The following  excerpt is taken from

The Dramatica Class Transcripts

Dramatica : 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.

Jeff writes:

My little finger keeps telling me that sine, cosine, tangent, and cotangent has something to do with the conceptualization of the story mind at some level—possibly explaining the crossovers between Spacial and Temporal, or quad relationships.

Melanie? Chris? Anyone?

Jeff (I Wish I Paid Attention In Calculus)

***************

Jeff, here’s a clue:

You’ll see those functions showing up throughout the structure. But you forgot Secant and Cosecant.

So, you’ve got Sine and Cosine, Tangent and Co-tangent, and Secant and Co-secant.

Now, look to the three kinds of pairs, Dynamic, Companion, and Dependent. Note that each has a positive and negative aspect. You’ll find a direct correlation.

Also note that there is the fourth kind of relationship in each quad – the “Associative” in which all four items are either seen as individual Components or as a single Collective.

This last relationship is a bit different than the other three insofar as it deals with all four items at once, rather than two. It also differs in that it is NOT necessary that one be positive and the other negative. Both could be positive or both could be negative or you could have one of each (creating a quad of “charge” options).

This last relationship is what happens if you plot a function in Trig along the Y axis instead of the X axis. In that case, you violate the definition of a function, so it is not allowed in Trig. Some of the results can create imaginary numbers.

In Dramatica, because Time must be seen as a component rather than a line against which to plot a sine or cosine, we needed to allow functions to move into one more dimension. This wasn’t because of our concept, but because that fourth dimension, the Associative relationship actually exists in the real world and REQUIRED that dimension to explain it.

Unfortunately, since Trig couldn’t allow it, we needed to define a fourth set of functions. They really should be called the Independent and Co-dependent (to match the semantic naming pattern of Sine and Co-Sine) but since we already use the word Dependent in Dependent pairs – where it is more descriptive – we ended up calling the functions Component and Collective.

One last clue – note that the quad looks not unlike the quadrants in trig. In fact, you’ll find that the Dramatica quads correspond to them as a framework, but move counter-clockwise instead of clockwise.

So, on the one hand, each quad handles the four items in three dimensions (as does Trig) cycling through them over time to create the standard functions. In three dimensions this creates a circle (plotted on the quad) or the plot of the standard functions (such as sine and cosine) as the story unfolds over time, linearly. But, if you move onto the RELATIONSHIPS of the items in each quad, it adds that extra dimension and that extra function.

In other words, the quad and the relationships allow both a three dimensional and four dimensional projecting of reality to exist in the same time/space.

You can get a feel for this by looking at how Trig plot out a sine wave. In a quadrant, it seems to run around the quadrants creating a circle. But, plotted over time along an access, you get the never-ending sine wave.

But, if you add the extra dimension, you see a helix, like a Slinky toy, which from the end looks like a circle but when stretched out and seen from the side looks like a sine wave.

The circle is the particle, the side view is the wave. Dramatica adds one more dimension to see the helix so that it can describe the relationship between the particle of story and the wave of story – the meaning of the story as it relates to the order in which the elements are explored- what the story is about as it relates to how the story unfolds.

Well, that’s enough of a clue. Now, an “assignment” for all your math junkies:

Of Sine, Tangent, and Secant, which function is associated with which relationship – Dynamic, Companion, and Dependent?

  A Writer Asks…

Problem Solving, Problem Solving……..and..more……..problem solving.

I know how if fits into Dramatica………. but I also know of a very well intelligent, published author who teaches individuals and organizations how to create what they want and the first thing he teaches…..”creating is not problem solving.”

I REALLY wish you could have this author look at the Dramatica program and give a brief overview…………he may provide a fresh look at scriptwriting like never before. He teaches his “Creating” seminars by watching movies and then discussing what is seen and or not seen.

Please let me know.

I hate to always be in a problem solving mode……..or worse….. a teaching and preaching mode.

But I do hunger for the correct perspective.

Understanding opposites…………which “He” calls establishing “structural tension”. Sound interesting?

ps: Opposite of problem solving is?

My Reply:

Hi, Russell! Thanks for your note. You bring up some very important points, and I’d like to take a moment to, at least briefly, address them.

In your letter you quote an author who teaches creativity as saying, “creating is not problem solving.” I couldn’t agree more! The process of creating comes from the heart. Still, unless one is satisfied to be his or her own audience, often the fruit of the heart speaks clearly only to the author. This is because storytelling is not about creating a story, but communicating a story. And, it is the process of communication that requires problem solving.

An author often works from real experiences. Even if he or she is building a fictional scene between fictional people, the emotions that arise can only be expressed because at some point in his or her own life the author has felt those emotions, even if under different circumstances.

We do not feel our emotions as singular events. Rather, every emotion is “tied” to many others and connected in a whole network of both strong and weak forces. When an author conjures up a feeling for a scene, this feeling will bring with it all kinds of baggage.

As a result, an author is likely to carry those additional feelings right over into the scene under construction without actually writing them in. This creates a scene in which the primary emotions are well covered, but all the supporting emotions are either missing or so personal that, overall, the scene fails to communicate anything in depth at all.

This is where problem solving comes in. By focusing on the primary emotions (and information) to be communicated and determining the context in which the author wishes to present these topics and experiences, Dramatica can “calculate” the necessary supporting components to the story’s “argument”. The argument, by the way, is just a short hand way of saying the story’s “overall consistent and fully explored message.”

Now, for a story that is not designed to have either a message or point of view, Dramatica is really pretty useless. Still, such stories can be quite moving as an audience experience. They are an art form all their own. Free form stories follow a course that is unpredictable and creates its impact by the layering of experiences. A story that is an argument, however, is structured in such a way that all dramatic parts ultimately focus on the same central issue, and are seen as reflections of the “problem” at the heart of the story. It is here Dramatica can be of service.

