Just another troubled newbie asks

questions
#21

No problem.

At the highest level, there are two different ways to break down the source of problems.

One way is to ask: is this problem external or internal?

External would mean “not in the mind of the people in the story” or “in the world”. This means the problem is a war, a volcano about to blow, a pregnancy, a disease, a sporting event.

Internal would mean, “in the mind”. This can be a bias (“Only brown-eyed people are good”) or a way of thinking (“I can’t tell who to trust” , or “I can’t come up with plans to solve this.”)

The other way is to ask “Are the problems because of how things are happening or because something is stuck?”

If you want to rob a bank and things start going well or poorly, that is how things are happening.
If you are worried about a dam breaking and destroying your town, that is because your town can’t move. It is stuck beneath the dam.
If I want my son to only marry a person I choose, that is also stuck: my attitude is stuck and that is the problem.

I hope this helps.

2 Likes
#22

I would say an external problem that was allowed to go on because of some control over people’s decisions, it must be stuck.

#23

It is an opener for me. Thank you.

#24

You should share why you think this.

If I control your decisions, my gut tells me that it is Manipulation, because I can get you to think like I think.

But, for a JW to deny themselves medical help, that’s probably internal, stuck because the fixed belief — the stuck part — is that I believe I will not go to Heaven if I receive help.

2 Likes
#25

But the disease is behind every scene of the story. Cure or kill the patient and this external problem is gone, as they are no more stuck.

Controlled mind states may have worsened the existing problems but don’t seem to be the root causes.

What if I admit a Catholic patient (a different mind state) with a similar diagnosis (stuck with the same external problem) into the hospital?..I think I can still have a somewhat similar story by realigning the focus of the conflicts.

#26

This exact thing is why Dramatica can be so hard, and why you have to align all the four throughlines before you can really know.

Let me give you a quick counter-example.

In Train to Busan there are zombies everywhere, and the group of people we are following is trying to get away.

Obviously, if you get rid of the zombies, the problem goes away. But this is not a stuck problem. Why not? Because the existence of the zombies is not the problem. The problem is that the zombies are chasing people.

I only tell you about that movie to show you how tricky this can be.

Let’s go back to this:

1 Like
#27

Hmmm… are you sure? One could of course imagine a story (for example) that focuses on an attempt to find a cure for a mysterious disease (external). But from what you’ve described of your story, there’s not a big question (medically) as to the treatment – if there were no cultural/religious barrier, the doctor would simply treat her and she would be cured (or not).

3 Likes
#28

I am getting some insight. But still, what is crystal clear for you is a bit like the chicken-egg dilemma over here. How can I tell whether it is the chasing attitude of the zombies or their existence that is the real problem? Do I always have to go higher and beyond the obvious explanation?

This is from my other script, just for the sake of clarifying the issue and I promise I will grasp it once and for all:
A country is split into two (Ethiopia and Eritrea, but let’s say A and B), later going into war. The MC, a surgeon practicing in Country A, finds himself a citizen of Country B. He is left stranded in Country A because he is neither allowed to leave (if deported, he will help wounded soldiers of Country B) nor he is allowed to do surgeries in Country A (he is not trusted). Then,
_ The Problem is the belligerent attitude of the leaders of the countries (Internal)> YES
_ The problem is stuck, he cant be or leave as he is stuck because of the war (External)> NO

Am I going somewhere?

#29

For what it’s worth, everyone struggles with this in the beginning with Dramatica. All I can say is that it does get easier – though it takes a while!

This to me immediately sounds like an OS in Physics (countries fighting) with an MC in Universe/Situation (he’s not allowed to leave the country).

2 Likes
#30

What you need is practice. It takes a while to figure things out. (One way to know that the zombies are not the problem is that they story ends with escape and the zombies still exist. You learn to pick out the clues you need after a while.)

It is frequently possible to go too far back. If a soldier is having problems, you can alway say, “well, if I got rid of the war then there would be no soldiers” but that is not really a good solution.

I think @Lakis made a very good point when he pointed out that the illness is not really the problem in your story because the cure exists. So something else is preventing the cure from being used, and that is probably the problem.

The Main Character is stuck in the wrong country and with the wrong reputation. So we have MC in Universe/Situation. This seems to be his problem only.

The War makes the OS Domain feel like Physics, because countries splitting apart, putting together armies and sending them to war are things that are happening externally.

Honestly, it took me over a year to understand anything. So don’t worry about grasping it. Just do the work and it will come.

3 Likes
#31

Thank you very much guys I will keep on practicing.

3 Likes
#32

@abebe I recommend coming here often and asking questions. It’s the best way to get support for all the work you’re going to put in.

3 Likes
#33

I agree that is the right way. And the theory is something I just can’t turn away from. Thank you.

5 Likes
#34

Sometimes, going through the story examples for specific variation, element, etc. choices in the software program helps. It gives the brain other previous uses for what you are thinking about for your story. I loved going through them all when I played around with the ‘one’ storyform I ended up with. It made it less intimidating.

#35

I am really grateful for all the help and encouragements from this group. But I have few more troubles applying dramatica to my story. Initially I have two characters who are always pushing and opposing the main character, one at home another at work.

In light of dramatica these two fit to be Impact Characters, but I find it hard to shape one RS story that explores its throughline and involving both of them. Moreover, in the script the MC has a meaningful relationship worth following only with one of these characters.

Would it be legal if I focus only one of the ICs and the MC concerning the RS story, while both ICs challenge the MC in the story?

Or should I demote one of/the other IC to be just a member of the OS, with Skeptic architype roles perhaps?

Can anyone share a knowledge or an experience?

#36

Actually, it’s not a requirement at all that the RS be between the MC and IC, even though that’s most common pattern. I can’t find the article right now, but there are actually examples where the RS is between two players who are neither the IC or MC.

So if you have an RS between the MC and one of the ICs, that’s perfectly fine.

EDIT: Actually here’s a series of articles that covers this using Back to the Future as an example:

1 Like
#37

I find this pattern to be typical.

My stories frequently have a “major IC” and then several “minor IC”, and the relationship seems to focus on just one pair of people.

3 Likes
#38

Throughlines are perspectives of the Storymind, not characters. The characters act as the vehicle for the perspectives, but are not attached to any perspective.

When we discuss the “Main Character Throughline” in terms of a character in the story, what we are really discussing is the combination of perspective and storytelling. So while it would be odd, you could technically change which character you use to show the first person perspective.

What this means for the Relationship perspective is that, as Lakis said, you can use any relationships between any characters that you want.

I wonder if it would be more clear or just muddier to speak in terms of there being an Overall Perspective, Main Perspective, Influence Perspective, and Relationship Perspective vs an Overall Character, Main Character, Influence Character, and Relationship Character.

4 Likes
#39

This mechanism/metaphor for understanding Dramatica did not ever help me understand the theory. I get why it’s true and it helped me much later in my learning process, but still don’t find it easy to map onto characters—and while yes, throughlines are perspectives, stories are made of characters who have personalities and go through things and interact.

So I suspect that talking about perspectives could work for some, but would have baffled me.

4 Likes
#40

I realize it takes time to really grasp all the concepts.