Does Being Ambiguous Work within the Dramatica Model?

I’m looking for arguments of fellow writers who are more experienced with Dramatica.

Is is absolutely vital to adhere to the Character Dynamics system Dramatica proposes?

If it is vital, then vital in which sense?

I feel as though the character system is one level too much for me, not leaving enough “room” to encode the seemingly random and ambiguous nature of life. When it comes to characters, I feel I should have a little more freedom to play around with it and not overly intellectualise it. It kind of diminishes the mystery of storytelling and writing for me.

Down to the plot sequence report I can hold the entire story as an intellectual argument, completely in my head. But the character system seems like it is a bit too much.

My argument (no not argument, but rather feeling) is that the throughlines, plot and theme already offer more than enough pillars to build a coherent structure on. A certain amount of freedom in the character department would give me more freedom to be creative and use real life examples to illustrate certain things without having to force every single detail and motivation of a character to make sense. Otherwise the whole thing just feels a bit like an intellectual trick of mind. It makes me feel a bit dishonest towards the audience.

In any case, it is my personal bias and motivation to write ambiguity into the meaning of the story. The story does seem to make one very specific interpretation of a given inequity, but I always question this interpretation as well. I’m leading the audience towards a certain interpretation of a thing only to have them question it.

I like to write from my experience and the fantasies in my head. Throughlines, plot and theme help me structure these things into something that has some intellectual footing. So that it is isn’t complete randomness, a method to the madness, if you will. But I would just like to have character express/illustrate the thematic arguments, plot and the meaning of the perspectives from the throughlines in an intuitive manner. Not in a calculated one.

So please, tell me I’m wrong! I’m happy to listen/learn!

Dramatica is about writing Grand Argument stories. If you want to write a Grand Argument, the closer you stick to a storyform the better. If you don’t want to provide a grand argument, then you don’t have to stick to one at all.

1 Like

Funny you link that article because I have discussed this briefly with the author. I do not agree with his assessment though. Story is about life. And life itself is (or at least appears to be) highly ambiguous. Within a carefully limited space such as in a mathematical model, sure, there is no ambiguity (unless maybe you divide by 0).

If you limit life to a predetermined inequity then yes, the assessment holds true. But why limit life in order to have perfect story structure? How can the argument be actually meaningful if it is based on the data of an instrument that measures only a small band of the frequency spectrum? This is like claiming that science has the answers to life.

You can even feel it in the tone of his words:

Some suggest profundity in the unclear ending—as if ambiguity is its own reward. This recommendation, while enticing to the Author unsure of his Premise, leads to an ultimately forgettable product. The shroud of uncertainty allows one to dodge the challenging work of deep analytical thinking.

When you encounter this siren of meaninglessness, cover your ears. For what is the purpose of being pointless?

I can propose the same question, the other way around: for what is the purpose of making a point if it based on a lie?

I mean no disrespect, we just disagree and that’s okay. I just think that his way of thinking is dangerous. This kind of thinking is what leads to ideological fanaticism. If you somehow believe that truth is an object that can be contained by rational thinking, you’re probably living in a delusion. Again, no disrespect, it’s just my opinion. Perhaps I’m wrong.

We all know the dangers of propaganda. And even now, cinema as well as popular literature is drenched with cultural bias, socio-political ideology and much more. And this is the result of people who think they know what reality is and feel the need to impose their ideological B.S. on others.

A much smarter man than myself once said – and this is a true classic: “all I know is that I know nothing.”

The Dramatica theory of story allows an Author to step outside of himself–immediately and without the reliance of time to separate him from his work.

This is simply absolutely incorrect. The only experience I know of that literally takes your consciousness out of your own person is a mystical experience. Everything else is just you thinking you’re stepping out of your own head. But in reality you’re simply not. When you consider the objective througline within the Dramatica model, you still approach it from the point of view of your own life experiences and things you’ve read. How is this objective? To even think it is, seems silly to me!

Ambiguity is a failure on the Author’s part to project a complete and meaningful storyform. This doesn’t mean one needs to communicate the entirety of the storyform—just enough to ensure a single interpretation.

No, ambiguity is the act of questioning that very storyform. Ambiguity is to question your own perception of life.

As far as I can tell, Dramatica works under the premise that narratives/stories try to make sense of life… Arguably, in order to make sense of something you have to remove at least some of its ambiguities.

