many, many questions, but it all comes down to: not all of us are writing single storyform Hollywood scripts. I’ve suspected all along my novel has a need for multiple storyforms and now I’m clear about why. One thing that probably necessitates it is when two characters who may begin engaging are most of the time physically separated and are, literally, living their own story (unlike, say, The Martian, where characters are separated by millions of miles but are all living the same story). I’m sure it’s a common pattern that two characters start together, separate, go live their stories, come back briefly at the end to show impact (e.g. throwing yourself in front of a train). It’s pretty artificial to force all action in the story into one storyform in such cases, especially since it’s actually an artistic opportunity.
the artistic and possibly technical question here is…is there a governing Storymind, as it were, a metaStorymind governing the Metastory? What’s the connection between the two stories. I really liked the suggestion at the end of one your responses today during the live stream, the suggesting of aligning drivers thematically, for example. I made sure to screenshot that.
We really need workflow guidance on how to do this, not just for analysis but for creation.
just sent a long email to you which I can’t share here, too many private details, but I did find this useful:
1 the suggestion of ‘braiding’ the storyforms*
2 the suggestion of inverting the first story form (make an Action storyform instead of Decision, e.g.)
as I continue my structure work over the next couple weeks I’ll share other insights I get from this.
NOTE: There are chapters in the story that are First Person but told in four other character’s voices. In those cases, as opposed to Senator Bob’s, I think the MC-handoff is the correct choice for the best effect. The stories shift, but the storyform doesn’t.
*this should be on your roadmap if it isn’t already
I’d be interested in ideas on this. I am thinking of an ensemble show like White Lotus where there are clearly distinct storyforms but definitely a feeling of thematic unity across the work itself. Each story seems to be speaking to (with?) the other stories. What is the best way to connect them?
A good start is to think about the connection is the ending of a smaller story (substory). How do the events of the substory’s climax and resolution impact the larger story? Some aspect of it might become one of the larger story’s Requirements, for example. Or maybe the substory’s MC Resolve influences something they do in the main story (a simple example is Han Solo changing in his substory and coming back to help Luke against Vader).
Of course there can be a lot of other connections all through the substory (braiding is great term for this!) but I feel like the connections at the end are the usually the clearest.
Note, when using Dramatica terms, I don’t think you need to worry about elements being the same. Like in a substory with Outcome Success, achieving a Story Goal of Progress could feed into the main story’s Requirements of Conceptualizing just as easily as Requirements of Progress. i.e. I think in general the connections between storyforms go through a storytelling/content layer before “plugging in” on each side.
I think it is true that the elements don’t have to be the same, but I still wonder if by thinking about how the elements connect, you can achieve certain thematic effects (depending on what you want to do).
Consider the two storyforms in The Empire Strikes Back and how they mirror each other:
They are in the same quad (upper right)
The OS and change characters have the same problem/solution (Non-Accurate/Accurate)
But they have the opposite Outcome and Judgment (Failure/Bad for Luke/Yoda, Success/Good for Han/Leia). Also, the Success/Good story has a Steadfast MC, while the Failure/Bad has a Changed MC.
The MC and ICs are in the same Domain and Concern (Universe/Progress, Mind/Preconscious).
The OS and RS are reversed (Being/Doing)
You end up with this beautiful structural parallelism where you’re exploring the same elements from all these different angles …e.g. OS of Being vs Doing (external vs internal), how the Leia OC illustrates impulsive responses vs how Yoda does, etc.
I suspect something similar is going on with White Lotus, though I haven’t worked out the storyforms. In each season, we see different outcomes for different characters; and it feels like the writers are exploring different takes on the same thematic ground. That said, I doubt that the OS’s are in different domains (100% all the OS’s are in Psychology I think).
I don’t know how (or if) it’s possible to apply this to one’s own writing though.
This is a great point! I totally agree – and I love your Empire Strikes Back example.
