An ex-student of mine referred to my class (and by extension, Dramatica) rather horribly in an article about gender inequality in the animation industry. Guess I didn’t do such a great job of explaining Main Character Problem-Solving Style.
You were way too kind in the comments. I would have probably pointed out her lack of understanding as what’s likely holding her back rather than her gender. While I’m sure there are inequities in the business, she doesn’t paint a portrayal of someone willing to do whatever it takes to overcome them - but rather someone all too ready to point the finger at someone else, the culture or some other external entity as being the cause for holding her back.
Looking on the bright side, at least she wasn’t rushing or dragging at the Shaffer Conservatory in New York.
1 Like
I feel for you, Jim. It’s a drag when one’s hard work is twisted into something ugly like that. Putting myself in the author’s shoes though, the terms “male” and “female” are invariably charged and can easily be misconstrued. It’s the reason why I prefer “holistic” and “linear.” Not only are they “neutral,” they also convey the idea & function better. At least, that’s what I find.
@jhull I don’t know who’s who at CalArts, but doesn’t Brian McDonald also talk there?
I think I’ve heard him talk about this before. If it wasn’t CalArts, then maybe it was somewhere else, but the description in the article follows his views on masculine and feminine elements much more than how you and Dramatica would describe “male”/“female” story elements.
In his book, “Invisible Ink”, he spends an entire chapter on so called masculine and feminine elements and how one is not better than the other, but they’re clearly different, and how male and female brains are oh-so-different and so on.
So, I kinda want to know if he does talk at CalArt, because “Elements such as linear storytelling and big external stakes were “for men,” while relationships and emotional storylines were “for women.”” really does sound more like his ideas than yours. I don’t want to push blame around or anything, but I do think it’s necessary to clarify what the actual misunderstanding was. If I’m wrong, that’s alright, but I am curious about this.
But yeah, I have to agree with Jerome, “male” and “female” are too charged of terms, and - for me - didn’t make these concepts any more clear than the descriptive linear/logical and intuitive/holistic.
I’m almost 100% sure she was talking about me. For one, she was in my class. For another, Brian McDonald doesn’t teach there. That doesn’t mean another instructor didn’t teach something from his book, but I really doubt it. Almost every other instructor there teaches the craft of storyboarding (actually drawing, cinematography, layout, etc.). I was the only one who taught story theory.
Alright, thanks for clarifying. Their definition of these two terms just immediately reminded me of his definitions, but I guess this wasn’t the case.
Sorry for wasting anybody’s time.
No worries! You’re not wasting anyone’s time … on the contrary, it could be that she mixed up two different takes on story, so if anything, thanks for sharing!
I’m sorry to see this. I’ve had a similar experience. It burns!
It is sad how some students do not take advantage of talking things over with a teacher. That is the fun part of class. I hope this does not discourage you from continuing to be generous with your time and teaching.
I didn’t find any direct reference to Dramatica. Have the comments changed to only allusion? I was surprised at the resentment that the schools did not make one expert in what one wanted. My experience with colleges since 1993 is that you have to become expert in one’s heart’s desire all on your own. You had better arrive to class the first day, already, expert. That is the only way you are going to make it, imho.
Schools have become a system of synthesis, and I am talking about all fields. Classes are to give additional knowledge. In some fields, a class is where you prove you know it, not learning something new.