It has been mentioned various times in this forum and on narrativefirst.com that nobody goes to a movie/novel/whatever to see perfect structure. Also, Jim criticizes “Sing!” for having no ambiguities.

Both of these things are true. But if you cannot remove yourself from the things you write, how would you be able to write anything that is not drenched with cultural bias, socio-political ideology, etc?

There is an old argument about whether art/story is about asking questions vs providing answers. Giving answers and making an argument about that answer is what Dramatica is about. If you think that making an argument with a story is not the right thing to do, then maybe Dramatica is not the right tool for you.

To actually answer your question about the character encoding stuff… I would not worry about it too much.

In addition, I do not think there is a way to not be disrespectful while at the same time insinuating that someone is living in a delusion.

1 Like

I’ll answer the original question, and avoid the unpacking of differences and similarities of opinion that I see in the above posts. (I’m on a mobile.)

For the most part, you can ignore the character dynamics in writing your story.

Their point in Dramatica, in my perception, is to illustrate that there are reasons that certain character types appear in the Overall story. Technically speaking, the dynamics there are not chosen by the current version of the model, at least publically, unless one chooses archetypes for their characters. You’re likely to write some arrangement of those elements anyway.

For most people, getting to a Plot Sequence Report provides plenty of inspiration and material, just as you noted.

3 Likes

But if you cannot remove yourself from the things you write, how would you be able to write anything that is not drenched with cultural bias, socio-political ideology, etc?

True, yes indeed, or so it seems! But this is the point of the practise! It is to consciously exercise the unravelling of one’s own delusions. Dramatica is indeed an excellent tool in that it mimics the operations of the human mind. But to assume that there is some sort of truth in that, seems incorrect to me. This is why I choose to weave uncertainty into the story at every point. Essentially I am showing an audience how I used to perceive something and then have them question the whole thing, like I did myself. But I’m trying to do it a way that is respectful of their feelings by explaining why it is ambiguous and hopefully help them to see that that is perfectly okay and nothing to be afraid of. To me, this is what art is. Artistry is not art. Art is a depiction of something outside of ordinary human perception. It’s not religious either. But it has a lot to do with spirituality.

I do not think there is a way to not be disrespectful while at the same time insinuating that someone is living in a delusion.

Today’s jungle of political correctness is truly a marvel, wouldn’t you agree?

For most people, getting to a Plot Sequence Report provides plenty of inspiration and material, just as you noted.

Thank you, Hunter! Glad to hear I am not insane all by myself!

You are doing everything right. Most writers will get the best results approaching characters naturally, at an intuitive level.

This doesn’t mean Dramatica is wrong. If you write a story that follows a storyform, you’ll probably find looking at it afterwards that certain characters really stand out in terms of the Character Elements. You may even notice certain of them during your draft. But it’s okay if you don’t – it’s hard to look at things the right way, especially since the Character Elements are always in relation to the Goal.

In a similar fashion everything you’re saying about how “story is about life” is true, but at a different level. You’re talking about storytelling. All of the storytelling should make the story feel real, to whatever degree is necessary for the story (a modern day thriller will have different needs here compared to a children’s story where the toys are the characters). This is separate from the structure/argument of the story.

2 Likes

You do not define story the same way Dramatica does. If you disagree with Dramatica about what story is, then you will disagree with everything else Dramatica says.

This is Dramatica. Dramatica says that everything in a story is looking at a single specific inequity and comparing various perspectives on that inequity to make a statement regarding the value of approaching the inequity from a given viewpoint. Characters, then, aren’t supposed to represent real life. They’re supposed to represent processes of the mind. They do double duty by also trying to appear to be fully formed individuals.

I think youre way off base with how you’re interpreting this. It’s not saying that story structure will give you an out of body experience. It’s saying that authors have a personal connection to their work and Dramatica allows them to also view it for what it actually is. Both perspectives are equally true, equally valid. But you can only take one or the other, not both at the same time.

Think of it like this. You and I can both watch Shawshank Redemption and have a different opinion of it because of our personal experiences. And yet I can actually point to the screen and say “this is where Red adopts Andy’s perspective”. That’s in the movie. Sure you can come back and say ‘what if there is no movie? What if you’re just a brain in a vat and nothing is real?’ To which I would reply that objectivity is a perspective that one takes just as is the subjective. To view something for what it is absent of any personal connection just is objectivity.