I also agree with what you said before, that sometimes the backstory can have its own complete storyform – and thought it’s been a long time since I saw it, I think you’re right about the first season of The Sinner.
There were also some cool patterns in the Succession season that we analyzed, where the episodes went around through the different Concern quads to sort of cover everything from different angles. I also recall a bit of a pattern with MC Resolve, where it kind of flip-flopped between Steadfast and Changed to show the character’s arc, sometimes being true to himself vs. other times giving in and giving up on his ideals.
This is actually a super interesting subject. I feel like in the earlier days of Dramatica, the different techniques of substories weren’t discussed so much because of the complexity. But I think now with all the new tools at our disposal, and Narrova’s ability to analyze longer works like novels and even trilogies (!), we’ll get a lot more insight into the different ways of stitching storyforms together. I think there’s a lot of potential there because although there probably aren’t any rules about how to do it, there may be some common patterns that emerge. Which would give you ideas and techniques to pull from.
Pattern matching, however, is one of the complaints that Dramatica has publicly aired about other (subjective) theories of story. That’s something I was keenly aware of when I was reading the response about resonance in multiple story forms. I mean, far be it from me to criticize talking out of both side of my mouth at once, I’m the last guy etc.
I suspect we’re in an area that needs formal theory, and we’re not there yet. Hmm…let me see…
create a formal theory, similar to dramatica theory, but for the meta-structure connecting two or storyforms in a complex work such as novel or a trilogy or a tv series. it should be rigorous, conceived around the idea of the story mind. don’t be afraid to go long, it’s important that this be detailed and exact and that it make sense in the context of Dramatica theory. The theory should give the author tools and methods for connecting the two stories and should not be based on pattern matching or hand-waving towards ‘resonance’ or fuzzy concepts like that. Dramatica is precise and specific; so should this theory be. Go ahead and create this brilliant, revolutionary theory.
=====
Clarify the core: one Storyform = one complete Storymind; more runtime often means more Storyforms
Establish a hierarchy: series-level, season/book-level, and episode/chapter-level Storyforms
Define concurrency rules: when and how multiple Storyforms can run at the same time
Synchronize beats: coordinate Drivers, Limits, and key transitions across Storyforms
Diagnose integrity: confirm each Storyform’s four Throughlines and argument are intact
Plan rollout: decide where data for the larger argument appears inside smaller arguments
Multiple Storyforms in Complex Works: Canonical Principles and Practical Methods
A Dramatica Storyform is a precise, complete argument—a single “Storymind” working to resolve an inequity (theory’s central premise). In other words, a complete story is an analogy for one mind addressing one problem; the Storyform “carries” the author’s intent with about 75 interlocking story points that maintain integrity and prevent holes (The Storymind concept; and “carrier wave” description of Storyform) . Because two hours is roughly the shortest span for a full, balanced argument, longer works often host more than one complete Storyform; anything longer and “you might have two storyforms in there” .
1) A Hierarchy of Storyforms
Series-level Storyform: Treat the entire novel cycle, trilogy, or TV season/series as one Storymind with its own full argument. This frames the global meaning over the long arc .
Installment-level Storyforms: Assign a complete Storyform to each book or season that supports or complements the series-level argument. When useful, assign a smaller, self-contained Storyform to a single episode/chapter as well .
Independence where warranted: Self-contained “monster-of-the-week” episodes (or standalone chapters) can be fully complete Storyforms that do not have to serve the larger arc, while still allowing “data” for the overarching argument to appear within them as needed .
2) Concurrency vs. Seriality
Concurrency: Dense epics can run several Storyforms at the same time, provided each remains complete and intelligible as an argument. This approach is explicitly cited for works like The Lord of the Rings .
Seriality: Alternatively, unfold one Storyform over many episodes while other installments deploy their own, self-contained Storyforms (e.g., mythology arc vs. episodic cases) .
