Haha! Actually I was being dense and didn’t notice the Dramatica reference. But I think that’s really cool that I didn’t, because if I really am your IC (or you’re mine), I wouldn’t!
2 Likes
Especially since Greg acknowledged that you two are alike, thus solidifying that idea! 
3 Likes
We know the Turks attacked, but not why. We know everybody kind of lived here and there for a while, stayed in tents some, and then eventually wound up where they are at the beginning of the book. A lot of that isn’t even part of the story that the book is dealing with. It’s backstory, justification for why people are the way they are now. So yeah, that sounds about right.
Where is there a re-eval of the meaning of the attack? It’s not like anyone comes back and says the attack was actually a good thing all along. The only thing I can think of that comes feels even close is finding the stuff in the safe that shows us that Joanna’s mom was married before. But that’s not actually a re-evaluation of anything. Just new information. Or maybe Learning he never had a claim to any properties comes close, but learning that Petros never had an inheritance doesn’t feel like it’s driving the OS does it? Or does it?
They way I’ve used the word still was to say the Turks didn’t leave and thus aren’t a problem of the Past. That past event of the Turks coming, that’s also a present and future event because they are still there. The word still doesn’t show in anyway that I can see that someone’s understanding of the present is changing.
I haven’t read it in a while, but I’d say it kind of does. Haven’t seen Collateral in a while either, but I don’t recall thinking that that movie felt much like Finding Nemo.
I’d probably go more with status quo or existence. Where do people heal or erase old wounds? They create new ones. We learn that Joanna has some issues because her father left and Petros doesn’t have an inheritance, but what is done to heal those things?
I agree that Varosha is there and part of the conflict is all the things they missed out on. The conflict is not the source of the conflict.
What actions and/or conflict does the photo drive? Petros trip to Varosha? No, he’s doing that to show Joanna that he will do it where Elias wouldn’t. That’s what drives that. He’s doing it to make her happy, to get a smile. The photograph is just what Joanna happened to want that Elias wouldn’t get. Had she said again that she wanted ice cream (just like she does in the first quarter of the book) Petros would have made the trip. The photograph being of the past has nothing to do with it other than that the storytelling ties it back to her backstory and is a better reason for Petros to risk his life to make her happy than getting her ice cream.
1 Like
I agree – that would not be the same argument.
Yes. Really the whole point of focusing on Varosha is that it’s such a potent symbol of those things (tokens, reminders, etc.) and it provided a good stage for some thriller-type/page-turning storytelling. [quote=“Hunter, post:189, topic:2324”]
However, I have to ask: How in the world is this not a Wound story???
[/quote]
When I first read “Wound story” in the subgenre thread I immediately thought, “oh, that’s my novel.”
@greg @mlucas It seems like the question is which of you will be the changed character? 
Another way to put it: with the invasion, Cyprus was frozen in the past. Being frozen in the past is the ultimate source of conflict in the story. If the Turkish army were to leave and the island were reunified, that would resolve the inequity of being frozen in the past.
Well, I didn’t want to turn it into a history text, but that’s what the Emre and Kadir scenes were supposed to do – represent the perspectives of the Turks that Cyprus is (historically, in their view) Turkish. The whole scene with the burning of the flag is basically a dramatic attempt to re-litigate that issue.
1 Like
So it seems the critical decision here is whether the historical information is backstory alone or an important part of the drive for the people in the story.
By arguing for a story of the Present, Greg is saying that such information is only backstory. In effect, he is saying it can be removed and it would result in the same argument.
The rest of us are saying that if you remove that information, then the argument cannot remain the same; it necessarily changes.
Taking the box of personal effects to family is an attempt at eventual closure. Trying to get service at the restaurant is meant to prevent new wounds. A Wound story need not succeed in closing old wounds, so long as it has the backdrop of trying to.
Why is he driven to show that he would do the thing that Elias would not? Also, you continue to refer to the actions of Petros and Elias. Those are muddled with other throughlines by nature of the characters. You also keep ignoring the first quarter of the book.
What drives the soldiers and other characters? Better yet, who is the OS group in the story?
Finally, you paid far more attention to everything but the experiment in my post. Your reply suggests, though, that the first paragraph is the same argument. How so? (Also, good luck arguing that when we have it straight from the horse’s mouth that it isn’t.)
1 Like
What I mean to say in my reply above is that this describes the drive in building the non-existent relationship. If the intent is to figure out the OS, the best move is to drop the players holding the MC, IC, and RS and look at everyone else. Otherwise, it is far too easy to muddle the throughlines.
That was the point of my experiment, and why I specifically referred to “OS Greeks”.
I wonder if The Present might be a 3rd or 4th Signpost in the form that @mlucas and @Lakis came up with.
1 Like
Present is the 4th Signpost (in the storyform we came up with – doesn’t matter if it’s action or decision).
1 Like
You know what the hilarious part is of all of this… I think I just determined a plausible story form for our own argument. Of course, it’s not fully determined, and I can’t see how it will end, but I think it’s hilarious how well it seems to fit.
Greg, I 100% disagree with this. The photo is NOT a MacGuffin. You could NOT replace it with ice cream or anything else that did not relate back to the past – the invasion and how that’s affected Greek Cypriot families.
In Dramatica terms, the photo is important because of why Joanna wants it. The past and her inability to visualize her father are both driving her here. Then she passes that drive onto Petros. That’s why “being of the past” makes the photo a source of conflict of The Past for Petros’s trip into Varosha.
Is it possible you are taking your “process leads to conflict” too narrowly? Like maybe you can’t see it when there’s a more complex chain, “process leads to process leads to process leads to conflict” and trace it back to the root source of conflict?
