Feel free to hit him up privately if you’d like to discuss dramatica and romance. I’m happy to help you pound out your storyline.
In regards to the ‘the guy had matured’ line, I think they meant in a kind of classic rom-com “Initially afraid of commitment, but learns to see the value of relationships” kind of way. Which I think would be considered a change, since it’s an adjustment of that character’s worldview. Obviously wouldn’t work if the other character changed also, though.
Honestly, I don’t understand why people say you can’t have two characters change. It happens in romance all the time. Thinking here of movies like How to lose a guy in 10 days one one of my personal favorites The Ugly Truth. It especially happens IRL.
It’s not that it can’t happen, but the logic of Dramatica doesn’t allow for it. The character that changes adjusts their worldview to that of the other character’s steadfast perspective – it’s an either/or perspective. When both characters change, the thematics become muddied, the grand argument is unresolved and the author’s intent isn’t clear.
For example, if the Main Character resolves their inequity by switching to the philosophy of the Influence, and the Influence does the same in reverse, you’ve basically just gone back to the beginning of your story. The inequity remains, and you’ve just spent a long time on a story with no real resolution – it’s a happy ending for a tale, but not for a story.
The only Dramatica-approved way two characters can change is if you have two storyforms dealing with different plots (e.g. Jerry Maguire or As Good as It Gets).
I think it’s easiest to understand this if it’s pared way down.
You and I are in an argument.
This argument will continue until one of us wins.
The ending will coincide with that win.
A story is such an argument, told in an entertaining way. The IC and MC throughlines are embodiments of their personal view on the argument. They demonstrate to the other the value of their argument, which is either adapted gradually or all at once. It can also be adapted piece-meal, meaning that one character will act like the other, but not buy it as a long-term solution; they anticipate abandoning it son. Eventually, though, the moment is forced. Stakes are high and timing is such that they have to choose a path of action that will have a permanency. This is when the change (in the MC) either happens or does not happen.
In real life, these things do not line up quite so neatly. Someone who is pro-Trump and someone who is Pro-Hillary doesn’t meet at one of their positions just because one of them wins on Election Day. Stories are life made with hospital corners. Also, life has a bigillion stories going at once, so it’s hard to know isolate specific storyforms.
It’s also possible that you are conflating growth and change. That’s pretty normal. But they are different things.
I understand that, just not sure I agree. In a dramatica way, yes, that’s the paradigm for the software. I get that. But I have read stories and had experience in life a much different paradigm.
You and I are in an argument.
I convince you that some of what you say is in error,
you convince me that some of what I say is in error
The argument ends with us both having stepped toward some middle ground
Not where you were, not where I was, but both changed – a little.
It made me very sad and discouraged when I came to the group with such a story paradigm trying to figure out how to design the storyform and got back; Can’t be done! That’s not a story according to DRAMTICA!, when I know perfectly well that it IS a story.
I completely understand your frustration here. Let me think on it a bit.
Dramatica isn’t a paradigm for software, it’s a theory of story based on how our minds solve problems. It says that the effectiveness of a story can be determined by its adherence to this model of problem-solving. You’ll note that How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days scores a paltry 42% on Rotten Tomatoes–That is usually a good indication of a broken, or non-functioning story. You may love it for entertainment reasons, but the majority of people out there will discount it because of its broken narrative.
Disney’s Brave tried the same approach and its story was horrendous. It said nothing by trying to say everything.
That said, you can do whatever you want. You don’t have to write a complete story that actually works in order to win favor with audiences. The Revenant was widely popular–but not for its story. It all depends on what your purpose is–do you want to write a great story that lasts a lifetime and crosses cultural boundaries? Then you’ll probably want to write a Dramatica structured story.
What you’re looking for–where two characters meet in the middle-- is more than likely the result of two story forms put together as @jamjam1794 suggested, probably with one of them less than fully developed. Different problems for different issues.
It could also be that what you’re seeing is not the compromise you think it is–the original Dramatica storyform for Toy Story alluded to the same situation, where both Woody and Buzz “meet in the middle”. Upon closer examination, it is clear that this is not the case with Toy Story. You can read more about that in my article, The Toy Story Dilemma
4 Likes
I completely agree with Jim here. I’m going to flesh out some other perspectives.
One, if your two characters are having an argument or disagreement about the same issue, then it’s probably something in the RS or OS. I’m going to guess it’s RS.
Let’s say you and I have vacation at the same time. I want to go to Argentina and eat steak for our vacation. you want to go to Nepal and eat rice. In the end, I cede and say… you know, given the options here, I would be happier going to Nepal and having a happy companion. And, you, having come to a similar conclusion, recommend that we add a day to our lay-over in Tokyo and gorge on Wagyu beef.
This certainly feels like compromise, and it is. I hope you agree. (Especially since I’m letting you go to Nepal and all.)
But, from the perspective of Dramatica, let’s take a look again.
[First Point] We both have vacation (Ability to go on a trip). But this causes conflict. We think – if only the other person would do what we want them to – they would see that eating beef or eating rice would make the trip worth it (Desire). But this doesn’t work. It’s done with good intentions – “This will broaden your world.” “You will have the best time.” And so … there is a sense of this should solve the problem, but it doesn’t.