This seems a good point to talk about the “opposite of a problem” question you also pose in your note. The opposite of a problem would be a solution. This fits in with tradition binary opposites. Dramatica, however, is not based on binaries, but on the relationships among four things. For example, in Dramatica we cannot consider only a problem or just a problem and solution, but must also consider “focus” and “direction” as well.

“Problem” and “solution” are well-understood terms dramatically, but “focus” and “direction” are not nearly as often considered. As an analogy, if we think of a problem as a disease, then the solution would be the cure. Focus would be the principal symptom of the discease, and Direction the treatment for that symptom.

Sometimes a body can heal only by curing the disease. Other times, there is no cure and the body can heal only by continuing to treat the symptom until the body heals itself. In story, it is the choice to go with the cure or the treatment of the symptom that determines if characters are on the right path, and it is their choice to stick with that path or jump to the other that determines if they will remain steadfast or change as human beings. The quad structure is a much more descriptive model of real dramatics than simple binary opposites.

To go a step farther, Dramatica is not only concerned with the problem, but (as you indicated at the top of you note) with problem solving as well. It is important to note the difference between the structural “problem” and the dynamic of “problem solving”.

A problem is something that is out of balance, which creates an inequity. Problem solving is the effort to eliminate that inequity. Pursuing your line of inquiry a bit farther we might ask, “What is the opposite of problem solving?” The answer to this question is “Justification”.

If problem solving is the process to eliminate an inequity, justification can be seen as the process to try and balance the inequity. As examples, if you are hungry and you eat you have eliminated an inequity, hence: problem solving. In contrast, if you are on a diet and get hungry, but instead of eating you light up a cigarette, you have created a new inequity to balance the first one, hence: justification.

Justifications are not necessarily bad. They are just our way of putting off immediate gratification for long-term goals, or sometimes becoming conditioned to a particular way of doing things to the point we become inflexible. Either way, problem solving and justification can be seen as opposites.

What about the Dramatica quad as it pertains to problem solving? One binary in the quad would be problem solving and justification. The other would be Male and Female Mental Sex.

At face value, this seems hardly likely. What, after all, do Male and Female Mental Sex have to do with problem solving or justification? Well, to solve a problem or to justify, one must determine if it is a problem now or could be a problem later. The NOW problem is a spatial appreciation – looking at the structure of the beast. The LATER problem is a temporal appreciation – looking at the dynamics that might come together to create a problem.

As it turns out, although we all have space and time sense, men and women emphasize them differently. As a result, what appears as problem solving to one Mental Sex, is likely to appear as a justification to the other. One cannot absolutely say that something is problem solving or justification unless one knows whether the effort is being advanced by a Male or Female Mental Sex character.

Well, I must close now, as to go any further would be to step beyond the scope of the questions you posed in your note.

I hope I have been able to clarify the difference between the structure necessary to clear communication and the dynamic of the personal creative process. Also, I hope I have adequately described the differences between binary opposites and Dramatica’s rather more detailed approach of dealing in quads.

Your thought about having the creative writing teacher/author look at Dramatica is a good one. I hope it can be arranged. After all, we’re just authors ourselves who worked out a paradigm of story which we have found useful. There’s always room for improvement, although I know we often get so excited and wrapped up in our enthusiasm that we can come off sounding rather preachy. We’re working to improve that too!Writer Response…

Thanks for such a wonderful reply…have saved to review and contemplate.

Opposite of problem solving…….creating. I get a “frustrating” sense that most people, if not all, are brought up in a mind set of looking at everything as problem solving, possibly as a result of formal education training.

Is it possible to write a script without a main character whose goal is to solve a problem?

Reason I suggested another author: Looking at “dramatics” from a different perspective for a more complete understanding.

Author, Robert Fritz (CREATING, PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE and soon to be released CORPORATE TIDES) writes that the basic STRUCTURE for Creating is: A person describes as clearly as possible what they want and then describes their current reality which results in “Structural Tension.”

Seems most people in society today do exactly the opposite which results in self limitation………..so if we script write in the same “mind set” I get a sense that our scripts would also be self limiting.

I know, I know…….. may not be sounding real clear in this area but I’m trying to understand the “bottom brick” of scriptwriting so that I don’t develop bad scriptwriting habits as I believe most people have in life, looking at EVERYTHING as a problem to be solved.

Can you point my needle a bit more north…. recommend a movie to see or something?

Thanks,

Russel

My Reply…

In your message you said:

Thanks for such a wonderful reply…have saved to review and contemplate.

I’m glad you found it useful. I think we are all learning about the implications of the Dramatica theory every time we question it. The answers to those questions often open up new insight for ourselves and improve the theory at the same time.

Opposite of problem solving…….creating. I get a “frustrating” sense that most people, if not all, are brought up in a mind set of looking at everything as problem solving, possibly as a result of formal education training.

Don’t get me started on that! I believe there is a tremendous binary/linear bias to all societies world-wide. This belief grew out of the work Chris and I did on Mental Relativity, the psychology behind Dramatica. If you’d like to explore some of those non-story concepts, visit my Mental Relativity pages on the web at storymind.com/mental_relativity/
Is it possible to write a script without a main character whose goal is to solve a problem?

Sure! The way the software and documentation currently reads, both Male and Female Mental Sex Main Characters are out to solve a problem – the difference being in their “problem solving technique.” That is another limited binary appreciation. In fact, both Male and Female Mental Sex Main Characters might be driven by a completely different kind of concern: they might want to be at peace.

Male Mental Sex Characters would seek satisfaction, Female Mental Sex Characters would seek Fulfillment. Currently, Satisfaction and Fulfillment are lumped together in the Dynamic question of”Judgment: “Does your Main Character resolve his or her angst?”

