The only thing that matters more to us more than a great story is publishing an accurate analysis of a great story. Here at Narrative First we would rather be told we were wrong than continue to provide a false and potentially misguided account of the narrative structure behind a work.
Our analysis of Guardians of the Galaxy always remained troublesome.
Gamora's Throughline peters out and dies leaving little explanation why Quill actually changed his point-of-view...To further weaken the film's structure, the Relationship Throughline between Quill and Gamora occupies but one scene over the span of 122 minutes--hardly the stuff of a well-developed thoroughly realized narrative.
The film was a huge and massive success and to suggest that perhaps there was something broken or deficient about the structure proved difficult to back up. We took umbrage with the apparent lack of a consistent and impactful Influence Character Throughline and felt the lack of a true Relationship Story Throughline--but that didn't seem to bother the rest of the world. Our dual ratings of Structure and Entertainment furthered the confusion for those who felt the film functioned appropriately on all levels.
The main structural criticism you cite with the film is the weak IC and RS throughlines because the only relationship that seems to be going on between Peter and another character is with Gamora—a sort of unfulfilled romance that is, at best, weak sauce. I agree completely. However when I ask myself what relationship in at the heart of the story, it’s the relationship of the team - not something between two individuals. Each of three characters—Gamora, Drax, and Rocket—represent the IC and are trying to force Peter to stop trying to make them into a team.
Despite how Peter starts the story—pretending to be a lone wolf out for himself, he’s actually desperate to have a family again because he’s never gotten over the death of his mother. That’s why the moment he connects with the other characters (in the prison complex), he immediately tries to get them to work as a team—first to save Gamora, then to escape the prison itself.
Throughout the movie, Gamora (“You’re too self-centered to care about others, Peter”), Rocket (“Everyone’s out for themselves”), and Drax (“I don’t care about anything except avenging my dead family”) handoff the role of IC as they push back against Peter’s steadfast desire to believe they can be a team together and do something good for the galaxy. Sometimes they do it with statements, sometimes with actions (Rocket and Drax getting into a drunken fight.)
The one person who starts to have faith in Peter’s position is Groot. When Groot sacrifices himself to save the others as the ship is crashing, he’s presaging the climactic moment during which all four throughlines converge: Peter grabs the gem out of the air, knowing it means death for him, but Gamora, Drax and Rocket complete the IC throughline when they change to Peter’s way of thinking. All three take Peter’s hand—that’s the act that signals both their acceptance of his approach and the coming together of the team.
By doing so, they complete the RS, because there’s no question anymore that this is a team. Finally, in that same instant, the OS is completed (stone is destroyed, preventing Ronan from destroying Xandar) and Peter’s MC story completes because he’s finally got his new family (we even see him thinking back to his mom before she died.)
So my argument is that if we accept the ‘team’ itself as the IC, the whole structure actually does fit perfectly into the Dramatica storyform model and explains why the film isn’t just fun fluff but actually feels genuinely satisfying to the audience.
Besides finding an opportunity to use "presaging" in a sentence, Sebastien nails the thematic undertones of the film.
It will take another viewing of the film to nail down the exact storyform, but right off the bat it would seem that Peter's Avoidance is really a function of his Main Character Symptom rather than an actual Problem. This would signify an Overall Story Problem and Influence Character Problem(or collective Influence Character Problems) of Oppose and a corresponding Solution of Support--both story points that support Sebastien's wonderful explanation above.
Attitude would take over as the Overall Story Issue which sounds five-thousand times better, especially in a comedy action/adventure like Guardians.
As always, if you read something here you don't quite agree with or see differently please feel free to contact us. The right storyform is infinitely more important than our storyform...
You can now download the Story Engine Settings reports for the 2016 Story Embroidery class.
For those unfamiliar, every December the Dramatica Users Group gets together to create a complete story completely from scratch. Chris Huntley, co-creator of the theory, spins a random storyform from the 32,768 possible and then, in round-robin style, everyone around the table takes a story point and illustrates it.
The only rule is that one must honor the ideas and concepts submitted by the others in the group.
The result is an often-hilarious, surprisingly coherent, fully functional narrative—all in the course of a couple hours.
