How does the construction of scenes relate to Dramatica’s story elements?

The concept is that a complete “scene” in structural terms is a “complete dramatic movement.” In other words, there must be a Potential, Resistance, Current, and Outcome (or Power) regarding a single issue to complete a scene.

In this way, we might think of each scene as a single dramatic “circuit.” Although it has “flow” a circuit is really seen as a unit, comprised of these four parts. Therefore, we do not necessarily have to start by setting up a Potential and then introducing a Resistance. Rather, we might start with a Resistance ( a brick wall, for example) and then introduce the Potential (a herd of galloping wild horses.)

The order in which these elements of a scene need to be introduced is not merely storytelling. In fact, there is a specific structural order to it which is determined by the meaning or impact you wish to instill in your audience. This can be understood by realizing that if we take two events from a scene, say a slap and a scream, then we find that a slap followed by a scream has a completely different meaning than a scream followed by a slap. In the first case (depending upon context) it might mean a slap was struck in anger leading to a scream in response from the pain or emotional hurt. But, a scream might begin the scene, indicating perhaps hysteria, in which case the slap would THEN be applied out of concern or “tough love” to bring the person to his or her senses,

The Dramatica Story Engine actually predicts the order (1,2,3,4) and nature (P,R,C,O) of every element in every quad in the entire structure, based on the impact you have indicated by making storyform choices. But, the data is so extensive that it takes several hundred pages to print it all out.

We determined that this flood of information would drown authors in a sea of numbers, far away from the intuitive sense of writing. And, what’s more, it is SO specific that we thought it might lead to “writing by the numbers.” The biggest tragedy would be that the audience is not really concerned with that degree of detail so much, and really tends to “give” that to the author, even if it is out of order, as long as all the pieces are there somewhere. So, why worry about being that accurate when it has so little importance in the grand scheme of things?

As a result, this information, though generated by the engine in every storyform, has no means of extraction from the software at this time.

One more bit of information, the “spiral” nature of the structure (recently described with insight by Armando) is such that the Type (Plot) level of the structure determines the dramatic circuits of ACTS, the Variation (Theme) level determines the dramatic circuits of SEQUENCES, the Element (Character) level determines the dramatic circuits from one SCENE to the next, and the spiral effect takes us back to the top Class (Genre) level which determines the dramatic circuits of the EVENTS within each Scene.

So, each Event in a Scene will have a 1,2,3,4 for sequential order, a P,R,C,O, for context, and be a Situation (Universe), Attitude (Mind), Activity (Physics), and Mentality (Psychology).

In other words, the four required Events for every complete dramatic movement at the Scene level will be something Situational, Attitude illustrative, Active, and exhibiting Mentality.

Structural Scenes illustrate these four Events in terms of Character, Plot, Theme, and Genre (no direct correlation here.) Storytelling Scenes illustrate these four Events in terms of audience impact (impacting the audience’s sense of their own Situation, affecting their Attitude, involving them in a vicarious Activity, or exploring the way their minds run by illuminating the Mentality.

Both Structural and Storytelling Scenes can be presented in Active or Passive fashion. Passive Scenes illustrate these Events in the Story or Audience. Active Scenes put them into motion, moving the story forward or invoking changes in the nature of the audience itself.

Here’s some info on the arrangements of Elements and Variations. The name, “Elements” gives a clue that it is referring to the basic “particles” of the drama. Therefore, Elements can be said to be an appreciation of a story when it is seen “spatially” (in terms of the arrangement of dramatic items).

“Variations,” on the other hand, give a clue in their name that they “vary,” and are therefore more “temporal” appreciations, that depend on how things evolve over time.

The arrangements of both Elements and Variations change from Storyform to Storyform, but for different reasons:

Elements…

If you look at the entire Dramatica Structural Chart (the periodic table of story elements) you will see that it is divided into four separate classes, Universe, Mind, Physics, and Psychology. Each class is the name of the largest square at the top, but also refers to the entire “tower” of sub-items below it, including Types, Variations, and Elements.

The Types and Variations have different names from Class to Class, but the Elements at the bottom of each Class have the same names – in other words, the same 64 Elements appear at the bottom, most detailed level of each Class. This is because each of the four Classes is really trying to see (or get to) the most detailed understanding of the story’s problem. As a result, each Class ends up coming to the same Elemental pieces in trying to put the puzzle together.

But, each of the four Classes really represents a different “take” on the problem. Universe and Physics look to the external world for the problem (and solution). Mind and Psychology look to the internal world. Universe and Mind are fixed states (arrangements) where the problem might lay. Physics and Mind are processes (progressions) where the problem might lay. So, among the four Classes, we are trying to locate the story’s problem in terms of being an external or internal state or process.

