Reading this reminded me of those schizophrenic stories I run into from time to time. Psychotic in the way they start telling one narrative then switch to another, only to shift to a completely different one before the film or novel ends.
Dramatica helps Authors keep their stories sane.
I mentioned this in the podcast today, but wanted to get it down on paper for all to read: I feel like the substitute semantic values of Overwhelming and Surmountable I wrote about in How to Tell If Your Main Character Faces Overwhelming or Surmountable Odds make a huge difference in analysis. Knowing that the Main Character Throughline is somehow connected to the essence of dramatic tension makes it easier to determine whether the MC is a Do-er or Be-er.
Case in point: a recent student in our From Logline to Treatment FREE E-Course sent us a story where the Main Character faced overwhelming odds--and I mean really, really overwhelming odds. But I wasn't really sure whether the MC was a Do-er or a Be-er. The issues and personal baggage were there, I just couldn't tell if they were dealing with external or internal issues.
That's when I remembered my own article.
The Overall Story Throughline was clearly in Activities and the Story Judgment was clearly Good. With an Overwhelming feeling of dramatic tension, there was only one option left for the Main Character Growth: Stop.
Setting the MC Growth to Stop forces the Main Character Throughline into a Companion relationship with the Overall Story Throughline. In Dramatica, a Companion pair is one in which the two elements of a quad sit side-by-side in a horizontal relationship.
With the Overall Story in Activity, the Main Character Throughline must be in Situation...and only Do-ers find themselves in that Domain.
With confidence I suggested to the Author that her Main Character was a Do-er, suggested a possible Influence Character in Fixed Attitude, and sent her off to flesh out and enliven her story.
Hopefully, I've done the same for you tonight.
Emphasis mine. The pressure to live up to the moniker leads us down an insincere path and causes us to sometimes doubt ourselves.
"Shape does not need to be imposed."--Well that's any story paradigm or structure that feels false to you.
Shape is part of what we are listening to--that's the storyform that eventually takes shape as you write from that artistic impulse. Dramatica is not imposed, writers naturally impose Dramatica.
The"Inciting Incident" of a story is not what most people think it is. With the Inciting Incident you want to make sure you're simultaneously setting up the Overall Story Goal with that first major Plot Point. If you don't, you really haven't set anything up as much as you may have tied one Throughline to another.
The Inciting Incident of a story is usually felt as the moment when the Overall Story and Main Character Throughlines kick in--yet, the Overall Story Throughline can happen several minutes or pages before that moment.
Think Story Driver Instead of Inciting Incident
The Dramatica theory of story doesn't even bother with the Inciting Incident for two reasons:
- One, it's completely subjective when it actually occurs
- Two, it really does nothing to the actual narrative drive of a story
Instead, Dramatica singles out a Story Driver as the instigator and motivator of a narrative. The initial Story Driver sets up the inequity of the narrative within the Overall Story Throughline while at the same creating a Goal for the characters to focus on as a means of resolving that inequity.
For instance, the initial Story Driver for the Overall Story Throughline in Star Wars is Vader's illegal boarding of a diplomatic ship during the opening sequence. This initial action disrupts the balance of things and sets the Goal of whether or not the Rebels can figure out a way to fight an overarching Empire.
This runs counter to what most people think of as the "Inciting Incident" of Star Wars--Luke's retrieval of Leia's message from R2. This really doesn't do a thing to the Overall Story or affect the balance of things as much as it ties the Main Characters personal Throughline with the problems in the Overall Story Throughline.
Most analysts/gurus only see the Main Character and Overall Story Throughlines and are so steeped in Hero's Journey mythology/nonsense and Save the Cat! that they misread what is really going on. They think that the Inciting Incident starts a story--but it really starts nothing.
The same thing happens in How to Train Your Dragon--most think the Inciting Incident to be when Hiccup shoots down Toothless. But as with Star Wars this really doesn't disrupt the balance or create problems for everyone within the Overall Story Throughline. Instead, it ties Hiccup's personal Main Character Throughline with the Overall Story Throughline--which hasn't quite started yet.
The inequity of that film really starts when Hiccup's antics destroy the town of Berk. That action forces his father Stoick to decide to begin to train these kids to become dragon hunters. And that in fact becomes the Goal of the first Dragon's movie--Training the Next Generation of Dragon Killers.
Think Story Driver instead of Inciting Incident, and the structure of your narrative will become clear.