If there is only subjectivity and ambiguity, what is one deluded by or about? If personal perspective is all there is, then there is no such thing as delusion, for to be deluded about what ones personal experience is simply is ones personal experience.

And yet by your own admission you expect the audience to view your story absent of any objectivity, meaning you probably have little confidence that the audience will actually receive your message the way you intend.

Also, it doesn’t seem that you want to write an ambiguous story, but rather that you want to present a message to your audience that something can be perceived to be ambiguous. There is a big difference.

3 Likes

You are free to do whatever you want. @Greg said this already, but if you aren’t sticking to this, then you aren’t using Dramatica and that’s fine, but that’s not Dramatica.

I read a lot of young, new writers. When there is a shortcoming in their scripts, I can always find a way to describe the problem and fix it using Dramatica.

Stories are not life. The sooner you get this, the sooner you will start writing stories with meaning—which, btw, will do nothing to hinder your ability to make your stories feel like life, with all it’s weirdness and randomness.

I’ve read a lot of people who have tried to make their stories just like life. They are generally interesting for a bit and then they meander and then they’re boring.

But do whatever you want.

6 Likes

This took me way too many years to figure out.

Regarding ambiguity, here is my take.

Didactic stories are often not satisfying. Dramatica calls these propaganda, and they are usually missing some part of the story (a throughline or something). People say it hits you over the head and has no ambiguity.

By contrast, a complete story makes a unified argument by exploring an otherwise inexpressible inequity from multiple perspectives. These rich multiple perspectives are (I believe) what people refer to when they talk about “ambiguity” in the good sense.

This is not the same as a work in which the author is wishy-washy or refuses to take a stand.

5 Likes

The whole point of having a spread of characters, with the MC on one end and the IC on the other end, and the rest of the characters identifiable by their location in the Characteristics chart is to show that nobody approaches a problem/inequity in the same way.

This is not the same as having the same characters bounce around between traits. Do we do this in real life? Sure, because we are trying to figure out in each moment which approach will be the best. Each moment is tied to a different story, for the most part.

I swear, the best lesson I ever got in this was a friend of mine (an unsuccessful friend) telling me that story was basically taking a stretch of time and starting at one end of it and going forward to the other end, with a bit added onto the beginning and the end so the story wasn’t abrupt. After I read his scripts, he would tell me what was motivating the scenes and why they were so magical. And yet, they weren’t, because it was all in his head because he wasn’t telling a story so much as he was relating a chronology that had no design to steer us. This is when I realized that character could not be separated from plot—even if you can describe the characters without referring to the plot.

4 Likes

Practically speaking though – for your own scripts – do you use the characteristics chart or do you write your OS characters by intuition? I’ve tried to use the chart, but it gets unwieldy really fast (would love to figure out simpler way to do it).

That’s perfect. I need to write that down.

1 Like

I have found it to be a good way to brainstorm

2 Likes

I think youre way off base with how you’re interpreting this. It’s not saying that story structure will give you an out of body experience. It’s saying that authors have a personal connection to their work and Dramatica allows them to also view it for what it actually is. Both perspectives are equally true, equally valid. But you can only take one or the other, not both at the same time.

I’m not saying Dramatica was saying that. I’m saying the author of that article said it. Let me re-quote that for you:

The Dramatica theory of story allows an Author to step outside of himself–immediately and without the reliance of time to separate him from his work. With Dramatica, the Author observes his work from an objective point-of-view. He sees what his story looks like from a dispassionate standpoint.

Can you see it now? He almost literally writes that Dramatica gives the author an out-of-body experience of the work.

If there is only subjectivity and ambiguity, what is one deluded by or about? If personal perspective is all there is, then there is no such thing as delusion, for to be deluded about what ones personal experience is simply is ones personal experience.

What kind of an argument is that? To answer your question, what is one deluded about? One’s own perception. The story you fabricate in order to give meaning to things in life. The realisation that these are merely, synthetically manufactured concepts that do not explain reality accurately. It is the foundation of ideology.

And yet by your own admission you expect the audience to view your story absent of any objectivity, meaning you probably have little confidence that the audience will actually receive your message the way you intend.

Also, it doesn’t seem that you want to write an ambiguous story, but rather that you want to present a message to your audience that something can be perceived to be ambiguous. There is a big difference.

Correct. I’m writing how I perceive it while at the same time urging the audience to question it. The story isn’t ambiguous, but the meaning is.

Regarding ambiguity, here is my take.

