Different subject, but related to narrativefirst!
At the end of your analysis of Wonder Woman, you show your storyform, but while that story form shows a MC Problem-Solving Style of “Linear” I think in the article’s body itself you imply pretty heavily that it should be “Holistic” instead. Am I reading this wrong?
Yes, you are reading it wrong. She’s 100% a Linear Problem-Solver and I meant to make note of the difference between the structure arguing for a predominantly female approach to problem-solving and a structure of female problem-solving–the latter being where you would find a Holistic Problem-Solving Character Dynamic within the storyform.
Thank you for the clarification, and sorry for making it necessary to split topics.
No worries, and thanks for asking–I’m sure others would have had the same question.
Spoilers ahead:
Funny, I was thinking during the movie how despite in many ways embodying a decidedly female perspective her problem solving style couldn’t have been more linear. “I want to stop the war, so I just kill the guy. I want to help these people, so I just go help them.” There’s a certain irony to having such a linear (and steadfast) character making the argument for holistic thinking. At the same time, I think this is what ultimately makes it so palatable to both genders. Males can follow her logic and actions and female can understand her compassion, certainty, the experience of being naive of man and learning the truth, and ultimately her argument for holistic thinking.
Yes, thanks for the great analysis @jhull. I had tried to figure out the story form on my own after seeing the film and had the domains right, but realized I had misidentified Diana as Changed, rather than Steadfast. So that leads me to my question:
I think I was lead astray by looking at Diana’s maturation in the story and how she went from seeing the world in black and white terms to a more nuanced view of conflict and the world of man. I guess this is more her Growth? I had been under the impression that Growth was more in the external world for a Steadfast Character. But as the audience are we waiting for something to Stop within her as well?
And I can see how her approach didn’t really change – she was a warrior ever since she was a little girl. But I often get confused about the approach as it relates to the MC storyline vs. the MC as Protagonist’s resolve in the OS. Are they related? Or is Diana’s resolve as MC is more generally about her being a warrior and wanting to help people and her Protagonist’s resolve is about killing the villain/ending the war?
I write mainly action/adventure stories where the hero does have powers and is committed to resolving the OS problem, but I also want to show how they grow in the resolve and mature in each story. I thought the Growth was where to look, but again, I get a little confused by what I’ve read in Dramatica that it seems to be a Start or Stop outside the character, rather than the character him/herself.
I seems that in most superhero stories the MCs are Steadfast. I guess origin stories are often less so (I’m thinking of Dr. Strange) but it’s tricky working in series where once the MC/Protagonist has overcome their initial reluctance to keep them growing and changing without them actually being a Changed MC.
Did she really see thinks in a more nuanced view or were you projecting that onto her? It would seem to me that at the end she reaffirms her belief in humanity. “It’s not what they deserve, but what you believe” is a Certainty position. Nuanced would be reflective of Potentiality which I agree, would have made her more of a Changed character - and there is a bit of that when her world gets shattered…but she comes back.
As far as the Stop and the focus on the OS…Steadfast characters can sometimes be hard for newbies to a Dramatica understanding to grok so that’s why the emphasis in the teaching on holding out for something to stop / holding out for something to start . The growth is still within the Main Character’s point-of-view. In a very simplistic way you could say her growth is holding out on that Certainty until people stop telling her what she can and cannot do.
The Resolve and the “Protagonist’s” Resolve in the OS are related through the Crucial Element. In a Steadfast MC story the focus will be on the work, or the Symptom and Response, so that’s what you’re seeing there in regards to Diana.
She sits on Probability, Steve sits on Possibility (See below) She’s all about what will probably happen if no one goes in there and fights for what’s right, Steve is all about impossibilities and limiting what’s possible.
So in some regards you could think of her character arc as holding out for people to stop telling her the odds. (Steadfast+Stop+Probability).
Superhero movies aren’t always Steadfast. Superhero movies is a Genre - in Dramatica, Genre has everything to do with the top Domain level. You’ll find that most, if not all, superhero movies have the usual MC in Situation, OS in Activity arrangement of Throughlines (Batman Begins the only exception I can think of off-hand).
Thanks! That helps.[quote=“jhull, post:7, topic:1062”]
The Resolve and the “Protagonist’s” Resolve in the OS are related through the Crucial Element. In a Steadfast MC story the focus will be on the work, or the Symptom and Response, so that’s what you’re seeing there in regards to Diana.
She sits on Probability, Steve sits on Possibility. She’s all about what will probably happen if no one goes in there and fights for what’s right, Steve is all about impossibilities and limiting what’s possible.
[/quote]
That totally makes sense, but in Dramatica (I recreated the story form for WW you had posted), when I look for the Crucial Element, the MC is on Deduction and IC on Induction. I don’t see Probably or Possibility anywhere in the story form. Or am I looking at the wrong thing? I thought those little MC/IC tabs in the characteristics panel were the Crucial Elements.
