, with a little consideration up front, much grief can be prevented later on as the story develops.
From the Dramatica Theory Book
The Subjective Story Concern describes the area of shared concern for the Main and Obstacle Characters. The Subjective Story Range and Counterpoint describe why they come to blows over it. The Main Character will believe the Subjective Story Range (or counterpoint) is the value standard that should be used when looking at the Subjective Story Concern. As a result, The Main Character will see the Concern in a particular light. In contrast, the Obstacle Character will believe the other Variation (Range or counterpoint) is the proper way to evaluate the Concern. Since this standard of measure results in different conclusions about the Concern, the Main and Obstacle Characters come into conflict. They use these two points as they argue over two issues: what should be done about the Concern, and which is the best way to look at it.
From the Dramatica Theory Book
The Obstacle Character Range provides a way of evaluating the appropriateness of the Obstacle Character’s impact. The Obstacle Character Range and Counterpoint act as a balance or scale against which the results of the Obstacle Character’s point of view are weighed. This is where an author can truly tip the balance as to which point of view the audience comes to favor. Later we shall explore how that balance might be tipped back and forth over the course of the story, making a more realistic and less heavy-handed statement of the author’s bias.
From the Dramatica Theory Book
The Main Character Range (and its counterpoint) represent the thematic conflict of personal interest to the Main Character. It will be seen in the kinds of things this character notices which no one else does. Because it is so personal a value judgment, the author can use this appreciation to whisper his point of view, rather than shouting it overtly, as might happen with the Objective Story Range. Because it is so personal, the Main Character Range helps bring humanity to the Main Character. It is through the issues explored through the Range that the audience can identify not only with the Main Character’s head but his heart as well.
From the Dramatica Theory Book
This appreciation describes the kind of value judgments that seem to pertain to all the characters and events in a story. For example, a Range of Morality will have a dynamic counterpoint of Self-Interest. This means the thematic conflict in the Objective Story Throughline would be Morality vs. Self-Interest. Because Morality is the Range, it would be in the forefront and appear as the topic or subject matter of the Objective Story Throughline’s Theme.
Because Morality is the Objective Story Range, it will appear almost everywhere. In a hypothetical story, we might see a man taking candy from a baby, a headline proclaiming that a company’s profits are up, while behind the newsstand we see the company dumping toxic waste in the background. Illustrations of the Objective Story Range can focus on the characters or can act as a flavoring for the story as a whole. We shall explore this in greater detail in the Encoding section.
From the Dramatica Theory Book
The Subjective Story Concern describes the area of greatest conflict or divergence between the Main and Obstacle Characters. They might see eye-to-eye everywhere else, but when it comes to the Subjective Story Concern, they always come to blows. It is the nature of the way the thematic structure is created that the Concern of the Subjective Story Throughline will seem to grow out of the Main and Obstacle Concerns.
If the Subjective Story Concern were Obtaining, the Main and Obstacle would argue over whether or not they should have something. It might be something only one of them has or can have (who should have it?) or it might be something they must either have together or not at all.
From the Dramatica Theory Book
Because the Obstacle Character Throughline is looked at in terms of its impact, the Concern here will be seen as the area in which the Obstacle Character has its greatest effect. A way of phrasing this is to say that the Obstacle Character’s impact primarily Concerns this area. So, an Obstacle Character Concern of Obtaining here would describe an Obstacle Character who changes what is or can be Obtained (or refused) because of his impact on the people and events around him.
From the Dramatica Theory Book
As one would expect, the Main Character Concern is of interest only to the Main Character. This appreciation describes the area in which the Main Character is most worried or interested in regard to the way it sees the problem.
If Obtaining were the Main Character Concern, the Main Character alone would be trying to get or get rid of (hold on to or refuse to hold on to) something. None of the other characters would share this Concern because the other throughlines are all in other Classes with different Types. This divergence is what gives a story some breadth and a sense of completeness for an audience. Rather than focusing on just one issue, every point of view regarding the story’s problem falls into a different Domain with its own unique Concern.
Similarly, a Main Character with a Concern of Memory would be trying to remember, to forget, to establish a memory, or to prevent one from forming.
From the Dramatica Theory Book
The Objective Story Concern is the area in which all of the characters share a common concern. This might be a single item they are all concerned about, or it might be that each of them has a personal concern of this nature. For example, if the Objective Story Concern was the Type “Obtaining”, then all the characters would be concerned with Obtaining something. In such a story, everyone might be trying to Obtain the same thing, such as a buried treasure. In another story with an Objective Story Concern of Obtaining everyone might be trying to Obtain something different. The Protagonist might want to Obtain the treasure, but the Reason Character might want to Obtain a diploma. The nature of the Concern is shared, not necessarily the specific manifestation of it.
Later, in the Plot and Encoding sections, we will touch on how one can pull these different items of Obtaining together into the same story. In the example above, the Protagonist could be a treasure hunter wanting to Obtain the treasure. The Reason Character who wants to Obtain a diploma in archeology joins the Protagonist’s team because he seeks the quest for the treasure as the basis for his doctoral thesis. Tying items together in this manner is not a structural aspect of story, but one of storytelling, and is therefore beyond the scope of this section on The Elements of Structure.
Keep in mind that a Concern of Obtaining might also mean a Concern of getting rid of something. Whether one wants to Obtain or wants to stop Obtaining does not change the nature of the area of Concern. So, for this appreciation and all the following, remember to consider it as either meaning not enough of something or too much of something.
From the Dramatica Theory Book