Production as OS Problem

[GainunX]

I’m trying to understand Production as OS Problem through Query System information. But the Definition and Context box seems talk about different concepts. Let me explain:
Production is defined by Dramatica as: “a process that determines potential”. The long definition explicitly states that this is a kind of reasoning: “Almost like deduction in reverse, Production arrives at a future truth by limiting out what can not happen, rather than arriving at a present truth by limiting out what cannot be. Anything remaining when the impossible is ruled out has potential.”

This suggests to me that Production is about dreaming big based on little evidence: as long as it’s not impossible, it can happen (something that would fit well with the kind of story I’m looking to write).

However, in Context, the examples presented take Production in a more common sense (in this case, in the sense of producing something): “For example, an inspired comedian’s over-production of clever ideas stalls the schedule of a movie with constant improvements; an atrophying men’s club’s lack of production of new services for the community robs them of purpose”

It seems to me that Definition and Context talk about different things. After all, what is Production and what would Production as OS Problem look like?

[Greg]

It’s both.

Production, like all Dramatica appreciations, is a process of the mind. The events in the story are analogies for these processes playing out. As such, they may not look like a character engaging in the process itself exactly as defined, but that there is a character in the story is itself as analogy for a process of the mind. Any action the character takes, then, becomes an analogy for the mind engaging in a given process.

Take as an example Deduction. Deduction is described as “the process of thought that arrives at a determination of what is by limiting out all that cannot be”. Within the course of a story, Deduction may appear as a character engaging in deductive thinking (“if a and b, then c”) or merely as a character taking a tax deduction. Either works because a character taking a tax deduction is an analogy for the mind engaging in Deduction just as a character deducing something is an analogy for the mind engaging in Deduction.

Or maybe you might think of a tax deduction as, say, the act of calculating taxes. That doesn’t look much like the given description of Deduction. But you might also think of a tax deduction as determining what ones taxes will be by limiting out all that is not owed. And that looks a lot more like the given description of Deduction.

Similarly, a comedian might try to write something that will be seen as really clever by rewriting anything his audience doesn’t find clever. Or a club might fail to become the pre-eminent club in town by not offering all the services a community wants (as determined by limiting out the services the community doesn’t participate in).

Instead of sticking with “dreaming big”, maybe look for others way of thinking about it that don’t detract from the meaning (see what i did there?). Something like “Creating” might be seen as both “dreaming big” and as something more “common sense”-like producing a joke or producing a new service.

Or maybe “Coming up with”. That kind of sounds like Conceiving at first, but a character could Produce (come up with) the idea that she will be killed because she cannot outrun the killer and that would work just as well as a character Producing a movie.

[GainunX]

Thanks for the answer. It was very enlightening in general, and not just with this particular problem. As I started by freeform sketching a logline and then selected some storyform points (following New Instant Dramatica), some points that were selected automatically (implicated by these initial choices) seems very different from what I had in mind before. However, instead of throwing out the storyform (because there will always be points selected automatically) I’m trying to understand what each of those points means to my story.