Relationships among a few Dramatica terms

theory
#1

I’m brand new to Dramatica, and of course I’m struggling to understand both the terminology and model. For my own benefit, I’ve attempted to summarize the relationships among a few key Dramatica terms, but I’m wondering how much I’ve interpreted correctly. Here’s what I’ve come up with…

Throughline - The development of a perspective over the course of a story. Each story should have four of these running through the story:

  • The Overall Story Throughline represents a “dispassionate” perspective on the primary concern which affects all the characters. Characters are seen fulfilling their “dramatic functions” (e.g. protagonist and antagonist).
  • The Main Character Throughline represents the main character’s perspective and primary personal concern.
  • The Impact Character Throughline represents the perspective and primary concern of a character which serves as counterpoint to the main character.
  • The Main vs. Impact Story Throughline represents a “passionate” perspective which follows the evolving relationship between the main and “impact” characters.

Each Throughline is matched to a different “Class” of problem areas. With four Throughlines and four Classes, there are 24 possible combinations.

Class - The source of problems in a story. There are four possible sources:

  • Situation - an unchanging external state (e.g. environment or circumstances)
  • Fixed Attitude - an unchanging internal state (e.g. opinion or belief) which is not subject to re-evaluation
  • Activity - a changing external state where the characters’ actions affect their circumstances
  • Manipulation - a changing internal state resulting from re-evaluation of beliefs, attitudes, etc.

Type - The kind of problem or challenge that must be confronted in a story. There are four for each Class, and each Throughline progressively explores each Type within its associated Class.

  • Situation - The Past, How Things are Changing, The Future, The Present
  • Fixed Attitude - Memories, Impulsive Responses, Innermost Desires, Contemplation
  • Activity - Doing, Obtaining, Gathering Information, Understanding
  • Manipulation - Developing a Plan, Changing One’s Nature, Playing a Role, Conceiving an Idea

Variation - A way in which a particular problem or challenge can be seen or approached. There are four for each Type of problem, making 64 total, and each is presented in the story. The effectiveness of each Variation within the story gives the story thematic meaning.

Element - An attitude or approach toward problems or challenges. There are 64 of these, which can be applied in slightly different ways to each Class of problems. Elements are assigned to characters in such a way that each element is assigned exactly once.

#2

Yup, seems like you’re picking it up! You only made one small mistake. There aren’t 24 different organizations of the Throughlines; there are actually only 8. The reason why is because the Overall Throughline must always be in a Dynamic Pair with the Relationship Throughline, and the Main Character Throughline must be in a Dynamic Pair with the Impact Character Throughline. Situation is Dynamic with Fixed Attitude, and Activity is Dynamic with Manipulation. Thus you can have the Overall Throughline and Relationship Throughline on the Situation-Fixed Attitude Pair (2 options), meaning Main-Impact is on the Activity-Manipulation Pair (2 options), giving you 4 combinations. Or you can put the Overall-Relationship on the Activity-Manipulation Pair (2 options), leaving Main-Impact on the Situation-Fixed Attitude Pair (2 options) for the other 4 combinations.

Other than that, you’ve certainly got a great start! I really like the “passionate-dispassionate” thing you went for. I thought that was clever. :smile:

#3

The “passionate-dispassionate” thing may be clever, but I took it straight from the Dramatica Dictionary, so I’m afraid it’s not my cleverness on exhibit here. :smiley:

Thanks for the correction on how Throughlines can be matched with Classes.

#4

Another nudge towards a better understanding; the Class isn’t the source of the problems in a story.

The problems come from an inequity – a pair of items that are out of balance. This inequity shows up at all levels of the story.

If you look at it from far away, it’s only possible to generalize it and put it into a Domain. If you look more closely, suddenly it’s Class becomes apparent. This goes all the way down until you are staring it in the face at the level of the Elements.

Looking at it this way, you’re going to see that your definitions for Variation and Element are off, too.

Just to give it details: If a story has too little Certainty then it isn’t that the characters’ approach is uncertain (though it can be), it’s that there isn’t enough information to be certain.

1 Like
#5

Hmm. I see that “source” is a poor word choice for describing Class. My new formulation for Class is “a problem space as defined by external vs. internal and static vs. dynamic”. Not very concise, but more precise.

I can sort of see that the story’s “problems come from an inequity”, but I’m not really seeing how to apply that “at all levels of the story”.

And I’m afraid I’m stumped on how to understand Variations and Elements. Variations appear to be associated with the story’s problems whereas Elements appear to be associated with the story’s characters. But saying that “if a story has too little Certainty” means “there isn’t enough information to be certain” sounds to me like Certainty is a descriptor applied to (one or more of) a story’s problem(s). And yet, Certainty is an Element, not a Variation.

#6

Hmm. Well, let’s come up with an example and see if that explains it!

