So what are you waiting for? Let’s do it!
What’s the difference between Pursuit in context of a Situation vs Pursuit in context of an Activity?
2 Likes
I think it’s up to the author really. This will be greatly affected by the intended genre/type of story that is being told(Thriller, Fantasy etc). And I think it will affect the kinds of characters and their interactions. Here’s what I mean. From my understanding, Universe is a State, Physics is a Process so if we look at the Types, we see The Past, Present, Progress, and The Future. Then Learning,Understanding, Doing and Obtaining for Physics domain. I think pursuit in relation to a Situation could be more of a Goal oriented thing. Dramatica is pretty holistic in its approach so we have to factor in the other throughlines’ appreciations and character resolve in the mix as well. For example pursuit in the case where the OS is Universe and the MC is Physics. The OS character with that element might be the protagonist or antagonist trying to achieve/retard achieving something to do with an External State. If the MC is the one with the Pursuit element, then he/she is the Hero and will engage is an External Process(Activity) e.g chasing, fighting, talking and so on to get to the “Situational” goal of the story. If the MC was in the Psychology Domain, he/she might be pursuing the goal that is with the realms of External State by a Manner of Thinking(Internal Process) and so pursuit in this context might be through a proper/warped way of thinking about the problem and it’ll show up in the character interactions. That’s the fun part. Whereas if the OS was in Physics,achieving the Goal will be an External process. Consequently with a MC domain of Universe/Mind. If the MC is in Mind, pursuit will be colored with What he/she “thinks” should be pursued or about what is being pursued (the External Process due to OS: Physics or their “engagement” with it). But if the MC is in Universe, his/her pursuit might be flavored with an External State, say a condition(maybe a disability) or issues with a Situation in their lives. It’s all up to the author at this point.
If there isn’t one (and Jim tells me there is in the latest version of the Dramatica software, which I can’t get working and have been working with support to resolve) I think it would be extremely helpful for there to be a dictionary of terms that doesn’t simply speak of each of them generally — but includes SOME explanation of what they might mean in each possible context, or how their utility might differ. I feel the Dramatica.com dictionary often speaks only as an element relates to the MC perspective, or maybe more generally without any particular context explained.
Obviously no one wants it to be so granular as to feel prescriptive, but I also personally don’t want to be interpreting terms entirely wrong and ultimately defeating the reason for their being placed where they are to begin with — ultimately failing to complete the argument.
While I think you can hint the meaning of a structural item by considering its position in the structure, I think a) it may not be necessary and b) may be potentially counter-productive.
a) Much meaning comes from proximity, in the same manner as putting words next to each other: black dog; angry dog; pursue true; chaos approach, etc. When we combine story points in the storyweaving process, the proximity and sequence implies meaning, so no hinting is necessary.
b) If you consider the Plot Sequence report (PSR), you’ll notice that Signposts (Types) often are compared to Issues (Variations) not typically related in the “at rest” (standard) Dramatica structural model. This is because the PSR provides a SUBJECTIVE view of the structure from within the story, as opposed to the OBJECTIVE view of the structure from outside of the story (god’s eye view). If you hint the objective view in your storyencoding, it may fight with the subject view of the story.
My recommendation is to NOT OVERTHINK the structure. Human psychology and the problem solving process are not digital processes that can be completely broken down into steps or explicit relationships. Half of the process is analog, which doesn’t fit neatly into little boxes (or quads). Do not forget your gut, your hunches, and your feelings. Do what logics right and/or feels right.
3 Likes
This post is deleted.
Dramatica can be overwhelming because there is a lot to it. If you’re an expert, being deep is good, but if you are new to Dramatica it can be daunting and difficult.
I think it is best to approach Dramatica as you would any complicated task: begin with the basics and don’t move any deeper until you are comfortable. Here are the things I think are most important to understand first.
-
The four throughlines (Overall Story, Main Character, Influence Character, and Relationship throughlines)
-
Main Character Resolve: Change or Steadfast
-
Main Character Approach: Do-er or Be-er
-
Story Outcome: Success or Failure
-
Story Judgment: Good or Bad
-
Story Driver: Action or Decision
-
Story Limit: Timelock or Optionlock
-
The four domains: Situation, Activity, Fixed Attitude, Psychology (Manipulation)
-
The concept of the Problem and Solution elements as the underlying source of conflict and drive
-
The concept of the Symptom and Response elements as the apparent/alternate source of conflict and drive
-
The four act structure, with the idea that each throughline has its own series of four signposts
If you limit yourself to understanding these concepts, starting at the top of the list and moving toward the bottom of the list, you’ll be well along to a great understanding of story and Dramatica.