If you stop to think about it, there is not a problem that cannot be classified as either an external or internal state or process. So, each class is a different take on the problem. As a result, there is a built-in bias to each Class. Therefore, though they all end up zeroing in on the same Elements, the ARRANGEMENT of the Elements varies from Class to Class, representing the “warped” view of the issues from each bias.

Characters are built from the Class which is selected as the Objective Story Domain. So, depending upon which Class you (or Dramatica) select, the arrangement of Elements will vary appropriately.

(Keep in mind that there is no “normal” unbiased Class among the four. Each is like a different side of an aquarium looking at a stick poking into the water at an angle. From each side, the warping of the refraction will cause the stick to appear more or less angled, and perhaps at a different direction. Only by comparing all four views together can one determine whether the stick is truly bent or straight. So, the actual problem at the heart of the story can never be found in a single Class, but rather somewhere in the middle, outside but touched on by them all. (“The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.”)

Variations….

As for Variations, it works quite differently, seeing as how Variations are more progressive appreciations.

When you make choices in Dramatica about the 12 Essential Questions (Character, Plot, and Theme items, four each) you are really priming the Story Engine to run. What the Story Engine does is twist and turn the entire Dramatica structural model like a grandiose Rubik’s Cube. This represents the way the Story Mind is altered over time by experience – the process of mental “justification.”

The first four essential questions give a value or direction to the Knowledge, Thought, Ability, and Desire) of the Story Mind – the most basic components of self-awareness. The second four questions give a value (or direction) to Mass, Energy, Space, and Time the most basic components of the Story Mind’s environment. The last four questions determine in which realms the two forces, Consciousness and Environment, come into friction.

In a sense, the first four questions determine where you are looking from. The second four questions determine what you are looking at. The last four questions determine the perspective created between the two.

Armed with this information, the Story Engine twists and rotates the components of the periodic table of story elements, throwing them out of alignment with one another in a manner that represents the disparity between the Story Mind and its environment. Some of the principal items that might be dislodged from their normal positions are the Variations, which are fragile appreciations, easily shifted by justification.

So, when you create a Storyform, you may be applying mental perspectives to the Story Mind that shift Variations out of their own Class, just as a human being may “project” a personal problem onto a friend or onto the environment, rather than admit it resides within.

Most of the Dramatica Tips of the Week are very practical and immediately useful. But every once in a while, someone asks a “theory-oriented” question that requires a completely impractical answer.

Today someone wondered:

Why do the Elements at the bottom of each Class in the Dramatica Structure have the same names, but fall in different arrangements?

The answer to this gets into the heavy-duty theory at the heart of the patented Story Engine that drives the Dramatica software. Unless you just love to curl up with a good book by Einstein or Stephen Hawking, just delete this particular tip now – don’t torture yourself!

Rest assured, the very next tip will be completely practical and useful right out of the box, no assembly required! But in deference to those who believe, The Truth is Out There, and will risk even their sanity to uncover it, here is the answer to the question….

First, a quick “non-math” answer in conversational terms:

The Elements are the same names in each Class because they represent the basic truths in the story. They are in different arrangements because each Class looks at them in a different way.

A FAR longer, more complete, but still “non-math” answer:

Just like those “blue blocker” sunglasses or “seeing the world through rose-colored glasses,” looking at the Dramatica structure ( storymind.com/mental_relativity/model.htm ) we can think of each “Class” as a different filter on our world. The four classes filter things such as External or Internal States and Processes. The physics filter, for example, is an External Process and lets through more activities and tends to block out or de-emphasize situations, attitudes, and mental activities.

The next level down adds a second filter to the “pack”. In fact, that Type level shows what that already once-filtered “truth” looks like through each of the same four original filters, giving us Understanding, Learning, Doing and Obtaining, each also representing an External or Internal state or process.

But, by looking through two filters instead of one, we have not only blocked out more of the original “light of Truth” but we have also added some distortion because of the greater “thickness” between us and Truth. Ultimately, it is this progressive distortion that shifts the Elements from Class to Class.

The distortion can be seen in the different arrangement of External, Internal, State, and Process from level to level in the structure.

Here’s how that arrangement has changed:

At the top “Class” level, the upper left hand corner is Universe (External State), diagonally is Mind (Internal State), Upper right is Physics (External Process) and diagonally in the lower left is Psychology (Internal Process). So, the two External “filters” (Universe and Physics – state and process) are a the top of the chart, horizontal to each other.

Now, at the next level down in Physics, Obtaining and Doing are the External state and process, but they have moved to a Diagonal relationship instead of horizontal like Universe and Physics.