If you would like to follow along, open up these two separate Story Engine Settings reports:
True chaos has no predictable pattern. Narrative is our attempt to find more stable transitory patterns in the ebb and flow – like the Red Spot on Jupiter but rather in terms of behavior – either ours or those around us. Narrative puts a box around a part of our chaotic world and says that within this box, we can accurately predict the inner workings of things, assuming no force from outside the box disturbs or influences our captive slice of reality.
When the proscribed behavioral plan suggest[ed] by each of our myriad of individual narratives come into conflict, we must rise above a series of independent solutions to create a greater narrative in which each smaller narrative becomes an element. And then, we must arranges the interactions and contextual specifications of each of the smaller narratives, favoring one at times and another at other times or in other situations in order to co-ordicnate a larger truth to chart the overall course of our lives.
Realize that your mind is a narrative-generating machine. That is why narratives exist in the first place: because they mirror the processes of the mind. But the mind is also a repository of topical information – subject matter – and engages in the process of synthesizing two or more old ideas into a new one. The new ideas may or may not fit into the narrative the mind is constructing. And yet the heart is drawn more to the new ideas, just as the mind is drawn more to a balanced and complete structure.
Looking forward to finding more crossovers between the Toltecs and Chris and Melanie.
As we get to know people a little better, our initial impression of the “type” of person they are begins to slowly alter, making them a little more of an individual and a little less of a stereotype. To this end, as the first act progresses, you may want to hint at a few attributes or elements of your story’s personality that begin to drift from the norm.
The most interesting--yet most difficult to incorporate--aspect of Dramatica is this idea of structure determining the personality of a narrative. Far more enlightening than the prevailing idea of one journey to rule them all, identifying the flavor of narrative through the conflicts they explore opens up a wellspring of understanding for the conscientious Author.
For instance, The Sixth Sense shares a similar personality type with The Others not because of their subject matter and StoryWeaving reveals, but rather because of their focus on misunderstandings in the Overall Story and blind Fixed Attitudes on the part of their respective Main Characters.
Likewise, the narrative personality of The Bourne Identity differs from Aliens not because the former is a "Thriller" and the latter a "Sci-Fi Action" movie, but rather because Bourne struggles with Memories while Riley struggles with The Past.
Having four kids who cynically break down a film's story the moment we exit the theater is a great reminder that I talk too much about Dramatica. The film in question was Illumination's Sing, and while everyone agreed that it was fun--they all universally felt that there were "too many characters" in it to be a good story.
The real problem with Sing exists in the under-developed Relationship Story Throughline and mostly absent Influence Character, not the existence of "too many" characters. In fact, it is possible to write a compelling and effective narrative where everyone works on separate--yet common--Story Goals.
For example, in the movie “Four Weddings and a Funeral,” all the characters are struggling with their relationships and not working toward an apparent common purpose. There is a goal, however, and it is to find happiness in a relationship.
This type of goal is called a “Collective Goal” since it is not about trying to achieve the same thing, but the same KIND of thing.
In Four Weddings the Collective Goal is Becoming (or Changing One's Nature). In Sing the Collective goal is Being (or Playing A Role). Interesting too that most ensemble movies find their Overall Stories in the Psychology or Manipulation Domain.
One subjective character, one "Protagonist", one Goal stories are fine and dandy; but it sure is nice every now and then to see someone attempt to work an ensemble piece in the middle of a genre dedicated to the commonplace.
Truth be told, one of the hardest things for a predominantly linear Author to understand is the mind of a holistic character. We simply don't get this idea of emotional tendency; you either want to do something or you don't--there is no in-between.
In this example of the difference between linear and holistic problem-solving, Melanie Anne Phillips offers us on-off thinkers the emotional experience of dealing with the tides of emotions.
As with most of Melanie's writing, I return to this one often for greater clarity. For some reason, over the holiday break, I started to really get this idea of what it must be like for a holistic character to balance all the varying degrees of motivation that run through their head.
It's worked wonders for my own personal relationship as well. :)
Taking Home the Bread
In this fantastic post, Melanie takes you through the thought process of deciding whether or not to return to the lunch table to pick up some bread she forgot...