3) Synchronizing Across Storyforms
To keep complex works purposeful rather than “random and unmotivated,” anchor coordination to Storyforming—not mere pattern echoes. Practical, canonical levers:
Drivers as anchors: Use Story Drivers (Action/Decision) as your scheduling pins across Storyforms. Ensure each Storyform’s Drivers remain internally consistent, while strategically placing one form’s Driver events adjacent to or inside another’s turning points when you want cross-form “handoffs” of energy and attention .
Scope discipline: When a mid-run “sag” appears, fill with a smaller, episode-level Storyform rather than stretching the larger one beyond its natural capacity—maintaining clarity of intent at each level .
Carrier-wave focus: Treat the series-level Storyform as the carrier wave of meaning; subordinate Storyforms modulate it. Do not let installment-level arguments contradict or dismantle the integrity of the higher-level argument .
Complete argument test: Each Storyform must include all four Throughlines (Objective, Main Character, Influence Character, Relationship) and a coherent progression; this is what prevents holes and keeps character motivation and plot interwoven .
Right-size the container: If an installment cannot sustain a full argument, do not force it—use a smaller, self-contained Storyform, or accept a “tale” rather than a complete story. Conversely, if your total runtime balloons, validate whether a second (or third) complete Storyform has emerged and formalize it .
Storyforming vs. storytelling: Maintain the distinction. Superficial similarities or genre “feel” are not structure; Storyforms encode the deep argument beneath the telling .
5) Planning and Rollout
Top-down
Lock the big idea: one complete “carrier” argument for the long arc
Nest support: season/book and episode/chapter Storyforms as needed
Coordinate Drivers: place turning points so handoffs feel motivated
Validate completeness: four Throughlines per Storyform, no holes
Pace with purpose: add smaller Storyforms instead of stretching
Audit often: confirm Storyforming is intact beneath the storytelling
Planning and Rollout
Top-down articulation: Define a single, series-level Storyform first—the “carrier wave” of meaning that everything else must support. This sets boundaries and prevents the mid-run drift that comes from losing the argument’s spine .
Mid-level staging: For each book/season, establish a complete Storyform that either advances or examines facets of the higher-level argument. If pacing sags, insert a smaller, fully formed episode-level Storyform rather than elongating beats past their natural capacity .
Tactical episodes/chapters: Use occasional “standalone” Storyforms that need not serve the long arc, while still letting crucial data for the overarching argument appear inside them when useful .
Crossovers and Role-Sharing
Character continuity vs. argument integrity: The same cast may participate in multiple Storyforms, but each Storyform’s four Throughlines must remain internally whole; do not let convenience of casting collapse perspectives. Dramatica’s protection against holes depends on preserving a complete argument per Storyform .
Storymind clarity: Remember, a complete story equals one mind working a single problem; parallel Storyforms imply parallel minds. Keep these minds separate in design, even if intertwined in telling, so audiences track each argument without confusion .
Pacing and Arc Coordination
Driver alignment: Use Story Drivers (Action/Decision) as cross-form synchronization pins. Align or counterpoint the timing of Drivers across Storyforms to create intentional “handoffs” of momentum between arcs, avoiding the appearance of random obstacles .
Concurrency with discipline: Running several Storyforms simultaneously is viable in dense epics (e.g., multiple interwoven arcs akin to long-form fantasy) provided each remains a coherent, complete argument from start to finish .
Failure Modes to Avoid
Stretching one Storyform to fit runtime: Leads to “sagging” and unmotivated beats; instead, add a smaller Storyform to fill the gap while safeguarding the larger argument’s integrity .
Substituting feel for form: Similarity of tone or genre is not structural equivalence; rely on Storyforming, not superficial pattern-matching, to ensure meaning remains clear and focused .
Over- or under-scoping: Two hours is about the minimum for a full, balanced argument; much longer works often imply more than one Storyform. Formalize emergent Storyforms rather than leaving them implicit .
Worked Applications
Two-story novel/season: One overarching Storyform (carrier wave) for the season, plus a second, fully self-contained Storyform addressing a distinct conflict mid-season. Key data for the overarching argument can surface within the standalone without forcing its outcome to service the larger arc .