2 Likes
Inner turmoil. The majority of the characters are stewing on this, unaware that’s even why they act as they do. (A few are aware, but I think that’s the “some know the problem and some don’t” thing of the OS.)
Plus, what @mlucas said. <-- This, especially, actually, because reviewing the thread, we’re actually all on the same page of what the conflict is. Virtually everywhere, the implication is that the drive is one step back or one step forward.
For a more specific example, the scene in the restaurant:
The “Conflict”: The rage and physicality, throwing chairs, etc.
The “Source”: That they aren’t being served… (But this is what the characters themselves claim.)
The “Drive”: They are loosing a place they’ve always gone; a piece of their history. (The real reason.)
I think that because this is a novel, there is more space and more facility to review the characters’ thoughts. In doing this, we find that the characters themselves blame the present situation and/or circumstances for their trouble. Thus, looking for a deeper drive, the author presents the third option.
It is that third layer that @mlucas, @Lakis, and I are viewing as the real source of conflict, I suspect. And if this is a correct meta-analysis of everyone’s views, then to us, what you label as source is justification by the characters, while the real drive, and thus the real source, is one level deeper.
Now, I want to be clear: At this point, I’m not arguing for the Past, but for an upper-left arrangement. I’m positive in that as the source and/or drive for this story. I have still not decided on the domains.
2 Likes
Another bit of support for Decision driver – it feels to me like Do-er Petros’s personal issues are really impeding the flow of the narrative, in the language Jim uses in this article:
I know it may seem he’s “willing” since he’s the one who actually goes into Varosha. But I feel like from the beginning of the story his personal issues are kind of delaying the inevitable, getting in the way of the Filiki Eteria’s planning, etc. Then once he goes into Varosha he keeps impeding the flow towards the story’s resolution because he keeps delaying leaving – going to his house, going back to the hotel, etc.
1 Like
I think this makes sense. But I have to think about it some more.
Is it possible that this is a muddy area of the story? Like maybe it’s a mix of action and decision drivers?
But the more I think about it, the more decision makes sense. Really, the plot of the novel wouldn’t move along if he didn’t keep making decisions.
1 Like
Paul Newman’s film, The Verdict, had an oddness. The os mc/ic resolutions might be opposite, but maybe some similarities might be found. Something came to me on this, last week, but I’ve waited too long to post and lost the vision. Drat.
1 Like
I know I’m a bit late on the draw. I saw that @Lakis had written a novel, and picked it up immediately, before seeing that it was written before Dramatica theory. I’m sure that with these notes walking through, I’ll have a better time of it than the book I just picked up—(here is where she rolls her eyes).
Also, my daughter is just starting university on Cyprus (and I guess I need to apologize), Northern side (gulp!). So she’s going to enjoy getting the perspective of the war. We know the Colonel who was in charge of the Navy during the invasion. NOT that we’re on their side. “Dwarves are for the dwarves!” Just saying, we’re a bit close to the action, being Americans living in Turkey.
I’m looking forward to a late start on this, and going through the entries to get an angle on Dramatic from the corporate eyes of other users here.
2 Likes
Oh wow cool! It’s great to hear from people who know the area!
No, no! (Not to me anyway)
It sounds like you have an fascinating story though – I didn’t realize that you’re an American living in Turkey!
One of the things I hope comes through in the book is that even though it’s from the Greek Cypriot perspective (and I am obviously very anti-invasion) everyone has reasons and reasoning for what they do. (I guess, from a Dramatica perspective, I hope it works as a complete story/argument and not propaganda – we’ve had enough of that).
I’ll be very interested to hear what you think.
2 Likes
This has been such a fascinating read!
3 Likes
So glad you’re enjoying it!
2 Likes
Hey @Lakis I was thinking about recent RS conversations like this thread, and wondering if there might be an RS between Elias and Petros? Thinking back to the story it feels like there is one. Unless what I’m seeing is a relationship between all of the Filiki Eteria?
But I do think the cousins relationship is pretty strong, and changes, esp. at the end with Elias becoming a monk. Rival cousins -> separated friends, or something like that. The Desire problem might be something like “they love each other, but each desires what the other desires”. And the Ability solution could be when Elias puts himself out of reach, no longer able to get in Petros’s way (but also ending that relationship apart, at least mostly). Some of the solution could have come escaping Varosha, too, when they’re finally able to talk about the problems between them and apologize. (p.283 of the paperback near end of Ch 24).
EDIT: please forgive me if we’ve talked about this already!
1 Like
There certainly is supposed to be. You know this @mlucas , but for anyone else reading, I didn’t know about Dramatica when I wrote the novel. But the relationship between Petros and Elias is supposed to have an “emotional heart” component to it. Early on there’s a kind of “us against the world” thing that bonds them (Mind), and, like with Joanna, they share a lot of history (Memory).
That actually sounds right on! Elias takes himself out of the picture by becoming a monk – literally no more Ability to be in a relationship with her!
Something else I’ve been wondering about RS in general (and this is an example) is cases when there are more than two players–not in separate RS’s like in Back to the Future, but as one relationship.
So in August, I feel like there’s an RS between Petros and Joanna (obviously), and an RS between Petros and Elias. There’s also a bit of RS between Joanna and Elias – there’s at least one chapter from her POV which starts “these are the things she doesn’t tell him” (meaning Petros) but in which goes over the conflicts between her and Elias.
But is there also a “love triangle” RS? If you think about the three of them and how they relate, it (as one relationship) maps pretty well to Mind->Memory->Suspicion->Desire->Ability.
1 Like
Yes! That makes total sense, now that you mention it. Very cool.
Isn’t it awesome how you can do Dramatica without consciously knowing it?
1 Like