That’s good bread, but I’m full. I might take it home, but I’m not convinced it will reheat. Also, I’ve really eaten too many calories in the last few days, I’m two pounds over where I want to be and I have a hair appointment on Wednesday and a dinner date on the weekend with a new friend I want to impress, so maybe I shouldn’t eat anymore. The kids won’t want it, but I could give it to the dog, and if I get hungry myself, I’ll have it there (even though I shouldn’t eat it if I want to lose that two pounds!) So, I guess it’s better to take it than to leave it.
Sounds like a nightmare to me to have to sift through all these different considerations to arrive at a simple decision, but apparently this is the reality.
To me there was only a tendency toward bringing the bread home, and barely enough to justify the effort. To Chris it was a binary decision: I wanted to bring it home or not.
Well yeah. Do you want it or not??
I’m thinking, “How does this change the way I feel about the situation?” Chris is thinking, “How can she solve this problem.”
This is where I started to really understand what it must be like...and therefore, how to create that same kind of understanding in the characters I write that aren't exactly like me.
I’m trying to convey about a thousand petty concerns that went into my emotional assessment that it was no longer worth going back for. Chris just hears a bunch of trumped up reasons, none of which are sufficient to change one’s plans.
And that pretty much nails 90% of all the arguments between me and significant other. One woman's problem-solving is another man's justification.
I operated according to an emotional tendency to bring the bread home that was just barely sufficient to generate even the slightest degree of motivation. Chris doesn’t naturally assume motivation has a degree, thinking that as a rule you’re either motivated or you are not.
Read through this a thousand times in year's past, and this is the first time I actually saw the words "emotional tendency".
Now, what does all this mean? When men look at problems, they see a single item that is a specific irritation and seek to correct it. When they look at inequities, they see a number of problems interrelated. Women look at single problems the same way, but sense inequities from a completely emotional standpoint, measuring them on a sliding scale of tendencies to respond in certain ways.
Unbelievably coherent understanding of the difference between our two operating systems and a key insight into applying this reality to our own stories.
Melanie Anne Phillips, co-creator of the Dramatica theory of story, on the elusive search for perfect story structure:
No one reads a book or goes to a movie to experience a perfect structure. They come to stories to ignite their passions. BUT – if that passionate storytelling is TOO flawed, the readers or audience pop right out of the experience and the passion is lost!
On the other hand, if you try to achieve a perfect story structure, you are going to undercut some of the subject matter and storytelling expressions that give your story life. Then, you compromise the intensity of the experience and, though your story is on solid ground, it just lays there and nobody cares.
As a giant fan of Dramatica and well-structured meaningful stories, I can personally attest to being too caught up in making things fit Dramatica--instead of using the theory's concepts to help refine the story's edges. Most of the time I see what needs to be there, instead of seeing what is there.
If 2017 is about anything, it should be about finding a greater balance between structure and heart, meaning and art.
The solution is to know what the perfect structure would be for your particular story, but to use it only as a guide to tweak your story wherever you can to make the structure stronger without ever making a change that will drain passion from your story.
Films with a rating of five for both Structure and Entertainment should be considered must-sees for the consumate story lover. Those with a rating of one or zero in both should be forgotten and ignored as soon as possible.
High markings in Entertainment but low in Structure often signify an enjoyable fun ride with little intelligence behind it. High markings in Structure but low in Entertainment simply don't exist—a great Structured story is a great film.
The Amazingly Fantastic Films of 2016
Out of the 31 films we analyzed over the past year, these seven stand out as the absolute best:
No surprise that animation features twice in this roundup; with a process that involves years and years of collaboration and pushing writers and story teams to deliver the very best in narrative both Inside Out and Zootopia grab top honors in both Structure and Entertainment.
Our second category features those films that score high in Entertainment but a big goose egg in terms of Structure. Melanie is right—people don't go to to movies to witness "perfect" structure. However, if a film lacks basic narrative cohesion it quickly becomes forgettable and akin to an amusement park ride.
The Revenant will keep you scared of bears forever. The Big Short will make you hate banks forever. And Trolls will keep you dancing and smiling long after you have completely forgotten what the story was about.
The outlier here is Hell or High Water. Many found the film complete and effective. We personally felt dissonance between the Main and Influence Character's Resolves. You might want to check this film out and let us know what you think.
