My prompt was : “WIP Let’s talk about a novel with multiple “I” stories. Let’s say there are parts of the novel that are told first person singular from Friar, Amelia, Beamer and Joshua and Senator Bob. Would that require five storyforms? They also are IC in each other’s stories. Senator Bob, we’ve already established, gets a separate story and story form, with different inequity at stake.
response:
Checklist
Clarify when multiple first-person “I” voices require separate Storyforms
Offer three viable architectures (single, dual, multi-Storyform) and when to use each
Explain MC/IC rules with hand-offs so “they are IC in each other’s stories” stays Dramatica-correct
Recommend a practical setup for ayour novel (minimal Storyforms, maximal contrast)
Provide next-step prompts to lock the path
Do five first-person “I” voices require five Storyforms?
Short answer: No. First-person POV does not equal “Main Character” in Dramatica. You only need a new Storyform when a thread is a complete, independent story (its own OS/MC/IC/RS and its own inequity that resolves on its own terms). If someone speaks in “I” but is not carrying an entire Storyform, that chapter can be a POV device, a personal “tale,” or part of a single shared Storyform.
Three architectures that work
1) Single Storyform, many “I” chapters (one MC at a time)
Use when Friar, Amelia, Beamer, and Joshua all participate in the same central conflict and resolve it together.
Only one of them is the MC perspective in this storyform (recommended: Friar, per your notes). The others can still have first-person chapters, but those are POV passages—not the MC perspective.
The Influence Character perspective can be handed off among Amelia/Joshua/Beamer, provided they deliver the same challenge to the MC’s worldview.
Pros: Unified theme, one Outcome/Judgment; the book reads as one big novel.
Watch-outs: Be disciplined about who is actually the MC; don’t run multiple MCs simultaneously inside one Storyform.
2) Dual-Storyform braid (city story + national counterpoint)
Storyform A: “City” story (Friar as MC; Amelia/Joshua/Beamer share IC hand-offs).
Storyform B: “Senator Bob” (first-person “I,” separate inequity; he never interacts directly with the city four).
Chapters alternate (A1 → B1 → A2 → B2 …). Each closes its own argument; the braid creates resonance without collapsing the two into one story.
Pros: Your desired counterpoint emerges clearly; tonal and structural contrast; no strain on Dramatica rules.
Watch-outs: Requires careful pacing so A and B don’t imply causal links that violate either Storyform.
3) Five Storyforms (anthology braid)
Only do this if each “I” is truly a separate story with its own OS/MC/IC/RS and separate resolution.
Typically overkill for a single novel; very hard to keep coherent.
Pros: Maximal autonomy for each arc.
Watch-outs: Complexity explodes; reader cohesion suffers unless the book is framed as a deliberate anthology.
“They also are IC in each other’s stories”—what’s allowed?
Within a single Storyform, the IC perspective can be handed off between different players (Amelia one act, Joshua the next), as long as the challenge to the MC’s approach remains consistent.
Across separate Storyforms, yes: someone can be MC in Storyform A and serve as an IC (or part of an IC hand-off) in Storyform B. Just don’t run multiple ICs at the exact same moment in the same Storyform—hand off cleanly at act or major beat boundaries.
Practical recommendation for your novel
Use 2 Storyforms, not 5.
Storyform A (City): Keep Friar as MC to leverage his autodidact, improviser nature. Let Amelia/Joshua/Beamer share the IC function via planned hand-offs; their formal education and distinct logics pressure Friar from the “Future/Progress” angle you’ve established.
Storyform B (Senator Bob): Build a distinct national-scale Storyform (different Driver/Limit/Approach/Style and a different OS Domain) so it reads as a separate engine, not a mirror of the city story.
First-person usage guideline:
City chapters: You can still use “I” for Amelia/Joshua/Beamer chapters, but mark them as POV passages within Storyform A. Only Friar’s “I” carries the MC perspective in that Storyform.
Senator Bob chapters: His “I” is the MC perspective of Storyform B.
Hand-off protocol (Storyform A):
Signpost-level IC hand-offs: e.g., Act I IC = Amelia; Act II-A IC = Joshua; Act II-B IC = Beamer; Act III IC returns to Amelia. Each presses the same thematic challenge from a different angle.
