Please help me believe

[jhull]

There is a difference between asking challenging questions, and being disruptive. YS was the former–he had a pattern of expressing frustrations, not questions, and then–after someone took time out of their day to help–would simply disappear without engaging at all. Only to reappear a different day to vent more frustrations.

This approach eventually amounts to spamming the board which in turn denigrates the quality of information found here.

So, in this case, it’s really not about wrestling with Dramatica.

As far as slagging off something people “believe” in–

–there is a difference between faith and acceptance.

You need faith to get into Heaven. Or to convince someone you’re marriage material.

You need acceptance that there are patterns for every level of Pac-Man if you want to learn how to beat the game. And you need acceptance if you want to inspire someone with the idea that it’s OK to be gay.

Dramatica is not a religion–it’s a theory of story. Faith doesn’t factor in. You don’t have to “believe” anything.

It’s a theory with one major given: That every complete story is an analogy to a single human mind trying to solve a problem.

Everything you find beneficial about the theory: the Act order, the Plot Sequence Report, the concept of Changed and Steadfast Main Characters–all of it stems from that core given.

Accept that given and you can then learn how to write a story with it–and of you’re interested, how all the above works. Reject that and you’re wasting your time here.

This isn’t acceptance without proof–that’s faith. We have over 400 storyforms and twenty years of experience analyzing and creating stories with Dramatica. We have first hand knowledge of feature films, animated films, television series and even novels that used some aspect of Dramatica to help create their story.

They used that given of story as an analogy for the mind’s problem-solving process and they created great stories.

Faith is found under Obtaining. Acceptance is found–naturally–under Learning.

Asking someone to help you “believe” in Dramatica is a non-starter–it’s a broken story.

Unless you want Dramatica to help you get into Heaven.

[decastell]

@jhull

There is a difference between asking challenging questions, and being disruptive. YS was the former–he had a pattern of expressing frustrations, not questions, and then–after someone took time out of their day to help–would simply disappear without engaging at all. Only to reappear a different day to vent more frustrations.

I haven’t read all his posts, and I imagine you’re describing them accurately, but this actually is what it looks like when someone’s frustrated from wrestling with a subject. Yes, it would be better if they took the time to frame their questions in more productive ways, and even more so if they took the time to respond to the help people try to give them.

@jhull

So, in this case, it’s really not about wrestling with Dramatica.

I’m not defending anyone’s posts, only suggesting that it’s better to take someone at their word – in this case, that he was finding himself losing confidence in Dramatica – rather than imputing motives when it isn’t necessary. Look, my point is simple: not every problem one has with Dramatica is suited for being solved on the forums here. Answers are always offered, but after a time, frustration with the questioner appears and it can get sufficiently aggressive that it’s more discouraging than helpful.

Before you respond to that, let me make the following observation:

@jhull

Dramatica is not a religion–it’s a theory of story. Faith doesn’t factor in. You don’t have to “believe” anything.

String theory is not a religion – it’s a cosmological theory. Yet it carries assumptions, and there are contrasting theories, so yes, there comes a point where you have to decide which of those theories you believe.

Astronomy isn’t a religion, but when individuals over-extend it, for example, trying to use it to describe the lives of human beings, it becomes astrology, and is, regrettably, nonsense.

@jhull

It’s a theory with one major given: That every complete story is an analogy to a single human mind trying to solve a problem.

Everything you find beneficial about the theory: the Act order, the Plot Sequence Report, the concept of Changed and Steadfast Main Characters–all of it stems from that core given.

Accept that given and you can then learn how to write a story with it–and of you’re interested, how all the above works. Reject that and you’re wasting your time here.

That’s not actually true. Newton’s theory of gravity works great, but it’s both incomplete and, when you work down to the bottom assumptions, incorrect. The formulas work (on earth and at a scale we relate to, anyway), which is great – and they work even though they totally fail to account for things that happen on larger and smaller scales.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: I have no idea if Dramatica is true or not. As a writer, I’m not in search of a theory that explains why stories work – I’m only interested in tools that help me write better ones.

@jhull

This isn’t acceptance without proof–that’s faith. We have over 400 storyforms and twenty years of experience analyzing and creating stories with Dramatica. We have first hand knowledge of feature films, animated films, television series and even novels that used some aspect of Dramatica to help create their story.