Note the difference here. In problem solving, we have all kinds of problems represented by the sixty-four elements. The “nature” of the problem can be defined in an extremely detailed manner. That is a structural approach, based in logic. But Judgment (a dynamic) is only available in two flavors: “Good” and “Bad”. It almost makes you laugh when you compare the degree of sophistication of the logic based problem to the simple binary appreciation of the emotion based Judgment.

Why this imbalance in the software? It is necessary! Just as one cannot see light being a particle and a wave AT THE SAME TIME, so too in Dramatica, one cannot explore the logistic AND the emotional at the same time. Development costs of a product as revolutionary and complex as Dramatica made it impractical in a business sense (and also from the strain on the developers!) to try to create two completely different implementations of the theory. Since Western culture (as is true with most cultures world-wide) emphasizes logic over emotion, we opted to first create a logic-based system that focused on problem solving. In fact, in Western storytelling, problem based stories account for at least 90% of what is written, so our practical decision made Dramatica available to the most writers in the most expedient manner. It is my hope that additional software development will some day implement the emotional side of the theory, thereby opening a whole new door to the organic writer.

Getting back to the question that started all this…. Currently you need to do some mental gymnastics with the software to “convert” the concept of problem-solving to one of Satisfaction or Fulfillment. Here are a few tips and suggestions about how to approach this…

When using logic, Male Mental Sex Characters will seek to solve a problem. When using emotion, Male Mental Sex Characters will seek satisfaction. Problem solving is seen here as a binary notion of things being “correct”, satisfaction is a holistic sense of things being “right”.

When using logic, Female Mental Sex Characters will ALSO seek to solve a problem. But when using emotion, Female Mental Sex Characters will seek fulfillment. Problem solving is seen here as a comparrison of things being “balanced”, fulfillment is a holistic sense of feeling “good”.

So, both Male and Female Mental Sex Characters can use either reason or emotion as their principle standard of evaluation from which they derive their drive. But, one will seek satisfaction emotionally and the other fulfillment, and even though both will engage in problem solving (which makes them appear the same) they interpret problem solving differently (which makes them un-alike.)

To develop a satisfaction or fulfillment based story, one must currently emphasize the Subjective Story Throughline, which means that one is thrown back into the logistic nature of the appreciations in order to construct something of a framework around the emotional “arguement”.

But there is an easier way. Well, perhaps not easier but much more nuanced. Get in touch with your own feelings. Use the structured aspects of the Dramatica software to handle the logistics of the plot and the topics of the theme and the objective characters. But when it comes to the Main Character, put yourself right in his or her shoes.

The software examines the Main Character as being where the audience is positioned in the story – the “I” perspective; first person singular. But rather than putting the author in that perspective, it takes an outside view of this character so that the author can construct the appropriate concerns that will connect the journey of the Main Character to the development of the story as a whole.

What is not yet provided is support for actually jumping into your Main Character’s skin and seeing what the story looks like from there. Early on in the development of the theory, Chris and I did some preliminary work on “skewing the model” so that a subjective view of what the story looked liked from ANY character position might be provided. With all the other areas we needed to address, however, we never had the time to fully develop that aspect of the theory.

Until we are able to incorporate that approach in the software, it is really a simple matter to do it yourself. Pay attention to two things: the “static appreciations” of your Main Character that remain the same for the whole story (such as his or her Concern and Unique Ability) and also the “progressive appreciations” which change over time, such as the act progression through the four “Types” that describe the Main Character’s signposts and journeys.

Imagine what it would be like to be in this particular story, having these overall concerns, and also being focused on other immediate concerns of the moment. How would you feel? How might your feelings change the longer you explored these issues? What might be your “gut reaction” to the impact of the Obstacle Character.

By using the logistic output of the software as a guide, you can then follow your heart within that context and be confident that your character will start to take on an honest humanity yet function appropriately in the Grand Scheme as well.

If you don’t wish to focus on problem solving at all, make your story an exploration of the Main Character’s feelings only. The logistic sense will come by itself between the lines as the Main Character illustrated the both the static and progressive appreciations by the way he or she feels, responds, reacts, and by the shadings that temper his or her observations of the story at large.

Well, I’d better draw this to a close before I write a whole new theory book in one setting!

Keep those questions coming, and best of luck in your writing endeavors.

Here’s my response to comments from a writer (Tom) regarding the nature of Dramatica story element called the Preconscious. Tom’soriginal comments are quoted in the body of the article as appropriate.

I knew going into this that explaining the math model and the definitions would be a long and arduous task. Part of this difficulty arises from the huge number of specific instances which are called into question. We are dealing with two things here – the underlying math model upon which Dramatica is based, and each discrete part of that model. The Preconscious discussion deals with a part, the Dramatica Math thread deals with the whole.

So, as time allows, I will respond to as many of the parts as I can while trying to present documentation of the whole.

As for Preconscious, there are a number of points which Tom brings up in the post quoted below. One, he notes that “Dramatica wants to reduce everything a single word.” This is correct. In the early days of development, it was determined by testing (asking people for their opinions) whether they were more comfortable with single or multi-word definitions. The responses indicated that people found multiple-word descriptions even more difficult to understand. Why? First, because most of the terms could easily be described by single words, only a fraction of the needed descriptions couldn’t be associated with a single existing semantic concept. As a result, the mixing of single and multi-word descriptions confused people. In fact, THEY were asking us why we couldn’t boil down the multi-word descriptors to a single word – the inverse problem of wondering why we have to stick with one!

Second the multi-word descriptions had an open-ended problem: All words used in Dramatica are not accurate by nature, so there is no end to the number of words needed to completely describe a concept. Let me explain. The structure of Dramatica contains no words. It is a math construct based on relative distances within a three dimensional matrix which is then driven through iterations which represent the dramatic impact of the linear progression of a story. As a math construct, meaning is determined by vectors. For example, comparing Types to to Classes, Past is to Universe as Memory is to Mind. That creates a vertical vector identity. There is also a horizontal identity. Looking at Types, Doing is to Obtaining as Being is to Becoming.