The problem is, we writers tend to be curious folks, and when we know there is more we want to see it, even if it is detrimental to our ability to understand and use it in our writing. It’s up to you to limit Dramatica to a need to know basis. That will help getting so swamped.
3 Likes
Pursuer and pursuee, duh. 
Interesting. Can you elaborate on that–especially how Pursuit in context of a Situation somehow refers to a pursuer without assuming Main Character perspective only? And can you do it for the other two Domains as well?
Would situation > pursuit (MC specifically) possibly work (in addition to being pursued as jassnip proposed) as “it’s your job to pursue”, as that’s a system that the MC is a part of and where the conflict lies is with the system. Being a part of a system of pursuit causing conflict. It has to be something about the universe, about the status quo or matter of circumstance inflicted upon a character for it to work in situation, yes?
As soon as I get Dramatica working I intend to use the gists to get a better feel for what the elements mean in context.
Well, there’s the pursuit of wisdom, and then there’s the pursuit of Richard Kimble.
Pursuing knowledge of the human mind vs pursuing a case against Donald Trump.
Pursuing the deep truths of your soul vs chasing your last high.
2 Likes
Hi Jim, I think that maybe @jassnip was just joking?
But I was thinking about your original question myself and wondering if there is a satisfactory answer.
The only thing I could come up with was to kind of flavor the Element with the Concern. You could pretend we have words for these in English by concatenating (it helps if you pretend you’re speaking German):
- Dr. Kimble in the Fugitive is driven by Obtainingpursuit; while objectively everyone in the overall story is driven by Helpingpeoplesfutures.
- In Collateral, cab driver Max’s difficulties stem from Desiresavoidance, while objectively everyone in the overall story is driven by Obtainingprevention
- Neo’s personal problem is not the DisbeliefAboutWinning that everyone struggles with objectively, but rather, DisbeliefAboutWhatWillBe.
- Luke Skywalker needs to get over his constant Progresstesting, while overall they need to stop the Doingtesting (and embrace Doingtrust).
In a way, this is a cop-out answer, but it kinda feels right. I especially like the Matrix example! For some reason, it’s really clear that Neo’s personal skepticism issues are not about winning or attaining, but about the future.
3 Likes
This post is deleted.
I was, indeed, as @mlucas suggests, teasing*.
However, without regard to the character function, a pursuer creates the sitch (for the pursued) by their activities (chasing). A pursuer is going to fall into Fixed attitude (must find x), while pursuee is going to fall into Manner of Thinking (how do I avoid).
So without, the chasing Activities of Samuel Gerard, Vincent, Agent Smith and Darth Vader no sitch develops for the pursuees that they have to avoid. The stories either don’t happen or would have to change dramatically.
Thinking with my fingers now, in say The Fugitive Dr. Kimball is pursuing THE TRUTH (through dogged (FA), Activities, ) about what happened to his wife, in doing so he creates a situation for Dr. Nichols in which he figures out how to frame Kimble
I can’t think of a pursuer who doesn’t end up in FA and Activities and Pursuee that doesn’t end up in MoT and Sitch.
If you take away the FA, they stop pursuing, and all other things collapse after that.
.
*see the tongue
1 Like
So I’m not sure if I’m doing this right, but I took a stab at it for fun as well. I tried to find the difference between Pursuit in Situation vs Activity by looking at all the quads as KTAD. When doing that, Pursuit in Situation would be Knowledge (Situation), Desire (Future), Ability (Delay), and Knowledge again (Pursuit). Pursuit in Activity is Ability (Activity), Desire (Obtaining), Ability again(Self Interest), and Knowledge (Pursuit).
To put compare side by side, that looks like this:
Situation …Activity
-Knowledge…-Ability
-Desire…-Desire
-Ability…-Ability
-Knowledge…-Knowledge
The only difference is that one Pursuit falls under Knowledge and one Pursuit falls under Ability. Would it be correct then to say that the difference is a Pursuit of Knowledge vs a Pursuit of Ability? And if so, would that mean that Pursuit in Situation would be a Pursuit of information, or theory, or some kind of study whereas Pursuit in Activity would be the pursuit of some kind of practical application, or some kind of practicing of an ability?
I have a feeling I’m over-(or under?)thinking it. Either way, I’m not sure what words would differentiate between pursuit of a theory vs pursuit of a practical nature.