Someone thinks the Main Character of a story is the person who experiences the most tension:
Another way of distinguishing a movie's central figure is to determine which character is encountering the greatest amount of tension....William Wallace's tension is external. That is, things are done to him by others. But in spite of all this, he has little internal tension. Internal tension is the wondering, "What do I do now?" William Wallace has grief, sorrow, anger and frustration. But these are not the type of tension that makes movie characters most memorable and most empathetic for viewers.
This is the problem with screenwriting paradigms like the Sequence Method. They erroneously try to identify the structure of a story from the Audience's point-of-view--something that is impossible to do and overflowing with subjective misinterpretations. Asking "dramatic questions" is the surest way to completely confuse yourself as to how a story actually works.
The Main Character
The Main Character of a story is the character who offers us a personal point-of-view into the story. We identify with them because we share their problems with them. By assuming their position we experience the story's overarching problem both from within and without.
That is what separates a story from everything else.
If a character does something off-screen that we don't see or hear about until later, we are not seeing that character from their point-of-view. This is why Red is the Main Character in Shawshank and why the men in the barracks are the Main Character of Stalag 17, not William Holden.
If we were Andy in Shawshank or Robert the Bruce in Braveheart we would not be surprised by the hole in the wall or the betrayal. We can't be surprised by our own actions.
The Influence Character
William Wallace absolutely struggles with internal tension--we only see it externalized. His struggle is to maintain his point-of-view and remain steadfast against everyone who thinks differently than him.
There once was a director at Dreamworks who was convinced Po wasn't the Main Character of Kung Fu Panda because he didn't change. Po did change--he grew into his resolve. Yes Shifu, the Dustin Hoffman character, had the biggest paradigm shift but we were always in Po's personal point-of-view.
This error in judgment led to many broken stories.
Shifu and Robert the Bruce both act as Influence Characters towards Po and William Wallace. Their points-of-view challenge their respective Main Characters and force them to grow stronger in their resolve. Their role is to supply the Influence Character Throughline.
What Do I Do Now?
You don't ask dramatic questions.
And so the tension begins. What will Robert do? Will he go against his father's wishes and fight for justice, honor and integrity? Or will he go against what he now knows to be the right thing to do, in order to secure his land, possessions and title? That is internal tension par excellence. "Do I heed the words of my own father, or do I follow the man who has inspired me to do what I now know to be right?"
Unfortunately, the accurate way to pose this question is "Do you heed the words of your own father, or do you follow what I have inspired you to do and what you know to be right." We're never once in Robert's shoes. We are always looking at him from the You perspective--what are you doing? and especially, how could you do that?
Bonus points, though, for identifying Robert's problem--Conscience. His Solution of giving into Temptation inspired by Wallace's sacrifice.
Novelist Alistair Dyte, a client of ours and student in the Dramatica→ Mentorship Program, recently describe the inequity of a story better than we could:
I have this idea now (don't know if its correct) that an inequity is like being between a rock and a hard place, a kind of mini dilemma, so a character has to be kinda damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, and that is what causes the conflict.
One hundred percent correct. And exactly the kind of thing you need to encode in each and every story point within Dramatica. If you don't, you're not really using Dramatica to its fullest. The Domain, Concern, Issue, and Problem of a Throughline all describe the inequity of the story—just at different levels of resolution.
Dramatica is a complex, yet sophisticated theory of story. Understanding inequity in the way that Alistair describes above is the first step towards making complex terminology approachable.
Posted the video analysis of Kingsman: The Secret Service from our Dramatica Users Group meeting this month.
Of course, like always, Google found a way to completely change things up on me. Apparently, Hangouts On Air are a thing of the past and now we're all supposed to use YouTube Live.
Unfortunately I discovered this about five minutes before we were to go on the air. I scrambled around to find a quick fix and ended up with a not-so-perfect solution. The video quality is horrendous and you can't even see the app towards the second half of the class.
But at least you can hear. Think of it like a podcast with a slight video element to it.
Misunderstandings that Lead to Greater Understandings
Kingsman is a fun ride--and a pretty functional story to boot. I had seen it twice when it came home to stream, but only managed the first twenty minutes before Tuesday night's class. This proved to be my undoing during the analysis as I incorrectly identified the Benchmarks of the individual Throughlines as their actual Concerns.
If you're not too familiar with Dramatica, every complete story consists of four Throughlines related to one another in theme. Each provides a different perspective on the story's central problem. Add them up together and you have a vehicle for transmitting the Author's message.
Within each of these Throughlines lies a Concern--a focal point for conflict within that perspective. Alongside each Concern is a Benchmark measuring the decline or increase in the level of Concern.