Two problems here: first this was precisely what YS was complaining about: twenty years of the theory being out there and nobody can name famous authors or screenwriters who use it other than a few brief mentions from the past and some hack fantasy writer who still doesn’t have his long-deserved Pulitzer prize for literature.

Second, I know when you see those 400 storyforms they look like perfect explanations of the movies described, but to me – and I’ve looked at them a lot – they aren’t helpful at all. 400 storyforms without illustrations to show why each plot point fits with the element allocated to it does me no good. I find myself continuously going back to the ones that came with the software because at least few of those have some illustrations for the plot points. Now, maybe I’m the odd one out on this. Maybe most other users can look at those storyforms and instantly see how they fit, but I can’t.

This doesn’t mean you’re wrong. I’m only trying to explain why, for any number of people, it’s not just about accepting evidence – because that evidence isn’t always visible or compelling if you don’t “get” Dramatica already.

@jhull

Unless you want Dramatica to help you get into Heaven.

That’s a 6.0 feature.

[jhull]

@decastell

I’m not defending anyone’s posts, only suggesting that it’s better to take someone at their word – in this case, that he was finding himself losing confidence in Dramatica – rather than imputing motives when it isn’t necessary.

But you are defending these posts by suggesting that this case is somehow representative of all cases.

Everyone is given the benefit of the doubt here. In this case I even addressed it through private messages. Warnings were given and second and third and fourth chances were given. How many times do I need to explain the difference here before everyone gets that this was just a bad egg?

When people struggle with the theory or don’t accept some of the givens, they turn it into a religion. They don’t understand Mental Sex, or they don’t buy it, so it’s easier to try and turn it into something that needs to be believed.

I get that. You need faith when you’re not willing to accept the evidence that is right in front of you.

And by evidence I mean how “right” something like the plot progression feels both in the Signpost order and the Plot Sequence Report. Presumably you appreciate the tool because you recognize some value in it—your own experience is evidence enough and you accept the order of events as something you should follow.

That order is based in large part on the concept of Mental Sex–on the difference between Linear and Holistic Problem-solvers.

To me, it’s a simple matter of cause and effect. I see the effect of the Plot Progression provides by Dramatica and therefore accept the premise of Mental Sex.

That’s acceptance.

If one rejects the concept of Mental Sex, yet still turns to the Plot Progression, then yes–I can see the need for Faith there. The Faith that somehow some other way these Signposts and Sequences magically fall into this order.

If it works for that individual that’s great, but the Act Order is not repeatable based on faith.

I’m pretty sure the engineers at SpaceX didn’t turn to faith when it came to landing Falcon Heavy’s rocket boosters in tandem. I am certain that they decided to allow theoretical concepts of physics (Newtonian or otherwise) to guide them in their decision making.

The storyforms and analysis are provided to give everyone an opportunity to see how those play out in other works of fiction. Yes, most are just the Storypoints themselves, but if you are so inclined you can learn quite a bit by watching or reading those stories and following along with the storyform.

It all depends on how much value you find in the Dramatica Storyforming process and how research into that area can save you from exploding on the launch pad of your story.

(Which I understand, in certain cases with SpaceX, is not the best analogy!)

[decastell]

@jhull

But you are defending these posts by suggesting that this case is somehow representative of all cases.

Not sure where I did that, but if I did suggest that this case represents all cases of someone wrestling with Dramatica then I hereby retract that suggestion.

@jhull

Everyone is given the benefit of the doubt here. In this case I even addressed it through private messages. Warnings were given and second and third and fourth chances were given. How many times do I need to explain the difference here before everyone gets that this was just a bad egg?

I hear you, and I’m neither suggesting that you should have allowed it to go on nor that the individual in question needs to be tagged as a “bad egg”. As I wrote earlier, his posts – to me – indicated someone coming with a problem that isn’t suited to be solved on this forum. If you want assistance on the intricacies of string theory, then the forum on a string theory site is probably a good place to go. If you’re having trouble buying into (accepting, believing, or otherwise seeing the merits of) string theory, then all you’re likely to do on that forum is raise the same issues that have been raised a thousand times before and pretty soon it’s going to look like trolling.

