Inequity as the Noumenon

writing
#21

I completely agree with this. But I have found it to be a terrible way to learn Dramatica – it’s an anchor at best, and not a springboard.

I’m curious if this is true, because the Driver is a method of describing causality, and most people talk about it in terms of act breaks. They are probably simultaneous, or simultaneous-ish. But the take away is still different.

I find this to be most true after a baseline is acquired. That is generally my point in this thread.

An additional detail to clarify this: the world is mucked up and THEN the story happens. So, the backstory is the original mucking up, but the story is an additional set of inequities. That’s why backstory matters, but it’s not part of the GAS.

#22

I’m glad this is helpful. My methods are different from yours, but only because I did something similar to what you are doing now and in retrospect I like to think I’m wiser and can guide people down a better path.

1 Like
#23

And I appreciate it. There are people that operate on false givens and they are very successful in the world. I’m looking for a process more than I am looking to be an expert in a particular theory or to be right. I am not discounting Dramatica nor am I saying that-- as a pure process–it can’t produce beautiful results. I’m sure it can.

I spent about 20 years in the theatre and acting in movies. Just independent/film festival variety stuff. In that time, I never found two actors with the same craft. I have never picked up an acting book or talked with another actor who agreed with everything I believed or my process.

On the other hand, I have met plenty of actors that have touched me to my core with their dramatic interpretations. There are a number of different paths to a place. And sometimes the journey is more important than the destination.

Lots of cliches there but they are cliches for a reason. My point is, no matter how mad and how boggling my mind seems… there is a method to that madness. I more often have positive results in the things I do than negative ones. Sometimes I fail, but that’s me figuring out what doesn’t work.

My father always prefaces his advice with – I can’t say that this will work for you, but for me… he is a wonderfully wise man.

I guess I just have a hard time not seeing the creation (or the awareness of the Death Star) as the antithesis of the destruction of the Death Star.

The boarding of the ship seems very weak in terms of what you want it to be. It feels like a stretch and I can’t shake that feeling. I want to accept it, but I have a bad feeling about this.

By the way, unrelated, Chapter 18 in Dramatica for Screenwriters is wonderfully enlightening. I love it.

#24

When I first read the analysis of Star Wars, this was my original feeling, too. However, after ruminating on it for awhile, and having learned more about Dramatica, I’ve come to see it this way. (Whether it’s right, though, is questionable, as I’m still rather a beginner myself.)

  • It’s not so much the destruction of the Death Star that is the “solution” as much as it is what the destruction of the Death Star means.

  • When Darth first boards that ship, the Empire has broken boundaries and no one has a good way to stop them (read: to fight back). It’s thought to be impossible.

  • However, when Luke actually does the impossible (destroying the Death Star), it’s the way he does so that matters: specifically, trusting/using the Force. And more so, what it means: The rebels can push back.

Before this, it was always a toss up whether the Empire or Rebels would win in any fight seen in the movie. And, it was generally felt and expected that the Empire would win (though that’s not what we wanted), since everyone was fighting in the same way.

That ability to push back against the empire. That’s the win.

Again, that’s only the conclusion that I came to, after reading a lot, and thinking a lot. The Dramatica experts may feel free to correct me if my thinking is off somehow.

Side Note: I might suggest learning Dramatica by starting with a blank slate. You don’t have to do this, of course, but that’s what I’ve done. When dealing with Dramatica, I attempt to “forget” everything else I “know” about story structure and use only those terms that Dramatica accepts. (It doesn’t always go well, but I think it nets positive.)

3 Likes
#25

Nothing to correct, you pretty much summed up everything I was going to say–and it probably means more coming from someone new to the theory anyways, so thank you!

2 Likes
#26

And this summed up everything I was going to say! You’re on a roll @Hunter!

2 Likes
#27

I appreciate the point. @Hunter

I can’t blank slate it. I’m hip-deep in writing my novel. I’m so excited because of how it is going. Dramatica has helped come up with a complete scene list and I’m halfway done with my first draft.

In regards to Star Wars, can I be disappointed by the Story rather than being disappointed by the Storyform? In other words, I agree that Dramatica can make the perfect argument. But can any movie truly realize that perfection?

Could a Dramatica Expert remake that movie and improve on certain aspects that are weak? Could it be that the boarding of the ship fulfills what is necessary within the Storyform, but it isn’t a home run?

I understand the concept here. I can’t change the movie, but I can change my thinking about the movie. I can make it fit. People can always do that. I can find a Storyform somewhere in all those options where I can make it fit.

But, could it be that the movie is just imperfect. If so many people disagree or have problems with the beginning… couldn’t it be about the movie instead of the perspective?

#28

Your Name. A Separation. The Lives Of Others. The Shawshank Redemption. Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri. To name a few “perfectly” Dramatica-structured movies.