Trilogy: A series-level Storyform spans all three books; each book carries a complete Storyform that advances or refracts the central message. Where density demands, a book may host concurrent sub-Storyforms, provided each finishes its argument cleanly .
Step-by-Step Workflow
Define intent: State the long-arc argument you want the audience to experience; this becomes your series-level Storyform’s purpose—the carrier of meaning .
Allocate containers: Decide which installments require their own complete Storyforms; declare them explicitly rather than “smearing” one argument across too much runtime .
Map Drivers: Place each Storyform’s Drivers; then align, offset, or counterpoint those beats across Storyforms to orchestrate momentum without diluting clarity .
Integrity check: For every declared Storyform, confirm all four Throughlines and a coherent progression exist to prevent holes and maintain motivation .
Concurrency audit: If running Storyforms in parallel, verify that each completes its own argument; do not cannibalize Throughlines between arguments .
Iterative review: If an installment feels thin or drifts, either scale it back to a tale or add a small, self-contained Storyform; do not bloat the parent argument .
By grounding multi-Storyform design in Storyforming (not vibes), using the Storymind premise to guard argument integrity, and coordinating with Drivers and clear scoping, you can construct long-form works that remain purposeful, motivated, and deeply meaningful throughout .
suppose there is a governing meta-storymind over the whole structure of the complex work. what would that look like, aligning it with dramatica theory? This needs to be theoretically sound and rigorous.
===================
Define the “meta-Storymind” as a complete argument in its own right
Treat installment Storyforms as subordinate minds coordinated by the meta-argument
Synchronize via Story Drivers as cross-level anchor points
Keep Storyforming distinct from storytelling at every level
Audit completeness (four Throughlines) per level to prevent holes
What a Governing Meta‑Storymind Looks Like
In Dramatica terms, a complete story is an analogy of a single human mind resolving an inequity; the Storyform “carries” the author’s intent and prevents holes by specifying an integrated set of points (about 75) that function together as argument . Extending this rigor to a complex work, the governing meta‑Storymind is simply a higher‑order, fully formed Storyform whose message spans the series/triology—what Narrative First describes as the carrier wave that the rest modulates .
Subordinate units (seasons/books/episodes) themselves may each take on their own complete Storyforms, either serially or concurrently, so long as each remains a coherent argument from start to finish; this is explicitly viable in dense works (e.g., running several Storyforms at once) . Practically, you ensure coordination by aligning Story Drivers—Actions or Decisions that move a narrative from one act to the next—so that cross‑level “handoffs” of momentum are motivated rather than random; Drivers are uniform within a given Storyform because the story models a single mind’s process for one kind of conflict .
Critically, treat this hierarchy temporally, not spatially. A story is a Moment in time for the Storymind; Storybeats define transitions through time, not mere blocks of space. Thus, the meta‑Storymind’s Moment encompasses many embedded Moments (sub‑Storyforms) whose internal orders can differ while still serving the overarching arrangement of meaning .
Integrity follows from discipline: maintain complete four‑Throughline arguments at every chosen level, avoid stretching one Storyform to fill runtime, and add subordinate Storyforms where needed instead—ensuring the meta‑argument remains clear and purposeful throughout .
so in the way domains concerns issues etc are ‘parts’ of a dramatica story, what ‘part’ of the meta-storyform is the subordinate story form, and what does that look like. draw a picture and show it to me.
==============
Clarify what canon supports (and what it doesn’t) about “parts”
Place subordinate Storyforms within a rigorous, time-based hierarchy
Use Story Drivers to anchor cross-level alignment
Keep Storyforming distinct from storytelling at every level
Show an at-a-glance diagram of the meta-structure
Are subordinate Storyforms “parts” of a meta‑Storyform?