But then it gets solved by really digging deep and becoming Aware of what the other person wants, and not just being self-aware of what you want (and subsequently trying to dress it up as Desire). They aren’t meeting in the middle, but very much changing the element at the foundation of the argument.
[Second Point]
I’m talking about the RS. If you and I are in a well-structured argument, then we will not have an argument about the same thing (vacation plans). You will have your issue (Physics: you have to outline a book) and I will have my issue (Manipulation: My father doesn’t understand me.) We can’t compromise on those things because they are solely our thing.
…
Dramatica is hard, and one of the biggest hurdles is learning to see story is a new way. I have a feeling you, like the rest of us have gone through, are having a hard time detaching from old perspectives. Dramatica is not an improvement on other story paradigms. It is a different paradigm, requiring different ways of approaching a story.
It is probable that your story of compromise was right, but was being approached in the wrong way.
5 Likes
I wish dramatica had a setting that TOLD one what the argument was, that would be ever so helpful.
I remember that being suggested at the time and while I am not sufficiently skilled with Dramatica to say absolutely not, I will say, I don’t think so. That doesn’t feel right.
OS: War
hero and heroine
Argument between them:
Him, I am a warrior, I meet all obstacles with violence
Her, I am a priestess, I meet all obstacles with peaceful requests/negotiation
THE TRUTH that both learn, sometimes you need one, sometimes you need the other.
Which leads me to Mike’s thoughts below…maybe that’s the answer…that part of the argument takes place in the RS part of the story.
@MWollaeger as you can prolly see above, you may have given me the solution I was looking for before. Thank you!
The Story Engine is largely exactly this. The reason it isn’t more specific is because it is up to the author to decide which parts of the story to weigh.
The other reason this must be left up to you is that there is no way for Dramatica to know the subject you are writing about. You have to show up with a desire to argue “violence vs negotiation”. Filling in the Story Guide should help clarify the argument.
This seems like it lives entirely in the OS. What is the personal problem of your MC? How does the IC present obstacles to your MC?
I wonder if sometimes the problem comes from how we identify the MC/IC.
Imagine for example:
You and I are in an argument about what’s right for our marriage
The longer our argument continues, the worse it is for our kids
Eventually our family is at the point of destruction and we are forced to realize we were both wrong.
I’m sure I’ve seen after-school specials along these lines, but rather than either assume the Dramatica model doesn’t work or, alternately, that the story is broken, perhaps it’s simply that we assume the two most prominent POV characters must be the MC and IC. In a lot of those stories, even though it appears to be told from the POV of the husband and/or wife, the audience really sees the fight through the eyes of the kid. So wouldn’t it thus be possible that the kid is actually the MC and the parents are swapping the IC role back and forth.
Going a different angle (and I’m probably going way out into left field here so feel free to smack me down), but with a movie like How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days, one thing I notice is a pattern where the two characters swap roles throughout the movie–at one point the guy starts believing in love and trying to make it work just as the woman has been convinced it can’t work and goes the other direction. Then they swap and suddenly she realizes it can work and he thinks it can’t (a not uncommon device in romantic comedies.) There is clearly an argument being made about whether true love is attainable or not, but the characters themselves are actually swapping roles repeatedly.
In the case of How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days, note that it’s actually difficult to really describe the characters as being different from one another if you don’t talk about gender or appearance–they both present as strong-willed, self-involved, and unwilling to be vulnerable. And yet, they’re both capable of being compassionate, hopeful, and open. So the argument is between that one side of themselves and the other.
This may not be the best way to tell a story, but it does (for me, anyway) give the sense of two very different perspectives fighting it out. There is no compromise at the end: believing in love absolutely wins the story. It’s just that neither character as a single entity embodied that position throughout.
If one wants to get really new age about it, you could say the conflict was between the spirit of individuality versus the spirit of commitment.
Okay, now I want to smack myself in the head.
Actually, the OS is about a big bad being cyclically released. All the characters are concerned with the effects spreading throughout the world (uncontrolled violence)
Their relationship is about how to deal with all the violence. [But until you suggested it, I hadn’t thought of it in those terms.]
Her job is to deal with the big bad. Protag for sure and prolly MC
His job is to get her to the right place alive. Leaving him most likely as IC.
But I feel like I’ve hijacked NB’s thread.
I have to cogitate on this…but I kinda like it.
The argument being made is already there in the storyform. For example, in the movie Star Wars the argument is being made that if you trust in something outside of yourself to solve your problems you will succeed and you will feel great about yourself. In the play Hamlet the argument is being made that if you start to accept what you know as true you will perish and fail to overcome personal problems.
This is not an argument, this is a compromise. Dramatica theory sees narrative as a Grand Argument Story. If you’re not looking to make an argument, but rather a compromise, then Dramatica is not for you. This is a basic given of the theory. You don’t have to accept it (that’s what a given is all about), but know that you can’t have it both ways (unless you adore compromise 
)
If you wanted to argue the above you would have to have someone who thinks you only need one and someone who thinks you need both and the one representing both would “win”.
