The Domains of a Guy Stuck in a Well

I had a similarly worded sentiment expressed to me the other day by a nicely-dressed fellow carrying a bible. :wink:

Seriously, though, I’m grateful for the extended discussion and everyone’s contributions. I’m actually more comfortable now with ambiguity in the interpretive process. I still see value in looking at a film or book and trying to place it within a storyform as in the case of speculating about Blade Runner 2049 and looking at it from other people’s perspectives. It’s just a matter of letting go at the point where the drive towards a single objective storyform ceases to be useful for me as an individual.

With that, I’d better go finish this book, or else I’ll be singularly, objectively, and absolutely screwed. :wink:

2 Likes

Running through this post, there are some things here that need to be addressed.

In the past I’ve been pretty strict when it comes to people suggesting their own version of the Dramatica theory–in fact, it’s one of the first things mentioned when you sign up. But I can see now that the confusion that drives this kind of thinking is based on a misunderstanding of the theory itself, so I’ll do my best to clarify what Dramatica is, and what Dramatica isn’t.

Plus, I can’t get rid of @decastell - he gives me too much to write about!

The model does have a bias. That’s how it works–in fact, that’s the only way it can work. Without bias you have no position, no place to stand, and therefore would be open to all kinds of subjective interpretations (pretty much the problem with many discussions like this).

Don’t know how I missed this one the first time around, but this is brilliant, clear and succinct - if your hypothetical does intend to be broad enough to accommodate constituent parts of the theory as set, then it is by internal definition, a Tale and not a Grand Argument Story.

It’s not Dramatica.

You absolutely have to look at all Four Throughlines at once because you measure the accuracy of one based on the other three. You can always make an argument for a perspective in any Domain to the exclusion of the other three. This isn’t “lost in the weeds”–this is actually how Dramatica works.

The best example of this right now is the thread on The Domains of The Sixth Sense. Yes, you can make an argument for Malcom’s personal problem to be in Universe or Mind–but it fails to hold up to scrutiny when you look at the other three Throughlines–as you must.

When Dramatica says it looks at the source of the problem (inequity) it means why is being stuck in a well a problem?. Why he got stuck in the well is Backstory.

Only if you’re not taking into consideration the other four perspectives (Throughlines).

This is backwards.

Throughlines are not in Domains–Domains are in Throughlines. The Throughlines are perspectives. Perspectives, by definition, do not see the same thing–so it’s impossible that two different perspectives would find conflict in the same area.

The model doesn’t demand they be present, the reality of the difference in perspectives demands it.

1 Like

Why is it impossible for two perspectives to find conflict in the same area?

Because if I look at the same thing from two different perspectives, there’s no way it can possibly look the same.

That doesn’t stop two people with two different perspectives from both dealing with a problematic situation, or problematic activities…etc. Two people looking at a burning building won’t see the same sides but they both see a burning building.

Two different people are not two different perspectives. Two different people are a They perspective.

If you want to use the analogy of a burning building to stand in for an Inequity, then a more accurate way to describe different perspectives would be from inside the building (I) and outside the building (They).

They couldn’t possibly look the same.

1 Like

You keep equating the fact that two people (let’s say one inside a burning building and the other outside) experience different things with the idea that what they’re experiencing must be in different domains. The one doesn’t necessarily follow from the other.

I was using the example of a burning building, which I agree is not the best example. Do you understand what Dramatica means by an inequity? (not trying to be flip, but many don’t)

I understand it as the thing that’s breaking the previous balance of the story world. Good or bad, the world had been in a kind of stability, and the inequity breaks it.

Is that wrong?

More specifically - what an inequity is, an imbalance between things. The space in-between that can’t be described, only approximated by how it looks from different points-of-view.

I have an article on it: How an Inequity and a Story is Made and an archive of various posts on the subject here: Inequity - Concepts - Narrative First.

The different perspectives do not offer different “experiences” to different people – that would be different Storyminds.

1 Like

None of that demonstrates that two different perspectives can’t be in the same domain (or vice versa if you prefer)

It’s really important that you understand that perspectives are not found in Domains. This isn’t something you can change back and forth (vice versa)–unless you’re looking subjectively.

Different perspectives see the same inequity differently.

For instance, when looking at a problem of self-identity (which is already one step removed from the actual inequity), I might see the problem as something about my past that I cannot change or don’t know everything about. You would see the problem as a memory that tells you all you need to know (“The artist leaves a part of herself in every work…”).

Because You see things differently than I do, yet share some things in common with me (we both don’t see this inequity as static) I’m inspired to reconsider my point-of-view.

If I see the problem as something about my past that I cannot change or don’t know everything about and You see the problem as something your past that you cannot change or don’t know everything about where is the motivation to grow?

If this doesn’t help explain why different perspectives (in relation to I) see inequities differently, hopefully it explains why you wouldn’t want them to anyways.