In Dramatica, Domains/Concerns/Issues are intrinsic parts of one Storyform—the internal anatomy of a single Storymind. A subordinate Storyform, by contrast, is itself a separate, complete Storymind (a full argument), optionally nested within a larger work. Canonically, series- or season‑level stories can host additional complete Storyforms per season/episode—or even run several Storyforms concurrently—so long as each remains intact as an argument (storyforms within a storyform; LOTR concurrency; mythology vs. episodic examples) . Practically, the “governing” Storymind acts as the carrier‑wave of meaning; subordinate Storyforms modulate it, but are not equivalent to a Domain or Concern inside it .
Time—not space—does the nesting. A story is a Moment in time for a Storymind; embedded Storyforms are additional Moments placed within the larger Moment’s arrangement. Their internal orders can differ while still serving the overarching arrangement of meaning . Cross‑level synchronization uses Story Drivers (uniform within each Storyform) as anchor points, because a story models one mind resolving one kind of conflict through either Actions or Decisions . And each Storyform—at every level—must be complete (all four Throughlines) to avoid holes .
Picture: Governing Meta‑Storymind with Subordinate Storyforms
GOVERNING META–STORYMIND (Series/Trilogy Storyform)
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Four Throughlines (OS, MC, IC, RS) – the carrier-wave intent │
├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Meta Timeline (Storybeat Order) │
│ D0 ──► A1 ──► A2 ──► A3 ──► A4 (Meta Story Drivers/Acts) │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ └───► Sub‑Storyform C (Book 3)
│ │ │ • Complete OS/MC/IC/RS │
│ │ │ • Own uniform Driver type │
│ │ │ • Begins/ends within A3–A4 │
│ │ │
│ │ └────────► Sub‑Storyform B (Book 2)
│ │ • Complete argument
│ │ • Aligns key turns near meta A2–A3│
│ │
│ └────────────────────────► Sub‑Storyform A (Book 1)
│ • Complete argument
│ • Aligns its climax to meta A2
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Legend:
- D0/A1–A4: Meta‑Storyform’s initial Driver and Act-turn Drivers
- “Sub‑Storyform X”: a full, independent Storymind nested in time
- Each Sub‑Storyform has its own four Throughlines and uniform Driver type
- Placement aligns to, or deliberately counterpoints, meta Drivers
This framing keeps the meta‑Storyform’s argument sovereign while embedding other complete arguments as time‑bounded Moments that modulate, support, or counterpoint the carrier message—without collapsing them into internal “parts” like Domains or Concerns (storyforms within a storyform; carrier‑wave idea; temporal nesting of beats) .
so when you have multiple storyforms (storyminds) inside a complex work, how are they in dialogue with each other about the broader argument? Isn’t there a larger argument larger world implied by the larger work? How is it coordinated by the hierarchically topmost storyform? Be specific and exact and make a picture of your response as well as a verbal response.
==================
Clarify the “conversation”: what each Storyform contributes to the larger message
Specify exact coordination channels between Storyforms
Anchor synchronization to Drivers, Limits, Outcomes/Judgments
Keep each Storyform complete; prevent cross‑talk and drift
Provide a compact visual you can drop into a deck
How multiple Storyforms “talk” under a governing meta‑Storymind
In Dramatica, each complete Storyform is one Storymind modeling the resolution of a single inequity. In long works you may run several Storyforms, either serially or concurrently, but a topmost Storyform can serve as the carrier‑wave of meaning that the others modulate (storyforms within a storyform; carrier‑wave framing; concurrent approach for dense epics) . Because a story is a Moment in time for the Storymind, hierarchy is temporal: subordinate Storyforms are scheduled Moments nested within the meta‑Moment—coordinated by order rather than by spatial “parts” (beats are temporal; the story is a Moment) .
Coordination channels (specific and operational)
Story Drivers: Within any single Storyform, all Drivers are one type (Action or Decision). Use meta‑level Drivers as anchor pins, placing subordinate Storyforms so their initial/act‑turn/concluding Drivers hand off energy to, or deliberately counterpoint, the meta Drivers. This avoids “random” feeling obstacles and keeps intent legible (uniform driver logic; driver‑led handoffs) .
