Fable - the boy who cried wolf

[mlucas]

Was thinking about this fable last night -- it seems like it's about the quad of Faith/Disbelief/Temptation/Conscience. Here's a good telling: The Boy Who Cried Wolf

I thought I could try to analyze this in terms of PRCO and SRCA.

• Potential: Temptation. The boy is bored and gives into the temptation of crying wolf for fun.
• Resistance: Faith. What makes things worse is that the villagers believe the boy's false cries, and the boy believes they'll respond to his cries when there is an actual wolf.
• Current: Disbelief. The boy continues to cry wolf, ignoring the villagers pleas/warnings to stop lying, and eventually the villagers stop believing him.
• Outcome: Conscience. Going forward, the boy will think twice about lying. (or in the version of the story where he's eaten by the wolf, he might say to himself "darn, I should have thought about the consequences of my actions")

The SRCA or 1234 is: 1. Temptation (boy is bored, cries wolf without thinking of consequences) 2. Faith (people believe him and come running more than once) 3. Disbelief (when the real wolf comes, no one believes him) 4. Conscience (boy learns that he should consider the consequences before lying). So, the same order as PRCO.

Does that seem right? It even seems to be in the right place in the table, i.e. under the Activity of tending sheep, the Concern of losing the sheep to the wolf (Obtaining), and the Issue of people who keep troubling themselves to run and help the boy, who doesn't care about troubling them at all (Morality)

I wonder if other of Aesop's fables could be good fodder for quad analysis.

[Rosie]

I like the idea of using fables. Any thoughts on The Emperor's New Clothes fable?

[mlucas]

I read this version of it. What are your ideas? My best guess is Fantasy/Fact/Security/Threat (a Variation quad).

EDIT: I was also thinking of Trust/Test/Expectation/Determination and Faith/Disbelief/Consider/Reconsider. Can't quite pin it down though.

[Rosie]

Ok, I'm new at this, will probably expose my ignorance/difficulties of grasping Dramatica still, but I was thinking Knowledge/Thought/Actuality/Perception. ???? Everyone changes their PERCEPTION to solve the problem (I do not see the clothes/I will be discovered a fooll) , but this really only makes matters worse. The child says what he is real THOUGHTS are, and the deception of the swindlers starts to break. Everyone finally speaks what they know to be true (KNOWLEDGE) and the problem of being found out to be a fool by the king, ends up only being the problem of the king ... who is still trying to keep up appearances (PERCEPTION).

I would appreciate any constructive criticism that shows how/where I may be missing the boat. Really trying hard to grasp this --- small fables seems a good way to get my head wrapped around the concepts. Thanks for your thoughts. I am chewing on those too.

[mlucas]

This is great Rosie! The best way to learn is by trying to apply it yourself. Keep in mind, this game of trying to figure out what quad best applies to a particular fable, may not always bear fruit. It's a little more "out there" when compared with finding the Dramatica storyform for a complete story.

Regarding your ideas, I see what you're getting at but not sure if it fits. Perception is about the way things seem, how you discern things. I'm not sure that applies so much in the Emperor's New Clothes fable because the conflict isn't really about the difference between how things seem and how they are. He really has no clothes, and that's how it seems too.

Rather, the conflict seems to stem from people's willingness to believe the Swindlers' assertions about their fabric/thread (that not seeing anything means you are unfit or a fool), coupled with people's fear of being found out.

[Rosie]

Thanks for the encouragement and for your comments. I see how I used perception differently. It really does help to get feed back, glad I joined the group. I hope more fables come up, they might not always bear fruit, but the discussions about Dramatica terms become easier for me to grasp around simple stories first. Baby steps.

[Gregolas]

I wonder if you haven't got it backwards. Might Perception come from the swindlers convincing everyone to perceive that they are unfit for their position if they see no clothes, and Actuality shows up in the line " 'But he hasn't got anything on!' the whole town cried out at last."?

[Rosie]

This certainly would keep perception/actuality/thought/knowledge in the game, and what draws me to a quad that includes thought and knowledge over belief/disbelief is that nobody ever actually believes the clothes are there or disbelieves they are unfit for their jobs -- their mental activity is more of suppressing thoughts they know to be true because of a real threat (losing their jobs) is hanging over their heads and they think this can be solved by just keeping up appearances. But nothing is really solved until they abandon that approach and instead speak what they know to be true. Thanks for your post and feedback.

[mlucas]

what draws me to a quad that includes thought and knowledge over belief/disbelief is that nobody ever actually believes the clothes are there or disbelieves they are unfit for their jobs

Ah! This is super important and why we didn't agree on the same quad. My reading of the tale was that the people, especially the two trusted officials, did believe the invisible thread was there, and believed this meant they were unfit. For example:

"I know I'm not stupid," the man thought, "so it must be that I'm unworthy of my good office. That's strange. I mustn't let anyone find it out, though." So he praised the material he did not see.

I think that Hans Christian Andersen tale has more to it than Aesop's fables do (it's certainly longer), which might make it harder to pin down.

[Rosie]

Wow! I missed that part about they did believe they were unfit "so it must be that I'm unworthy of my good office" I was hung up by remembering only the line "I know I'm not stupid". I think I have always understood the moral of the story to be think for yourself to avoid becoming a fool .... and that personal long time interpretation of the story has me somehow picking and choosing lines from the story to make my analysis ... not intentionally doing so, but discovering I create some blind spots when I don't pay more attention to the story actually being told than to what I might be assuming into the story. There certainly are elements of belief/disbelief. This probably explains why when I watch an analysis being done I can understand how the choices are being made for through lines, etc. But, my own analysis done prior to watching the group do one never match up with the group's. Thanks again for the chat. I believe if I keep chipping away at this it will all become clearer to me

[mlucas]

Great! You're definitely on the right track.

I think @MWollaeger has suggested that you pick one area of the theory and focus on learning that really well before moving onto the next. For analysis you could start at just Domains or Domains & Concerns together (since Concerns is only one extra choice once you have Domains). Watch a film that you know is on the Dramatica site but you don't know the storyform. Then try to identify the Domains & Concerns of all 4 throughlines, without going deeper. Get a friend to check the site for you, and ask your friend only to tell you if you're right or wrong -- not the actual values -- on one thing at a time. "Is the OS Domain Psychology? No? Okay, back to the drawing board." Once you get it right, if it's one with a video analysis, you could watch the video to see if your rationale matches the group's.

I think Jim Hull said on one of his Narrative First podcats that really getting Domains & Concerns is like 80% of the battle!

[Gregolas]

Rosie, not sure how new to this you are. For all I know, you might be way beyond me (I've been into Dramatica for a couple years, but my grasp of it probably still places me as a novice), so I may be reminding you of something you already know. But when it comes to looking for storyforms, or applying storyforms to your story, I think one of the things that helps me most is to keep at the front of my mind (I've even written at the top of my notes just to make sure I see it and remember it) that EVERYTHING IN DRAMATICA IS ABOUT THE SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM. Otherwise, I start trying to say someone is in a Situation, when they should really be in Activity or some other throughline. For instance, you can say someone's story falls into Situation because they are stuck on an island. But if that character loves being stuck on an island and experiences no conflict, there's no story there.

[Rosie]

Thanks Gregolas. After my last post I did start wondering if there was something I should be anchoring onto first. I just couldn't think of how to phrase the question. This really helps! Much appreciated.

[Rosie]

Thanks again mlucas. I like having a narrower field to start with .... I get the significance of domains and concerns. But I admit I have never approached it that way. I am going to try this step by step approach. Thank you!