If I were writing a story about and “I” and a “you” who both saw the problem as something in “my” past and in “your” past that neither of us could change and don’t know everything about, the motivation to grow would come from the different reactions to those static states.

I have no trouble seeing benefits to uniquely assigning each domain to a throughline, but I confess I’m not seeing why it’s impossible in any sense for it to be otherwise.

Then it wouldn’t be about a past that neither of us could change, it would be about different reactions. But this would be inaccurate as you’re referring to reactions – subjective again – instead of looking at the inequity itself.

We’re getting into that rabbit hole where words start having meanings that aren’t accessible to both parties – a conceptual space where there’s no operating definition that doesn’t circularly rely on the terms themselves. If you define “inequity” as meaning “something that can’t be seen, described, or understood except by having four Dramatica domains applied to four Dramatica throughlines”, then we’re at a place that both makes it impossible to define the constituent parts of Dramatica without unconditionally accepting an unproven premise. We’re also at a point where I’d have to say that I can confidently write an engaging, meaningful, and satisfying story that doesn’t have what Dramatica would consider an inequity – which seems contrary to the very purpose of the theory.

[Edit] On reflection, this probably reads as a little more strident than is productive. I’m just trying to get across that when a nomenclature is critical to a discussion, it has to be accessible to both parties through the presence of some separate source (like a dictionary). But here we keep getting terms that flow neither from a conventional dictionary nor the Dramatica dictionary, which makes it difficult if not impossible to reach agreement.

This may be your experience, but it’s not everyone’s experience. “Rabbit hole” seems to be a fallback point when I fail to accurately describe the way a perspective works when looking at an inequity and I’ll try my best to explain it a different way. I think it’s important lest anyone else reach this same level of confusion.

The weird part is that you say something like “when a nomenclature is critical to a discussion, it has to be accessible to both parties through the presence of some separate source”, yet many understand this idea of how perspective and inequity works…but I will sleep on it and see if I can’t find a better way to explain it in the morn!

I think the point of contention in this is what makes the perspectives different. In physical space, say a baseball diamond, we understand that first base has a different perspective on things compared to third base. But in a story, Dramatica espouses that perspectives differ on whether they see something as external vs. internal and state vs. process. That’s the “dramatic space” that you have to work with.

At least that’s how I understood the perspectives … does that sound accurate Jim?

Yeah, that was maybe a more obscure phrasing than is useful when specifically complaining about terminology. Here’s the frustration on my part:

  1. You’ll respond to a point with “That’s not what X means.”
  2. I go to the Dramatica Theory book and come back with, “Well, it says that right here.”
  3. You’ll tell me it’s wrong, or poorly worded, or that the understanding of it has changed/grown over time.
  4. I’ll then point out that the actual words are actually saying something different. For example, when you said, “It’s story judgment, not MC judgment” and I go to the Dramatica definition, which literally says that it is exactly that, then you say it’s not and that furthermore it’s actually completely compatible.

Item 4 requires a radically different understanding of pretty basic terms so I’m not sure where one goes from there.

1 Like

But I didn’t say it was wrong, that it was poorly worded, or that the understanding of it has changed/grown over time.

In fact, I would say that the theory book was right, is properly worded, and represents and understanding that hasn’t changed or grown over time.

There is no entry for Main Character Judgment in the Dictionary (trust me, I copied and pasted the entire thing!). A Google search for main character judgment site:dramatica.com reveals absolutely zero entries.

We’re cross-posting (while I dance and come up with a better way to describe perspective and inequity) but there’s a reason the story point is labeled Story Judgment and not Main Character Judgment. There is meaning behind it - and now that you understand the meaning, it should make it easier to assess whether or not the Author is intending the efforts in the film to be an overall Good Judgment or an overall Bad Judgment.

I’m confused - if you understand Story Judgment as the Author’s judgment on the events of the narrative and you understand that the easiest way to portray this judgment is through the emotional state of the Main Character in regards to their personal issue - how is this a “radically” different understanding - isn’t it a more refined and sophisticated understanding of what the Author is doing when they position the Main Character’s final emotional state? That it’s not just about if this person feels good or bad, but that it reflects the intent and purpose behind the narrative?

I guess that’s my reputation now…

Anyway, the analysis pages only contain storyforms with all four throughlines with all four domains, as that’s what’s considered “complete.” The “broken” storyforms don’t have much more information than that. To make clear whether they have (a) multiple throughlines with the same domain, or (b) simply missing throughlines, I would have to go through all the respective podcast episodes / articles, and that is if those broken forms have episodes/articles.

As far as I recall though, most (if not all of them) are simply described as having shallow storyforms (i.e. they don’t go deeper than concerns) or missing throughlines. It’s possible that there are some that have multiple interpretations that exclude each other, which you might consider to be that case of having “four throughlines without all four domains.” I don’t remember any, though.


Excuse the interruption. Please continue your debate.