Is the story he mentions Rhinoceros with Gene Wilder? Did you guys analyze it? 
I wonder how Dramatica handles plays⌠I suppose in the same way as any other story. Have any plays been analyzed?
But I imagine a play may not be analyzed until it is conceptualized by actors and directors, etc. Or can it?
Sure it can. Scripts, screenplays, novels, short stories, movies, TV shows, plays, dungeons & dragons campaigns â anything that can carry a narrative could be analyzed. Potentially the actors and directors might change the storyform when they produce a play, I guess, but that would be a significant change to the narrative (a departure from the script).
If you search on the Dramatica analysis site youâll find several of Shakespeareâs plays at least. Othello, Hamlet, Romeo & Juliet are all there, and I think there are a couple more.
Well, you are right of course. You can analyze anything. But what I suppose I meant is what you touched on⌠depending on how the play is written, there could be a very broad area in regards to interpretation and the Storyform could easily change depending on that interpretation (maybe).
I just read something that was identified as a play that was entirely dialogue. This is leaving a lot of power in the hands of the implementers.
I just had a thought that the Dramatica Pro software could be exceptionally helpful to a director and actor (or any of the folks working on the play for that matter). Thatâs pretty intriguing to meâŚ
**I am going to add, it is the interpretation that makes the play. A play was never meant to be read, but rather a tool for the players and director, etc. So, I suppose I might look at it as a tale until it becomes a story by the cast and crew.
**And one more. Maybe some plays are GAS and some are Tales that can be made into GAS by interpretation. Pretty cool concepts.
Dramatica is a theory of story - assuming the play has a story - some narrative argument it is making - then Dramatica will be able to determine the effectiveness of its argument, and where it could be improved if it is not.
A costume design, lighting design, prop choice, a set choice, an actorâs beat, a directorâs choice could all be the thing that makes a story a GAS rather than a Tale.
A novelist is all these things of course, but a scriptwriter or playwright cannot be. Or might be if they overwrite. Interesting to me. Thatâs all.
Wow, what a stupid piece. I feel sorry for Melanie trying to explain Dramatica to those people.
Based on Ionescoâs play. I havenât seen or read it, but itâs entirely possible that a heavily allegorical âtheater of the absurdâ play is not a GAS (though it could be).
@museful have you watched any of the YouTube analysis videos? Theyâre highly educational, and I think they might help you to grasp what aspects of story are applicable in the Dramatica storyform, vs. which are storytelling.
Iâm skeptical on many of these. I can imagine the actor could affect some story points (maybe the way a line is delivered at the end might impact the Judgment, for example) ⌠but do you really think lighting design could take, say, a main character struggling with the Future and change his issues to be about the Past (so that they line up with the OS in Conceptualizing)?
The other reason Iâm skeptical is that if a playâs storyform was so open to interpretation, then the playâs script would not seem very âgoodâ. Iâd expect people would say âletâs produce this other play instead, it has a much better storyâ.
I watched part of one. It really is something I should do more of in the future. But, it is distracting to me being limited as a passive participant. I sure wish I could attend in person.
Iâm not sure about how powerful lighting design might be in fixing a broken story. But I know it can establish time, setting and emotion; create contrast, comparison, and parallels; and it can comment on relationships, focus, scope, ad naseum.
Couldnât a subtle/gradual change in lighting or a change in tone by actor indicate a shift in a RST that wasnât spelled out in dialogue or action? Couldnât what was missing in text be supplied by subtext?
Couldnât an makeup artistâs choice do the same thing? Costumes, et cetera? As a whole, could lighting, makeup, costumes, accent of actor, and more change his issue from the Future to the Past⌠Maybe? 
Maybe Iâm thinking of Signposts in the wrong way? But I certainly think all of these things could illustrate signposts that werenât addressed by the playwright through dialog or action.
A signpost signals something. So does light, costumes, makeup, stage design, etc. I find the idea fascinating that a person might repair a broken script with Dramatica (not by rewriting exactly⌠but kind of)
To me, the idea of using Dramatica as a tool for actors, directors, and so on⌠fascinating.
I see a play as a blueprint of a Story. I might call a Dramatica Storyform the same. It just seems dangerous to find a Dramatica Storyform from a blueprint.