Next decisions to lock this down
Confirm architecture: Single + Senator Bob (two Storyforms) or attempt one Storyform with MC hand-offs?
If dual-Storyform, pick Senator Bob top-level contrasts so it feels national:
Driver/Limit: Action + Time (contrasts your City’s Decision + Options)
MC Approach/Style: Do-er + Linear (contrasts Friar’s Be‑er + Holistic)
OS Domain candidates for Senator Bob: Universe (conditions of office/Cold War), Mind (national mood), or Psychology (narrative warfare)
Tell me which way you want to go, and I’ll:
Draft the Senator Bob Storyform skeleton (Domains → Concerns → Issues → Problem/Solution) with contrasting dynamics.
Map clean IC hand-offs for the City story so the four voices remain distinct and structurally sound.
Provide an interleaved chapter braid that keeps both engines clear and compelling.
Validation: This plan keeps you within Dramatica’s constraints (only one MC/IC perspective active per Storyform at a time) while giving you the multi-“I” experience and a national counterpoint without needing five separate Storyforms.
thought this would be of interest for folks. I thought it was a very good and detailed response.
Jim showed us at the last live session that Anna freakin Karenina, one of the longest, most complex novels, and some say the most perfect novel, ever written (I’d argue Bovary, but hey), even THAT behemoth only uses TWO STORY FORMS. So if you’re using more than that many in a novel, you’re probably on the wrong track, or you’re not writing a novel, or you’re writing a novel that no one will be able to read.
As far as TV series…interesting. So on the one hand you have anthology series, which are usually different storyforms per episode. Then you have shows like Columbo or Elsbeth (my girl!) where the show is pretty much the same each episode. FOUNDATION is clearly governed by a single Storyform. Harry Selden is the protagonist, the MC is Gaal Dornick and Empire is the IC, the Mule is the Antagonist. I am guessing when you’re doing a series with arcs, most of that comes into play in the storyweaving and storytelling?
In my sci-fi trilogy I have six total storyforms (one for the whole trilogy, one for each book, and two volume-spanning substories). But only the main trilogy one was planned, and while drafting I only noticed one of the other substories. The other four were totally under the radar until revision. They were probably made more coherent during revision too (although not consciously since I didn’t notice them until revision was pretty much done for each book).
Here is a diagram. (CE is Crucial Element the old term for Pivotal Element)
Thanks! It’s definitely the most fun I’ve had with Dramatica/Subtxt, noticing those substories and then teasing out the storyforms. And it gives you some faith in your subconscious when you realize they were there all along.
It’s also kind of neat how each throughline Domain is represented at least once. Same with each Concern quadrant (there’s 3 bottom left, and 1 each of the others). I don’t think this is in any way required when working with substories, but it’s interesting to see the variation.
Oh, one thing that’s not represented above is the fact that the IC is the same character, Becca, in every storyform! (Though in some of them the IC role is shared with another character, and in one the IC is really a sort of “copy” of Becca.) I guess this is why while I was working on it, I jokingly referred to the story as “the Becca show.”
Easy enough to find out But War and Peace is not considered a well-made novel. Henry James called it a loose, baggy monster, and he was write. It’s brilliant but succeeds for reason other than its structure. hey, like Melanie has said, no one reads for structure, but…getting through W&P is always a slog. Anna K goes down like butter.
Anyway: “attached is a document containing the complete set of an English translation of the novel war and peace. Please perform a thorough dramatica analysis, focusing on storyforms. If there are multiple storyforms, articulate them clearly and completely.”
=========================
The response: (spoiler, two storyforms)
Your goal, restated
You want a thorough Dramatica analysis of the uploaded English translation of War and Peace, focusing on complete Storyforms. If more than one Storyform best accounts for the novel’s conflicts, please articulate each clearly and completely.