The relationship of any point on the model to any other point is identical to the difference in meaning between any other two points connected by an identical vector.

When considered from the top down, the model then presents a fractal nesting of quads, wheels within wheels, and not unlike the less practical “difference engine” which suffered due to its reliance on a physical, rather than programmatic realm.

Laterally (horizontally) a similar comparative relationship exists consistently throughout the model. But, rather than being fractal, the horizontal iterations describe the temporal nesting of equations. In other words, as each quad proceeds to the next, a similarity not-unlike fractals can be seen between them. But these relationships are not based on the “spatial record of the interaction of order and chaos” (as fractals are sometimes defined) but in the “temporal record of the interaction of order and chaos.” The concept of comparing temporal records – two processes that bore a point to point correlation yet morphed from one to the next through a larger controlling process – was not named when we developed the Dramatica model. To differentiate this temporal record and iteration from the spatial, fractal equivalent, we coined the term “frictal.” This is appropriate because the word, “fractal” was actually formed as a bastardized conglomerate of the words, “fraction” and “fratcure.” In contrast, “frictal” is a conglomerate of “fraction” and “friction” – much more in keeping with the temporal nature of the items being compared.

This said, the Dramatica model then is a wordless construct in which vectors determine meaning. The vertical component of a vector carries a fractal meaning (like sub-dividing into greater detail) whereas the horizontal component of a vector carries a frictal meaning (like progressing into additional information).

Once constructed, choosing the words to position in the model so that both the vertical and horizontal components would be accurate became a hugely difficult problem. In fact, it took us just about 2 years to fill in the last of the words. Why should it take so long? Well, with each word having a vertical and horizontal component and having to relate to all other words in the model so that the difference in meaning was identical for any other identical vector, simply put… it took time! And, on top of that, we were hobbled by the need to keep each square in every quad to a single-word with which to represent it!

Ultimately, we arrived at the model you all know and love today.

Specifically now, for Preconscious, Tom writes that “Preconscious is in the middle of a quad with other well-established terms from psychoanalysis /neuroscience with their normal definition. “Innate responses” is what it is about. If they absolutely must have a single word REFLEX would do well. ”

I have a few things to offer here. First of all, you have all probably already noted that in many quads, three of the four items seem familiar and like a “family” but the fourth one is often something that seems quite out of left field. This is due to the “frictal” progression. If the model were only obligated to represent vertical fractal information, then the choice of words in each quad would actually be different than it is. But with the added mandate that each quad represent an equidistant progression of meaning from one item in a quad to the next, then the final temporal item in a quad will, in fact, be closer to the “semantic weight” of the item in the next quad than to the “average semantic weight” of items in the quad in which it actually occurs. (The reason you compare an item to the next in line but the average of what came before is representative of the mental process to only think forward in time. Although we “recall” and “relive” things, the past carries an average weight favoring the most recent whereas the new item becomes a first impression. One must consider both the Primacy effect and both retrograde and anterograde interference, and these are represented in the semantic choices made for each item in every quad.)

In any event, Preconscious” does not really mean “innate responses,” even though that is our own definition in the dictionary. The Preconscious does not have to be “innate.” Conceptually, the Preconscious represents responses of both a physical and mental nature, both a logistic and emotional nature, both specific and generalized which occur BEFORE the conscious mind becomes involved. AND, it is not like subconscious because Preconscious functions like a filter which “absorbs” and “amplifies” the information coming in from observation of both the physical world and the mental world so that the information actually received by the conscious mind is “colored” and selectively enhanced, with other information completely removed and even added.

It is the Preconscious where prejudice exists. This is why prejudiced people are not stupid or stubborn. In fact, due to their previous external and internal experiences the Preconscious “rewrites” what is observed so that it appears to match expected patterns, including the removal of data that might violate those expectations. This is also true if one looks within – one does not see certain aspects of oneself, sees others that aren’t there, and overall observes a tempered view of oneself which is hardly accurate, yet the best we can do.

Unlike the common psychological term, “selective filter,” Preconscious differs in that it also ADDS information.

Now, I must apologize for using the words, “innate responses” in the definition. There was a reason it was worded that way, however. If we didn’t define words at all (which we originally intended) it would be much easier for us. But, when we discovered that we needed to “redefine” some words to limit the number of new words we coined, but we also did need to coin completely new words here and there to get close to the feel of the meaning, then we decided a dictionary was necessary. And I can tell you that writing it was a bitch!

But, even then, we couldn’t really describe what was ACTUALLY going on in several cases, or the definitions would be more confusing than the words they were trying to define! So, it was determined (in several long, arduous discussions) that we should use the definitions not to be completely accurate if that was counter-productive, but to simply try to INCREASE the accuracy of understanding. This dictated that on the most unfamiliar terms, the definitions were written as touch points to the familiar, but worded in such a way that other more accurate understandings remained implicit in the definition for those who sought greater meaning.

This, of course, is why the word, “Reflex,” would not do at all. It smacks WAY too much of a purely physical response. We considered that word and quickly discarded it. “Innate responses” comes closer, but they are not really innate (as indicated above). But “responses” without “innate” makes it seem possible that these might be consciously considered responses, which they are not.

Finally, as for the other three items in the quad with “Preconscious,” which are indeed common psych terms – note the relationship by position of the other three words with Preconscious. Conscious is vertical to (and therefore mutually dependent with) Preconscious. In other words, that which we consider consciously is dependent upon our Preconscious filter/amplifier, and the manner in which the Preconscious filter/amplifier iterates is dependent upon our Conscious considerations.