The next level down – the Variations (under Obtaining, for example) has Approach, Attitude, Morality, and Self-Interest – the results of what each of the four filters does if added to the “pack” already containing Physics and Obtaining. Here, Approach and Morality are focuses on the impact on others (External) and Self-Interest and Attitude are focused on the self (Internal) But, the distortion has now shifted the External pair again, so rather than being horizontal in the chart as in the Classes, or diagonal as in the Types, they have now become a vertical relationship in the Variations.

Now, the Elements represent the basic components of the Truth. That’s why the Element names are the same in each of the four Classes. The idea is, that no matter how you are trying to come to the Truth, it is ultimately the same Truth – only the path is different. But to get down to those components, we have to have FOUR filters in our pack. In effect, although we are approaching the same Truth, the path we have taken will have given use different experiences, and therefore clouded our appreciation of the Truth once we achieve it. This is represented by the distortion.

But we have already seen the Truth distort from horizontal to diagonal to vertical. What’s left? A complete breakdown of some of the basic connections underlying our understanding. There are so many filters, the “crystal grows dark” and our ability to find meaning loses resolution. We can see as far as Pairs of Elements, but we can’t see the Elements as individual components.

Under Morality, for example, we have the Elements Faith, Disbelief, Conscience, and Temptation. Which is more External; which more Internal? Which is more or a State or more of a Process? Individually, they seem equally comprised of aspects of External, Internal, State, and Process. For example, Faith is IN something External, but DRIVEN by an Internal commitment. It is the State of “having Faith” but also the Process of “believing.”

But when we break it all down into pairs, we have better luck in finding External and Internal. Faith and Disbelief, as a pair, seem very much to come from inside and be how we feel about things outside, so they “feel” Internal.

Conscience and Temptation “feel” like forces outside ourselves which act upon us. This is why characters are often portrayed with a little Angel and a little Devil on their shoulders – it externalizes the pair.

All this is a result of the lost of “resolution” because we have added so many layers of filters. The distortion has to be mentally swept under the carpet, because having exhausted horizontal, diagonal, and vertical, we’re fresh out of places to stash it. So, our human minds assigned that left over distortion at the Element level to the Class as a whole. Therefore, in keeping with our mental method, the Dramatica Structural Model has a different way of arranging the pairs in each of the four Classes, each representing one of the four different kinds of left over distortion.

How does this left-over distortion actually shift the Element Pairs? Well, it is a complex pattern which is not unlike the spiral pattern of DNA. But to get a “taste” of it, look at the position of the two paired Elements “Knowledge” and “Thought” in each Class. You will find them in the upper left-hand corner of the Elements. You will note that they stay in exactly the same position in each of the four classes – there is no shift for distortion. They form the “anchor” from which the degree of distortion is measured by the human mind. All Truth is measured against Knowledge and Thought (disclaimer on this later!).

There are three other pairs, each of which forms a different anchor or each of the four filters in each Class. They are Proven/Unproven, Considerations/Reconsideration, and Certainty/Potentiality. These four pairs of Elements hold the same positions in all four Classes. Why? Really they should shift, but if they did, there would no baseline from which our minds could measure anything about Truth.

A quick example of this. Do you remember as a kid, lying down in the back seat of your parent’s car and seeing a truck moving backward through the window? Do you recall how for a moment you couldn’t be sure if you were going forward or the truck was going backward? That happened because you had no frame of reference, no measuring stick. You had to look outside and see a tree or get up and see the road to determine who was moving and who was not.

Similarly, if all our distortions – all our filters – are seen as moving, how can we find solid mental ground? Wouldn’t it be nice if we could just see the Truth directly, and not have to bother with filters at all? But, to wax poetic, “The Tao that can be spoken is NOT the Eternal Tao” and “One cannot look into the face of God.” and “You can’t handle the Truth!”

Simply put, we aren’t omniscient. We are not equipped to see the whole Truth directly, but must seek to learn more about it by glimpsing a part of it, and then assembling the pieces to try and grasp the whole. But, like the carpet which curls up on one corner when we try to nail down another, one of the four filters is always slipping out of alignment when we try to measure the others. So, we sweep that distortion under the curling carpet and stand on that corner to hold it in place while we watch the others curl. In this way, we feel we at least have one solid anchor from which to judge the Truth.

It is interesting that pattern is virtually the same as the double-helix of DNA (only it is actually a quad-helix, rather than double!) Oops – sorry, I promised no math! Strike that last comment from the record and I’ll get back to basics….

Okay… The Dramatica model picks External State as the anchor for the structure, and the External Process as the anchor for the shift in distortion. It could be any combination of the four filters in any other arrangement, but once you pick an arrangement, it has to be used as the anchor EVERYWHERE in the model, in the theory, in the software. If you shift to another, then you lose your consistent measuring stick.