But, could it be that the movie is just imperfect. If so many people disagree or have problems with the beginning… couldn’t it be about the movie instead of the perspective?

No. It’s the people. :rofl:(I had an :laughing: emoji here but it got cut off - whoops!)

#29

Is Star Wars on your list of perfectly realized Storyforms?

#30

It’s close enough.

Regardless of whether or not people want to attribute Backstory elements to the initial Story Driver, everyone still points to an Action–so the same narrative argument is getting through.

#31

Nice homage.

Why does this feel weak to you? What do you think we want it to be?

Dramatica, at least the part of the theory that gets the lion’s share of attention – the storyform, is not something that can produce great writing on its own. Nobody is even advocating having the same craft as anyone else. The only thing I’m trying to get at is that trying to learn Chekhov’s outside-in acting while at the same time trying to learn Meisner is a long road. But learning one and then the other can yield great results.

#32

@MWollaeger

I’ve got about 3 hours of classes coming up to teach. I’ll have to answer this later.

#33

I second @jhull Jim. I think you summed it up in a fantastic way, and I will now steal it. :smile:

1 Like
#34

Yes. I have a short list I keep of well-structured GASes that are not actually good to read/watch.

That’s not the point of a story. The meaning is only one part of it.

Yes. Just like the above, the meaning of a story is not the same as the storytelling.

… but don’t get the impression that any story can be fit to a storyform. Only Grand Argument Stories will have a storyform; some broken stories will have obvious gaps; some are just a mess.

1 Like
#35

Thanks for expanding. So, this is a super intersting analysis of the opening scene showing the OS Domain and drilling down to the elements. You are amazing at navigating the chart like this. One of my favorite times was when you also did this for the Battle sequence in the end.

At the same time, I was hoping to get a clear argument for the driver itself. How are these things not the things that follow the driver? Isn’t the driver sandwiched between the back story and the first signpost? What if it was a decision driver story with an OS in Universe of Physics? Would we not then be looking for something that was more internal oriented even though it is an external OS? —You may be right and I can see people agreeing. But, the argument isn’t convincing me that this is the driver.

As far as causality goes, if you hadn’t lost your keys, you wouldn’t be searching for them under your bed. Same thing here, they are boarding the ship to search for plans —that is their purpose in doing that. I could see the action of searching for the plans as the driver by boarding the ship. Is that what you are saying? Isn’t searching for Rebels and plans a Doing goal?

Even this (below) seems to say that if the Empire hadn’t boarded the ship in search of the plans, Leia wouldn’t have sent the plans with the droids.

“Action
Story Driver
It is the Empire’s creation of the Death Star that forces the Rebellion to confront the Empire directly; it is the Empire’s boarding of the Councilor’s ship that forces Leia to send the plans with R2D2 and C3P0; it is R2D2’s run into the desert with the vital holographic message that joins Luke and Obi Wan and convinces Obi Wan to end his days as a hermit; it is the Stormtroopers barbecuing of Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru that sways Luke’s decision to join forces with Obi Wan; it is the presence of the Stormtroopers in the Cantina that influences Han to take Obi Wan’s group to the Alderaan system; etc.”

It seems like the bold sentence below here is the assumption being relied on for this to be a unique event. But, I don’t see this information in the story. I do see a pissed off overlord that believes someone stole something threatening and I see him fighting with people about it.

“In Star Wars, the imposing Empire overextends itself by boarding a diplomatic ship. In the past these overlords were simply annoying, now it seems they’ve crossed the line. Would blowing up the Death Star really resolve this inequity? Not really. The destruction of the Death Star only appears to be the Goal of the story because of the nature of Goals themselves.“

This seems different from what is listed on Dramatica.com —

Here is the Story Goal —

Doing
Overall Story Goal
“The Rebels are transferring important data about the Death Star and fighting back when possible; Princess Leia is misleading the Empire as much as possible; etc. Ultimately, the rebels fight and destroy the Empire’s ultimate weapon, the Death Star, radically reducing the Empire’s fighting power.“

Here is the concern —

“The Empire is building the Death Star and searching for the location of the Rebels; the Rebels are attempting to keep their location secret and are trying to transport the plans of the Death Star to their home base; etc.“

Here is the Goal vs the Consequence from Narrative First

“If we can’t fight the Empire, then we will have to be the oppressed (Story Goal of Doing, Story Consequence of Being - Star Wars).“

Isn’t the story Goal to fight back against the Empire before the death machine oppression reigns supreme?

If this is the story goal then isn’t the first driver fighting over the plans by boaring the ship?

Why does it matter if ithe driver is Obtaining or Doing? If the driver were a decision driver, it wouldn’t match up with external concerns anyway, right?