The difficulty the poster in question was having could probably be solved one-on-one, where someone can focus all their attention on the discussion, respond with deeper questions of what that person’s wrestling with on the writing or comprehension side, and “tune” responses to what that individual is having trouble hearing. It could also be solved by the person just dealing with it themselves, flailing as we all do at various points in our creative process, and either coming to a new understanding or maybe abandoning Dramatica for now.

Every forum has the right to determine what content best serves its audience. Content in the form of “I’m just not buying into this stuff – convince me you’re right” doesn’t seem to produce positive results here, most likely because the bulk of the user base is more concerned with learning how to deal with the intricacies of Dramatica rather than constantly debating if it works or not.

@jhull

I get that. You need faith when you’re not willing to accept the evidence that is right in front of you.

That thing you keep seeing right in front of you? I don’t see it, or at least, I see something that doesn’t look like what you’re describing. That isn’t “refusing to accept the evidence in front of you”.

To give this a practical example, you can point to a storyform for a movie and say, “look, it’s right there in front of you! It perfectly describes that movie, why can’t you accept that?” But I’m watching the same movie and what I’m thinking is, “Well, I suppose you could shoe-horn it into that storyform, but I see all these other storyforms that seem to describe it just as well.” I may be wrong, but it’s not belligerence or lack of intellect or failure to accept the obvious – it’s that I’m not seeing what you’re seeing.

Let me put it another way: how many times have you seen someone shoe-horn movies into the Hero’s Journey? They can do it pretty much every time. Sometimes it seems to fit perfectly, other times it feels like they’re seriously reaching. That person can just as easily come back with, “why can’t you accept the obvious evidence before your eyes? Andrew from Whiplash is the hero, and this part here where he kicks his drum kit over is so obviously the ‘Refusal of the Call’!”

I can tell you line for line why The Maltese Falcon is a complete storyform, but the official entry here still says it’s a tale. Why can’t you all see the evidence right in front of your eyes, damn it!

The mechanism for placing a pre-existing story into a storyform is interpretation, not simply observation. That means we’re not always going to agree on what we’re seeing. That doesn’t mean Dramatica isn’t objective or that there isn’t an objective storyform somewhere. It just means that not seeing what you’re seeing isn’t the same thing as refusing to accept evidence.

[jassnip]

@decastell

Second, I know when you see those 400 storyforms they look like perfect explanations of the movies described, but to me – and I’ve looked at them a lot – they aren’t helpful at all. 400 storyforms without illustrations to show why each plot point fits with the element allocated to it does me no good. I find myself continuously going back to the ones that came with the software because at least few of those have some illustrations for the plot points. Now, maybe I’m the odd one out on this. Maybe most other users can look at those storyforms and instantly see how they fit, but I can’t.

This. All of it. I’m always looking for more examples. That’s exactly what my most current thread is looking for-- examples/illustrations of people’s processes and usage.

[chuntley]

@decastell

Two problems here: first this was precisely what YS was complaining about: twenty years of the theory being out there and nobody can name famous authors or screenwriters who use it other than a few brief mentions from the past and some hack fantasy writer who still doesn’t have his long-deserved Pulitzer prize for literature…

I can partially address this question. I know of many very successful films, TV series, and novels (and those who developed them) that use/used Dramatica in their process. The problem is that most writers and story people do not want outsiders and others to know of their use of Dramatica. There are a host of reasons, but the effect is the same – a din of silence 24 years after its introduction. The two biggest reasons are:

• Misconceptions about WHAT Dramatica is and how a writer ‘uses’ it. The fact that there is so much discord in this thread at this point is exactly why many do not want others to associate them or their work with Dramatica. Since it’s used during the creative process, it is easy to omit mention of it in public.

• On the flip-side, because it can be used to great effect, many writers prefer to treat it as a competitive advantage – PARTICULARLY in the more competitive / lucrative ends of the writing industries. Making a living as a writer is difficult and every edge is cherished.

Couple the two of those aspects together and you can see why many choose to NOT share their familiarity with Dramatica with the public-facing world.

I know of many writers in the film and TV world who never describe a story in Dramatica terms to those unfamiliar with Dramatica. They go through hoops to convey the concepts in convincing ways – especially when going against storytelling conventions hardwired into the several overused structure models (e.g. Save the Cat and The Hero’s Journey in Hollywood) and avoid mentioning Dramatica or any of its terminology. An editor, or a director, or a producer, or an actor, or anybody else with influence in the story development sphere need not know about simple Dramatica concept of a Steadfast Main Character, yet that may be what the story needs. It’s difficult to make an argument for a Steadfast MC while using commonly used story vernacular, but it is done…and it’s easier than trying to teach someone Dramatica.