Subconscious and Preconscious are in the diagonal (diametrically opposed) relationship, indicating that each works against the other either to limit the other or to create a synthesis between them as a result of that friction (the definition of all dynamic pairs – negative tears each other down, positive builds a synthesis).

Memory and Preconscious are in a horizontal or “Companion” relationship indicating that without directly interacting, Preconscious will ultimately influence what Memory will recall and conversely, Memory will exert an influence as to how Preconscious will filter/amplify.

In conclusion, trying to address a single part of the overall model requires (unfortunately) a description of all the factors that are at work at that particular point. Since the overall math model is about relative distances, virtually every point is acted upon or at least related to all others to some degree.

As I indicated at the beginning, I’ll try to address as many of these points as I can while documenting the math model of Dramatica as a whole.

  A Writer Comments…

Dramatica’s terminology is too obscure and inaccessible to most writers. Since the differences between such terms as “Conceiving” and “Conceptualizing”, “Preconscious” and “Subconscious”, or “Mind” and “Psychology” is paper thin anyway, can’t you come up with some alternative words that are easier to understand?

My Reply…

Excellent wish list! And I agree. I believe that any words which are difficult to understand in the semantic chart should be replaced immediately with more accessible words that are just as accurate. For example, Conceiving and Conceptualizing are much too obscure to be of use to the vast majority of writers. They should absolutely be replaced. Unfortunately, I have personally been unable to come up with alternatives.

What is needed is an approach whereby writers themselves, having a command of the vocabulary, might suggest replacement words which we could consider. For those who might be interested in pursuing that endeavor, let me give some “plain English” definitions of the terms mentioned in the above comment, to assist in the process of finding different words that fit the definitions.

First, the writer’s comment notes that the difference between Mind and Psychology is “paper thin”. That is probably due to our choice of words. In fact, the definitions between the two are quite far apart.

The most notable difference is that Mind is a state and Psychology a process. Mind can also be defined as our fixed attitude on any subject. It is also how we feel about things emotionally, such as what we enjoy eating, the sports we like to watch, who we love, whether we like the mountains or the beach better. It also means our whole collection of memories. It is also includes our prejudices. Part of Mind is described by the phrase, “Hey, that’s just where his head is at.”

What “Mind” DOESN’T mean: It is NOT a person’s personality. It is NOT his or her instinct. It is NOT thought or consideration. Personality is a combination of the fixed attitudes AND the mental processes in which an individual engages. Instinct describes how a mind responds to its environment based on built-in fixed tendencies, meaning that Instinct is more akin to a physical process, which is why that Dramatica terms is actually found in the Physics Class, rather than the Mind Class. Thought and Consideration are mental processes, so they have no place in a description of a mental STATE.

Perhaps the best way to come up with words is to look at the whole quad. Each quad is really based on the very same relationships among four items as any other quad. It is the relationships that define the quad, not the words in it. So, if you can find one word in a quad that makes sense, you can base the other three words on those relationships.

For example, a quad of Male, Female, Masculine, Feminine, has exactly the same relationship among the words at Mass, Energy, Space, and Time. This is also the same relationship as Up, Down, Higher, Lower or Knowledge, Thought, Ability, Desire, and Dead, Alive, Getting older, Becoming more youthful.

So, if we look at the quad containing Mind and Psychology, we see that Universe, Mind, Physics, and Psychology have that same relationship in concept: in this case, an external and internal State and Process. That’s really all it means. Just that: Universe, an external state. Mind, and internal state. Physics, and external process. Mind, and internal process.

Armed with this perspective, we can see why Mind would describe which sports we like to watch, while Psychology would describe the path our thoughts and emotions take while watching the game.

Okay, so for those two words, we now have a number of explanations available from which to work. Now, the question is: what better words can be chosen for these two distinct meanings that are more accessible, cover the complete ground of each meaning, do not stray into the other word’s meaning in connotation or denotation, and fit as appropriately with the other two words in the quad (Universe and Physics) while maintaining the foundational quad relationship which must hold true in every quad.

As I mentioned, I’ve personally been unable to come up with more appropriate alternatives, but fresh minds considering the above definitions may find a solution more apparent.

Now, looking at the remaining words suggested as prime candidates for change:

Preconscious and Subconscious.

Preconscious is a filter which prevents sensory information from making its way into the energy patterns of the mind, be they logistic, emotional, or even autonomic. It does not matter where this filter comes from to fit this definition. It might come from built-in brain patterns caused by genetic memory, caused by brain injury or damage, caused by experience at such a low level it doesn’t even effect one’s subconscious drives and desires.

The key point is that even the SUBCONSCIOUS is not affected by the Preconscious in a proactive way. Rather, Conscious, Memory, and Subconscious are equally presented with filtered sensory information so that the Observation we Perceive may not be an accurate representation of the information in which our sensory organs were actually bathed.

In contrast, Subconscious is the mean average of ALL the sensory experiences which actually get into the mind and aren’t stopped cold by the filter. Conscious, Memory, and Subconscious ALL receive sensory information directly, as well as receiving sensory information from each other which has already been processed by one or both of the other two. But none of those three receive ANY information which hasn’t already been filtered by the Preconscious.

What sets the Subconscious apart is that it is not a mental force caused by specific observation, but is more like a field of snow drifts of different breadth, depth, and shape. This field is modeled by the constant drift down of sedimentary thoughts which evaporate out of inactive considerations, forming the storm clouds of memory, which drop a gentle snow fall on the field of the Subconscious.

So, whereas Preconscious would be like sitting in a room with a ticking clock and, after a while, no longer hearing it (habitation), Subconscious would be more like having a gut level reaction to some person, place or thing you had never met, been, or seen before – either to be drawn toward it or repulsed by it.

Preconscious determines of what we will be aware. Subconscious determines which of those things we will pay attention to above others, because of a sense of attraction or repulsion. As simply as I can put it: Preconscious determines what we see, Subconscious determines how well we perceive. Preconscious determine if we hear. Subconscious determines how well we listen.