Didactic stories are often not satisfying. Dramatica calls these propaganda, and they are usually missing some part of the story (a throughline or something). People say it hits you over the head and has no ambiguity.

By contrast, a complete story makes a unified argument by exploring an otherwise inexpressible inequity from multiple perspectives. These rich multiple perspectives are (I believe) what people refer to when they talk about “ambiguity” in the good sense.

This is not the same as a work in which the author is wishy-washy or refuses to take a stand.

I think that’s a good argument. This is also why I still believe Dramatica is suitable for my needs. At the very least, Dramatica helps to create the meaning from the widest possible way of looking at things from the perspective of a human mind. Even though the end result is still nothing close to the absolute truth, at the very least it makes an effort to look at it from every possible angle.

I personally think that it is important that we question that ultimate meaning at the end of the story as well. Similar to Inception, Stalker, Solaris, A Serious Man, … although those examples are very on the nose.

The whole point of having a spread of characters, with the MC on one end and the IC on the other end, and the rest of the characters identifiable by their location in the Characteristics chart is to show that nobody approaches a problem/inequity in the same way.

MC/IC are not characters. They are perspectives. The actual characters do not show that nobody approaches a problem/inequity in the same way. It illustrates all the different ways a problem/inequity can be approached. And that’s exactly my problem with it. I want to argue that by forcing this level of intellectual precision down to the character level, it’s almost as if you’re creating a mathematical model. Like fabricating a clockwork. I can’t explain this any better, but I feel that it wouldn’t be so bad to leave some room for poetry.

This is not the same as having the same characters bounce around between traits. Do we do this in real life? Sure, because we are trying to figure out in each moment which approach will be the best. Each moment is tied to a different story, for the most part.

My guess is that this is where we fundamentally disagree. To me there is no story. And if there had to be one for the sake of making my argument easier, I will argue with anyone any day over the fact that each moment is part of one, single story. Ask any psychotherapist. I dare you.

As to the consistency of character elements according to the actual characters, why bother? With the aid of the plot sequence report, you already have very precise functions your characters have to execute. As to their motivations and all that stuff, someone with some knowledge about human behaviour should be able to easily weave these things in. And in the case of making a film, there’s also going to be actors and the script will change slightly throughout production and all that good stuff.

When I’m writing characters according to the Dramatica character system, it feels as if I’m writing scripts for machines. I’m no longer thinking about real people, I’m thinking about how to make X do Y. Perhaps for most of you, that way of working works. But for me it feels fake. That’s all I’m saying.

Every atom of one’s being executes the programs running in your subconscious mind. A mere few percents constitutes your conscious awareness. And we all know how difficult it is to change habits. Everything you do in life is part of one overarching story. You choice in friends, partners, lovers, food, activities, ways of thinking, looking at the world, … literally everything is affected by your subconscious programming. That’s not to say that one has no free will and that there isn’t probably a little bit of mysterious, inexplicable randomness to it all but the point is that every moment is more likely part of one bigger story rather than multiple different ones.

Of course, the nature of the mind is such that it divides. Hence why we perceive reality as a bunch of disconnected things bumping into each other. But in truth, from the objective point of view, even science is catching up to the perceived and now measured notion that all of life is inextricably connected.

do you use the characteristics chart or do you write your OS characters by intuition?

I am currently working quite a lot with the archetypes.

Once I have my story form and a subtext treatment written, I work on my characters in more detail. Either I brainstorm them or just use Gists for the elements.

After I have done this for all characters I prep my scenes. The prep is a detailed scene outline as usual and looks like:

  • Synopsis,
  • Focus Theme (Signpost, Element, Issue, or whatever)
  • Action/ PRCO (usually 4 short bullet points)
  • and character/ elements which are played in the scene

The effort for doing the outline pays off when I am writing the scene. This way I get a very good feeling for the character. So I might learn how my Sidekick Character is Support-ing actually or I might realise the guy who lures the Protagonist is actually the Contagonist.

2 Likes

Stories are not life. The sooner you get this, the sooner you will start writing stories with meaning—which, btw, will do nothing to hinder your ability to make your stories feel like life, with all it’s weirdness and randomness.

That’s your opinion. I’m not trying to write a commercial product. I’m exploring something. Our needs are different. What applies to you, does not necessarily apply to me.

I’ve read a lot of people who have tried to make their stories just like life. They are generally interesting for a bit and then they meander and then they’re boring.