[SOUND OF CHRIS STEPPING OFF OF SOAP BOX]

[chuntley]

P.S. And now that he is dead, I can mention that I have it from a fairly reliable source that Tom Clancy used Dramatica extensively.

[actingpower]

That sad thing is, I really do think Dramatica is a grandbreaking concept that deserves its time in the spotlight. (Shoot, the concept of the “Influence Character” alone deserves the Nobel Prize for Narrative Theory. …What do you mean, there isn’t a Nobel Prize for Narrative Theory?! I’ll fund it myself! ) What we need is the Dramatica equivalent of George Lucas–someone to make a blockbuster movie, who loudly swears by their particular narrative theory, creating a massive sea change in story creation.

[decastell]

@chuntley

The problem is that most writers and story people do not want outsiders and others to know of their use of Dramatica

Drat it – should I have been hiding my use of Dramatica all along? Now none of the cool novelists will let me hang out with them.

I take your point, though I would say I’ve talked about Dramatica to my editors and never had any difficulty referring to the four throughlines and such. Certainly in the world of novels, while the terminology may be unfamiliar, the concepts resonate in a straightforward manner.

[Khodu]

The funniest thing is that this is soooooooooo true. I’m constantly discussing with other writer friends and it’s only those I’m closest to that I mention Dramatica to.
My reason is simple and it’ll probably sound selfish. Sounds bad I know, but I don’t believe in shouting about something until you’ve proven it yourself. I want to do just that for Dramatica in my chosen field of writing. Undeniable proof to ALL 1st hand!
Thats why for the past two years I’ve buried myself in the theory and I won’t stop until I Become it.
Told @jhull before. I’m going to shout out Dramatica once I’m published and nominated for that award.
I will do this thing. I will.

[Greg]

I don’t think i’ve joined a Dramatica cult, but who knows. I’d probably be willing at this point to don a black robe and join in on some Gregorian chants if I thought it would help. I’ve certainly found Dramatica to be a useful tool not just in writing stories but in everyday life. The explanations about the differences in problem solving styles have helped end or avoid many a battle in my house. I have a child who presents me with some very difficult and very strong Psychology problems. Keeping Dramatica in mind while we work through some of those episodes has worked better than anything else, including going to counseling. I haven’t been able to solve all my problems with Dramatica by any means, but it’s certainly given me a leg up on bringing some things into balance.

When I first encountered Dramatica, I was one of those who Mr. de Castell describes as “just happen to adore it at first sight” because it promised to solve the problems I had as a writer. I had my doubts or non-acceptances, or whatever, along the way. But I decided a year or two ago to delve as deep as I could into it until I knew that I knew the theory (still not there, probably never will be). It was along the way that I discovered how useful the theory was not just in writing, but in day-to-day problem solving and I’m fully on board now. I think Dramatica has some amazing potential to be useful to everyone.

That said, I’m not saying I’m the best to go to, or even a good choice to go to for Dramatica advice. But what I will say is that I love any and all Dramatica discussion and if anyone has a topic that they feel might ruffle some feathers in an open discussion, feel free to PM me.

[chuntley]

@Gregolas

I’d probably be willing at this point to don a black robe and join in on some Gregorian chants if I thought it would help.

No, no, no!

TRUE STORY: Before we released Dramatica, I had a dream / nightmare where a machine had been created that ‘supposedly’ could transfer a storyform directly to one’s mind. As a co-creator, I figured I was the best person to be the guinea pig. In the dream they put this contraption on my head and turned it on. WHITE OUT.

Next thing I knew (still in my dream) I woke up on a bed in a plain white room. No one was around. I got up and saw a glass case. Going to it, I saw a number of Melanie’s and my early physical representations of our development of Dramatica, e.g. the ‘writer’s blocks’, the paper toroid, and a bunch of other stuff. There was a floor to ceiling window with long white curtains and light backlighting the room. I walked over to the window, pushed aside the curtain, and saw that I was ten or so stories up looking down on a large plaza. It reminded me of the plaza in the movie “The Time Machine” where the Eloi go through on their way to eat. Down below were lots of people moving through the plaza and up a broad set of steps toward a huge. white, columned building. All of the people wore white flowing robes and I just KNEW this was a Dramatica cult.