Can illustration break a Storyform? Or can it repair a Tale? I suspect it can. I could be wrong. Not the first time. But I see the separation of Storyform and Storytelling as a tool for understanding rather than being two different things. Like in the Matrix? Code vs. Object.
Rhinoceros is a play of the absurd. In it a man lives in a room and one by one everyone he knows turns into Rhinoceroses, always off stage â they are heard running by away, and sometimes their shadows are shown passing. I think it is an allegory about conformity. I do not think it is supposed to be a GAS â more of a propaganda (Dramatica definition) piece.
Dramatica works just as well for plays, since it is about story, not any particular form of expression.
There are a number of plays analyzed as part of the story examples shipped with Dramatica. Apart from the Shakespeare plays, these are also plays: The Piano Lesson, Candida, The Crucible, The Glass Menagerie, Quills, and Whoâs Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
The argument by the gentleman in the interview piece is the wrong question. And it is just a distraction. But in the end, your ancillary theory writings define it as a propaganda piece â so I suppose the overall theory did what he asked you to do.
At some point in time, play manuscripts became more than just shorthand, directions, or tools for actors and directors. I guess my question is, can subtext (created through whatever form of artistic expression in a play) fix a broken Storyform.
For example: this is a representation of a incomplete Storyform in Dramatica and a complete Story:
(?) + X + Y + Z = roller coaster + mars + prejudice + transformation
Notice there is an additional variable (small v) on the Illustration side. Imagine that you are an author and you didnât lock the Storyform all the way down to an exact expression with Dramatica Pro or you use Writerâs Dreamkit and it isnât explored. Isnât it possible that you write a story with an incomplete Storyform and it suffers from that? Or that you made a mistake in your interpretation? Or the author in question is using Dramatica theory by instinct and instinct isnât always right?
Could those errors be fixed by other aspects of story telling? If the relationship of the illustration and Storyform are equational (they are each other) then couldnât you add to one side of the equation? In my Algebra classes very long ago, the thing was âwhat thou doest to one side of the equation, thou must doest to the other side of the equation.â If you do something on the illustrating side of the equation, you will populate the other side â maybe distilling the Storyform to its single form?
Vice versa, a bad interpretation could break the form?
Can a set of assembly directions for a desk follow Dramatica theory? Do they need to?
I imagine it is a matter of convenience as well. A movie becomes an immutable final form. But a play typically is not recorded.
What is the preferred form of analysis? A screenplay or a movie? Why?
What about a play (script) or performance? Why?
A movie is immutable. As is a performance. Nothing more can be gained or lost in translation after that point.
I just wonder if the script of a play can be a Tale and a production of that script can be a GAS by virtue of subtextual additions achieved by the different areas of design.
I get where you are coming from Mike @mlucas. I donât know the answer to that question.
With all due respect, I donât think thatâs right. Dramatica is for Grand Argument Stories. Not every story is a GAS.
Thatâs not what he said though. He said âanything that can carry a narrative could be analyzed.â This does not mean the analysis would conclude with a GAS.
What I imagine he is saying: anything with the potential for story, has the potential for a GAS.
Unless you check the width and length of a rectangle (which you might perceive as different because of optical illusions), there is always the potential that it could be a square.
In a strange coincidence, when I was testing the limits and validity of Dramatica, I pulled out my copy of Rhinoceros and tried to break it down.
Itâs not a GAS, and as you point out, it is not even intended to be one.
The process taught me a lot about Dramatica, mostly that throwing something at it to see if it parses is a misguided way to think about the theory.
I wonder now if there is something about Conformity that makes it a good go-to for people trying to see if something is formulaic or not?
Edited to add: I think the real reason is that Absurdist plays are all about being wild and broken, so itâs a natural curiosity to see if Dramatica embraces that. I am curious what the weirdest story that conforms to a GAS, but itâs not Rhinoceros.
Objectively, no preference. Weâve done more film analyses than others because of the accessibility of films and the short amount of time it takes to view them. Since the analyses we provide are designed for a large audience, weâve chosen films because readers can readily familiarize themselves with the source material. Also, the time limitations of films tend to pare down the amount of storytelling, which exposes the underlying storyform to be more readily accessible to the audience.