Activity Domain: Is this the emphasis of one throughline?

[didomachiatto]

I’ve been using Dramatica for many, many years. I find it is like an onion where I’ve never mastered it all, and keep going deeper to understand the theory.

I’m working on another story now, trying to upgrade my understanding of Story according to Dramatica. And I realized that I’ve been approaching the four throughlines in the same way. I’m wondering if the Domain is more of how to approach the TYPE of activity that happens.

For this story,

Activity domain is Influence Character
Situation is Relationship
Manipulation is Main Character and
Fixed Attitude is Overall Story

So what I’m wondering is if all the ACTION is supposed to happen just with regard to the Influence character, if the MANIPULATIONS happen only with regard to the Main Character’s scenes, the (fatalistic?) SITUATIONAL issues are only how the MC and IC conflict over approach and FIXED ATTITUDE (thought, theory, ideas) are the Overall Story.

In other words, the big actions are only with regard to the IC.

The thoughtful, idea-theme scenes are only with regard to the OS

The break-free of situation are in RS and

The mental-manipulations are the MC.

In other words, I’m asking what DOMAIN means practically for the story. I’m getting bogged down in making things happen to go along with the smaller categories. This ends up with a lot of dialogue and manipulations without bigger whole-body activities, shifting from place to place or changing the environment in big ways, which is what ACTIVITY seems to imply.

I’m wondering if I should rather considering the bigger TYPE of scene.

For example, in the different Avengers movies we have the Natasha/Hawkeye scene and we have the Loki/Coulson scene. Loki and Thor have a certain tete-a-tete and versus Loki and Hulk. Some are interpersonal and some are physical.

Is this what Activity domain means, and need it be restricted to the throughline that it represents?

[geoff]

Please forgive me if I misinterpreted your question.

The Objective Story Throughline (no matter which domain) would have crucial events that shift the direction of that throughline. The same goes for each of the other throughlines.

However, I suspect you should have the other throughlines brought about because of the Objective Story events. In other words, each shift in the direction of the Objective Story impacts and causes direction shifts in the other throughlines.

This may reflect my bias toward unified storytelling. Rocky, for example, had a Subjective Story throughline which didn’t impact on the direction the Objective Story took.

[mlucas]

@didomachiatto

In other words, the big actions are only with regard to the IC.

The thoughtful, idea-theme scenes are only with regard to the OS

The break-free of situation are in RS and

The mental-manipulations are the MC.

No, this isn’t right. But don’t feel bad – this concept is at the core of Dramatica and difficult to grasp.

The Domain only tells you what the source of the conflict is. But that source can cause conflicts that appear like other classes. For example, superheroes’ problematic activities (OS Domain Physics) in Captain America: Civil War causing all sorts of arguments and attempts to convince others about whether to police them, which at face value looks like Psychology/Manipulation or possibly even Mind (bullheadedness).

The famous duel between Inigo and Westley is The Princess Bride is certainly an activity, but it’s brought about by a problematic way of thinking (Humperdinck’s scheming; OS Domain Psychology). Though certainly the duel also exists in the IC throughline, i.e. it’s partially brought about by Westley’s external situation. I think you’ll find that this “seemingly outside Domain stuff” often provides good chances for multi-appreciation moments between throughlines.

Does that help at all?

Also keep in mind that Dramatica also tells us that at the scene level, a good scene will contain an item/event of each class (Attitude, Manner of Thinking, Activity, Situation). This is true regardless of which throughline(s) the scene is dealing with. So right there, you can see that each class need not be restricted to a particular throughline.

[pattyloof]

You may be misunderstanding the four throughlines.

The OS throughline IS the story. The other three are subplots integral to making this a Grand Argument.

For example: What you’re describing is the same set-up as The Great Gatsby. Each person in that story has a fixed attitude towards life, which drives the main story.

The IC’s course because of his fixed attitude is to act: he buys stuff, throws parties, tries to get the girl he loves, etc.

The MC’s course is to change his fixed attitude, which he does when he sees the futility of the IC’s lifestyle.

The RC between the two is the situation they’re in: the MC is the cousin of the IC’s love interest, and the MC and IC live next door to each other. They’re constantly thrown into contact because of their situation.

But none of the other three throughlines change the fact that the OS is Fixed Attitude. What each of these people do about the OS throughline they’re in is what composes the other three throughlines.

Hope that helps.

[LunarDynasty]

@pattyloof

The OS throughline IS the story. The other three are subplots integral to making this a Grand Argument.

Not quite. There is one story, seen through four different perspectives.

The other three are as important to the Grand Argument as the OS.

Different cultures may produce stories that emphasize one lens over another in accordance with their bias. In general Hollywood films put a lot of focus on the Overall Story, while many East Asian narratives diminish the MC to the point of exclusion.

And there is a structural bias in the current Dramatica model – the OS and MC drill straight down through the Table of Elements, while the IC and RS rotate quads to accommodate.

But from an authorial perspective (where Dramatica truly shines), all four lenses are equally important to crafting a complete argument.

[museful]

A story that focuses heavily on the OST might have a very broad feel that offers the opportunity to explore a story through contrast, comparison, and parallelism. The view is magnificent, but flat. Objective. Scientific. Impersonal.

A story that focuses heavily on the MCT offers the opportunity for catharsis. It is emotional, but limited. Subjective. Introspective. Personal.

A story that focuses on the RST offers the opportunity to create commentary (most often subtextual) similar to the OST, but less about an ecosystem and more about symbiotic, antibiotic, or outcomes as a result of the relationship. Dynamic. Dependent. Etc.

A story that focuses on the ICT offers the opportunity to raise the resistance of a story. It allows for a test of the hypothesis to occur. Rigorous. Worthwhile. Thoughtful.

Welp. I read your post and the responses. That’s what dribbled out of my head. Right or wrong.