Suppose I have my Overall Throughline in the Domain of Mind. That means the inequity as @MWollaeger put it (good word, by the way) rests in the mind… somehow. Basically, all we can say at this level is that it’s not external, and it’s not a process. This does tell us how to interpret the story some, but other than that, it simply doesn’t say very much. So we move down a tier to the Types. Our Overall Throughline has the Concern of Contemplation. This is a little clearer. Before, we knew it was in the Mind, but now we know for sure why the Mind is causing trouble: the characters put their attention in bad places, they think too hard. But what exactly about Contemplation? There are lots of different ways to have bad thoughts, and there are lots of ways that they can interfere with life. So let’s go another layer deeper.

Here’s where we get to the Variations. Suppose we say that the Issue of the Overall Throughline is Investigation. Now we have an even more focused sense as to why there’s trouble in the story. The characters are drawn to overthinking, to overanalyzing, to over-researching. We’re really getting somewhere now. Yet there’s still one last thing question in our minds: what are they investigating? What is the actual problem? So we go one level down to the simplest Element. The Problem of the Story is – you guessed it – Certainty. At last, we understand exactly what the problem is. All of the characters are so obsessed with looking for 100% certain results. Perhaps there isn’t enough Certainty, or they’ve fixated on a single Certainty.

So that’s how the inequity applies to all the levels of the story. The story exists because there is a problem with the Mind. There is a problem with the Contemplation. There is a problem with Investigation. There is a problem with Certainty. Wheels within wheels and plans within plans.

EDIT: But you were right about that other thing. The Domain is most closely related to the Genre. The Concern is most closely related to the Plot. The Issue is most closely related to Theme. And the Problem is most closely related to Character.

#7

Let’s look at The Terminator – the storyform says that the OS problem is Pursuit. So this problem should be visible all of over the place.

In certain ways, we could tie this specifically to just The Terminator itself: he is pursuing Sarah Connor and he wreaks havoc all over the place with this pursuit – he kills many people, he destroys an 18 wheeler, a police station, etc.

But it is also true that these things are affecting everyone in the story. The police then start pursuing Sarah Connor – and this brings her to the police station which is why it gets destroyed. Even the punks at the beginning have too much desire to go after the weird naked guy and get killed because of it.

To be honest, I wouldn’t really think of those events as Pursuit – I would mentally organize them higher up, but they do fit pretty easily into pursuit issues, and not, say Probability.

#8

Ah, that’s what you meant by “at all levels of the story.”

Similar to that, you see it with the Concern and Issue as well. So for Terminator, the Issue is… Self-Interest, right? All the characters are concerned with their own self-interest. Skynet wants to keep Skynet running, Sarah Connor just wants her normal life, Reese wants to maintain the existence of his group, and so on. Everything in the end boils down to, “What’s best for me and mine?” In the same way, the Concern is Obtaining. All the characters are trying to secure Sarah and her potential as the mother of the resistance. The Terminator attempts to seize control of it by ending her life, while Reese defends her and even impregnates her, activating that very potential. IIRC, the main thrust of Sarah’s piece in the Overall Throughline is that she can’t seem to figure out what the purpose of her life is. She too wants to realize her potential.

#9

I think I’m going to have to read the book a few more times and seek out other materials as well. I feel like my confusion is increasing. That’s not surprising really, since I’ve been ignoring some concepts while focusing on others, but the Dramatica model is so thoroughly entangled that misunderstanding seems unavoidable. Grasping the model is going to have to be an iterative process.

The concept of “inequity” applying “at all levels of the story” still eludes me somewhat. I think I see how the nature of the main problem area is consistent at all levels, but most of the terms used don’t capture the idea of “a pair of items that are out of balance”.

The evolution of the vocabulary is causing me difficulty. For example “Suppose I have my Overall Throughline in the Domain of Mind.” “Mind” is apparently equivalent to “Fixed Attitude” (old term versus new term), but I cannot figure out what “Domain” means within the Dramatica model. In my copy of the book, the Preface claims that “Throughline” is the new term for “Domain”. But in the Reference section, under “Domain”, it says that Domains are assigned to Throughlines. These Domains “contain story points” “representing a different perspective in the structure of the story” and “describing the area in which” the…er, the…the something-or-other operates. But the Throughline itself is a sequence of story points which represents a structural perspective. The Dramatica Dictionary included in the software actually has two definitions for “Throughline” and leaves “Domain” out entirely.

It’s very confusing.

I’m also perplexed about the term "Genre’. Reading the book, it seems at first that Genre comes from assigning each of the four “Modes of Expression” to a different Throughline, much like Classes are assigned. But then it turns out that each Throughline can actually shift through all four “Modes of Expression”, in which case I fail to see how Genre has any meaning at all. Maybe one Mode of Expression is supposed to dominate?