Plan for this pass
Identify distinct Throughlines and likely Storyforms present in the novel
Assign Domains and drill to Concerns, Issues, and Problem/Solution Elements
Establish dynamics (Driver, Limit, Outcome, Judgment, MC Resolve/Approach/Style)
Lay out Signposts for each Throughline and map them to the novel’s parts
Assign OS archetypal functions to key characters and justify with textual evidence
Weave in direct textual citations to support critical beats and assignments
Quick checklist for our collaboration
Clarify the candidate Storyforms and rank them by confidence
For each Storyform, table the key Appreciations (Domain → Concern → Issue → Problem/Solution)
Set dynamics (Driver/Limit/Outcome/Judgment; MC Resolve/Approach/Style; Pivotal Element)
Map Signposts to acts/parts, citing representative passages
Assign archetypal functions; note hand-offs in perspectives
Invite you to specify if you want deeper, scene-level mapping after this act-level pass
Executive Summary
Tolstoy’s epic contains multiple, interwoven arguments about history, agency, and love. Two complete Storyforms most cleanly account for its dramatic engines:
The 1812 war as the overarching OS, with Pierre as the Main Character (MC) whose personal conflict resolves through the influence of Platon Karataev. This Storyform frames war (external activity) against a philosophical thesis about patience, time, and the limits of individual will. Kutuzov’s “patience and time” stance anchors the OS, while Pierre’s captivity and encounter with Karataev reframe his internal unrest, culminating in a Good Judgment and a Success Outcome for the nation repelling the invader (e.g., Kutuzov’s repeated insistence that the loss of Moscow is not the loss of Russia; and his “golden bridge” mindset) .
The Natasha-Andrei-Anatole courtship “romance” as a separate Storyform centered on social performance and temptation. Here the OS is Psychology (people performing roles, plotting elopements, negotiating engagements). MC is Natasha (Universe: her fixed social position as fiancée/debutante), and IC is a hand-off between Andrei (rigid ideals and delay) and Anatole (fixed, heedless desire)—both Mind. This Storyform ends in Failure/Bad for the specific goal of marrying Andrei, though Natasha later finds healing in the larger tapestry of the epic (marrying Pierre in 1813) .
Below are both Storyforms articulated, with evidence.
Strategy (vs. Analysis) as competing approaches at councils and in salons
Pursuit (forcing decisive battle, storming)
Avoid (refusing premature battle; offering the “golden bridge”)
Main Character (Pierre)
Mind (fixed internal states: jealousy, meaning-seeking)
Subconscious (drives and desires)
Dream (vs. Hope)—comet, 666, fantasies of killing Napoleon
Temptation
Conscience
Influence Character (Platon Karataev)
Universe (fixed external state: peasant prisoner)
Present (life as it is, right now)
Work (vs. Attempt)—simple tasks, acceptance
Acceptance
Non-acceptance
Relationship Story (Pierre–Karataev)
Psychology (internal process: Pierre’s way of seeing life)
Becoming (Pierre’s internal transformation)
Rationalization (vs. Commitment)
Chaos
Order
Notes and textual grounding:
OS: The “parties” around Drissa, Pfuel vs. practitioners, courtiers seeking a middle way; salons’ “form over substance”; all point to conflicting strategies to obtain national safety and repel the invader . Kutuzov’s consistent aim—brace, defeat, drive out, while minimizing suffering—embodies a method of Avoid/Withdraw until the moment is right (Avoid vs. Pursuit) and his “patience and time” credo counters impulsive “storming” .
MC: Pierre cycles through jealous fury (duel with Dolokhov), initiation into Freemasonry, comet-and-Apocalypse numerology, and a private assassination fantasy—classic Dream/Temptation patterns—until conscience and compassion take root through suffering and Karataev’s model .
IC: Karataev’s “present-moment” equanimity, practical work, and accepting stance exert steady pressure on Pierre’s worldview; his death seals the lesson (IC steadfastness; MC change) .
RS: The living exchange between Pierre and Karataev is a process of Becoming. Pierre’s rationalizations about grand, fated action dissolve into a committed, ordered simplicity—especially evident in Pierre’s serenity in captivity and afterwards .