Your observation does seem correct to me as well but I think the meandering is due to the writer’s immaturity or inability to perceive with a minimum of accuracy. And by accuracy, I mean, free from personal bias to the degree it is possible.

If a writer starts meandering, I think it means that the writer doesn’t know how to perceive. And this is the complete opposite of my case. I’m a bit baffled why a lot of you seem to believe that I’m refusing to take a stand or speak up just because I used the word ambiguity. As if ambiguity is a trigger word for you. Just an observation.

To me, the only stories worthy of telling are the ones about disillusionment. The moment when you realise the story you told yourself or were told by others no longer holds you in its grip. When one is able to see the lie in what was once believed to be the truth.

I think this is very much about the author taking a stand. And this is exactly what I want to teach people. To question everything and take nothing for granted. Sure, at first it feel nice and comfortable to accept an idea, a story. It gives an individual something to hold onto. Like how we create identities for ourselves, so we can act as though we know what we’re doing. So we can be like everyone else. But when those stories comes crashing down (and this happens ALL of the time, ALL over the world) the results are devastating. These are kind of things people commit suicide over. It’s a shock to the entire system to find out what you thought your whole life to be true turns out to be a lie.

I think this is important because right now, what most people do when something like this happens, is they look for a new story. Without realising that it’s just the same story in a different form. Very few people actually manage to wake up. Most people keep repeating themselves, unknowingly.

That’s very interesting @Gernot. I am encouraged – in the past when I’ve tried to go down that road it always seems to take too long, especially if I’m trying to illustrate the relationships the way that Armando recommends. But I do often feel like it could be useful, especially when I can’t get a handle on my characters.

Also interesting that you work from archetypes. I always go for complex characters, but that probably just makes it more unwieldy.

This is a Dramatica forum. You are welcome to have any opinion you want, but there is a framework here we all strive to employ. My opinion conforms to the framework.

I am saying this because you started your question by asking “Do I have to use Character Dynamics?” which have a purpose. Ignore them and you invite meaninglessness. It’s irrelevant to me that said “ambiguity”.

Don’t be baffled. You came into the forum and said, “You all do ____. I don’t want to do ____.” and have not tried to learn from our responses. You have continued to say, in short, “I don’t want to do ____ but I want you all to think I can still achieve the same result.”

I don’t think you realize how little we get out of helping people who come here, once they demonstrate that they are not actually open to learning.

5 Likes

If everything is only subjective, then I’m not sure what good pointing back to the article does. My personal experience doesn’t match yours, so wouldnt I never be able to agree with you?

I’m still pretty sure the language is meant to be metaphorical. FWIW, I would agree that you should not expect Dramatica to allow you to step outside of your own being, only to provide a different perspective.

In order for one to be deluded, there has to be something to be deluded about, something that counters or negates your personal experience of it. Something has to have a nature that doesn’t match your experience. If subjectivity reigns supreme, then nothing can negate your subjective view of it, thus there is no such thing as delusion. It’s an argument that assumes your position to show that your position defeats itself.

A story that presents the message that it’s best to view something as ambiguous in not itself an ambiguous message or meaning. If you want ambiguity, then it’s best not to use Dramatica.

Dramatica does not make the claim that it presents one with absolute truth. In fact, it’s all about looking at various perspectives. It’s all relative. A mental relativity, if you will.

So you do think there’s a non-subjective view that one can take of a story.

You are free to do this. But it’s at the cost of losing some of the strength of the argument.

Because that’s how you keep an argument consistent.

This is one of the drawbacks of Dramatica. The fun of writing is being inside your characters heads. Dramatica forces you out of that position. Dramatica is good for structuring your story, but once you have the structure and know what needs to happen in your story, you need to find a way back into the heads of your characters that also follows that structure. Not always easy to do.

This is true…from a certain point of view. As equally true and valid is the opposite.

This is only one quarter of the picture. It also multiplies. It also views structure and dynamics. See my avatar for the quad.

The type of story you want to write is valid. I don’t think anyone here would deny that. They simply aren’t the type described by Dramatica.

Has anyone actually said this? As far as I can tell, no one has. They’ve merely said that Dramatica is about making a grand argument and ambiguity is not, that if you want to be ambiguous then you don’t need Dramatica. I don’t get the sense that anyone has been triggered, though I do get the sense that it was your intent to come here and try to trigger people.

4 Likes