Pursuit in Manipulation and Fixed Attitude would be:
Manipulation…Fixed Attitude
-Desire… -Thought
-Desire… -Desire
-Ability…-Knowledge
-Knowledge…-Ability
So going by what I said above, I suppose Pursuit in Manipulation would be a Pursuit of a Desire. But the “address” of Pursuit in Fixed Attitude has the bottom Ability and Knowledge switched from the other three. I’m not going to even begin to speculate on what that means.
If nothing else I feel the disparate answers from various users of different experience levels shows a need for a more clear explanation of what terms mean in context, or what method to use to answer that question and questions like it. I understand that the definitions shouldn’t be too specific so as to be limiting — but there should be some attempt to give a general sense when you look at the definition for “pursue” what it means in each context and why, or how a context modifies the understanding of the term. It can be vague, there can be caveats — but there must be something to go on.
@SeanLester, I feel like it’s actually not so important to have these definitions because you will naturally use them properly anyway, as long as you have a firm grasp of the sources of conflict in the throughline.
Say you have an MC Throughline of Activity, Obtaining, Self Interest, Pursuit. If you write a paragraph describing how each of those are sources of conflict for your MC, you’ll naturally use Pursuit in the correct context. (Especially if you go in order from top to bottom.)
Google for the Narrative First playground exercises if you want to sink your teeth into this kind of thing properly.
I’ve done them, and this frankly hasn’t been my experience. I’ve found every way to incorrectly use a term. I mean, Gists help a lot, but if you can’t write your own gist for the element correctly then how is that better than being overly prescriptive in the defining?
I tend mostly to stare at my storyform paralyzed by uncertainty about how to use the elements, what they impact, how they’re related, what the terms mean in their context. I go back and forth and debate with myself… “Well if I use it this way am I really exploring a different element entirely? If I use it this way it will be cliche but will technically work… I think? If I use it this way does it serve my argument?” and I write and rewrite the gist, then sometimes and illustration, then I scrap the illustration and the gist and go back to the base term.
This reliance on faith that if you just have the right storyform you can’t do it wrong doesn’t feel helpful. I have done it wrong. A lot. I feel most questions I ask result only in defeating my current understanding without offering an obvious path to forming a better one. It seems as if people keep pushing me to think more like an artist and less like a rationalist, and that isn’t going to work for me at this step. It’s WHY I’m embracing a theory that’s so heavily structural. I’m building a machine of narrative elements. I need to understand the way the parts function together to have faith in it.
How does going in order from top to bottom help? This isn’t a challenge veiled as a question but a genuine question. I jump around a lot.
Thanks for the honest response, Sean.
What I meant was that if you understand what the Main Character Throughline is (a first-person perspective or worldview on personal issues)… and you can see and write down how the source of the Main Character’s issues is Activity (Physics), Obtaining, and Self Interest … then when it comes time for you to illustrate the Main Character’s Problem of Pursuit, you’ll be fine – you won’t have to worry about the ‘flavor’ of Pursuit.
If you get the ‘flavor’ of Pursuit wrong, it won’t be because you got Pursuit wrong, but because you got Activity wrong. That’s the reason it helps to go from top to bottom – as you zoom in on the various levels of conflict, you align yourself to what’s really driving things.
Does that make sense?
Regarding uncertainty about how to use elements, etc., remember that there are a LOT of “right” ways to use all the different elements – there’s a lot of overlap. If you think you’re exploring a particular element, and you like that part of the story – then great, you almost certainly are exploring that element. Even if you were wrong, the whole point is to tell a good story so if it still works, just go with it.
Also, on this:
If the storyform isn’t helping, put it aside and just write (or plan your story if you aren’t ready to write just yet). It may be that the storyform isn’t the right one, and the only way to get to the right one is to tease more story out of your right brain (aka Muse).
When I say put it aside though, you don’t have to put everything aside. If you’re certain your IC is in Situation, for example, then you can definitely keep that in the back of your head. That way when you suddenly realize the IC was part of a human cloning experiment you can nod your head and say, “good idea, that fits”.
4 Likes
Really great response, thank you!
1 Like
I’m a newbie and have been through the panic. May I recommend “Dramatica for Screenwriters” book? It’s given me a very effective method and explanation of the option in the Story Guide. At a certain point, it’s also been my experience that you just shove the panic aside, focus on “one item a time” (which feels odd and unnatural for a writer but produces results) and trudge through the QnA. We learn by doing, to quote Star Trek II. (Kirk’s response to humor: it is a difficult concept).
But I completely identify with what I would call “annoyed bafflement.” I’m a very intelligent fellow. It’s part of my identity. I like FEELING smart as well as being smart and, well, Dramatica took some of the wind out of my sails. Eventually, I promise, it lets you feel smart again 
1 Like