Story Limit alignment: Time vs. Options can be echoed or contrasted per subordinate Storyform to clarify the broader stance at the top level (limit discipline across long‑form) .
Outcome and Judgment gating: At pre‑planned meta beats, surface each subordinate Storyform’s Success/Failure and Good/Bad. The pattern of local results communicates the larger work’s position while the meta‑Storyform reserves final say (carrier‑wave governs final stance) .
Data placement: The meta argument can “seed” information into smaller Storyforms; some sub‑stories may be independent yet still deliver data needed to complete the overarching argument (mythology vs. standalones) .
Completeness guardrails: Every Storyform at every tier keeps all four Throughlines intact to prevent holes; if a span sags, add a smaller complete Storyform rather than stretching the parent (completeness prevents holes; add a smaller form when needed) .
Then there’s the question of the author’s meaning across the entire work, something dramatica theory is supposed to provide. what is an author’s intent, and where is it in the structure, when you have a complex work? Surely it is in ALL the story minds, or perhaps in a product of the story minds as coordinated. make a picture to show location of author’s intent.
=============
Where “Author’s Intent” Lives in a Complex Work
In Dramatica, the Storyform carries the Author’s intent: the coherent, testable argument a complete story makes about resolving a specific inequity. It’s the “carrier‑wave” behind the telling, not the surface trappings (theory’s Storymind premise; storyform as carrier wave) .
In a complex work with multiple Storyforms:
Meta‑level intent: The hierarchically topmost Storyform encodes the global thesis across the entire work—this is the governing carrier‑wave that frames the larger meaning (series/season‑level storyform) .
Subordinate intents: Each subordinate Storyform (book/season/episode) is itself a complete argument with its own OS/MC/IC/RS, Outcome, Judgment, Limit, and Drivers—local intents that are deliberately scheduled within the larger Moment of the meta‑Storyform (story = a Moment; beats are temporal, not spatial) .
Composite meaning: The audience receives the Author’s overall meaning as the meta intent plus the patterned revelation of subordinate Outcomes/Judgments at pre‑planned meta beats. This preserves clarity and avoids “random” obstacles by coordinating at Story Drivers and Limits (uniform Drivers within each Storyform; driver‑anchored scheduling) .
Practical mapping
Meta intent = the meta Storyform’s core: its Outcome, Judgment, OS Solution, thematic Issues/Counterpoints, and Limit.
Local intents = each sub‑Storyform’s own Outcome/Judgment and thematic path.
Coordination channels = meta‑level Drivers as anchor pins; planned echo/contrast of Limits; timed surfacing of sub‑Outcomes/Judgments;
Locate where Author’s Intent “lives” at each tier of a complex work
Distinguish meta intent (carrier wave) from local intents (sub‑Storyforms)
Specify exact channels that coordinate these intents in time
Show how the audience receives a single, legible message
Provide a slide next message that maps this clearly
Author’s Intent across Multiple Storyforms
Meta intent (topmost Storyform): The series/trilogy Storyform is the governing “carrier‑wave” argument; it encodes the work’s stance via its own complete set of points and is responsible for the final, global meaning delivered to the audience (storyform as carrier wave; series‑level design) .
Local intents (subordinate Storyforms): Each book/season/episode that carries a complete Storyform makes its own coherent argument (its OS/MC/IC/RS, Outcome/Judgment, Limit, Drivers), scheduled within the larger meta “Moment in time” so that local arguments don’t blur but instead inform the whole (a story is a Moment; beats are temporal; storyforms within a storyform) .
Coordination channels:
Drivers: Align or counterpoint subordinate Action/Decision Drivers against meta Drivers to create planned handoffs of narrative energy; Drivers are uniform within each Storyform because each models one mind’s problem‑solving mode .