The “Modes of Expression” don’t make a lot of sense to me either. I can see how an “educational tone…focuses the audience on knowledge”, but a “humorous tone…focuses the audience on ability”? Really? How’s that? And the “Entertainment” mode of expression is supposed to be a “diverting tone which focuses the audience on desire”, but the examples given are not about desire, as far as I can tell. I can’t argue too strongly against “diverting”, since that’s such a broad term, but it appears to me that the examples are more about novelty. Which is not a “tone”.

Unconventional definitions, seemingly inconsistent usage of terms, terms that have nearly indistinguishable definitions (if not meanings)… I keep hitting these kinds of stumblingblocks to understanding over and over again. It’s rather frustrating.

I think I would give up, except that when I plugged my ideas into the Dramatica software, it came up with something that looks really useful. If I could just understand it.

1 Like
#10

@Nonomori, all of us here understand your frustration and confusion — “story” is such an all-embracing concept, there’s a lot to sort through!

At the same time, many here have found value in asking specific questions about specific parts of a specific storyform they are working on — kind of matching Dramatica concepts to the “faces and places” you are working with, so we can try and help you “connect the dots” in a specific application of Dramatica Theory.

Obviously, of course, you shouldn’t (and needn’t) “give away” too much of your story.

That is, instead of actual character names and locations, you can label them like, for example, “Character A (my MC) is in a ________ relationship with Character B (my IC), and I have placed my MC in the Situation Domain, thus placing the IC in the Fixed Attitude Domain. But _______ (and then ask your specific question about whatever it is you don’t understand in this specific storyform).”

Time after time, I’ve seen this kind of focused question help the veterans here help the newbies, and also help the newbies better understand the entire theory more quickly, simply by “practicing” with it while “old-timers” look on and guide.

Hopin’ to help…

#11

@keypayton, I have no doubt that your advice is good. And I expect to do as you suggest, albeit supplemented with purely theoretical questions (which I’ll post in the questions topic instead of further extending this thread). But right now, I’m still trying to grasp enough of the Dramatica framework to ask intelligible questions.

I’ve gone through the StoryGuide, answering its questions for my novel idea (I’ve never tried to write one before, and indeed have not written fiction in over 35 years), and I was pleasantly surprised when it popped up with the claim that it had a storyform for me. I was even more pleasantly surprised to discover that in all but one respect what it determined for me matched what I had tentatively worked out for myself while reading the book. (The software wouldn’t let my Main Character be a Be-er. Upon further consideration, I think the software was right, and my Main Character is actually a Do-er.)

This gives me a fair amount of confidence that I’m on the right track, and that my idea for a novel is pretty solid. The characters that have been floating around in my head for the past few decades fell rather naturally into the archetypes. Some of the scenes will have to be pushed out to a sequel, but even the realization that there’s no room for them in a single story arc is something I count as pretty major progress before I’ve even written a single word.

I keep telling myself that I don’t have to achieve complete understanding to get value out of Dramatica, and I don’t have to apply the model perfectly for it to be helpful. I probably don’t need to understand that whole “Genre” and “Modes of Expression” thing, for instance.

But I’m sure it will be a lot easier to apply Dramatica if I can visualize the interrelationships among the concepts better.

1 Like
#13

Dear @Nonomori: One of the very most fundamental concepts of Dramatica Theory is that Problem-Solving is at the crux of every well-built story. Which means that your characters’ differing approaches to (and perceptions of) the story’s challenging-to-them life problems will be at the deepest roots of all your story’s ongoing dramatic conflicts.

That is, a Dramatica “Problem” (from down at the Theme Browser’s bottom level) will be what began “bubbling up” at the story’s inciting incident. And the rest of the story, in one way or another, should have to do with the various characters (especially the Main and Impact Characters) struggling, together and apart, to define, deny, mitigate or evade that Problem (more or less).

So even though the Dramatica Theory relies on many distinctly-defined terms and abstract concepts, it is still, at heart, about people trying to work their way through problematic (and massive-to-them) situations, activities, fixed attitudes, or psychological tangles. All to re-find some sense of that blessed-though-fragile equilibrium.

Layered over by intricate explanations, meandering mind games, obstinate attitudes, convoluted activities, and maze-like situations? Doesn’t matter.

Every enduring story is still, at its core, a problem-solving contest (albeit often a contest with life-or-death stakes and urgency, and with multiple striving “contestants” laying it on the line).

If you know all this already, I’m sorry to waste your time.

But I continue to find this problem-solving emphasis to be one of the main concepts that helps me understand and effectively use the Dramatca Theory and software.

Anyway, I’m hopin’ to see your posts around here mo’ as you grow…

1 Like
#14

Thanks keypayton. And thanks to actingpower and MWollaeger too.