When looking at romance novels/stories, I believe this akin to looking at THE RELATIONSHIP, even though there may be an MC and IC too. While both may change their approach to the relationship, that is different from what the MC deals with personally. In How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, the relationship brings the two skeptical parties together. The Overall Story is about a challenge, which is really two challenges. One side is writing a “how to” article to show women how to treat men like men treat women by manipulating the men to break off the relationship rather than vice versa. The other side is a man who makes a bet that he can make a woman fall in love with him within ten days. You have, essentially, two apparently competing goals. Which is the “real” goal? Well, it depends on context. But since it looks like there are two goals, perhaps they are two sides of a single inequity.
What if the question in the OS really is, who can manipulate the other sex better, men or women? It begins with the presumption that (some) women are victims of love to be dominated by men. The challenge comes in the form of the topic of an article in a women’s magazine inspired by a co-worker’s unpleasant breakup. That is mirrored by Ben. In an effort to win a large advertising account when challenged by two female co-workers for the job, Ben makes a bet that he knows more about love than they do and claims he can make any woman fall in love with him by the presentation deadline – ten days hence. His co-workers overhear Andie talking about her new article and suggest Andie be Ben’s target.
Most of the OS is spent on Ben trying to win Andie over, while Andie does everything she can to get him to reject her. Ultimately, the OS loses to the burgeoning relationship that grows between the two opposing players. Ben wins his bet – Andie does fall in love with him – and the relationship also survives. Ben chases down Andie on her way out of town and they finally kiss.
Who is the MC? I’d argue that Andie is the MC (and antagonist?) and Ben is the protagonist/IC. We know what Andie’s personal issues are. She wants to write articles of substance, not frivolous puff pieces forced on her by her editor. She was promised meaty articles by her editor, who has teased her along with promises of better writing opportunities. In this way, we see Andie’s internal conflict that makes her resistant to getting involved in the challenge to manipulate a random guy. We also feel that the Judgment is about to end as Bad but is rescued by the reestablishment of her relationship with Ben as he rushes to stop her from leaving. That sequence feels highly subjective and emotional – clear indicators of a positive MC reaction to the burgeoning Relationship.
Just my $.02.
2 Likes
If there is uncontrolled violence being released, and the characters we are talking about have to deal with all the violence – that just seems like it’s part of the OS.
You need to ask yourself what these characters are like, independently, if you disregard the big bad.
Now, it is possible that he is a situation character because he is responsible for her – IC: Situation = “her bodyguard” – so to make it easy, let’s just assume that’s the case. (“The Bourne Identity” has a similar set up.)
Then, what would her Fixed Attitude be?
Thanks everyone for the lively discussion.
@jhull I re-read the articles you mentioned and I think it clarified a few points. I think your point about Woody and Buzz in Toystory makes a lot of sense.
I really believe dramatica to be a really powerful tool. But not surprisingly, its complexity is going to take a while before it sinks in. And it really DEMANDS you to be VERY SPECIFIC and not wishy-washy.
I am not concerned with making it okay for both the IC and MC to change perspectives (resolve) as trying to work out what to do with what I “seem” (keyword here) to be seeing in the bestselling romances I’ve read.
I may be confusing Growth with Resolve (like Jim Mentioned in Toystory).
I may indeed be confusing how the RS changes (which includes both MCvsIC together) and seeing the MC and IC by themselves and which one changes or doesn’t.
It may ALSO be that both are changing in the romances I’m reading but its NOT EFFECTIVE and is undermining the writing and its an element I DON’T want to emulate.
For example, basically all the bestselling romances that I’ve read recently had a nonexistent OS THROUGHLINE. I’m hoping I can keep the focus on the RS THROUGHLINE while with multi-author appreciation moments layer in an actual OS that actually has some depth but doesn’t distract and piss off the reader because they only want to read about the “romancing.” AND as a result - makes a much better and well received story.
I’ve read when men tend to write romances they focus too much on plot (OS THROUGHLINE) and readers get pissed. I wonder how much I can layer in and still get away with it.
I know ‘Romeo and Juliet’ had they Montagues vs the Capulets ect. I was actually hoping and expecting to see complete stories in the best selling books I picked up.
From Dramatica’s perspective - most seem broken. With the OS Throughline only serving up as an excuse to force the lovers together when they initially hate each other. And that’s it with no other development.
As for the Resolve/Perspective Change -
I’m think part of my trouble is SEPARATING the INFLUENCE THROUGHLINE and RELATIONSHIP THROUGHLINE.
Among many other quirks I’ll have to work out.
I’ve been watching dramatica movies and watching the podcasts but I don’t think I’ve been digging deep enough and clarifying points that I’m unsure off after listening to the podcast and looking at the storyform.
I’m assuming this would go a long way in solidifying my understanding and clear up any issues or blind spots.
I’m going to start a new thread for that.
Rest assured that you can’t really go deep until you’ve absorbed some of the easier points. It sounds like you’re ready to dive in, but don’t feel like you should have tried earlier. It may have just frustrated you.
I can’t suggest what you might be missing/not seeing because I don’t know what you’ve been reading. But the good romances I read definitely have OSs going good and strong. Who/what are you reading?