Before we jump into picking new words, we need to examine one additional attribute of Preconscious: In addition to filtering OUT information, it also filters it IN. This isn’t just a play on words. Rather than limiting the flow of sensory data into the mind due to habitation, the Preconscious additionally represents the force of “sensitization”. Here, sensory input which is too weak or insignificant to make it all the way through the neurology into the mind gets amplified or boosted by the Preconscious, much as telephone signals are boosted on the way from a home or office to the switching station. So, our senses can either limit out information or make us acutely aware of information. The Subconscious, then, will determine how much attention we pay to what is there (based on its interest value as an attractor or repeller) or how much we notice that something is missing (based on our yearnings and fears).

As a last comment, Preconscious should not be confused with Instinct. Instinct causes a built-in response to patterns of observation. When a pattern is recognized, it triggers mental activity which can lead to action. In contrast, the Preconscious determines how we will respond to sensory stimulation before the mind gets hold of the information. It is well known that sensory signals generated by touching a hot grill may cause the hand to pull back before the nerve signal has time to be processed by the brain. This is not Instinct, but Preconscious.

In effect, there are direct routes from sensory input to physical response. In addition, there are direct routes from physical conditions to emotional response. Parts of the brain such as the hypothalamus and pituitary secrete chemicals that flavor and even cause emotional conditions. These can be affected by such things as exercise and the types of foods recently eaten (as well as by medications). Preconscious encompasses this kind of impact as well.

Again, we must look at the whole quad to determine if our new words work in the essential relationships among all four items that define the quad in the first place. This quad has Memory, Conscious, Preconscious, and Subconscious in the same positions as Mass, Energy, Space, and Time, and Dead, Alive, Growing older, Getting younger, as well as all the other examples listed above. The new words must also fit.

Finally, my most hated of words in the whole chart: Conceiving and Conceptualizing

Simply put, Conceiving is the process of determining what is needed. Conceptualizing is determining how to fill that need. Now that is a really warped view, but it is simple. For example, Conceiving would be looking at all the things that might lower the night-time crime rate in a third world city to find the best thing to do the job. Conceptualizing would be visualizing how to build an electric light.

Conceiving takes time because it requires the consideration of a number of alternatives: a bigger police force, turning vicious dogs loose at dusk, more severe punishments for night-time criminals, arming the populace, etc. Each time a new item comes to mind, Conceiving concludes.

So, some stories might be about the mental work of trying to arrive at just one idea, while the course of the story is filled with frustration until that happens. But another story might show a series of efforts of conceiving, each of which is shown not to be satisfactory, so the process begins again. In the example above, the story would not end until someone conceived of using artificial lighting of some sort, rather than dogs or vigilantes.

In that story, no one spends time figuring out how to actually PAY for more police, how to keep the dogs from attacking innocent people who were visiting sick relatives, how to know which members of the population should receive guns since the criminals would receive them as well if the whole population got them, OR how to build an electric light bulb. All of THOSE ideas require Conceptualizing, rather than Conceiving.

But to say, as I did, that this was just about figuring out what was needed (Conceiving) and what would fill that need (Conceptualizing) is seriously misleading, if not absolutely wrong.

Conceiving and Conceptualizing also apply to internal issues, and even emotions. And, they don’t have to be about a lack, but can be about an over abundance. AND, they don’t have to be about something that is a problem, but can be about something that is good. AND they don’t have to be about changing anything, but can be about fully appreciating or experiencing something.

So, a person who sits for hours at a computer answering email might engage in Conceiving by looking for the aspect of that activity which most attracts her. She also might Conceptualize some other more healthy activity which would bring the same pleasure. Or, she might Conceptualize a way to make email answering revolve around the most joyous aspect even more. (Clearly, this example is fiction!)

In truth, Conceiving and Conceptualizing do not require each other. One might be a cave man who conceives of the need for artificial lighting, but will never Conceptualize an electric light bulb or any other means because the pre-requisites simply don’t yet exist.

Similarly, one might conceptualize an electric light bulb without having any idea to what use it might be put. That is the “D” in “R & D”. Development in the hope that once something is actually created, a use for it will be found.

Again looking at the quad, Conceptualizing, Conceiving, Being, and Becoming have the same relationship at Mass, Energy, Space, and Time. They don’t feel like it though, do they? That is because we are in the Psychology Class, and that class is the one of the four in the quad of Classes that is at the “end of the trail”. Just like, Dead, Alive, Growing older, and Becoming Younger, the last one, “Becoming Younger,” is the least accessible to simple understanding.

So, the Psychology Class is the hardest to see in a logical mode. But, since Conceiving and Conceptualizing are down at the Type level, they are already two levels into the area in which logic works least well. That means that these areas are really best understood in terms of emotion. I don’t mean words describing emotion, but in terms of actually FEELING the meaning, rather than THINKING the meaning.

But, we can’t put feelings directly in the chart. So, when we go even one more level down in the Psychology Class, we get even farther away from the experiential aspect. For example, the Variations Rationalization, Obligation, Commitment, and Responsibility are all understandable as things we see in others, but they are SUPPOSED to describe how those things feel to US.

What do YOU FEEL when you have a sense of Obligation – a sense so strong that even though all your logic and common sense tell you to chuck it all, you still stick around? This is one reason people stay in awful marriages even though they are quite aware of all the awful things they endure. There is that gut-level twang of Obligation, or Responsibility, or a truly motivational, adrenaline-rush sense of commitment, or that strange little force of Rationalization which allows you to lie to yourself about your real reasons for doing something, yet buy it hook line and sinker until you absolutely believe it as if it were the gospel.

So, jumping back up to Conceiving and Conceptualizing, the new words must not only capture the definitive meanings but also the much more important emotional feel of what is going on.