Oh poop, you’re right…I still had Doubt on my mind from last night (she was a Changed character with elements of Certainty and Potentiality in her Throughline).
Well…it’s not too much of a stretch to shift my explanation of the Crucial Elements for Wonder Woman…in terms of Induction is defined as “a means of determining possibility” so Steve is all about possibilities still.
Deduction is a bit different as it is defined as “a means of determining certainty” (Reduction determines probability), but I think it works better for her, especially when you see this:
Deduction often fails to look for situations in which alternative truths exist.
That certainly sounds more like her!
So, I might rephrase it to say:
You could think of her character arc as holding out for people to stop questioning her truth (Steadfast+Stop+Deduction) which is more focused on the feminine anyways…(stop deducing for me…see Mansplaining)
Awesome. Yes, that makes perfect sense. I was just worried I was missing something…
Oh, and FYI this Crucial Element like seems to be broken. Even searching for the link on the site, I can’t access it.
@jhull I was wondering about Diana’s Problem being Certainty. From your analysis:
“The truly feminine characteristic Diana brings to this world, and one that those pandering to the Audience miss, is her Certainty that she is always on the right path (Main Character Problem of Certainty.”
This completely makes sense, but then I was looking at Dramatica’s definition of Certainty which says:
“The character representing the Certainty characteristic is not a risk taker. It must be completely sure before it takes action or accepts information as true. The slightest potential for error or change will stop it in its tracks.”
This doesn’t sound like Diana at all! I guess I’m wondering about the definitions and how best to use them in a case like this, where the definition does not seem to actually reflect the character in the film.
Every Element contains both positive and negative aspects of that Element. A lack of Faith and an overabundance of Faith both exemplify problems of Faith. A lack of Disbelief is not Faith in the same way that an overabundance of Disbelief is not Faith.
The definition is focused on the lack of Certainty as a motivator. Wonder Woman is an example of an overabundance of Certainty. Both work as instances of Certainty and are dynamically opposed to a Solution of Potentiality.
(And I fixed the Crucial Element link on the site - thanks for the heads-up!)
Okay. Thanks for the clarificaiton!
I loved this movie. Thanks for the awesome analysis.
I think this has been the hardest thing for me to get w/ Dramatica (still working on it) but I can see also one of the most important.
The frame story further confuses the issue in this movie: “I used to want to change the world…” In other words, she used to be innocent, but now she’s not – isn’t that a change? In most other theories of story, the answer would seem to be yes. But from a Dramatica perspective, that’s growth, not “change” (necessarily). (Right?)
The nature of steadfast character growth is almost entirely missed/misunderstood in other theories of story I’ve read. If they mention it at all, they describe a steadfast character arc as a “flat” arc, which sounds pretty boring to me.
Ah. You all beat me to the punch. I can’t see the storyform, but agree with your points, Jim. Wonder Woman seems very linear. “A deal is a promise, Steve. And you cannot break a promise”. This might also fit with a fixed attitude. This contrasts with Steve’s holistic approach as he wants to explain the extenuating circumstances in London. She wants to go “wherever the war is” as they head out, but Steve says “it depends which country”. Her emphasis on taking a side in the war. When she defeats Ares, it comes as a surprise that the War hasn’t stopped. She expected everything to be resolved when Ares is killed, but Steve suspects the people themselves “aren’t always good”.
My instincts were to label Wonder Woman as a Doer, probably in the situation of being an ignorant foreigner. She’s very impulsive and eager to get out into the field of battle. Steve seems very much a Be-er. He sneaks into the German factory at the beginning, to steal a book. He assumes a German accent to enter the Ball. He flirts with the scientist at the Ball. Wonder Woman just walks into the Ball ready to pull out her sword, ignoring the other guests, as she approaches her target.
There’s an interesting moment just after exiting the castle Ball when Steve spots the gas. I’ll have to watch it again, but it seemed a strong appreciation moment. Wonder Woman recognizes her blind spot that she had been chasing the German’s the entire time, and not recognized Steve was likely working against her, too.
When Steve and Wonder Woman meet with British leaders, Steve recognizes he’ll never win the argument. He weighs this. Rather than be as brash as Wonder Woman, he intends to go after the military front in secret.
I have a particular weakness with identifying the OS concern & problem. I tend to grasp the other throughlines more easily. In Wonder Woman, I don’t see how learning is the OS concern or goal.
Just wandering by, and I caught your comment, bringing to mind my reading Wonder Woman comics in the 50’s. She was, always, learning more about our culture and world. Also, everyone else in the stories were learning how to work with her, what she was about of what she let them know, and what she was trying to teach them: I think I vaguely remember her calmly pointing things out after/during? the adventure. I do remember enjoying the comics because everyone was learning from each other.