The Four Modalities of Scene Construction

[LunarDynasty]

I’ve been watching the scene creation articles roll out from the sidelines, a little hesitant to dive in and engage…but I caught this nugget from your latest blog post:

This is where paradgims of scene construction that look simply at the
wants and needs of characters fall short for many Authors. Butting one
character’s wants against the wants of another (A man wants a delicious taco, another won’t let him have it) can lead to a zero charge for that scene. They effectively cancel each other out.

THIS. I was constantly frustrated with the “make two opposite characters and throw them at each other” approach to scene creation at university (and work) because it was irrelevant to actually making interesting scenes.

Might have to dive in soon…

[jhull]

I just finished outlining my first scene using this process. I have to say, the end result is truly awesome. And by that I mean, inspiring awe–with each additional layer the original StoryEncoding found in your PRCO enriches and expands until it becomes this force of dramatic nature.

I’ll work on providing a detailed step-by-step.

[mlucas]

@jhull

I’ll work on providing a detailed step-by-step.

That’s what I was hoping you’d say!

[JBarker]

Good stuff! I’ve been following along with Shawn Coyne’s “Story Grid” podcasts where he, as a long-time story editor, has developed his own methods and formulas, some based on Robert McKee’s stuff. The one thing I find very true that he espouses is, master the scene and you’ll master story (which makes me think of the fractal nature within).

The one thing that caught my attention in his most recent podcast was where he took McKee’s concept of the value in the scene going from positive to negative (or vice versa), but using the value itself as what’s at stake within the scene. Of course, it’s much less regimented than with Dramatica’s PSR, so I went back and reread Armando’s chapter and realized, with the “Z” pattern, it’s essentially a scene, scene with a turn, scene - but as Jim mentioned, it kind of becomes a black hole when dealing with those independent scenes and from my own personal experience, they may have been perhaps set-ups and payoffs or static, ultimately more “sequence” driven than scene driven.

This gives me a new perspective to be able to shape those “scenes,” though I haven’t given much thought to using the variations as “stakes” vs. concepts explored. For instance, Worth, Confidence, Worry, and Value equates to Confidence/Worry naturally opposed and fitting together in a single scene. PRCO, however, can be applied to “Worth,” making it more dynamic, fuller, and less likely to be explored via a single line of dialogue.

[jhull]

Exactly. It becomes less of the Author trying to beat the Audience over the head with their “message” and more about showing it through Character, Plot, Theme, and Genre.

I’m pretty sure that the order in which you go through PRCO determines the positive or negative charge. And by charge I mean the charge the Author sees as the charge of the dramatic circuit. McKee, I’m guessing, is speaking about the Audience’s interpretation of such.

This charge is more in relation to the purpose and meaning of the storyform (ultimately Success or Failure)

[JBarker]

Correct, but again, in his theory, it’s much less regimented; essentially, the change in charge is to ensure the scene isn’t static. “If nothing changes, throw it out,” he’ll say, but it doesn’t necessarily speak to the bigger picture, just that scenes comprise sequences that comprise acts, each culminating into a larger turning point until the story arrives at its conclusion.

[jhull]

Oh. Well that’s nothing like what I was talking about lol

[aherring]

Gotta give a huge thank you to Jim Hull for increasing his blog posts and spewing forth his accumulated insights. I’m loving the posts about scene structure. I graciously accept your gifts, Mr. Hull and greedily await more!

I follow Coyne’s Story Grid podcast, too. Highly recommended.

Anyway, just wanted to pop in and say that I am sure there are more lurkers like me who truly appreciate what you are doing and encourage you to keep the fountain of knowledge flowing. Thank you!

[JBarker]

Somewhat, lol, I was just providing more of a contrast.

McKee points to audience interpretation through the turnpoints via emotions within the context of what’s come before, which makes sense with regards to understanding (it’s not the tears that make us feel the emotion, it’s knowing what caused them.)

As audience, we experience an emotion when the telling takes us through a transition of values. First, we must empathize with the character. Second, we must know what the character wants and want the character to have it. Third, we must understand the values at stake in the character’s life. Within these conditions, a change in values moves our emotions.