Protagonist: Kutuzov (champions the national Goal—repel the invader; “loss of Moscow is not the loss of Russia,” “patience and time”)
Antagonist: Napoleon and French high command (hubris, coercive pursuit; “ear-pulling” condescension with Balashëv; dejection at Borodino)
Contagonists: Rostopchin (performative theatrics around the burning of Moscow), Pfuel/Bennigsen (theory-bound interference)—each distracts/tempts away from the winning method
Reason: Prince Andrew (analysis, skepticism at councils; clarity before Borodino)
Emotion: Nicholas Rostov and Petya (ecstatic love of Tsar; patriotic ardor)
Guardian: Dokhturov (quiet, corrective presence repeatedly entrusted with the most difficult positions)
Sidekicks: Denisov, the partisans/people (steady faith in the larger effort)
Signposts (act-level) and representative evidence
Objective Story (Physics, Concern: Obtaining)
Doing: Preparations, maneuvers, Austerlitz council and battle (action first)
Obtaining: Occupying/abandoning Moscow; who “holds” what; Borodino’s result defined as victory by Kutuzov; “golden bridge” for retreating enemy
Learning: Misread positions; staff/rear misinterpretation; the nation’s gradual realization of what works and why (e.g., Bennigsen’s interference)
Future: The seed of an abiding orientation that lives on in Pierre after Karataev’s death
Relationship Story (Pierre–Karataev; Psychology, Concern: Becoming)
Conceiving: Pierre can’t yet “conceive” Karataev’s way; laughs at being “captured”—then looks at the sky (self-awareness dawning)
Conceptualizing/Being: He tries on Karataev’s acceptance “as-if,” finding inner breathing room
Becoming: The acceptance becomes Pierre’s own nature (post-captivity serenity)
Being: Pierre lives this new state in domestic life to come (marriage in 1813)
Relationship pairing note: Pierre–Karataev operates as a Dependent pair—Pierre’s fragmentation relies on Karataev’s integrative presence to stabilize; once internalized, the dependency recedes.
Storyform B (high confidence): The Courtship/Temptation “Romance” Story
High-level dynamics
Story Driver: Decision (Andrei’s decision to delay marriage a year; Natasha’s decision to elope; Pierre’s decision to confront Anatole)
Story Limit: Options (limited honorable “moves” before reputations and promises make the intended match impossible)
Story Outcome: Failure (the intended Goal—marriage of Natasha and Andrei—does not occur)
Story Judgment: Bad (in the bounds of this story: despair, attempted poisoning; recovery is outside this Storyform, in the larger epic)
Throughlines and core appreciations
Throughline
Domain
Concern
Issue (Counterpoint)
Problem
Solution
Objective Story
Psychology (roles, schemes, salon performances)
Being (appearing as fiancé/lover; elopement plotting)
Attitude (vs. Approach)—postures vs. genuine method
Temptation
Conscience
Main Character (Natasha)
Universe (fixed social position: engaged debutante)
Future (marriage prospects, engagements)
Openness (vs. Preconception)
Attraction (to Anatole’s false glamour)
Repulsion (recoil from deception; return to family/community)
Influence Character (IC, hand-offs: Andrei → Anatole → Pierre)
Mind (fixed internal state: principles vs. appetites)
Notes and textual grounding: - OS: Courtly role-playing and salon postures set conditions for schemes and “performances” like Anatole’s letter and elopement plan; Being/Attitude dominate the conflict field . - MC (Natasha): Socially situated (Universe) as an engaged young woman, she opens herself to a different “future” and is swayed by attraction (the letter) before recoiling and collapsing in despair (the poison attempt) . - IC (hand-offs): Andrei’s principled year-long delay and uncompromising ideals (Mind) first shape Natasha’s context; later, Anatole’s fixed desire to have her becomes the sharper influence; finally, Pierre
=====
Narovva froze here, probably ran out of space. W&P is 600k words.
no, actually, I just had to type ‘continue’ as you sometimes have to do with ChatGPT. Narravo continued with:
…finally, Pierre (also Mind) bears in on Natasha with a conscience-centered clarity that ends the immediate crisis and opens a path forward. He executes the only truly protective act (banishing Anatole; then, later, telling the truth of Karataev and captivity), and Princess Mary immediately perceives the nascent possibility of love and happiness between Pierre and Natasha .
