@jhull Talks about building an argument in this article on Narrative First..
My question is, what does this look like for others? I’m uncertain how to begin this process for myself and I’m wondering what others do.
And maybe some suggestions on tackling my own.
I think my argument is something like: Siblings should stand shoulder to shoulder and never betray one another. But is that really an argument or just a well, duh?
TIA,
D.
No matter how obvious it may seem, an argument is an argument. If it is something you want to write about, by all mean, do so !
Now you have to find how to formulate it in Dramatica terms. To do so you must first deduce who is your Main Character and who is your Influence Character. To give you an example I’m working on a story where the MC has an actual dark side - it manifests itself as a character. This dark side could have been the IC, but I thought it was too… “well, duh” as you said. As such another character is the IC, and the conflict with the MC’s dark side is kept to the MC throughline. But it still exists : it’s just that the storyforming and storytelling will be less in-your-face than “Stop rejecting yourself and you can achieve happiness.” (Which is what a Dramatica argument looks like : it tells you if the MC changes or not, what his problem / focus is, if he stops or starts something, if the story ends in success or failure, and if he feels good or miserable about it.)
You can do it however you wish. Are the MC and IC brothers / sisters ? Or do they have siblings and are themselves unrelated ?
You can write of the success found when two siblings stick side by side. You can write of the tragedy arising from betrayal. You can also make it bittersweet : maybe they fail at the overall story but are better off together ; or maybe the MC feels miserable for not having been by his sibling side before and now nothing, despite their success, will be the same between them.
And with that general feel, you can determine which perspective has which throughline : Universe, Physics, Psychology, Mind. If you want your MC to change by dropping a trait or remain steadfast, holding out for something to stop ; then you know the OS and MC will be horizontally aligned (Universe/ Activity, Mind / Psychology). And vice versa with Start (Universe / Psychology, Physics / Mind). The choice of throughlines will change how the argument is written and flavour the kind of conflict you have.
So an argument about sibling having each others’ back could be anything between “Start allowing people in your life and you can figure out how to work things out with your sibling” to “Everyone suffers the consequences of losing a loved one when you stop protecting what you hold dear.” The choice is yours 
Your favorite genre might give a clue, I.e. mystery, fantasy, romance, sci-fi, historical, spy, thriller, etc. what is fun for you to write coupled with audience expectations.
To use Dramatica to frame that argument, I’d start by asking what the statement means. Is it saying siblings should fight for one another, like physically have their back in a fight? Does it mean offering financial support? Is it saying they shouldn’t betray one another by backing away from the Physics of being a sibling?
Or is it saying that siblings shouldn’t betray one another by taking each other for granted, shouldn’t abuse the relationship, shouldn’t demand things, lie, manipulate, or otherwise cause Psychology conflict. Instead they should count on each other, support each, look to each other for guidance, etc?
Whichever you choose, which part of Dramatica will best help to argue that? Would it be Physics or Psychology? Or would it be something else? Use that to push the story’s argument further. If you choose Psychology, use that to push the psychology of the argument. Use it to say that siblings should have a certain way of thinking and never back down from that argument by saying “except if this is the case”. You can say this way of thinking has ups and downs, but show how even in the downs they need to have this way of thinking.
If you aren’t sure which best supports your argument and you find conflict coming not from the way they think, but the things they do, don’t start twisting the story and trying to cram Psychology in just to prove the storyform. Drop the Psychology and pick up Physics and push that argument instead.
Thank you @Rachel_Blot, @Prish, and @Gregolas. Considering your words. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts.
Hi @jassnip, I sort of held off responding since I feel like my process is much different than what’s described in that article. But since you specifically wanted to hear about how different people use this, here goes…
Personally, I work on the story a whole bunch prior to worrying about an argument. As long as everything is jiving with a storyform I’m confident there’ll be an argument in there somewhere – and when I finally see it, it’s way deeper and more nuanced than anything I could have come up with “myself”. (This is one of the biggest benefits of Dramatica for me: if I can see how my story fits a storyform, then I can focus on the subject matter, characters, etc. knowing that it will end up a complete story/argument, because Dramatica has me covered.)
I’d also be careful about trying to find the storyform based on what you think the argument is. I have a story that is all about oaths and promises (the MC is an oath-breaker, a healer who commits murder), so when new to Dramatica I thought the OS Issue had to be Obligation or Commitment. But it turned out to be a Physics story, not Psychology. Once I developed the story more I realized how those oaths and promises fit into the structure. Seen in the light of the Crucial Element they took on a whole new meaning, which was reflected in all the throughlines.
But, that’s only how I work. If you want to start with an argument and work from there, go for it! Based on your sentence, you might look at elements like Trust, Responsibility, Obligation, etc.
For example: Keep being trustworthy and your family can do great things. (Steadfast, Crucial Element Trust, Story Goal of Doing)
I actually started to work with Dramatica because of the promise to build an argument for my stories.
But I struggled with it for a while.
On narrativefirst.com there are some articles from Jim on the topic. I have tried the different approaches Jim has described but it never really worked for me.
It was only when I subscribed to Subtext where I could see the eight different arguments possible you get by combining …
… to understand that the crucial element of my MC drives the whole story.
Ah, now I understood, why the crucial element of my MC is like a mini arc, and the crucial elements links the Througlines together.
Nice side effect, I finally understood the crucial element.
In short, my approach today is: If I have a new idea, I first go to Dramatica to get a storyform. Once I have my form complete, I check Resolve, Outcome and Judgement and look for the crucial element to build my argument:
For example…
… a good story with a steadfast MC
… a Bad story with a changed MC
If the argument doesn’t feel right I rework the storyform until it works for me.