To understand the External State requires Knowledge and to understand the External Process requires Thought, throwing such things as feelings into the non-measuring-stick category. This, of course, is a bias that favors certain American cultural expectations. And in fact, that is why we chose this arrangement out of those available. After all, we are explaining the theory and marketing the software initially to our own culture. It made sense then to build the first of the systems to favor the standard locally preferred. It doesn’t mean it can’t be used by any other culture. It simply means that it presents a certain way of looking at things that is rather typically American. Writers from other cultures can easily “translate” that perspective.

It is my hope that some day we will be able to (we will live long enough!) to create all the other versions. But that is going to take as many years as the current system, and we’re all getting tired!

In any event, the pairs of Elements are shifted through horizontal, diagonal, and vertical arrangements from one Class to the next. This is the Structural part, driven by the External State, the anchor for Truth. But the anchor for this distortion is in Physics, the External process anchor for Distortion.

To see this in action, go to the Elements in the Physics Class. Take any group of 16, like those under the Type of Understanding, for example. Now, look at the pair of Elements, Knowledge and Thought. In Physics, that pair is matched with Ability and Desire. Knowledge, Thought, Ability, and Desire is the most “undistorted” quad of Elements in the entire model. It is the Internal equivalent of Universe, Mind, Physics, and Psychology.

Look at the pair of Elements with which Knowledge and Thought are matched in each of the other four Classes. In Mind it is Actuality and Perception. In Psychology is it Inertia and Change. In Universe it is Order and Chaos.

Now going back to the Physics Class, you can see that each of the other three pairs with which Knowledge and Thought are matched come from the horizontal, diagonal, and vertical quads of Elements, in relationship to where Knowledge and Thought are.

Of course there is all manner of math behind this, but suffice it to say that this pattern is repeated with consistent distortion throughout the structure.

The end result is that when you choose one Class as the Objective Story Domain, you are also selecting the Elements at the bottom of that Class as the building blocks of the Objective Characters. The Elements will be the same, because they represent the same ultimate Truth, but because of the distortion, they will be arranged in a different pattern that at least keeps the distortion consistent from place to place.

In this way, character relationships will illuminate an aspect of smaller truth that will seamlessly fit into the overall larger Truth stitched together in the Big Picture of the overall story.

  A Writer comments:

So as I see it, Dynamic Diagonal characteristics conflict with one another, Companion Horizontal characteristics amplify one another, and Dependent Vertical characteristics contrast one another

My Reply:Actually, those terms are not quite accurate. When I developed that part of the theory, we only had limited screen space in the software. So, I had to come up with a REALLY terse description of these relationships to fit in the window.

I’ve never been quite pleased with them, so here is the more accurate but drawn out explanation of the pair relationships:

There are two of each kind of pair in each quad: two diagonal (Dynamic), two horizontal (Companion), and two vertical (Dependent).

For each set of two, one will be seen in your story as a POSITIVE relationship and the other as NEGATIVE.

A Positive Dynamic relationship is like “the loyal opposition” where two opposing forces butt heads, but create sparks that literally “spark” a better alternative than either would have developed on his or her own.

A Negative Dynamic relationship is where two opposing forces butt heads until each is destroyed and nothing is accomplished.

A Positive Companion relationship is like shoveling snow from your walk. But your neighbors walk and yours join in a “Y” to the street, so when you shovel off yours, you are incidentally shoveling off his as well.

A Negative Companion relationship is again like shoveling snow. But THIS time your walk and your neighbors are positioned so that when you shovel off yours you have to shovel onto his! You don’t do it intentionally – in fact you may not even be aware, but your efforts have negative fallout on him.

A Positive Dependent relationship is when two forces work together and are greater than the sum of their parts, like brain working in conjunction with brawn.

A Negative Dependent relationship is when one person feels “I am nothing without my other half.”

You will note that Conflict, Amplify, and Contrast are not really quite accurate, though similar to the real meaning. And, of course, the software makes no mention of one relationship being positive and the other negative.

In writing your stories, however, if you see one of the two pairs of a particular kind, such as Dynamic, as being the “destroy each other” variety, then the characters representing the other Dynamic pair will act in the “loyal opposition” manner, and new, better things will grow out of THEIR conflict. A handy tip!

In addition, there is a useful trick you can use with character quads from a subjective point of view. An example:

Suppose you have a little brother who thinks of his big brother as “my pal.” Well he is seeing his big brother as a Positive Companion. But, the big brother might see the little brother as an annoying little puppy, following him around everywhere – a Negative Dependent.

If you “plot” these two relationships on a quad, you end up with the Negative Dependent and the Positive Companion meeting in one corner. The “dramatic distance” between them is indicated by the open end where they do not meet.

If you draw a line from one open end to the other, you get a diagonal, or Dynamic relationship. Because one sees the relationship as positive and the other as negative, positive times negative = negative, so a Negative Dynamic relationship is created.

