Troubles discerning Classes

questions
#1

I have some questions about Classes. I understand overall what they are, but I don’t understand the reasoning to identify the Domain for a Throughline.

For example, let’s say a monster lies in a village, and scares everyone in it. Its presence is what causes problems to the characters, not its actions, so I assume the Domain would be a State. If everyone stopped to fear the monster, there would be no problem, therefore the Domain could be Mind. But if the monster simply disappeared, nobody would fear it, since it’s not there anymore. So could it be Universe as well?

From what I understand is the difference lies in what story I’m telling. If it was the story about people trying to not fear the monster, it would be Mind. If it was about removing the monster from the village, it would be Universe. Each story would be different, because each problem has to be solved in a different way (Internal vs. External).

The Domain represents the source of problem in that Throughline, but what counts as the source? I’ll use another example: someone is wreaking havoc in a town because of the way he thinks (maybe he want to get revenge, or thinks the town deserves punishment). So it’s either “I cause problematic activities because of the way I think. (Psychology)” or “I have a weird manner of thinking because of the problematic activities I engage in. (Physics)”. But putting the story in Psychology doesn’t feel right. Even if the activities are the current problem, can it be a Psychology story because the source of these activities comes from a chaotic mind? Is it the same as above: it depends of how the problem has to be resolved? (by changing the person’s psychology or stopping his activities) Or does it depend of what is exactly problematic? (psychology or activities)

2 Likes
#2

When you analyze a throughline (or any story point) in isolation, it’s easy to justify it in multiple Domains. The real key is to consider the whole. Ask yourself, “Okay, if the OS is problematic Activity, is the Relationship in problematic Psychology? And do the MC and IC throughlines make sense in Universe or Mind?”

Furthermore, drill down to the lower levels to help define the Class. “If the OS is Activity, then it should deal with Understanding-Learning-Obtaining-Doing. Does that feel right?” And so on.

1 Like
#3

The ideas I’m about to write out are still new to me, so have someone verify before accepting. However, taking this route of thinking has helped me significantly, so I’m sharing it with the hope it will help another.

In addition to the answer given by @LunarDynasty, it’s also a good idea to keep in mind that a simple statement of something that would appear problematic in the real world isn’t necessarily a statement of a real problem.

“A monster lies in a village and scares everyone in it.” This is only a fact. What else, as Author of the story, do you see as some additional fact trying to co-exist that cannot? In other words, what makes the monster’s living there and scaring people a problem in the first place?

The same goes for the other example. “Someone is wreaking havoc in a town because of the way he thinks.” So what? This is not a problem, yet. It is only another fact. What else is trying to co-exist that cannot?

When you try to answer these questions using each Type, and especially when you combine it with determining the Domain of the other Throughlines, you’ll find that each possible arrangement can give you a much different feel of a story, and is likely even to change the meaning of the story.

This is the part that took me the longest to grasp. What is an inequity, a problem, and a source? Two things must both be trying to exist that cannot, and the disconnect between those things is the problem/inequity. Why the disconnect exists in the first place is the source of that problem. There is no problem for a single statement.

2 Likes
#4

In addition, another tip that helped me is to ask what Chris Huntley asks: What is everyone concerned about? I interpret this in context to mean: in addition to the protagonist-antagonist conflict, what class of things are the other objective characters concerned about? Often the other OS characters have concerns that aren’t strictly the single concrete story goal that the protagonist is pursuing, but they are conceptually similar (i.e. another external state, or internal state, or external process, or internal process). This isn’t always the case, but it helps when it’s present.

For example, in Taxi Driver, other OS characters have concerns about what is “externally stuck and what some want to be unstuck” that have nothing directly to do with the Travis-Sport “free Iris” particular conflict.

“All the characters are concerned with the level of crime and corruption on the streets of America’s cities: Travis wants to flush the streets of “filth and scum, scum and filth”; Wizard and the other drivers are worried about attacks on cabbies; Sport and Iris depend on the unchanging situation for their lifestyle; Tom wants to push the issues that will change society, while Betsy wants to push the man—Palantine, who offers only empty promises in order to get elected.”
http://dramatica.com/analysis/taxi-driver

#5

I don’t mean to pick on your comment-I know this thought has been shared multiple times before now-but if you can look at all four through lines individually and justify any one in any domain, how does it change things to look at them all together? If you can already justify any throughline in any Domain, then you should be able to justify any iteration of all four combined, shouldn’t you?

#6

Usually one of the perspectives emerges as a better fit for a particular domain. “Well, the OS could be in Mind…oh wait, it’s definitely a better match for the MC.” It seems unlikely that one could consider all four perspectives in all four domains and not notice any stand-outs.

1 Like
#7

These answers are all useful, but sometimes I think people overthink the Dramatica terminology to a point where it causes confusion.