Finally, we must note that although every quad illustrates the same relationships among four items, there is a reason why each quad uses four different words. The entire structure is based on the upper left item in the topmost quad that we call “Universe”. That is the Knowledge position in the quad, which is why we call the structure a K-based system. That is also why we say that the whole structure is biased toward K. In our society, we read from upper left to lower right, which makes that Universe position the most powerful.

But more than that, whatever we chose to be the upper left item would set the tone or bias for the approach by which the other semantic terms need to be chosen. This means that the quad is not only about relationships, but that each of the items in the quad, even before it is named, has some intrinsic value.

For example, if we picked four math functions: addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, each has a meaning in and of itself. Now suppose we put these functions in a quad – not the names like “addition”, but the actual functions themselves.

The FUNCTION of addition might go in the upper left of a K-based quad, and then following the same pattern as all our previous examples the subtraction, multiplication, and division functions would follow. We still haven’t named them, just made their functions operate in each of the four spaces in the quad.

So, each has an identity without a name. Now, if we create a second quad under the addition function and give that quad the very same four functions something interesting happens. If we want to look at that quad, we have to go through addition first. In other words, we would have to perform the addition function before we could get to the subtraction below it, or any of the others in the second level quad. We are applying one operation on top of another. Clearly, the order in which these functions are played out will change the result of the equation we are creating. This means that we cannot consider the second level equations except in the context of the operation which was already performed to get there.

The result of all this is that if we wanted to name each item in the second level quad under “addition” in the top quad, the names would have to be different than those under “division” in the top quad, even though the same four functions are at work.

This creates a fractal nesting to the whole structure. And, with any fractal structure one can see repetitive patterns. So, when we compare the second level word, “Past” to its parent “function”, Universe, this has the exact same relationship as the second level word, “Memory” compared to ITS parent function, Mind.

Therefore, when we come up with new words, they must not only match the definition of the function and maintain its relationship with the other three items in its quad, but must ALSO maintain an analogous relationship with any parents above it and any children below it COMPARED TO all other items and their parents and their children.

That’s why the structure took so long to create. You start from K and work your way down to the elements and maintain identities, intra-quad relationships, inter-quad relationships, and analagous fractal relationships.

So, in conclusion, I absolutely agree that some of the words in the chart are difficult to access. Absolutely we must find better alternatives. But since we aren’t just talking words here, but semantic representations of mathematical relationships and functions, it is important to be sure accuracy is not lost in the quest for accessibility.

The only reason the Dramatica chart and Story Engine work at all is because the algorithms which created them are accurate and mathematically precise. The most accurate appreciation of it would be to simply understand the structure without any words at all. But, since that is virtually inaccessible to most, the next best thing is to assign words to each of the functions that intuitively describe their identities and illustrate their relationships. It is almost as if distance between terms in the model holds meaning, and if one pre-supposes a meaning, one could know precisely where to chart it on the model.

Let us move forward, then, with all haste to replace obscure words, but let us also move forward with utmost caution to ensure that accuracy is maintained. For if the words chosen to not accurately fulfill all of the precise identities and relationships they are intended to represent, then the model they create as semantics will no longer function accurately to hold and predict meaning. The Story Engine will keep working according to its programming and the chart will still be nested, but the meaning of the chart and the semantic output of the engine will start missing the mark as being intuitive. The Dramatica effect will be diluted, and the power, usefulness, and magic of the theory and software will be reduced.

By all means, we MUST make things more accessible, but I firmly believe we do writers a better service by providing slightly obscure absolute accuracy than by providing slightly accurate absolute understanding. With an accurate model, a certain amount of learning can ultimately provide complete understanding, but with an inaccurate model, the more one learns, the more obscure it becomes.

If you’ve read this far, congratulations on your tenacity: you are now ready to consider all the variables you’ll need to juggle in the process to suggest alternative semantics.

As co-creator of the Dramatica theory, I’d like to clarify a few things about Dramatica’s “new language” of story. First of all, Dramatica asks you questions like: “By the end of your story, has your Main Character CHANGED or REMAINED STEADFAST?” This is something an author ought to know. Some stories are about characters who become essentially different people by the time their journey is over, like Scrooge, or Luke Skywalker, who has learned to trust in the force and in himself. Other stories explore characters who stick with their guns against all odds, like Dr. Richard Kimble in “The Fugitive”, Anthony Hopkins in “Remains of the Day”, or James Bond (in almost all of the films). Determining which kind of character you want to end up with when all is said and done is essential to fashioning a story that brings them to that point.

The “old language” of story often has it that a character must CHANGE in order to grow. Not true. As a well-known example, look at Job in the Bible story. Job NEVER changes his mind about keeping his faith in (and refusing to renounce) God. He is absolutely STEADFAST to the end. But does he grow? Of course! He grows in his RESOLVE.

That is the nature of obstacles that a Main Character faces in a story. They cannot tell if the obstacles are indications they are on the wrong path, or just hurdles that they must overcome on the best path available. By separating Change/Steadfast from the concept of “growth”, Dramatica helps an author clarify what they want to achieve with their audience.

Dramatica then deals with growth. It asks, “Does your Main Character need to grow by STARTING something, or STOPPING something. Start means adding a new trait they lack, Stop means dropping an old trait they must outgrow. Another way of looking at this question is to ask, “Does my Main Character need to grow INTO something or OUT of something? Do they have a chip on their shoulder, or a hole in their heart? Are their problems caused by what they DO or what they FAIL to do?” You get the idea. And if you answer this question, both you AND the Dramatica software will know more about your story.

But there are other kinds of questions as well. Dramatica will ask you, “What is the principal Concern of your story?” Unlike other systems, this is not a “fill in the blank” question that leaves you without guidance. Dramatica provides a palette of alternatives to choose from. You might select “Obtaining” as the principal Concern, or “Becoming”. Clearly a story about “Obtaining” something is a whole different animal than one about “Becoming” something.