I’m sorry this post is not super organized, but I’m just trying to get really clear about the relationship between the First Driver and the Story Goal.

#36

I still have it on my list of things to write about! (One year later :slight_smile: )

This should probably be the one thing to focus on:

The story of losing my keys doesn’t FORCE me to specifically search under my bed. It’s an option but it’s not a very good example of causality. With a Story Driver there is a direct connection between the cause and the effect and it carries some meaning to it. What does it mean for me to look under my bed because I lost my keys?

Secondly, I wouldn’t point to story encodings/illustrations included in the original version of Dramatica as accurately supporting the storypoint in question.

#37

It’s a question of what is forced, not what is possible.
If Jim loses his keys – typical! – he has to decide if he looks for them, walks, or calls AAA.
He decides to walk – get mugged! (so it all let to the story change)
He decides to look for them – eventually they are under his bed. Now he can drive, he’s early and relaxed for his interview and books the job. Way to go Jim! Too bad he gets mugged walking back to his car.
He decides to call AAA – the technician mugs him. Man Jim gets mugged a lot.

Things have come a long way.

1 Like
#38

Yes, I understand that there is no causal relationship. I’m just asserting that the search for plans is the motive for the event. This isn’t a random ship boarding or the first time the empire has boarded a ship. They are actively searching for rebels and plans. What isn’t clear to me is what the cause and effect are for the driver. What makes it the driver? Is the storyform illustration on the site incorrect? Doesn’t the boarding of the ship affect Leia to send the plans?

Can someone clearly state WHY this is the Driver over the other competing Actions?

What is the Story Goal for Star Wars and how is it connected to the Driver? (Did I not get it right earlier?)

All of the other Story Drivers are super clear to me in the Story.

The empire plans and builds a death machine - back story driver

??? First Story Driver??? - The Empire Boards a ship because their weakness has been exposed by stolen plans. (I don’t see how boarding a ship in and of it self could be the story driver. I do see how it can be if it is related to the fact that this ship has the plans on it. But, the empire “crossing the line” isn’t explicitly in the narrative and niether is them being just a nuisance) —The narrative revolves around plans. I would love to see the PRCO identified for the Story too as this woul help me clarify how the Goal is setup.

Luke’s Aunt and Uncle are killed by Stormtroopers attempting to locate the plans carried by the droids.

The Falcon is grabbed by the Tractor Beam from the planet debris where the death machine was tested.

Vader slays Obi Wan as he sacrifices himself to the force giving the protagonist time to escape with the plans.

They beat back the empire using the plans and the force.

I know this is super obvious for everyone else, but I would really like to understand it better.

#39

Definitely – it drives her to make a decision she would otherwise never have made.

Okay. I can sort of see the argument about the rebels stealing the plans being the First Driver. Or even the whole crawl itself:

It is a period of civil war. Rebel spaceships, striking from a hidden base, have won their first victory against the evil Galactic Empire. During the battle, Rebel spies managed to steal secret plans to the Empire’s ultimate weapon, the DEATH STAR…

It sort of fits with Jim’s arguments – a sudden escalation in a civil war, the rebels testing themselves for the first time, etc. It’s a bit messed up with the Goal (rebels winning their first victory would be more like, the Empire need to show they can fight back – unless it creates the need for the rebels to show they can keep it up?). But let’s put that aside for now…

Here’s where the argument for that First Driver falls apart. When I was a kid, I imagined a whole bunch of backstory IN BETWEEN the theft of the plans and the Empire boarding Leia’s ship. (Part of the reason I was super disappointed in Rogue One … it was too simple and linear: “oh, there goes that ship, we better chase it”.)

Yet thinking that a whole bunch of stuff happens in between, is the story of Star Wars “missing something”? No. We see everything we need to see for it to be complete. I’m free to imagine whatever backstory I want there, without breaking the story.

So I think you could pick either:

  • Boring Rogue One based interpretation: The rebel victory and theft of the plans are part of the same Action as the Empire boarding the ship. Together, they are the First Driver. I think this works with the Story Goal as stated – if you think of it as all one Action, it works with the rebels needing to fight back.
  • Original interpretation: We’re not sure how much stuff happens in between. Thus, the First Driver is the Empire boarding the ship.

I prefer the latter. By choosing the first interpretation, I think you’re changing the original story slightly, but not enough to change the storyform.

P.S. I agree with you that regardless, the theft of plans is part of the motivation to board the ship, but that’s at the storytelling level (the structural motivation is the drive to Test). Backstory stuff can certainly be used to explain the storytelling, make it more believable.

1 Like
#40

LEIA
Lord Vader, I should have known.
Only you could be so bold. The
Imperial Senate will not sit for
this, when they hear you’ve attacked
a diplomatic…

1 Like