So instead of Santa’s elves saying:
“Oh no have you seen his new plans for next year’s toys? They’re terrible…”
they say:
“Oh no did you see his face? He has the look. The ‘time to redesign everything’ look!”
It’s not the result that causes problems, it’s the process – the mere fact that he is planning anything. Journey vs destination.
That actually sounds more like Understanding, or misunderstanding through Interpretation.
Conceptualizing would be “Did you see Santa’s schedule for next week? He’s cutting back on our hours, and bringing in trolls to work the night shift.”
“Trolls?! Those thick hands can’t work the delicate machinery. If Santa wants to cut back on quality, maybe we need to cut back on quality…”
The process of scheming creates a problem.
Your example looks to Senses and Interpretation. Mine looks to Situation, Circumstances, and Sense of Self.
Oh I see, because my example was just the elves evaluating external actions, like Santa’s expressions – what they see vs what does it mean, thus Senses vs Interpretation.
If the focus is on the follow-through, the execution of intent, does that make the conflict more like Understanding? Whereas, with Conceptualization, the focus is more on the intent or possibility? I.E. it was Santa’s schedule, his plan to cut costs, that created conflict, rather than the actuality of cost-cutting.
Sorry, I should have been more clear.
I would then, as Author, show how this manner of thinking was problematic.
I would reveal later that Santa was actually trying to work some time off for the elves to give them time to rest and because he appreciated all their hard work…
…and then I would have Santa order them lined up and shot for trying to stage a coup and undermining Christmas.
These sequences and scenes would show how an over-inflated Sense of Self—on both sides—leads to some heavy duty consequences. It’s one way to show a manner of thinking problematic.
I’m still trying to fully wrap my head around Developing a Plan (Conceptualizing).
Do any of these three examples actually represent Developing a Plan?
Santa is coming up with plans and the content of those plans creates problems (such as planning to heat the workshop by throwing elves in the oven)
Santa has a plan and the execution of that plan creates problems (in this case, he’s now throwing elves into the oven) – my assumption would be that’s a problem of activities, not manipulation.
Santa is coming up with plans and the mere fact that he’s doing so, causes other people to make plans as well and that creates conflict between the two.
Hi Sébastien. Sorry to butt in. I think the first and third examples you gave are good. The second one sounds more like Doing to me. The way I understand the essence of Conceptualizing has to do with getting the idea, or a “Can you imagine that?” type of question. Like an “inconceivable!” sort of way. Consider this attempt:
Santa secretly plans to castrate the elves and the first step in his scheme is to get them drunk. (The how of this example is the storytelling bit).
Only the third one.
The second is Activities and the first really isn’t a problem. Or at least you haven’t made it one yet. If Santa starts turning up the heat and the elves start reading some kind of nefarious plan into it—then you can make it an instance of Developing a Plan.
Inconceivable, by the way, is under Conceiving an Idea, not Conceptualizing. Problems coming up with an idea are much different than problems putting ideas together. The first is the preposterous notion that anyone can cook (Ratatouille), the second is the difficulty redefining our place in modern America suburbia (American Beauty).
Whenever I do these I always look to the quad underneath to help. I look to Sense of Self, State of Beung, Situation and Circumstances to create problems of Conceptualizing. And I look to Permission, Need, Expediency, and Deficiency to create problems of Conceiving. It helps to develop a more holistic understanding of the term.
Do you ever go in reverse: start with the problem element and then work upwards? For example, let’s say as author you think, “I’m not sure what domain my MC is going to be in, but I know his problem is control and until he starts to let go, things won’t work out for him.” Thus you might go select Control for the MC problem and then ask whether Preconception, Self-Interest, Hope or Responsibility best represents the broader issue the MC is dealing with.
Or is that a terrible idea? I sometimes find I know the most intimate aspect of what I want a character to explore and ultimately change, but not which domain will best allow that, which I think reflects working from being a character-focused writer.
What makes this distinction? Is it simply that the plan is only problematic when it causes someone else to create problems (e.g. burning elves is fine, but elves freaking out and suspecting even worse plans as a result is problematic)?
Forgive me for butting in (again) as well, but is the difference between 1 and 3 that 1 is assuming that burning elves is a problem whereas 3 isn’t stating a specific problem, but rather simply says that the process of planning creates conflict with others?