Of course, these aren’t the words you would use to pitch your idea to a producer, and in fact, these words might not directly show up in your story at all. But their meaning will. For example, you are doing a story about the first woman president. If your Concern was “Obtaining”, it might be about trying to win the presidency. If your Concern was “Becoming”, it might be about a woman who has already won the office, trying to grow to become “presidential” in her handling of the office. Not the same thing at all. And by making these sometimes difficult choices, you come to know your story so much the better.

Because these choices all revolve around a central “Argument” in a sense (which simply means they have to be consistent with one another to support some overall meaning), Dramatica can actually “predict” what some of the remaining choices “ought” to be, when the author has already made a number of choices themselves. This really helps keep you from missing important dramatic statements that are essential to the purpose of your story.

But what about taking all this information and creating a story-line out of it? Well, the Dramatica theory recognizes that slap in the face FOLLOWED by a scream does not have the same dramatic meaning as a scream FOLLOWED by a slap in the face. The order in which events occur, changes their context, and therefore their meaning. One of Dramatica’s greatest strengths is that it can take an author’s answers to questions like those above, and then put dramatic elements in a throughline order that would support the author’s choices. What happens in Act Two? Dramatica can tell you. Not by writing your story for you, but buy lining out a progress in terms like those above. For example, a Main Character’s growth throughline might read, “In Act One, your Main Character will be primarily concerned with ‘learning’, in Act Two with ‘understanding’, in Act Three with ‘obtaining’”, and so on. In other words, based on your choices, Dramatica will suggest the order of a story’s progression.

I hope this short article helps explain why Dramatica uses a “new language” of story, and why the “old language” is not always up to the task.

In a recent message I described how the Dramatica structure gets “twisted up” like a Rubik’s cube to throw the Variations out of alignment in a way that represents how a human mind develops a warped view of reality based on observation/experience. Because the Variations represent progressive thematic topics of discussion in a story, one can take any quad of Variations and number the four items in the order in which they are explored. When this is marked directly on the quad, a line can be drawn “dot to dot” style, from the first Variation to the second, third, and then fourth. Often the pattern created by this line is a “Z” shape. When we first discovered this common pattern during the development of the theory we called it the “Z Pattern.”

Because the Z pattern represents a Western Cultural favorite order of exploration for Variations, we found it first, but there are others. In fact, the pattern might appear as a backward Z or as a sideways Z which is an N or backward N. Also, the pattern does not really indicate whether the number “1” Variation is at the top or the bottom of the Z. Actually, the order might move from top to bottom or vice versa.

The order of the Variations determines the emotional impact of the thematic message, and therefore must be appropriate to the overall message and emotional intent of the story as a whole.

Z and N patterns are not the only kind. A more cyclic pattern is the C, backward C, U or backward U. At first, we didn’t understand how or why these patterns were created. In those days, we were looking at the structure as being “fixed” in place, and the progressions in a story as being “plotted” on the structure as sequential patterns. But what actually created the patterns? We didn’t have a clue.

Then one day, I was taking my kids on an outing to the Los Angeles museum of Science in the mathematics section. There was a display that had twenty-one magnets mounted in a row on a long board, spinning freely on nails like compass hands, their poles nearly touching. When you turned one slowly at one end, the one next to it would turn in response to the magnetic force of the poles. If you turned slowly enough, you could move all 21 magnets at once, and get the first one to ultimately rotate the last.

Suddenly it hit me. The structure was not static or fixed, but in fact like a Rubik’s cube. When you look at the twisting of a Rubik’s cube from one side, it looks like a rotation, but from 90 degrees to the side it appears as a “flip.”

The Sturcture represents the human mind. When we feel pain (or any inequity) it irritates an item in a quad. The quad then “flips” so that Logic (for example) exchanges places with Feeling in our sample quad, exchanging “pole” positions, just like the magnets. This effect in the Dramatica model starts in an Element quad and ripples up to the Classes. In fact, by the time you flip the Classes, you are exchanging the positions of an external Class with an internal Class. This is reflective of the mind’s twisting in which it projects a truly internal problem as being external or vice versa.

We thought this solved our pattern problem, and it did for Z patterns, but in fact flips are only half of what goes on – the spatial or linear half. There is also a temporal or progressive kind of shift in the quad as well. This “rotational” shift is like turning a dial as you turn the quad to the right or left one “notch” (90 degrees). When the mind tries to get rid of an irritation by “projecting” it, flipping describes the technique. When the mind tries to get rid of an irritation of shuffling it around in a sequence, rotations do the job. Persistent problems are dealt with by a series of flips and rotates until both effects have rippled all the way to the top. At this point, the mind is so twisted up that it creates a blind spot and can no longer see the original problem for what it is. This is the process by which all our givens, our beliefs, “knowledge,” and prejudices are created.

Of all the levels of the structure, the Variations are the most topic oriented, and therefore the patterns are easier to see in the Variation quads as opposed to the Elements, Types, or Classes. In fact, you can find the Variation sequence showing up in dialog, sometimes even using the exact words! And, you can track the words across several quads (illustrating how all of the Elements, Variations, etc. eventually show up somewhere in every story.)

The Dramatica Story Engine uses a series of flips and rotates to wind up the dramatic tension of your storyform in the one sequence which supports the dramatic intent you have indicated by the answers to your questions. So, when you make choices based on what you want your story to mean and how you want it to feel, the Story Engine will generate a sequence which is available through the Plot Sequence report.

Please keep in mind that this sequence is the same thing we all do subconsciously as authors when we shift our topics from one subject to another in a story. It is not intended as a replacement for that or a “cut in stone” map that you have to follow. Rather, use your instincts first, but if they fail or are unsure, then use the report as a guideline to get you on the right path.