Conceptualizing Conceptualizing: Understanding Dramatica's Term Developing a Plan

[decastell]

@jhull

Whenever I do these I always look to the quad underneath to help. I look to Sense of Self, State of Beung, Situation and Circumstances to create problems of Conceptualizing. And I look to Permission, Need, Expediency, and Deficiency to create problems of Conceiving. It helps to develop a more holistic understanding of the term.

Do you ever go in reverse: start with the problem element and then work upwards? For example, let’s say as author you think, “I’m not sure what domain my MC is going to be in, but I know his problem is control and until he starts to let go, things won’t work out for him.” Thus you might go select Control for the MC problem and then ask whether Preconception, Self-Interest, Hope or Responsibility best represents the broader issue the MC is dealing with.

Or is that a terrible idea? I sometimes find I know the most intimate aspect of what I want a character to explore and ultimately change, but not which domain will best allow that, which I think reflects working from being a character-focused writer.

[decastell]

@jhull

the first really isn’t a problem. Or at least you haven’t made it one yet. If Santa starts turning up the heat and the elves start reading some kind of nefarious plan into it—then you can make it an instance of Developing a Plan.

What makes this distinction? Is it simply that the plan is only problematic when it causes someone else to create problems (e.g. burning elves is fine, but elves freaking out and suspecting even worse plans as a result is problematic)?

[Greg]

Forgive me for butting in (again) as well, but is the difference between 1 and 3 that 1 is assuming that burning elves is a problem whereas 3 isn’t stating a specific problem, but rather simply says that the process of planning creates conflict with others?

What I’m seeing is that you can’t assume something is problematic (“What’s the problem?” Santa might ask. “I was only going to burn the DEAD elves.”)
So you have to show how something is problematic, how it upsets the balance (“Santa, the dead elves are what we feed the reindeer. If we burn the dead elves, the reindeer won’t be able to fly !” “Oh, that is a problem!”)

[jhull]

@Gregolas

What I’m seeing is that you can’t assume something is problematic (“What’s the problem?” Santa might ask. “I was only going to burn the DEAD elves.”)
So you have to show how something is problematic, how it upsets the balance (“Santa, the dead elves are what we feed the reindeer. If we burn the dead elves, the reindeer won’t be able to fly !” “Oh, that is a problem!”)

100% yes.

And yes, you definitely can work from bottom to top, top to bottom. In fact, I’ve noticed most holistic minded people prefer to start at the bottom and work their way up because they’re looking at the problem in context of the items around and above it. More linear minded people prefer top to bottom because it involves breaking problems into chunks and eliminating what doesn’t fit.

[decastell]

@jhull

So you have to show how something is problematic, how it upsets the balance (“Santa, the dead elves are what we feed the reindeer. If we burn the dead elves, the reindeer won’t be able to fly !” “Oh, that is a problem!”)

Okay, so then it’s that there has to be a problem with the plan – following the plan (burning dead elves) will create problems (starving reindeer). Is that right?

@jhull

I’ve noticed most holistic minded people prefer to start at the bottom and work their way up because they’re looking at the problem in context of the items around and above it.

It’s funny, because typically I neither think of working top-to-bottom or bottom-to-top – I think of what’s the “essence” as in the most essential aspect and then extend outward from there. It’s the same as working bottom-to-top, I suppose it’s just a holistic thinker’s way of framing it

[Greg]

@decastell

, so then it’s that there has to be a problem with the plan – following the plan (burning dead elves) will create problems (starving reindeer). Is that right?

I’m going to see if I can go 2 for 2. I don’t think the plan has to be flawed (dead elves produce heat, flawless), but rather that the plan, even if flawless, upsets the balance. Instead of starving reindeer, say the obvious issue is that elves don’t want to be burned and start migrating south. Santa could just say who needs them anyway? I’d rather be warm. But if he decides that he can’t stand the thought of children not getting their toys because the elves have left, then the balance is upset.

[decastell]

@Gregolas

I don’t think the plan has to be flawed (dead elves produce heat, flawless), but rather that the plan, even if flawless, upsets the balance. Instead of starving reindeer, say the obvious issue is that elves don’t want to be burned and start migrating south. Santa could just say who needs them anyway? I’d rather be warm. But if he decides that he can’t stand the thought of children not getting their toys because the elves have left, then the balance is upset.

So what’s the difference between “Santa’s plan to burn elves makes them want to flee south” versus “Santa starts burning elves so they try to flee south”? Would the latter be in activities simply because the burning is happening as opposed to planned?