I woke up with that image in my head. It’s still crystal clear to me after some twenty-five years. Later that same day, when Melanie and I met to continue work on Dramatica, I made her promise that we would never allow Dramatica to turn into a cult or to be use as the basis of any religion. No joke.

So, every time someone jokingly mentions Dramatica in the same context or religion or cult, the images of that dream / nightmare comes to mind.

[Greg]

Okay, okay. I think I’ve still got the receipt on this robe around here somewhere!

[Prish]

Wow. I can’t think of anything more boring to do with the theory. Maybe, some breakdowns how to use the software and theory for different genres will help keep the fun on track.

[AGreen]

That kind of brings to mind though; why can’t Dramatica be used to analyse religions, both in the overarching meta narrative and also the smaller individual stories and anecdotes presented through different iconography. Religions seem to be made of a collection of smaller stories all adding up to an overall massage, don’t they, so I can’t see how this wouldn’t be possible.

If differing belief systems then can be analysed this way, then doesn’t it stand to reason that a new and improved version could then be produced, distributed and dissemated to all based on a more modern take on values and the expression of those.

Isn’t that what religion is, grand narratives believed by a sufficiently large group?

Edit:
I also found this video that put forth an interesting theory of how religion and stories in general act as a strategy for survival:

STORY & RELIGION

[JBarker]

@chuntley

I made her promise that we would never allow Dramatica to turn into a cult or to be use as the basis of any religion. No joke.

What a Dramatica Cult would actually look like:

Monks - Monty Python and The Holy Grail

[Greg]

Maybe it’s a good thing I never posted that video I saw the other day about how the universe isnt fundamental but emerges from fundamental underlying information and what that suggests about the existence of God…and (in the post, not the video) how that could relate to Dramatica.

@AGreen

If differing belief systems then can be analysed this way, then doesn’t it stand to reason that a new and improved version could then be produced, distributed and dissemated to all based on a more modern take on values and the expression of those.

No. It could help frame an argument for a different religion, but as soon as you say you have a better one, I’ll reject your givens and your argument will fall flat.

[Lakis]

@Gregolas

When I first encountered Dramatica, I was one of those who Mr. de Castell describes as “just happen to adore it at first sight” because it promised to solve the problems I had as a writer.

I wouldn’t say I “adored it at first sight” but I found the whole concept to be a pretty intuitive way of understanding story, even the “mind solving a problem” thing – never really had a problem accepting that.

Where I (like a lot of people) have struggled is in the application. If the whole idea is to produce great stories more efficiently, then you have to ask if you’re using the right tools. I am absolutely a “narrative first” believer – my biggest problems in writing have come from not knowing the story ahead of time. So the promise of a more flexible and comprehensive theory of story that will help me nail my beats before I start writing is very seductive.

But … then I find myself circling and re-circling. The storyform doesn’t seem right. I can’t figure out what the crucial element is, or how it applies to steadfast characters, or if my character should really be steadfast? I change one little thing and then my signposts orders are different, and all the stuff I was plotting before is out of order. Maybe the Domains are wrong? Should I use the plot sequence report? Etc. Clearly a big part of the problem is that I’m still (even after a year and a half) a Dramatica newbie, but how much more Learning is required? When is it time to accept that the perfect is the enemy of done, and just plow forward with a storyform that I’m unsure of?

I would say that this is maybe a Faith problem, but more likely it’s Skill vs. Experience or Desire vs. Ability. But at some point there has to be Faith or Trust in here somewhere – even if it’s just trust that this will be useful and that the end result will be skill in using a tool that will make writing great stories more efficient.

Anyway this is why @decastell’s posts are so useful and inspiring – evidence that you can use Dramatica to help produce amazing stories even as you still wrestle with the theory.

[Prish]

@AGreen

used to analyse

You can analyze anything with all kinds of tech. Animate layers is my favorite…haha. A user told me once, years ago, that a relative had a job in advertising and used something similar to dramatica in order to__well fill in the blank, since I can’t remember the exact words. But they were doing good business pitching to people.

[ssadler]

I’m imagining a SciFi dystopian city setting with TRON-like blue lights everywhere . . . and writing androids traversing the story engine matrix.