What I’m seeing is that you can’t assume something is problematic (“What’s the problem?” Santa might ask. “I was only going to burn the DEAD elves.”)
So you have to show how something is problematic, how it upsets the balance (“Santa, the dead elves are what we feed the reindeer. If we burn the dead elves, the reindeer won’t be able to fly !” “Oh, that is a problem!”)
100% yes.
And yes, you definitely can work from bottom to top, top to bottom. In fact, I’ve noticed most holistic minded people prefer to start at the bottom and work their way up because they’re looking at the problem in context of the items around and above it. More linear minded people prefer top to bottom because it involves breaking problems into chunks and eliminating what doesn’t fit.
Okay, so then it’s that there has to be a problem with the plan – following the plan (burning dead elves) will create problems (starving reindeer). Is that right?
It’s funny, because typically I neither think of working top-to-bottom or bottom-to-top – I think of what’s the “essence” as in the most essential aspect and then extend outward from there. It’s the same as working bottom-to-top, I suppose it’s just a holistic thinker’s way of framing it 
I’m going to see if I can go 2 for 2. I don’t think the plan has to be flawed (dead elves produce heat, flawless), but rather that the plan, even if flawless, upsets the balance. Instead of starving reindeer, say the obvious issue is that elves don’t want to be burned and start migrating south. Santa could just say who needs them anyway? I’d rather be warm. But if he decides that he can’t stand the thought of children not getting their toys because the elves have left, then the balance is upset.
So what’s the difference between “Santa’s plan to burn elves makes them want to flee south” versus “Santa starts burning elves so they try to flee south”? Would the latter be in activities simply because the burning is happening as opposed to planned?
Hmm…I wouldn’t mind @jhull providing his take on this as well.
Until I have a bit more time (later this evening), I’m going to just say the difference is context.
“Santa’s plan to burn elves makes them want to flee south” is not a Problem. It sounds more like a Decision forcing an Action. *He’s going to burn us, let’s go south” isn’t really problematic. There’s no inequity.
Santa burning elves and elves trying to escape—THATS an inequity lol. Burning elves that aren’t there is an impossibility…planning to burn elves who want to flee is a possibility within the same context—so no inequity.
AAnd just to clarify, as I read back, this:
Is not a problematic instance of Conceptualizing. I meant to only agree with the first statement:
What I’m seeing is that you can’t assume something is problematic (“What’s the problem?” Santa might ask. “I was only going to burn the DEAD elves.”)
Sorry about that.
A tip for those having trouble with Conceptualizing. For me it really helps to think of the several different aspects of its definition, and see the commonality between them. You could probably take the English terms conceptualizing, developing a plan, figuring something out, and visualizing an idea’s implementation and imagine a Venn diagram and the area where they all overlap is the Dramatica term Conceptualizing. (and then remember that to be a Concern it needs to be problematic in the story)
Jim mentioned American Beauty and it’s a great example because you might think the overall problems in that film stem from people suddenly getting the idea (Conceiving) that they want to be individuals rather than typical suburbanites. But that conceiving is not shown to be problematic overall. What’s problematic is how they come to implementations of that idea in the real world of family, neighbours and friends. (Their thought process basically throws out the constraint of not hurting the people around them!)
I hate to admit it, but I’m still not getting it. Is the problem that their plans can hurt the people around them, or is the problem that they’re plans demonstrate a willingness to hurt the people around them?
As in, what is the instant in which the plans become problematic in the Dramatica sense?
Neither.
It’s the process of planning, or integrating, that creates problems.
Scheming to get drugs and reimagining one’s concept of oneself appears to indicate a State of Being gay (Lester (Kevin Spacey) from Col. Fitts (Chris Cooper) point-of-view). Climbing the ladder of real estate and conceptualizing a better life involves engaging in an illicit affair (Situation) for Carolyn (Annette Benning). Figuring out where one fits into the high school social system alienates Jane (Thora Birch) from Angela (Mena Suvari) through Sense of Self. Remaining catatonic in order to fit into suburbia with an obviously gay husband creates acceptable Circumstances for Fitts’ wife, Barbara (Allison Janney).