Often in analysis the Benchmark is confused with the Concern as the source of problems within the Throughline. That was the source of my error in judgment.
Having only recently seen the first Signpost of Kingsman, I had an incomplete picture of the conflict. Story structure is most accurately understood by seeing beginning, middle, and end all at once. Just like you can't leave a piece out and hope to tell a complete story, you can't see a story incompletely and hope to accurately analyze it.
More on the film later, but for now it's enough to understand the difference between the Benchmark and Concern of a story.
At the Dramatica Users Group meeting last night for Kingsman, Chris Huntley spoke about the relationship between the Main and Influence Character. Not so much about the [Relationship Story Throughline](/concepts/relationship-story- throughline), but rather the reason for the Influence Character in the first place.
To the Main Character, the Influence Character represents the path not taken. We tend to define the IC only in terms of their alternative approach towards solving problems or the one who influences and impacts everyone around them. Thinking of the IC as an example of what would have happened if the MC had built up different justifications prior to the story beginning opens the pathway to greater understanding.
In Braveheart, Robert the Bruce (Angus MacFaden) represents the path William Wallace would have taken had he not decided to take up arms against England.
In The Sixth Sense, Cole Seer (Haley Joel Osmet) represents the path Malcom Crowe (Bruce Willis) would have taken had he not decided to blind himself to what really happened that night in his bedroom.
In Kingsman: The Secret Service, Harry Hart (Colin Firth) represents the path Eggsy (Taron Egerton) would have taken had he not given up a future in the military to take care of his mum.
In Back to the Future, George McFly (Crispin Glover) represents the path Marty (Michael J. Fox) would have taken had he not decided to stand up against Principal Strickland (James Tolkan).
Defining the connection between Main and Influence Character in this way guarantees cohesion between the two Throughlines. It gives purpose to their presence within the narrative.
Recently, I started watching Paul Gulino speak on the Sequence Method--a popular screenwriting paradigm that is the foundation for many collegiate screenwriting programs. A client of ours finds himself surrounded with many steeped in this methodology and he was interested what Dramatica might have to say about it. Now that I'm posting here everyday, I thought it might be interesting to jot down my findings.
This is a very difficult program for me to watch.
Like with most everything that is not Dramatica, the Sequence Method as presented in the video is a paradigm of story seen from the point-of-view of the Audience. And this is a very difficult perspective to take for someone who has immersed themselves in Dramatica for over two decades. Audiences vary, the story does not. Why would you want to base the foundation of a story on the opinion or opinions of various Audiences?
This is paramount to everything it teaches, as evidenced by Gulino himself:
The sequence method focuses on how the audience will experience the story and what the writer can do to make that story better.
There is nothing inherently wrong with this. Except for one thing: anything seen from the Audience's point-of-view is naturally subjective and therefore always open to interpretation. While the techniques of Storytelling and StoryReception outlined from this perspective are compelling, they don't deal with the actual construction of a story.
You can't start to cook a four course-meal by first asking I wonder how this will taste to everyone? I wonder how they will receive it? You can ask that question during the process of cooking, or somewhere near the end, but asking it at the beginning will leave you paralyzed and unable to proceed.
No wonder so many writers think story is hard. The overwhelming majority of information out there doesn't actually help when it comes to creating a story.
Dramatica, on the other hand, takes an objective look at story. Looking at narrative from the Author's point-of-view, it asks What is it you want to say with your story? Note the difference in mindset here--instead of dealing with experience, Dramatica deals with process. It deals with the ingredients of story.
I'll continue to watch this video and offer up whatever insight I can. It will be interesting to see if there is something that can be developed in terms of sequences as Dramatica in its current incarnation focuses solely on the Signposts (what most people think of as Acts).
In case you were wondering where it went, the Narrative First RoadMap service is on hold. While I thought it was the perfect solution for writers, in practice the results were uneven. Basically split 50/50 when it came to success or not-so-success. Some people really understood what it was they were getting and were able to write immediately; others looked at the 32-beat sequence I worked out for them including deep Main Character and relationship thematics and we're completely lost.
If I was to point out a similar characteristic among those who got it, it would be the professional writers who had a working knowledge of Dramatica.
Acknowledging that reality made it obvious where we should be putting all our attention: the Dramatica Mentorship Program. If our mission is to help writers write better stories, then this is program is the answer to that call.
If you were considering doing the Narrative First RoadMap program, I would strongly suggest you take a look at the Dramatica Mentorship Program. It's probably exactly what you're looking for.