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:
I lovethis analogy from Melanie concerning the difference between a Main Character who changes their Resolve (think Marlin in Finding Nemo or Ben Cash (Viggo Mortensen) in Captain Fantastic ) and a Main Character who has their Resolve changed over time (think Jasmine (Cate Blanchett) in Blue Jasmine or Elliot in E.T.):
Sometimes, in geology, this force gradually raises or lowers land in two adjacent plates. Other times it builds up pressure until things snap all at once in an earthquake. So too in story psychology, people are sometimes slowly changed by the gradual application of pressure as the main character’s justifications gradually unwind through experience. Other times the pressure applied structure just builds up until the character snaps in Leap Of Faith – that single “moment of truth” at the climax in which a character must decide either to change his ways (or outlook) or stick by his guns believing his current approach is stronger than the pressure bought to bear against him, believing he just has to outlast the forces against him to ultimately triumph.
Narrative is not an artificial construct imposed on fiction nor on the real world, but it is a description of the ways of the mind beneath the level of subject matter. In a sense, narrative describes the operating system of the mind before a program is loaded.
This is why story structure was not previously decipherable – you can’t explain a nonlinear system with a linear paradigm.
Every single other story paradigm or collection of journey beats treats story as a linear process that starts in one place and transforms the character into a hero or cat-saver by the end. Dramatica takes a different approach in considering that all elements of a narrative work together in a holistic, non-linear fashion.
In closing, suffice it to say that through narrative, we are able to look into the structure and dynamics of the group mind and see the structure and dynamics within ourselves. And, as a result, narrative holds the key to understanding why we think and feel as we do, and provides the methods and techniques that can solve both our external problems and internal inequities.
Yes, I realize pretty much everything linked here is from Melanie Anne Phillips, one of the co-creators of Dramatica, but hey--until other writers start blogging about their experience with this revolutionary theory you will be hearing a lot from her. ↩︎
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.