“Romance” Storyform table
Throughline
Domain
Concern
Issue (Counterpoint)
Problem
Solution
Objective Story
Psychology
Being (roles, courtship performance)
Attitude (vs. Approach)
Temptation
Conscience
Main Character (Natasha)
Universe
Future
Openness (vs. Preconception)
Attraction
Repulsion
Influence Character (hand-offs: Andrei → Anatole → Pierre)
Mind
Conscious
Responsibility (vs. Obligation)
Non-acceptance
Acceptance
Relationship Story (Natasha–Andrei/Anatole)
Physics
Obtaining (a marriage)
Strategy (vs. Analysis)
Pursuit
Avoid
Notes with textual grounding:
OS Psychology/Being: Courts and salons enact poses; engagements are “roles” to perform. The salons literally persist unchanged in form while public opinions posture and schemes brew . Princess Mary’s letter invokes the proprieties and roles of a “suitable” union while Natasha is drawn to the performative rapture of Anatole’s letter (Being/Attitude) .
MC Universe/Future: Natasha is fixed by station and engagement; her imagination leaps to possible futures—first with Andrei, then with Anatole’s promise of “bliss to the ends of the earth” .
IC Mind/Conscious (hand-offs): Andrei’s principled “delay” imposes a rigid consideration on Natasha’s heart; Anatole’s fixed appetites pressure her; Pierre’s conscience reframes her options and stops the abuse, shifting the influence toward Acceptance and healing .
RS Physics/Obtaining: The relationship’s “doings” (dances, letters, plans, elopement attempt) are aimed at obtaining a marriage—and fail. Pierre’s decisive intervention (and truth) then abort the pursuit pattern .
Objective Characters (romance OS)
Protagonist: The “proper match” effort (Andrei + families led by Princess Mary/Countess Rostova) trying to secure a legitimate marriage (Being→Becoming) .
Antagonist: Anatole (deceiver/temptation: the letter, the plan to abduct) .
Contagonists: Hélène and Dolokhov (enable and script temptation; compose the letter; stoke appearances) .
Guardian: Pierre (protects Natasha by stopping Anatole; moral clarity) .
Reason: Andrei (principle, delay, long-range considerations) .
Emotion: Natasha (impulses, raptures of the ballroom and letter) .
Sidekick: Sonya (loyal caution; reads the letter; tries to hold the course) .
Signposts (act-level) and representative evidence
Objective Story (Psychology, Concern: Being)
Conceiving: Proposals, “a year’s delay,” the seed-idea of elopement enters via Anatole’s letter
Becoming: The attempted elopement, scandal, and Natasha’s collapse (poison attempt)
Conceptualizing: A new social design emerges after the failure—Pierre’s truthful recounting and Mary’s recognition of a better pairing; later marriage in 1813, beyond this Storyform’s Failure/Bad verdict, belongs to the grander epic’s resolution .
Main Character (Natasha; Universe, Concern: Future)
Past: The ball and first meeting with Andrei; family warmth as prior context
Progress: The strain of waiting; Princess Mary’s letter; mounting confusion
Future: Anatole’s letter promises an “ends-of-the-earth” future
Present: The aftermath—despair, then vigilance at Andrei’s deathbed as the only immediate reality .
Influence Character (Andrei→Anatole→Pierre; Mind, Concern: Conscious)
Considerations (Andrei): honor and delay impose a hard criterion on love
Responsibility (Pierre): he confronts Anatole, accepts the duty to protect Natasha’s life and peace
Acceptance: Pierre’s truthful, compassionate presence opens a moral way forward .
Relationship Story (Physics, Concern: Obtaining)
Doing: Dances, calls, shared moments grow the bond
Obtaining: Betrothal aspirations, wedding plans (implicitly) contested by the letter; the “getting” of a spouse becomes corrupted
Learning: Truth emerges—Anatole is married; plan exposed; despair follows
Understanding: A sobering shared comprehension of what this love can and can’t be in this form—closing the attempt to “obtain” a marriage here.
Relationship pairing note: Natasha–Andrei/Anatole behaves as a Dynamic pair—sparkling movement gives way to volatile swings; once Pierre enters, the RS shifts toward a more Dependent harmony as Pierre’s support stabilizes Natasha’s path.
Kutuzov’s philosophy of “patience and time” and the insistence that losing Moscow is not losing Russia jointly justify the OS Physics Solution of Avoid/Conscience against the false lure of decisive “Pursuit” and storming—evident in his dispatches and in his refusal to chase every engagement .
The salons’ fixation on “form” rather than substance amplifies the Psychology-throughline OS in the romance Storyform and the Learning/Understanding beats in the war Storyform—Tolstoy’s critique of posturing vs practice .