Avoid At All Costs
Interestingly enough the "Avoid At All Costs" category, which signifies a zero or one rating in both Structure and Entertainment, stands completely empty. As this was our first year devoting 100% of our time to Narrative First, you can well understand the decision to choose critically acclaimed or most-likely critically acclaimed films to analyze.
Watching a 0/0 can be a painful experience. Visit our Analysis Showcase for a listing of films to avoid at all costs since 2006.
In the following year we plan on analyzing even more films and perhaps adding a season or two of some popular television series (Westworld for sure!). In addition we will report on those films analyzed at the monthly Dramatica Users Group meetings. If you have any suggestions or recommendations, please don't hesitate to drop us a line.
Every year at Narrative First we write weekly in-depth articles covering narrative structure & analysis. Starting in March and continuing through November, these articles seek to better understand why some stories work better than others. For context we use the complex yet deeply insightful Dramatica theory of story as our baseline.
Dramatica sees every complete story as an analogy to a single human mind trying to solve a problem. Character, plot, theme, and genre act as stand ins for the motivations, the methodologies, the evaluations, and purposes of this singular story mind. The closer the narrative mimics the psychological processes of the mind the better and stronger the story.
Looking back over 2016, we found ten articles that stood out as being the most informative and insightful. For a complete listing of articles dating back to 2006, please visit the Narrative First Archives.
Undoubtedly the most important article of the year. Every other paradigm of story--from the Hero's Journey to Save the Cat! To the Sequence Method--looks at story from the Audience's point-of-view. Dramatica stands in sharp contrast to these approaches by looking at story from the Author's point-of-view.
The distinction is important--you don't craft a great meal by analyzing how it tastes. You craft a great meal by understanding the ingredients available to you and appreciating how they interact with each other.
Functioning simultaneously as a great primer on Dramatica, this article shows how some Authors find themselves drawn to the same thematic structures found in the mind. If you catch yourself attracted to certain stories, chances are there is some aspect of problem-solving you personally want to work out.
What began as a simple blog post covering the smallest unit of dramatic structure evolved into our most ambitious article of the year. Refining a series of blog posts on Scene Structure, this article built upon ideas and concepts alluded to by Melanie Anne Phillips in many of her own posts on the Storymind concept.
Most of Dramatica deals with the broadest strokes of narrative: namely, Acts and Sequences. The creators of the theory purposefully avoided smaller units of dramatic structure in an effort to avoid creating a "story-by-numbers" situation. As this article seeks to show, a greater understanding of the minutiae of storytelling leads to an increase in creative possibilities, not a reduction.
As powerful as Dramatica is, it can quickly turn into a colossal time sink. Dramatica's complex concepts grant writers the perfect excuse not to write. If you're given to bouts of writer's block, Dramatica offers the Hoover Dam.
Certain aspects of the theory remain hidden. Dramatica's "secret sauce"--the algorithms that determine Act order--remain locked away deep within the program. Many find themselves drawn to the prospect of revealing this secret--typically the same kind of person given to bouts of writer's block.
It is only once the writer lets go of the skepticism driving this treasure hunt that they finally begin to see the monumental gains possible with Dramatica.
Our most controversial article of this year provides verifiable proof that the way you structure your story determines the gender makeup of your Audience. Often derided as sexist or misogynistic, Dramatica's concept of the Main Character's Problem-Solving Style explains why men feel drawn to certain stories and women to others. Read with an open mind and understand: there isn't an ounce of sexism or gender politics in Dramatica--only a fascinating insight into the different operating systems found between us.
Dramatica isn't just for fiction. Based as it is on the mind's problem-solving process, it only makes sense that the theory can be applied to narratives in the real world as well. Once you understand the fractal nature of story and how we self-group into character types in our families, communities, cities, states, and nations you begin to see how Dramatica can help us solve the problems we face in our everyday lives.
The Dramatica theory of story is a powerful insight into the proper structuring of effective narratives. Whether through fiction or in the real world, an appreciation of the mind's problem-solving process can help us better understand the kind of solutions needed to achieve our greatest goals.
We appreciate you taking the time to read more about what we offer, and we look forward to expanding our potential to help you in the New Year.