[Greg]

@decastell

So what’s the difference between “Santa’s plan to burn elves makes them want to flee south” versus “Santa starts burning elves so they try to flee south”? Would the latter be in activities simply because the burning is happening as opposed to planned?

Hmm…I wouldn’t mind @jhull providing his take on this as well.

Until I have a bit more time (later this evening), I’m going to just say the difference is context.

[jhull]

@decastell

“Santa’s plan to burn elves makes them want to flee south” versus “Santa starts burning elves so they try to flee south”? Would the latter be in activities simply because the burning is happening as opposed to planned?

“Santa’s plan to burn elves makes them want to flee south” is not a Problem. It sounds more like a Decision forcing an Action. *He’s going to burn us, let’s go south” isn’t really problematic. There’s no inequity.

Santa burning elves and elves trying to escape—THATS an inequity lol. Burning elves that aren’t there is an impossibility…planning to burn elves who want to flee is a possibility within the same context—so no inequity.

[jhull]

AAnd just to clarify, as I read back, this:

@Gregolas

So you have to show how something is problematic, how it upsets the balance (“Santa, the dead elves are what we feed the reindeer. If we burn the dead elves, the reindeer won’t be able to fly !” “Oh, that is a problem!”)

Is not a problematic instance of Conceptualizing. I meant to only agree with the first statement:

What I’m seeing is that you can’t assume something is problematic (“What’s the problem?” Santa might ask. “I was only going to burn the DEAD elves.”)

Sorry about that.

[mlucas]

A tip for those having trouble with Conceptualizing. For me it really helps to think of the several different aspects of its definition, and see the commonality between them. You could probably take the English terms conceptualizing, developing a plan, figuring something out, and visualizing an idea’s implementation and imagine a Venn diagram and the area where they all overlap is the Dramatica term Conceptualizing. (and then remember that to be a Concern it needs to be problematic in the story)

Jim mentioned American Beauty and it’s a great example because you might think the overall problems in that film stem from people suddenly getting the idea (Conceiving) that they want to be individuals rather than typical suburbanites. But that conceiving is not shown to be problematic overall. What’s problematic is how they come to implementations of that idea in the real world of family, neighbours and friends. (Their thought process basically throws out the constraint of not hurting the people around them!)

[decastell]

@mlucas

What’s problematic is how they come to implementations of that idea in the real world of family, neighbours and friends. (Their thought process basically throws out the constraint of not hurting the people around them!)

I hate to admit it, but I’m still not getting it. Is the problem that their plans can hurt the people around them, or is the problem that they’re plans demonstrate a willingness to hurt the people around them?

As in, what is the instant in which the plans become problematic in the Dramatica sense?

[jhull]

@decastell

Is the problem that their plans can hurt the people around them, or is the problem that they’re plans demonstrate a willingness to hurt the people around them?

Neither.

It’s the process of planning, or integrating, that creates problems.

Scheming to get drugs and reimagining one’s concept of oneself appears to indicate a State of Being gay (Lester (Kevin Spacey) from Col. Fitts (Chris Cooper) point-of-view). Climbing the ladder of real estate and conceptualizing a better life involves engaging in an illicit affair (Situation) for Carolyn (Annette Benning). Figuring out where one fits into the high school social system alienates Jane (Thora Birch) from Angela (Mena Suvari) through Sense of Self. Remaining catatonic in order to fit into suburbia with an obviously gay husband creates acceptable Circumstances for Fitts’ wife, Barbara (Allison Janney).

[decastell]

@jhull

It’s the process of planning, or integrating, that creates problems.

@jhull

Scheming to get drugs and reimagining one’s concept of oneself appears to indicate a State of Being gay (Lester (Kevin Spacey) from Col. Fitts (Chris Cooper) point-of-view). Climbing the ladder of real estate and conceptualizing a better life involves engaging in an illicit affair (Situation) for Carolyn (Annette Benning). Figuring out where one fits into the high school social system alienates Jane (Thora Birch) from Angela (Mena Suvari) through Sense of Self. Remaining catatonic in order to fit into suburbia with an obviously gay husband creates acceptable Circumstances for Fitts’ wife, Barbara (Allison Janney).

Each of these seems to be a pair with things that look like actions to me: climbing the ladder, engaging in an illicit affair, . . . etc. So is it only in the domain of manipulation and with a concern of developing a plan if we literally see the characters on the screen talking (or jotting down notes) about their plans?

