I don't get sequences and scenes

[rallen]

From the theory book:
“Sequences deal with a quad of Variations much as Acts deal with a quad of Types. The quad of interest is the one containing the Issue, as that is the item at the heart of a throughline’s Theme.”

This doesn’t make sense to me. Acts don’t deal with a “quad of Types.” For instance, my storyform has an OS throughline of Psychology/Manipulation. Within this class are 4 types:

OS Signpost 1: Developing a Plan
OS Signpost 2: Playing a Role
OS Signpost 3: Changing One’s Nature
OS Signpost 4: Conceiving an Idea

But these four together comprise not an act, but the entire throughline (4 acts). Shouldn’t it read, "Acts deal with quads of variations? For instance, In Act 1 (containing OS Signpost 1), we have the variations: State of Being, Situation, Circumstances, Sense of Self. Aren’t these the variations which should be explored in Act 1, all falling under the overall plot of the Act, which is Developing a Plan? Don’t these variations represent the themes which relate to the plot for that specific act?

Just further below the above quoted part, it reads, “The quad of interest is the one containing the Issue…” But the Issue has nothing to do with the Signpost and Type. If you jump right to the Concern/Goal, Issue and Problem, you skip past Signpost 1, and indeed cannot progress to another SP. Isn’t the model supposed to be recursive/fractal??

[actingpower]

When it says, “Acts deal with a quad of Types,” that’s what they mean: there are four Acts that cover each of the four Types. I think you understand it exactly right, it’s just worded poorly.

[rallen]

@actingpower

When it says, “Acts deal with a quad of Types,” that’s what they mean: there are four Acts that cover each of the four Types. I think you understand it exactly right, it’s just worded poorly.

But they seem to deal with them very differently. There are four acts, one per type. I would expect that scenes and events would be similar, just at finer “resolutions.” For example, four scenes per act and four events per scene. This would maintain the recursive nature of Dramatica, and lead to:

4 events/scene x 4 scenes/act x 4 acts/story throughline =64 events/story throughline

And all 64 elements would be explored in each throughline.

Instead the authors move from acts down to sequences (suggesting something between scene and act resolution), which relate each element of the Issue quad to each other element. The authors do say:

“Since the four-act view is objective, sequences—as they define Thematic movements—are an experiential phenomenon in the subjective appreciation and lose much of their power objectively.”

Which seems to suggest that from a structural standpoint, we can just ignore sequences, i.e. they are best seen as emergent phenomena in a story. Is this the case?

[Hunter]

The root of this question has already been answered here:

Are types explored the same way as variations?

According to the Dramatica Theory, “Sequences deal with a quad of Variations the same way Acts deal with a quad of Types.” However, this isn’t precisely true, is it? In acts, you would explore a quad of four types one after another, one type per act. But sequences deal with a quad of variations as six pairs. Or am I missing something? The sentence quoted above makes it sound as though maybe the four types are explored in pairs in some merging of three-act (journeys) vs. four act (signposts) st…

The gist of it: Don’t worry about that part.

[museful]

There’s an entire subsection of the scriptwriting world that uses sequences when creating scripts. While this process was first implemented due to reel limitations (in the early days of film), it still has practical benefits in today’s digital world.

I personally think that it is an excellent way to make a script seem less daunting when breaking it down into manageable portions.

The idea is that there are 8 (generally 15 minutes each) sequences in a feature length script. It can make a movie feel awfully blocky (see Aquaman – watch it and skip to 15 minutes, 30 minutes, 45 minutes, 1 hour, etc.). Every 15 minutes or so is going to correspond to a sequence climax.

Part of the confusion, when talking about sequences and scenes is about having the instinct to know when a scene will fill the concept’s idea/function without resorting to a sequence. In everyday speak: do I need to explore this idea more, or have I tried to wring too much out of this idea? Sometimes a scene is enough.

I also feel as though a sequence can be looked at entirely structurally, and in that way, it fulfills some important functions. However, in terms of story, a sequence also serves functions. It’s this duality that makes the concept confusing.

Looking at Dramatica as an argument, I think it is fair to say that certain statements require less convincing than others. So, it is probably better to look at the sections of a novel, script, etc. intuitively when deciding how much of an argument needs to be made for a concept, but sequences can guide you in the beginning.

In regard to beats (especially as they are shown in Jim’s Subtext app), I often notice that different beats provided within his app lend themselves (intuitively) to scenes, sequences, or – even – instantaneous character beats. In other words, they require the author to make a decision about how much time is needed to explore the beat in question. That, I suspect, is the art of writing (in acting, we often stay “within the choice lies the talent”).

Another problem, you need to reconcile the differences in terminology when talking about Dramatica and other sources. Look at how people define essential vocabulary: beats, scenes, sequences, acts, etc. and then decide if those concepts translate directly to events, scenes, sequences, and acts within Dramatica.

In the end, I think it is completely reasonable to use a very rigid structure (3 Acts, 8 Sequences, 32 Scenes, etc.) when you are working on a first draft. But, then you can use your instinct or your talent to twist structure or manipulate it to make it work for your story.

[museful]

I’ll just tack on this: think of a sequence as being defined by function rather than form. I think that goes a long way dealing with your desire to make sequences fit neatly into the theory. They can (fit neatly and rigidly into a story), but they don’t have to (be so rigid) in terms of story. A structural sequences is much different from a story sequence.

I suspect that is the very reason that Jim’s beats as listed in Subtext aren’t one size fits all. Each one might be explored by a single moment, a scene, or a sequence. Whatever is necessary for the story or the complexity of the beat.

[jhull]

These last two posts are awesome. Yes yes yes!!! It’s so great to see someone else get it and explain it so well.

THANK YOU!