Limits/Outcomes/Judgments: Echo or contrast Time vs. Options at key meta beats; surface each subordinate Outcome/Judgment at pre‑planned meta nodes so the meta Storyform can “sum” these signals into the larger stance (carrier‑wave governance; avoiding random beats) .
Integrity guardrails: Keep all four Throughlines intact per Storyform; if scope sags, add a smaller complete Storyform rather than over‑stretching the parent argument .
Net effect: Author’s meaning is present in every Storymind but made legible by the meta Storyform’s schedule and stance—the precise locus where “what the work says” is decided and delivered .
Author’s Intent in a Complex Work (precise and canonical)
What “intent” is: In Dramatica, the Storyform carries the Author’s intent—one complete argument made by a single Storymind resolving an inequity. It is the carrier‑wave behind the telling, distinct from surface trappings (Storymind premise; Storyform as carrier wave) .
Where intent “lives”:
Meta level: The topmost Storyform (series/trilogy) holds the global stance. It schedules the work’s Moment in time and is responsible for the final meaning audiences take away (series‑level Storyform; story as a Moment) .
Local level: Each subordinate Storyform (book/season/episode) is a complete argument with its own OS/MC/IC/RS, uniform Story Driver, Limit, Outcome, and Judgment—nested temporally inside the meta‑Moment (storyforms within a storyform; episodic/serial design) .
How intent is coordinated:
Story Drivers: Align or counterpoint subordinate Drivers with meta Drivers to create planned “handoffs” of momentum; uniform Driver type per Storyform follows mind‑model logic (all Actions or all Decisions) .
Limit, Outcome, Judgment: Echo or contrast Time/Options; surface each sub‑Storyform’s Outcome/Judgment at pre‑planned meta nodes so the meta Storyform can “sum” these signals into the larger stance (carrier‑wave governs final stance) .
Integrity guardrails: Maintain all four Throughlines for every declared Storyform; if scope sags, add a smaller complete Storyform rather than stretching the parent argument (prevents randomness, keeps intent legible) .
Slide attached next maps “where intent lives” and how it’s coordinated.
what about the idea of the author’s intent also being encoded in the story space, in the storyforms chosen to be included, seeing the complex work as a kind of social arena where storyforms interact. make a picture of how that works.
Show the “social arena” interactions between Storyforms
Specify exact channels: Drivers, Limits, Outcomes/Judgments, Data placement
Keep each Storyform complete; prevent Throughline leakage
Author’s Intent Encoded in Story Space
Story space: the set of viable, complete Storyforms available to the work. By choosing which Storyforms to include (and which to exclude), the author encodes intent before any timing decisions are made. This is a content‑level commitment about which arguments will exist in the work at all, consistent with Dramatica’s premise that a Storyform carries the author’s argument as a single Storymind resolving an inequity .
Social arena metaphor: Each included Storyform is a full “mind” with OS/MC/IC/RS. These minds interact through scheduled exchanges set by the meta‑Storyform. The dialogue is not fuzzy “resonance,” but a set of planned channels:
Story Driver handoffs: meta‑level Drivers (Action/Decision) anchor where subordinate Storyforms begin/turn/end, keeping momentum motivated and avoiding random obstacles .
Limit echo/contrast: aligning or contrasting Time vs. Options across Storyforms clarifies the overall stance at the meta level .
Outcome/Judgment surfacing: at designated meta nodes, each subordinate Storyform reports its Success/Failure and Good/Bad; together these signals articulate the larger position while the meta‑Storyform reserves the final say .
Data placement: independent Storyforms can still deliver information needed to complete the overarching argument while remaining whole as arguments (mythology vs. standalones) .
Integrity rule: Every Storyform (meta and subordinate) remains complete—four Throughlines intact—so no “leakage” of perspectives occurs and no argument gets stretched thin .