[jhull]

@decastell

Each of these seems to be a pair with things that look like actions to me: climbing the ladder, engaging in an illicit affair, . . . etc. So is it only in the domain of manipulation and with a concern of developing a plan if we literally see the characters on the screen talking (or jotting down notes) about their plans?

No. Talking about or jotting down notes about plans doesn’t describe an inequity. It describes planning, but it doesn’t show planning being specifically problematic.

The affair (activity) isn’t problematic in and of itself–its not like they’re having trouble actually doing it, it’s the using of the Real Estate King (Peter Gallagher) to climb the ladder that is proven to be problematic.

[Greg]

Yeah, I don’t get it either. I didn’t really mean to think I was giving a good example, but I got a like and got excited, tried to go 2 for 2 and retroactively lost half a point .

So my questions are:

1. In Jims elf example (with the schedule, and trolls, and being shot), who has a problematic manner of thinking? Just the elves, or the elves and Santa?

2. How can the problematic manner of thinking be described? (For example, is it the “let’s give him what he wants” attitude of cutting quality, or maybe the overall misunderstanding or what the schedule means?)

3. What makes it problematic? (If Santa has the problem, is it that the elves are misunderstanding, or that they are dropping quality? If the elves have the problem, is it being shot?)

Since I was wrong, I don’t know that this will be helpful to the discussion, but the way I think I would’ve explained the difference between planning to burn the elves and burning the elves would be that planning is about how he thinks of the elves. It’s acceptable to use the elves as fuel. Santa’s well being is more important. In burning the elves it’s about what’s he’s doing to them. He’s running out of fuel for the fire. The elves are less concerned with how Santa thinks of them and more concerned with being consumed by flame.

[jhull]

@Gregolas

I don’t know that this will be helpful to the discussion, but the way I think I would’ve explained the difference between planning to burn the elves and burning the elves would be that planning is about how he thinks of the elves.

Planning is not inherently problematic in the same way that walking is not inherently problematic.

To make it work, you wouldn’t write about his plan to burn Elves, rather how difficult it is to actually plan. Planning something requires figuring out what goes where, how much or how little, who to bring in to help, who to leave out, when to schedule and how fast to schedule–all these concerns show how difficult it can be to plan something.

If you can’t call into question–or Issues–of State of Being, Situation, Circumstances, or Sense of Self–chances are you haven’t quite nailed Conceptualizing yet.

[mlucas]

@decastell

what is the instant in which the plans become problematic in the Dramatica sense?

Because you have to look at the whole story holistically to understand the structure (storyform) I don’t think this question has an answer.

You could look at the First Story Driver, but there might not be an instance of problematic planning that’s communicated to the Audience at that exact moment of the film. Only by experiencing the whole story can you really see the commonality between all these people’s thought processes, and that it is Conceptualizing that best describes the nature of the difficulties within those thought processes.

[jhay]

How strange… I’ve spent the last two nights watching What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? and American Beauty trying to get my head around Psychology/Conceptualizing stories and I happen to log on to find this discussion. Envision that! (I don’t think that’s Dramatically correct…)

Anyway, I don’t have anything to add to the discussion right now, other than to advise those struggling with the term to watch similarly-storyformed movies with a concern of Conceptualizing (as Jim suggested in another thread). I think I’ll need to watch a few more before I totally ‘get it’, and even then I might be slightly off-base. However, these two movies have the same OS Domain/Concern/Issue/Problem, yet the way they handle the concern of Conceptualizing could not be more different.

My eyes have been very firmly opened beyond ‘Manipulation’ and ‘Developing a Plan’, so it’s definitely a worthwhile endeavour, even if I do feel like the guy that flew through the star gate in 2001.

[Greg]

@jhull

Planning is not inherently problematic

What would having a plan that, by its nature, drive others away preventing some other goal from being met, as with the examples of elves leaving to keep from being burned and making it more difficult for S to give toys to kids.

If conceptualizing is the problematic process of comin up with a plan, what is the problematic state of having a plan? I would guess that’s somewhere in Fixed Attitude.

@jhull

Scheming to get drugs and reimagining one’s concept of oneself appears to indicate a State of Being gay (Lester (Kevin Spacey) from Col. Fitts (Chris Cooper) point-of-view).

Is reimagining problematic in that it makes Lester appear to be gay? Would scheming to kidnap elves to use as fuel for the furnace be problematic in that it makes one appear to be a monster?