Those turning points aren’t that different from the concept of the “Z” pattern, but where the two theories differ greatly is McKee states the scene-objective is tied to the “super-objective” or spine, “the story-long quest that spans from inciting incident to story climax.”

That’s pretty broad whereas with Dramatica, you know individual scenes are working toward the signposts of four different through-lines that makes them much more specific and movement-oriented. McKee’s thought comes across as everything being tied to the OS with no regards to whether the meaning shifts from gathering information to understanding to doing to obtaining or whatever the case may be.

[VIlle]

This is some exciting stuff!

@jhull

but I’m pretty sure those are just the quad of Elements under each Issue in the Plot Sequence.

How exactly would this play out? I’ve been outlining Acts and Sequences in Excel, but never even dared to think the resolution of the plot could be multiplied by going down to the Elements. So, yesterday, I did just that! Act 2.pdf (351.1 KB)

Attached is the second act of my story, with the Elements under the Sequences in the “Z” pattern.

Now, I don’t have a clue if this is even right or if it has any releance at this resolution. Obviously, the Elements being most character-like, laid out like this, they aren’t just a finer version of the Sequences, right?

[jhull]

You’re assuming the path through the Elements is always a Z pattern, and it’s not. But yes, that is the general idea, each element would be a “Scene”. I say “Scene” with quotes because I think the way Dramatica looks at Scenes and the rest of the universe looks at scenes is completely different. And within each Scene would have four Events (described in my article).

If you take a look at my post [On Acts, Sequences, and Scenes in Dramatica] (http://narrativefirst.com/blog/2016/10/on-acts-sequences-and-scenes-in-dramatica) you’ll see an explanation of what these should really be called. Instead of “Scenes” I would use Dramatic Unit to describe the level below the Range (“Sequence”).

[VIlle]

Yeah, I had a hunch not all of them would be in a Z pattern (since that’s not the case with sequences nor acts) but decided to default to that as a test since no software application exists.

I also had a hunch that scenes in this sense mean something very different from any typical definition of a scene since there’d be a massive amount of “scenes” to cover, not to mention “scene” changes (if defaulting to the very crude understanding that a scene is one continuous unit of story)

So, I guess storytelling and structure are tied up very loosely at this resolution? A typical scene of continuous time and place (with a sense of beginning and an end) could actually be a snippet of a Dramatica scene, or if longer, contain several Dramatica scenes. Is that right?

[VIlle]

“Acts, Sequences, and Scenes exist in the Storytelling Domain.”

Hehehe… Should have just clicked your link before replying, @jhull

[bobRaskoph]

It’s kind of a pity that this series of articles was “interrupted” by the nanowrimo series (and other things), especially since you brought up a detailed step-by-step of scene construction.

Do you plan on continuing this next year?

[Greg]

agreed. more please.

[jhull]

Sure thing! Looking forward to diving into this more in the New Year. Lots is happening with Dramatica in 17. Should be a good one!

[lant]

I am glad that you have dared to do that because now I am not alone with the idea

I have even gone further a bit - if the attached print screen shows it properly - to list out those characters who can be in conflict - according to the character build screen - within the actual Plot Sequence Element.

I thought it would help me better overview Character Relationships - i.e. among 11 characters actually - at least in deciding who represents the main POV of the actual events within the scene.

The words you read under each Element are the names of Characters - being referred to much rather by they functions now - and having the 4 elements separated into two conflicting chunks - theoretically that may help distribute the argument between SP and Journey as well as among characters.

Looking at these logistics you may name them robotics but remember these are to be guidelines only and rules are there for being defaulted.

[GetSchwifty]

Fascinating article and nice theoretical work. Is this canon now?

[jhull]

Right now Dramatica is not being actively developed. I imagine when it starts up again this or parts of this will become incorporated in mto a practical application of the theory.

[GetSchwifty]

Cool, I love the software, how could I not, but I DO admit I am finding my fingers flying toward diagramming programs and what not. Today was a fill in the story points day.