In other words, the situation described above will quickly degenerate into a relationship in which both sides try to destroy the other. Simple math that describe complex relationships in real life. In fact, try this at home on friends and loved ones. You be amazed at how well it works, especially if you pick a particular quad of elements and chart how each of you feel about the other’s position on those issues. In fact, you can go quad by quad through the Elements, Variations, Types, and Classes, and chart just about every aspect of your relationship to anyone else and the exact areas and kinds of positive and negative energy between you!

Finally, in regard to Co-dependent relationships, please note that the relationships so far described by the three kinds of pairings have dealt with either the objective view when creating characters ( in which the relationship is the same for both characters) or the subjective view when dealing with individuals (in which the relationship MUST be seen as different between the two people).

Determining whether the relationship will be seen as Objective or Subjective is a neat trick, but necessary to properly using pairs. This is actually accomplished by another kind of “pair” relationship altogether.

If we look at a quad, there is one more kind of relationship among the items which we can measure – are the four items all seen as being separate (independent) or as a single collective (co-dependent). This would “plot” on a quad as either four dots, one in each item for independent, or as a square within the quad that connects all four dots for co-dependent.

For an example, take the term “United States.” Okay, which is it, United or States? If they are States, they are independent. If they are United, they are co-dependent. If they are co-dependent they see things the same way. If they are independent, they don’t.

So, with our two brothers, the negative Dynamic they experience is only as long as they are being independent (even a companion can be independent because he looks at his relationship to another, not as being part of something bigger.) But, if a bully threatens the little brother, suddenly they see themselves as family (co-dependent) and as a result their relationship turns positive. (That’s why the United States works best when it has a common enemy!)

Now, the neat trick is that for the first three pairs, one kind is ALWAYS positive and the other ALWAYS negative, by definition. But with the independent and co-dependent, there is no fixed value except that one will be positive and the other negative.

So, if the family is seen as a positive thing, then the relationship will turn positive when threatened from outside. But if it is seen as a negative thing, then the relationship will worsen and perhaps completely break apart to independent when threatened from the outside.

This explains why some marriages hold together through turbulent times and others don’t. One might ask what would have happened during the American Civil War if both sides had been attacked by a common enemy. Interesting rhetorical question.

In stories, then, it is your storytelling decision about that fourth kind of pair relationship – which will be seen as positive or negative, that will determine the structural relationship of the overall quad.

(And for you math buffs, it is this aspect of the quad that moves imaginary numbers into the real number plane so that under certain conditions a positive times a positive = a negative, and under others a negative times a positive = a positive.)

Recently this question came my way:

So my question is how come this (from the Author’s perspective) is the first set wherein the Archetypes don’t fit in with the Dramatica rules. Specifically I am referring to the Sidekick, Skeptic, Guardian, and Antagonist’s Purposes. They all have ratings and judgments in the same quad! (Ability and Knowledge, Order and Equity, etc.) Does this mean that when using these Archetypal Purposes they will feel weaker or that they internally contradict one another? I think I remember from the online book (v.3) that when elements from the same quad are used in the same character that it kind of narrows what you can do as an author and creates a sort of internal conflict within the character.

Here is a brief response:

To answer your question, first take a look at the Dramatica structural chart. You’ll notice that the good ol’ original eight Archetypes work fine in Universe, Physics, and Psychology, but not in Mind. If you try to create them in Mind, the Elements of, say, the Protagonist (Pursuit and Consider) are in the same quad!

Why? Because the structure has a built-in bias. Simply put, when you look at anything, you aren’t looking at what’s behind you. Another way, when you look around yourself, you never see what is right under your feet. Instead, you have to synthesize that view based on the information you DO see.

This means there would be no way to see the Dramatica structure at all, unless we adopt a point of view. And, as soon as we have a point of view, we can see one part clearly and another part gets wanky.

But, the “wankiness” is consistent, so that the Story Engine can be accurate.

Now, when seen from this perspective, Motivations are the most clearly seen dimension of character. So, the 8 original Archetypes work in three out of four Classes. And, if seen as Motivation characters, then you can see their Evaluations, Methods, and Purposes. But if you shift your point of view of the characters and see them as Evaluation characters (rather than Motivation character who have Evaluations) the patterns fall apart. The patterns are equally wanky with Methods, but when you get all the way across the lake to Purposes (the farther thing from Motivations) then the patterns go completely haywire.

Still, looking at those other perspectives of Archetypes is a much better way to describe many of the stories that are told. To truly tailor Dramatica the software to accommodate that part of the theory, you would need to create four DIFFERENT arrangements of the structure that favored each of the four perspectives. We’ve talked about that, but it is a mammoth task and will require some time to get it right.