Lately for me I’ve been trying to focus more on the feel or “personality” of the story to identify/understand the throughlines. In Dramatica, Domain is the thing that most associated with genre, which is a little different from “genre” as conventionally understood, but still useful. If you watch a bunch of movies that have the same OS Domain, you’ll start to get a feel for why they’re similar, especially if you read the analyses.

So usually, the OS of an action-adventure or superhero movie will be in Physics, because at some level this is just what the movie is about – external actions and the conflict that comes about from them. Psychological thrillers are most often in Psychology, for obvious reasons, as are romantic coming of age stories because they’re both usually “about” people manipulating and/or trying to convince each other and themselves of things (rather than trying to kill each other).

OS Mind stories are often about prejudice, but also just being stuck in a certain mindset. Once you start comparing movies and books from that perspective, the Domains are often obvious just based on the feel of the movie.

There are apparent exceptions, but even these have a reason. Is The Incredibles really a superhero story? Or is it really a family drama (Psychology) told in the form of a superhero story? It The Fugitive really an action-adventure story, or is it more about the imbalance in the Universe caused when someone is wrongly accused?

On another thread recently someone mentioned that The Wizard of Oz is a Mind story. I hadn’t thought about that before, but it totally makes sense, doesn’t it? All of the characters are completely stuck in mindsets and prejudices – about themselves and others (and about places – who wants to live in Kansas, ugh.)

12 Angry Men is a courtroom drama. I guess you could write a courtroom Drama as a Physics story (will the jury be able to Learn and Understand what actually happened?) or a Psychology story (will the prosecutor succeed in manipulating the jury to convict an innocent man?) But when you really think about it, 12 Angry Men is obviously a Mind story–everyone is totally stuck in preconceived notions and prejudices that if not corrected will have disastrous consequences for the accused.

Of course I still doubt myself. I just read Fahrenheit 451 and came away with the strong sense that it’s an OS Mind story, but I won’t trust myself until someone agrees to work though it with me on a thread. :slight_smile:

4 Likes
#8

Art teachers say in art classes, “Get up, stand way back, and look at what you have done, occasionally.” I always took the 4 throughline purusal in that mood. The arts are similar with brain processing. In painting I learned one should always repeat a color three times, whether using a lot or a bit. When I took a short story writing class with us reading our stories to other students, I noticed that they did not catch a fact about a character if I only mentioned it two times.

Then, when I looked through macmall magazine for my new Mac quadra 610 for software to write with, I was struck by this drawing of four squares with intricate details, all four very different yet similar. I just sat looking at it for 20 minutes, before reading the words selling the product. I decided that much depth could only be a good thing for an artist who wants to write.

1 Like
#9

No. You will only be able to justify an iteration of all four combined once. Assuming the story is functional.

1 Like
#10

I just watched the not-so-great HBO adaptation and I came away thinking the same thing (I read the book years ago). The OS conflict seems to revolve around everyone’s fixed attitude re: learning and knowledge.

1 Like
#11

I’ve been waiting until I have a chance to watch the movie before starting an analysis thread. Not that they’ll necessarily have the same storyform, I just thought it would be interesting to have that context.

#12

Dangit…was looking forward to this…!

#13

SHORT ANSWER: Aligning a perspective with a class gives the problem solving process (and results) context, and therefore meaning.

LONGER ANSWER: Any inequity can be explored anywhere, but if everything is possible then nothing is more meaningful than anything else. Grand argument stories have meaning, and meaning requires context. When you marry a perspective (e.g. WE) with a class (e.g. Situation), it provides the context for exploring the meaning of that it is like for what it is like when we are stuck in a situation. That is different in meaning than if we are part of an out-of-control activity, etc.

7 Likes
#14

Maybe I’m misunderstanding something. What I’m hearing is, when you look at one domain in isolation, it’s easy to find a reason to put it in any of the four possible choices. Three of those four choices will be wrong. When you look at all four together, you will only put them in the correct places. Done correctly, sure you can only put them in the correct place, but I would think that would be true when looking at one in isolation as well. Also, I can point to several of my own posts where I’ve done this. Maybe it’s just me.

#15

Why wouldn’t it feel right? In the example given you’ve stated that the source of the problem is the way he thinks. You say he’s wreaking havoc because of the way he thinks. So the way I would look at that is his Psychology is the source of the problem, his actions are what make his Psychology problematic, and the story won’t be about arresting him or punching him until he stops (although those things might happen) but will ultimately be about getting him to think differently.

#16

Less “wrong,” more “incomplete.”

Sure, some stories are super obvious and there’s little question where the OS or MC Throughlines belong, without having to consider the others. But some stories have more subtle encoding and in those cases it helps to judge your choice against the inevitable results, e.g. “I really believe the MC is Mind; can I make as strong an argument for the IC in Universe?”

Something else that helps before considering any domain choices is to just think through the central inequity, the First Driver, the OS Goal, and the MC conflict – really separate these concepts apart in your head, putting them into your own words, before you start plugging them into Dramatica terms. That way you start on the right foot, instead of trying to justify a storyform that doesn’t actually exist.

3 Likes