Pierre’s personal transformation (Mind→Subconscious, Temptation→Conscience) is anchored by his captivity, his laughter at the absurdity of “capturing an immortal soul,” and his serene revaluation of basic human satisfactions after witnessing executions—directly tied to Karataev’s influence .
Pierre’s morally pivotal acts—shielding victims in Moscow, confronting Anatole—confirm Conscience as the MC Pivotal Element in Storyform A and seal the “Bad/Failure” verdict in Storyform B while seeding the epic’s later Good/Success tone .
Napoleon’s hubris and then emotional collapse at Borodino (and the belittling “ear-pull” with Balashëv) embody the Antagonist’s arc—illusory control giving way to dejection in the face of reality .
Acts/Parts mapping (macro)
To keep parity with a four-act Dramatica sweep, divide the novel into four quarters and sample beats from each:
Act I (Books 1–3, 1805): OS Doing (Austerlitz mobilization and council) / MC (Pierre) impulsive duel; Romance Conceiving (first meetings, proposal) .
Act II (Books 4–7, 1806–10): OS drift and Learning/strategizing; salons’ form; Andrei’s Petersburg disillusion; Natasha’s engagement context .
Act III (Books 8–12, 1812): OS Obtaining (Borodino; occupation/abandonment of Moscow) and Kutuzov’s “golden bridge”; MC captivity and Karataev; Romance Becoming (elopement attempt; poisoning) .
Act IV (Books 13–15 + Epilogues): OS Understanding (Tolstoy’s historical reflections); MC Good Judgment (homecoming); Romance Conceptualizing (Mary perceives Pierre+Natasha; wedding in 1813) .
Pivotal Elements, Benchmarks, and Dynamics (spotlight)
Storyform A (War/Pierre):
MC Pivotal Element: Conscience—Pierre’s humane interventions and truth-telling pivot his arc from Temptation to peace .
OS Benchmark: Learning—councils, salons, misread positions mark progress toward obtaining national safety .
IC Unique Ability (Karataev): Work—simple, present-centered doing models acceptance that Pierre internalizes .
Storyform B (Romance/Natasha):
MC Pivotal Element: Attraction—Natasha’s vulnerability to Anatole’s allure drives the crisis; her eventual Repulsion and Pierre’s Conscience break the spell .
OS Benchmark: Conceptualizing—wedding plans, proprieties, letters, arrangements are the very scaffolding of this story’s progress .
Ambiguities and plausible alternates
Some readers stage Prince Andrei as MC in a third Storyform (Universe or Psychology) across 1805–1812, with Napoleon or History (as process) exerting IC pressure. Texts supporting an Andrei-focused MC arc include his Austerlitz “magic-lantern” clarity, his pre-Borodino reappraisal, and his deathbed awakening . If you wish, we can chart this as Storyform C (medium confidence).
What would you like next?
We can expand either Storyform to scene-level (Storybeats → Progressions → Events), or diagram the Throughline hand-offs (e.g., IC in the romance) with quotations per beat.
We can also build adaptation-ready act outlines keyed to the Dramatica signposts, with a role map for ensemble casting.
Validation
The two Storyforms presented obey Domain pairings and Concern/Issue/Problem-Solution families; appreciations align with quoted moments across all four quarters of the novel.
If you prefer a different emphasis (e.g., Andrei as the primary MC), I can reframe the assignments and re-run the mapping accordingly while retaining coherence with the cited text.
Wow, impressive! I didn’t realize it was possible to upload so much content! (I am behind the times).
It sounds roughly correct, though it’s hard for me to remember. It’s tricky too, with the omniscient voice – he’s in so many characters’ heads. Chat GPT tells me that there are five “major” POVs:
Pierre Bezukhov
Prince Andrei Bolkonsky
Natasha Rostova
Nikolai Rostov
Mary Bolkonskaya
I remember the first four having MC “vibes”. That said, I think these may be all OS characters. So maybe it is only two storyforms!
But War and Peace is not considered a well-made novel. Henry James called it a loose, baggy monster, and he was write. It’s brilliant but succeeds for reason other than its structure. hey, like Melanie has said, no one reads for structure, but…getting through W&P is always a slog. Anna K goes down like butter.