In the meantime, you may note that Dramatica’s “rule” about Elements is that characters should “never” contain dynamically opposite Elements (those that are diagonal on the chart). This is never violated by any of the new Archetypes nor the original 8. Then there is a rule of thumb that it is usually better not to put Elements from the same quad into a single character, but this is only true part of the time and should be taken with a grain of salt.

I hope this clarifies the issue a bit and makes the Archetypes a tad more accessible and a bit more useful.

The Dramatica theory book talks about Binary and Analog aspects of story. Binary means “two” and Analog means “unsegmented,” rather like a spectrum.

Although there are some places in the Dramatica software that deal with apparent binaries, there are none that deal with analog. Most aspects of the software fall between the two extremes.

For example, in the Dramatica structural chart, story points are divided into families of four similar story points called “Quads.” Therefore, any quad is dealing with the relationships among 4 items, not two as one would have in a binary system. And since each quad is “nested” within larger families made up of groups of quads, if you want to pick your Objective Story Problem in one of the lower quads as your first choice in story structuring, you are presented with 64 options!

In fact, the only seemingly binary questions in the software are the four Main Character Dynamic Questions (Resolve, Growth, Approach, Mental Sex) and the four Plot Dynamic questions (Driver, Limit, Outcome, Judgment).

Each of these eight questions presents a choice of only two items, such as Change or Steadfast. Surprisingly, these “binary” choices are actually closest to analog of anything in the software. Why? Because of the way they should be interpreted by the author.

Using our example of Change and Steadfast, it may look at first as if we are simply talking about whether the Main Character is different or the same, mentally and emotionally at the end of the story when compared to the beginning.

As an illustration of Change, suppose our Main Character was driven by “faith.” Well then a Change character would end up driven by “disbelief.” That is how the software works, and that is clearly binary. But in fact, not all characters actually jump all the way to the other side when they change. A character might lose some of his faith without actually becoming a disbeliever, moving from pious to agnostic. Is that not a change? Yes it is, yet the software says he is Steadfast because he is still on the “faith” side of the fence.

Immediately we can sense that there are many stories to tell about becoming less strongly fastened to a previously firmly held attitude or attribute. But the software will call it Steadfast, and that just doesn’t feel right.

Before I describe why the software does this, lets look at the other side of the coin. Suppose a character Changes by becoming a disbeliever, but it is only in regard to the particular situation of the story. In fact, it is quite clear that he sees this as an exception and will jump right back to being his same old self immediately after.

Well, such a character would not seem so much a Change character as a Steadfast character who made an exception. But the software simply calls this character “Change” and that is the end of it!

Okay, why does the software do this? Simply put, the Dramatica software engine is the MINIMUM implementation of the theory that doesn’t leave any holes in a structure. In other words, in a future version of the software you might find that each of the eight “essential questions” moves from a binary choice to a quad of choices.

Using our example, we would end up with a quad that would ask, “By the end of the story has your Main Character:

Changed

In fact, an even later version of the software might also add:

Become more Steadfast

Finally, the whole question might end up with also:

Will eventually Change

Now we have two complete quads – One change quad, and one steadfast quad. Each of the eight available choices would create a different feel in the story.

So again, why doesn’t the software allow this? Because all kinds of additional formulas and algorithms would need to be worked out and added throughout the software to accommodate this degree of theory-sophistication.

If you offer two quads of Resolve, then you need two quads of each of the eight essential questions to maintain dynamic balance. (Note that creates sixteen quads of four dynamic items each, effectively creating yet another set of 64 items, but this time dynamic ones.)

What’s more, you would need to show in the software the DEGREE to which any item is “held.” This easily becomes a graphic interface nightmare. For example, a tightly held faith might be red in color, but a loosely held faith would be blue. And, if faith increased, it could have a “+13” or a “-8” attached to it as well.

The fact of the matter is, that to come up with a solid set of algorithms to describe the minimal structure which would fully surround a story to four solid years! It took another two on top of that to finish the programming and another two to bring the software to where it is today.

Version 3 added the Theme Browser and the Plot Progression windows (among other things). Have you ever wondered what the colors mean in the Theme Browser? Right now, they don’t mean anything. They’re not exactly random, but they don’t relate to anything theory-oriented. Someday, however, they will. And the fact that they are there now indicates the direction things will be going in the future.

Beyond all this, however, is a more central difficulty. The theory predicts that to be completely accurate, a model of story must have a view that deals with components (not just binaries, but simply meaning a network of interconnect story points) and also a seamless flow of force (not just analog, but more like the waves in a pond that flow out from a leaf that drops in the water.) If each story point is a leaf, then the waves in the dynamics of the story merge and combine to create an interference pattern, not unlike a hologram, where each story point exists because of the convergence of the ripples, and each ripple is generated because of the story point.

