I stumbled upon a meme of David Lynch with a quote: "I don't know why people expect art to make sense when they accept the fact that life doesn't make sense."
Now, I feel let down by myself every time a let something inconsequential annoy me. But since this touched very close to a thing I feel very passionate about, I had to find a place to vent and gather my thoughts.
It seems to me as though people's attraction toward thinly-structured or non-structured storytelling is based on this staunch belief that that's what art is all about and no structuralist should come ruin that -- I'm sure this isn't a giant revelation on this forum. But I often end up wondering what's going on on a deeper level; what makes someone so satisfied with senselessness while someone else seeks meaning in stories like the last drop of desert dew?
I know this statement can seem highly elitistic, but I trust people on this forum who know Dramatica understand my intent is not elitistic, but:
Could it be that the "attraction" of senseless storytelling is based on people's internal worlds being scattered and filled with unresolved contradictions, and this state of mind finding a mirror in badly structured, or intentionally non-structured stories? Now, I'm not denouncing the joys of pure, unhinged storytelling. But it's not far fetched to say that a well-structured story "thinks" clearly; and clear thinking is mighty difficult -- it's exhausting. It's not an accident that we labor so intensely on the arrangement of the plots of our stories. To create a plot that carries a complete meaning with no holes or odd tangents is hard work.
And it could be, that to a creature like us that likes to justify itself, many people might not be very keen on ideas about story that challenge you to think -- not just of your story but yourself.
I'm not in the least saying that people with a more structuralist approach are inherently better thinkers approaching some ideal state of perfect flow of thought. We're all imperfectly thinking creatures. That's part of the reason why we labor on stories: to have the "explanation" of life put outside of our imperfect minds in a consumable form. But to actually go the distance and do the necessary work to have a story must have some consequences on the mind compared to a more scattered, "free" approach.
I actually have plenty of first hand evidence of this having suffered from major depression for years.
Having learned about Dramatica six years ago and used it quite intensely ever since, I feel like I've become a way better thinker overall compared to when I started jotting down words in an attempt to turn them into something called a story. I'd actually go as far as saying Dramatica's "challenge" to learn to think more holistically -- and to think about what I was thinking (Thinkception?) -- was instrumental in getting rid of the worst parts of my depression, and getting me as far as being able to say I'm not depressed anymore compared to the days when I started out. I think this simply must be the case, because just using Dramatica forces you to build new pathways; and once those pathways are built, they start to affect your personal life -- not just the quality of your stories in the eyes of others.
What I really love about Dramatica's magic is that it's not just an instrument for writing stories for others, but it's a companion pushing you to better yourself. I'm a big believer in great stories requiring the writer's personal life in the mix, in addition to the storytelling talent to put it in a culture-specific, non-subjective form for others to marvel at.