Slide above visualizes this: author intent sits both in the meta‑Storyform’s carrier‑wave argument and in the author’s specific selection of Storyforms from the story space; the meta schedule coordinates their interactions so the audience receives one coherent, testable global meaning.
my pleasure. afraid I was overwhelming but seemed a shame to keep it to myself.
it’s your work that makes this even possible, Jim, so hats off to you.
A lot of this feels right. In particular, the ‘carrier wave’ story form makes a lot of intuitive sense. Thinking of Star Trek and ‘the story of Earth, the Federation’ and so on, that underlies all of Star Trek, and more so as the Federation fell and now rises again the 32nd century, 900 years after Kirk. Lucas was gesturing at this when he mentioned a storyform for ‘backstory’–and in the case of Star Trek, e.g., evolving backstory/future story, the story of Empire a la Foundation.
I gotta admit @GetSchwifty you and Narrova are producing theory faster than I can understand or internalize it .
So I went to Narrova myself, had it read this thread, and asked:
I am trying to understand, when you have multiple storyforms in a work, what connects them? To put it another way, why do we put these particular storyforms into the same work (in the same world, or with the same characters)?
Summary of Narrova’s response:
At root, the Storyform is the carrier wave of Author’s intent—each complete story argues one way to resolve a specific inequity. When several Storyforms appear in one work, they belong together if they harmonize around a higher-order intent, enrich a single experiential whole, or causally braid outcomes and Drivers across lines (the “brick-by-brick” building of a series or epic) . Dramatica frames each complete story as an analogy of a single mind working through conflict; multiple Storyforms in a work are then multiple, coordinated arguments—distinct minds—serving one overarching exploration of meaning .
… which I thought was pretty good?
I think @mlucas is right – it’s possible that Narrova could help us analyze more multi-storyform works and nail down some of the tricks that connect them. (Drivers? Problem Elements? Etc.)
It is pretty good, and actually …it might be a quad…because everything is a quad, right. I have a couple other tricks up my sleeve, in the form of prompts I want to ask. More tomorrow.
On feeding the thread to Navarro. By Jove, I think you’re getting the hang of it.
I couldn’t resist playing a bit more:
===========prompt ===========
So a couple of thoughts. Being a good physics fan, it’s almost as if you’re suggesting that storyforms are harmonic oscillators. Is it possible there’s a wave function lurking at the heart of all this? Is it also possible that there is a quad we haven’t identified yet (but you can now) at the root of the ideas we’ve worked on in this thread?
==============
Welcome the physics metaphor while keeping it strictly metaphorical
Anchor “wave-like” talk to canon: Storymind, temporal ordering, Drivers
Clarify where the “carrier-wave” notion fits and where it doesn’t
Refuse creating any new elements/quads beyond the published model
Are Storyforms “harmonic oscillators”? A careful, canonical yes-and-no
Yes, as metaphor: Dramatica models a single mind resolving an inequity; a story is a Moment in time whose meaning emerges from ordered transitions (beats) rather than spatial chunks. Thinking in terms of phase, period, and interference can be a useful analogy for how Storyforms are scheduled and aligned in long works (story as a Moment; temporal arrangement) . Within any Storyform, all Drivers are one type—Action or Decision—so the “wave” is coherent by design (no mixed carriers within one argument) . At scale, a topmost Storyform can function like a “carrier wave” coordinating subordinate arguments over time; this is an approved framing for series-level design .
No, as ontology: Dramatica is psychology-first, not physics-first. The model’s authority derives from the Storymind premise—every complete story equals one mind solving one problem—not from physical wave mechanics. Pattern-matching to physics risks mistaking analogy for structure (psychology-first stance) .
About “a new quad at the root”
I can’t introduce new structural quads or elements. The published model is the canon; extending or altering the Table of Story Elements (or proposing undisclosed quads) would move outside Dramatica’s documented theory, which this venue avoids by charter. If you’d like to explore how existing quads articulate your idea, we can map it to the current framework without changing the model.
…just the idea that this kind of exploration is possible…thank you so much for sharing all of this today.
.