I agree, but it’s just such a crucial part of the theory to grasp. Thing is, it’s already explained all over the place. But that its still difficult to separate characters and Storymind perspectives just makes me want to find another simpler way to say it.
Why? I was fine not grokking it.
For me, understanding the storymind concept is the difference between the forest and the trees. I think without it, it’s easy to get into a “completist” attitude of trying to check off all of these little boxes to make your story “correct” instead of seing Dramatica as a tool to understand this holistic, organic, interconnected thing that’s already programmed into the human experience.
But honestly this was one part of theory that I don’t remember ever not grokking. It seemed intuitive to me – but I can see how it might be difficult for others.
4 Likes
When you don’t see the difference between character and perspective, you (not you specifically, more like me specifically) end up with questions like “but if this character doesn’t mind the conflict, then it wouldn’t be a problem, right? So it’s a Mind problem.” Or “I heard that character say a word from the DTSE, so that’s where the problem’s gotta be.” That doesn’t mean you can’t write a story that’s perfectly structured to make your argument, I guess, but it seems like it would be a lot harder.
@Lakis You are arguing from the perspective of someone who grokked the Storymind and telling me what would happen if I were “without it”? You’re standing on your own blindspot.
I do see the difference between character and perspective, but that is distinct from seeing Dramatica as a single human mind solving a problem.
Most everyone who has ever written approached the story from “character” and not from “perspective” and lots end up full and complete, so I’m not sure I get this argument.
2 Likes
I think the context is specifically writing with Dramatica - that if you conflate character and perspective you can often completely botch an accurate storyform.
3 Likes
You’re referring to something like an OS Character who is defined by Help say, and isn’t worried specifically about the Problem (or Illustration of the Problem)?
In a case like that you have to be able to keep the character and the perspective clear?
I’m speaking about the difference between screwing a sheet of drywall to the studs and screwing the studs to a sheet of drywall. One ends with a house with walls. One ends with a stack of drywall with 2x4s screwed to it with the pointy ends of the screws sticking out.
When you write without Dramatica, you write to an idea and that idea provides the structure. If your writing ends up breaking structure, then presumably you sense it and fix it in a rewrite.
When you write with Dramatica and know that the MC throughline provides the structure for the problem as seen from a first person perspective and write your character to that, you end up with a well structured story, just as you might do without Dramatica.
When you write with Dramatica and think the MC throughline describes the character rather than the perspective, you end up laying Dramatica on top of the character rather than the character on top on Dramatica.
So let’s say I want to write a story about Help. A guy who’s always helping, who’s always concerned with helping show others a better way and this creates conflict. If I think the Mc throughline describes the character rather than the perspective, then I write a story about a guy helping others and experiencing conflict until he embraces Hinder of some sort…even though that doesn’t really seem to fit the idea I have. But Dramatica says that’s the solution, so…
But if I understand that the MC describes the perspective and not the character, then maybe I realize that the problem isnt that he’s going around helping, but that he has this perception that he knows better than others or that he perceives them as wanting his help when really they’d rather feel the pride of doing the thing themselves. If I didn’t know better, I’d have given him the wrong problem. I wouldn’t have even landed in the right Concern! Unless, yeah, his problem is still help and hinder is totally the right solution.
So yeah, I agree that you can conflate perception and character and come out with a great story-just like you can use Save the Cat and come out with a great story. But you can also come out with the wrong story and not know why. And that’s why I say it’s crucial. Not because you can’t write a great story unless you keep them separate, but because you won’t know why a bad storyform choice is bad if you’re not keeping them separate.
I’ve been mulling this over for a couple of days and think it’s really insightful. The Dark Knight provides a cool insight: The Joker is all about Chaos but that’s not something that shows up in the storyform.
1 Like
Yeah, looks like his IC Prob is Determination. As in, he has made the determination that everyday citizens are as bad as criminals, heroes as crazy or immoral as villains, etc.
And then it’s almost like you could take his line about being an agent of chaos to mean something like, “you don’t know what I’m going to do…so you should observe how i do things because i think you should follow my problem solving path! And I’ll threaten to blow someone up in order to make you deal with things my way!” Almost like it’s his way of announcing that he’s the influence character rather than describing the type of problem he’s dealing with. That’s pretty cool…or will be if it holds up in a rewatch.
1 Like