But Dramatica EXCLUSIVELY deals with the part about a means to explore a problem.
The parts you refer to are extraneous to the Dramatica Storyforming process. That’s why you won’t find them in a Dramatica Analysis. You will find them on other sites and in other paradigms of story, but not Dramatica.
The level to which an Audience member finds Raiders thrilling is not measurable by the Dramatica storyform. Not to say it’s not important, but it’s not part of a Dramatica Analysis.
Then you’re focusing on a portion of storytelling that Dramatica doesn’t cover. That’s likely why you have trouble identifying Domains—the audience doesn’t care about Domains. Only the author should—if he wants to keep the arguments within his or her story consistent.
I will get to work on the blind taste test—unfortunately there are only six people who can do this at a certain level of expertise. Hopefully that’s enough.
Dramatica is not concerned with what is most important to the Audience—it’s concerned with the specific argument presented by the story. Marion does not fulfill a significant role in the presentation of an argument. Take her out and you would be left with the same argument—stop being so sure of everything, and you can unlock a true mystery.
You would have to concoct different scenarios for why Indy gets into different situations—but the message would stay the same.
Yes, the feeling might be different—but the argument would be the same. Look to the potential of things and you will survive.
Dramatica evaluates the message, not the level of thrills or feels.
No. What it means is that those stories failed to present consistent arguments. It doesn’t mean they were bad, or somehow deficient—just that their arguments were deficient.
There is a correlation between the effectiveness or integrity of the argument and high critical acclaim. Obviously, there will be outliers—many other things factor in to an audience’s favorable response: acting, genre, beloved children’s series—all kinds of things that determine the final result.
The storyform—as seen by Dramatica—plays a part in that, but it is not the be-all, end-all.
Yes, Dramatica is an incomplete way of looking at what makes a story work. The part it does cover—the argument presented by the Author—it covers expertly and in a way unparalleled by anything else.
It’s not that my telescope can’t see Saturn—it’s that it can’t see the majesty that is Saturn. That’s what you’re looking for in Dramatica, and what you will never find.
The chemical makeup and gravitational forces of Saturn’s rings are such that eventually they will dissipate and disappear. We know this because of our telescopes—both earthbound and in satellite form. We can measure the integrity of Saturn’s rings with these instruments, deem them lacking and deficient, and can make accurate predictions as to their ultimate demise.
We can enjoy their majesty now, but there isn’t enough strength in their composition to keep them lasting. Eventually, Saturn will just be another gas giant.
Same thing with stories with faulty or deficient narrative structures. We lose the composition of their message. We may remember their majesty, but we forget their message.
Thankfully, we now have a telescope like Dramatica that can help us identify the molecular composition of a narrative. We can identify weak spots, shore up faulty bonds, and ensure an integrity of narrative elements so that we can enjoy both message and majesty for all time.