As a predominantly linear thinker, i’ve always thought of everything in the storyform as being explored in order. First this, then that, then that, finally this type of thinking. And I remember some old articles describing Male MS stories as exploring quads in an order of 1,2,3,4 while Female MS stories explore a quad in order of 1,2,4,3. There’s a good chance I misinterpreted or misunderstood what was being said, but is that still the line of thinking for Issues, or was it ever?
As I’m working through a Female MS story, it’s beginning to feel like all four Issues should be present in each scene and what’s really being explored is the imbalance between them. Too much of this one, that pair is out of alignment. Is there something to this? Even if there is, is there a meaningful difference in this method vs exploring all four in turn?
The 1243 order was something I was experimenting with in Subtxt in trying to better service Holistic narratives, so you are remembering correctly.
1234, with each number being assigned to a 2x2 quad where 1 is in upper left hand corner, 4 is in lower right, is the default horizontal “Z” pattern for the Dramatica model.
1243 is the vertical “circular” progression through the model, from Class to Type to Variation to Element.
Having worked more closely with Chris and Melanie this year over perfecting the implementation of Dramatica theory into the new platform, I went ahead and put that notion of a Holistic narrative progressing “around the model” to rest.
Now, when you open up the Storyform Builder and you select a Holistic narrative, you’ll notice that ALL of the Areas of Exploration (Signposts) proceed in that default Z pattern. This is closer to what your intuition/instincts are telling you where it’s less the progression and more the relationship between all (at least, that’s how I interpret it).
The fact that they all remain in a default Z pattern seems to suggest that “time” is not much of a consideration in a Holistic narrative - at least, it’s not consciously there or a source of inequity (on the surface).
Are the original Dramatica software and the newer Subtxt orders both valid/correct ways of seeing the same thing? Or is the new Subtxt method the theoretically more correct way to go?
The new Dramatica Platform method is the most accurate.
If the original Dramatica application was about 75% accurate, Subtxt was at 90%, and the new platform is at probably about 97%.
We spent ALOT of time this year going over the original concepts of the theory, and then using that work to improve the algorithms tied to Dramatica math. In last week’s Livestream I talk about it at length (if you haven’t watched that yet): https://www.youtube.com/live/AncS1sofqHc