In short, “fuzzy logic” won’t hack it because the relationships aren’t fuzzy. They are very specific. And, for those who want to know where this kind of system comes from, it is simply a synchronous system analogous to the physical nature of the brain.

I won’t be going into much detail about that here, as it is WAY beyond the scope of the current subject, but I do want to point out that the reason stories actually work this way is NOT arbitrary. In fact, the reason story structure has taken the form and force that is has is simply that it mimics the way the brain functions, just as the mind does.

The structure and dynamics of the brain are NOT the mind, but the mind is “generated” by them and shares an analogous “structure” and dynamics, conceptually. When we communicate, then, we create a Story Mind which we twist and turn to create the dramatic tension that represents the forces at work in our own minds, which in turn draw on the physical system of memory and neural activity. All three systems look identical because all grow from the same seed.

Getting back to the REAL world…

For any quad, when one pair of items is seen as being separate (binary) the other two are seen as a spectrum. For example, in one quad in the structure, Dramatica has Faith, Disbelief, Conscience, and Temptation. If we decide to see Faith and Disbelief as two separate states of mind, then a character will Change or Remain Steadfast due to the shifting influences along the scale from Conscience to Temptation.

What is a scale of Conscience to Temptation? How about making a choice for the “greater good?” Is it okay to steal from a rich man to feed your starving family? How about stealing from a poor man to feed yourself? Or stealing from a middle-class man to make sure your children won’t risk being hungry?

One could turn the whole thing around and see Conscience and Temptation as binary, but then Faith and Disbelief would appear analog.

Conscience would then simply appear as doing what is right and Temptation as doing what is wrong. The scale between Faith and Disbelief would influence whether a character would Change or Remain Steadfast in Conscience or Temptation.

Examples of seeing Faith and Disbelief as a scale might be, one believes in God but to doubts the Bible. Perhaps a character has faith in a cruel god. In fact, a great number of people believe in God but not in heaven or hell. Faith and Disbelief are no longer binary, but are a scale along which situations can be pegged.

To wrap this all up, Dramatica: the theory is young. Dramatica: the software is even younger. Currently the software only presents the minimum implementation of the theory necessary to fashion a complete structure all the way around your story. But it is like scaffolding, not a solid enclosure. Future versions will add more sophistication, but creating the algorithms and programming to make that happen is time consuming and expensive.

Still, in defense of the software, it represents the first time in the history of human kind when such a thing as a functional model of story was possible at all! No other software can offer that model (it’s patented), and the model even as it currently exists, works accurately to fill in holes and move dramatics into alignment.

What does this mean to you, the author? Let me paraphrase Winston Churchill:

“Dramatica is the worst system in the world – except for all the others.”

From my point of view, when your instincts are right on DON’T go near the software. But when your instincts are amiss or your inspiration runs dry, use the software as a tool to plug, straighten, and fine-tune.

Finally, not everyone should expect to or even try to learn the whole theory. Like Tai Chi, there is a level which is quick to grasp and easy to use. There are also many deeper levels of which even experts (including the theory creators!) are only now beginning to understand.

The key is to find the best level for you between understanding stories and writing them.

A word on the difference between the arrangement of Variations in the Theme Browser and that in the Plot Sequence Report:

The Theme Browser is nothing more than the “neutral” structural chart stuck into the software. In contrast, the Plot Sequence Report verbally describes the structural chart once it has been “wound up” to create dramatic tension.

I hate to keep going back to the “Rubik’s Cube” analogy, but if you picture a Rubik’s cube as if is brand new, right out of the box, each side is a single color. All the yellow squares on one side, all the red on another. Things are orderly and balanced. This is how things are arranged in the Theme Browser and in that position it represents a complete lack of dramatic tension.

Now, twist up that cube a few times in different directions and the colors become mixed on each side. After several different twists, the patterns look more random or chaotic, even though they were created by a sequence of simple moves. This is the view illustrated by the position of the Appreciations (story points) as they show up listed on the Theme Browser.

Then there is the Plot Sequence Report. It describes the sequence of moves necessary to create that particular dramatic pattern of your story’s tension.

So if you are keeping score, we have three things:

1. The model of the Storyform at Rest (the structure as seen in the Theme Browser)

2. The model of the Storyform twisted up with dramatic tension (the position of the story points as they appear in the Theme Browser).

3. The sequence of exploration of the items in the structural chart (as indicated the Plot Sequence Report.

The discrepancy between the Browser and the PSR is this:

The Browser shows which “colors” on the cube ended up next to each other in arrangement at the end.

The PSR shows which “colors” on the cube were next to each other in sequence during the process.

So, use the Browser to see what pattern your story seems to make for the audience when it is over and they look back and appreciate the meaning of the dramatic predicament. Use the PSR to figure out how the Types and Variations show up as the story unfolds.

Part of the confusion is due to including the Signposts in the Theme Browser. The Signposts are the only “time oriented” story points shown there. Everything else relates to the story’s meaning when it is completely told. There was some discussion in the engineering stage that perhaps the Signposts shouldn’t be included there. That is why there is a separate selection necessary in the Theme Browser window to specifically request them.

When the Signposts show up there, it can erroneously seem that the Variations associated on the Browser chart with each Signpost are supposed to be explored when that Signpost is explored in the unfolding of the story. This is simply not true! In fact, including the sequential Signposts in with the structural items is like mixing apples and oranges.

The only way to find out which Variations go with which Types in the sequence of the story is through the Plot Sequence Report.

Similarly, for a while just before release of 3.0, we removed the Plot Sequence Report from the software. It was felt that with the Signposts and Journeys being more emphasized in this version, it might be confusing to talk about Types and the Variations through which they are explored. In the end, those who really liked the report successfully lobbied for it to be added back.

Story Structure is half logic and half feeling. That’s why we use both our minds and hearts as authors when figuring out what works and what to do next. Dramatica’s structure describes the logic of it and the sequence describes the feel. Dramatic tension is created when our logic and our feelings come up with different and incompatible answers. So, it is not surprising that when the Story Engine’s output in the structural Theme Browser is compared to that in the sequential Plot Sequence Report it creates and SHOULD create an APPARENT discrepancy. In fact, that discrepancy is what holds the message of your story.

The end product provides the meaning; the experience as the story unfolds provides the context. The discrepancy between the two is the dramatic tension.

We try to keep this discrepancy in the storyform and out of the mind of the author by having the structural output in one area and the sequential output in another. In the Theme Browser we may have made a mistake by mixing them. But, if you dig deep enough into Dramatica’s theory or software output, it will always be there, as it must, to fully describe the Story Mind you are asking your audience to inhabit.

In creating software tools that delve so deeply into the subtleties of the drama, we encroach on the threshold of a paradox. This is best explained by looking at the nature of light. Light can be seen as a particle or a wave depending upon the context. But it is always light. Story can be seen as a structure or a sequence, but it is always story.

Particles of light interact in spatial arrangement. Waves of light flow in temporal progressions. The Structure of a story is a spatial arrangement showing the interconnections among story points. The Sequence of a story is a temporal progression showing the order in which story points come into conjunction as they move past each other on the way to the final arrangement.

Both views must be accurate and each must reflect and support the other. Sequence must lead to Structure and Structure must reflect Sequence. Yet, both cannot be appreciated at the same time.

Normally, we keep those two approaches separate in the software. By virtue of including the Signposts in the Theme Browser, however, the paradox rises to the surface. The only reason for the Signposts being there is to give quick access to them if you want to build your Storyform by graphically picking the Signposts, or to use the Browser as a quick reference to the Signposts in your existing Storyform.

So, my feeling would be that when working with the Signposts in the Theme Browser you should ignore all the other story points and just focus on the Signposts by themselves. When working on the other story points in the Browser, ignore the Signposts. And, to get a feel for the way Types and Variations come into conjunction as the story unfolds, use the Plot Sequence Report and keep the Theme Broswer far from your mind.

Finally, to reiterate, Dramatica goes into such a degree of detail that trying to follow it faithfully runs into the law of diminishing returns. By the time you get into information such as that in the Plot Sequence Report, you are dealing with subtleties so nuanced that they might not even be noticed.

Western culture is much more concerned with the spatial arrangement of things than how it came to be that way (i.e. “The end justifies the means” – just look at all the violence “heroes” are “allowed” to inflict to right a wrong!) So, as long as all the story points end up in the right place at the end (e.g. the right item is the goal, the right item is the Issue or Range) then the audience is satisfied.

For purists, perfectionists, and structuralists, you can stick with the PSR order if you like. But if you want to diverge, it probably won’t have any measurable negative effect at all on how a Western audience receives your story.

In conclusion, just make sure you illustrate all the key story point appreciations in your story and that you at least work the Signposts and Journeys in there. (They are on such a large scale then kind of have to be in the right order). Do that much and then only worry about the PSR and the minor story points to the level of your own eye for detail.

P.S. You’ll note that Chris and I focus on different aspects of Dramatica. He concentrates on explaining the theory in terms of story, I concentrate on explaining the theory in terms of psychology. So, be forewarned (Forewarning of Conceptualizing) that my postings will tend toward the esoteric. For those interested in the psychology behind Dramatica (called Mental Relativity), I keep an extensive web site with scores of articles on the subject at storymind.com/mental_relativity/ These original essays delve into the workings of the human mind, based on what we learned from the Story Mind model, and cannot be found anywhere else.

If you’ve ever toyed with the idea of using Dramatica to analyze your friends, family or self, you might enjoy exploring there.