Lakis, I think in the fourth part of my response I answer your question, with Mark be “stuck”, because be-er and do-er for him are blunt. He thinks he can fix an internal problem externally.
I’d love to hear what you think.
Yes MWollaeger, I’m melting potting a bunch of ideas. Maybe that’s my problem, and I’ll take your advice to try and focus more on the thought lines.
X-files probably wasn’t the best example, because it is tv, it’s aloud to change from episode to episode. I’m just thinking that in stories, a character may act no way around one supporting character, but different way around another. Hypothetical: let’s say you have a woman/holistic thinker who’s a little on the linear side, and she has a friend who is a woman/holistic thinker, but far on the right, and when they hang out in your story the women character who is a holistic/with linear leanings maybe is a little more logical/solution focused; but then she goes to work and is around a whole bunch of far left linear minded people (let’s just say her work environment is full of these people), and as a result her holistic side when she’s around these linear individuals is so much more apparent. My concern would be, if someone analysis that story and only focuses on her cherry-picked linear thinkings in the story she would just be put in the Dramatica linear box, and her holistic characteristics would be ignored, maybe even if there much more domaint. I just feel because there’s these boxes, the nuances wouldn’t be acknowledged. I feel like a movie example would be Amy Adam’s character in the movie “Arrival”. They have her down as “linear”, but with that film I disagree with that categorization. I think it’s essential to point of that she’s holistic/with linear-ish leanings that’s why she was able to make the connection with the “holistic” aliens, but would it even appropriate to put her as linear? Like, she’s not “evolved alien style holistic” like with fully formed psychic powers, but I guess that would be another post.
And as far as your thought on Erica, I hope my recent above post answer that for you a little as to what I thinking.
Thank you for the support. Am I having a fit? Lol
I didn’t actually have any questions about Erica. I was just pointing out that you are talking about her in vague terms that don’t work well with Dramatica.
This is what I want you to see in the scene you wrote out: Mark has a goal and the way he’s going to achieve it is by changing himself. His ideas include becoming a rower, becoming an inventor, becoming a member of a finals club. He reacts to Erica’s joke by getting insulted. That’s a be-er and I have no idea what do-ing you see.
Erica on the other hand, breaks up with him and leaves. That is do-ing.
Want/Need thinking is not Dramatica thinking.
Mental sex is a preference anyway. The toggle is between how they prefer to think, not how they always think.
At any rate, your hypothetical would carry more weight if you could pull it out of a successful story. You could easily write something that had a character switch between Doing and Being and whatnot, but the question is: would people like it? Would they be confused by it?
You haven’t shown a clear grasp of delineated the MC from the Protagonist, so I’d focus on that and dig into “Arrival” to see how they’re different.
Well, you certainly aren’t saying “These things confuse me, can anybody help me understand?”
2 Likes
Lol! This post is hilarious! You’re funny.
Sorry, I will try to be more verbal when saying “May you help me with this?” Lol
Here I’ll try it: Why can you not insert wants and needs in the way that I am doing? Your characters need motivates, yes? Lol Help me understand?
@Buttercup please avoid posting entire transcripts of screenplays here (this would be why I used to have the 2 post limit btw…for anyone playing along). You should be able to get your point across in a couple of short paragraphs, and you should allow time for others to respond.
We all have access to the source material (whether by searching for the screenplay or watching the film) - so you can make things easier by just explaining how you see, or interpret, the narrative in question.
3 Likes
I was trying to be specific as possible! You wanted evidence and details. I thought if I was to general you might demand more. Lol
I recently read that McKee said that self-explanatory dialogue convinces no one.
Because this is a Dramatica forum and those things are meaningless inside the scope of the theory.
A character is motivated by something and because of blindspots, deals with symptoms of that motivation, not the problem/motivation directly. This is occasionally approximated by want/need, but why use something clunky when you’ve got something specific.
3 Likes
Lol. You’re funny. Well if I could put it actions… oh wait, I did, as much as I can over messaging. Lol
Hi @Buttercup,
I’m jassnip/Diane. I see you’ve been having a grand old time of it with my boys. They mean well, but sometimes they don’t know how to explain why something is what it is. I’ve been following along but I don’t want you to feel ganged up on and thought I might be able to shed some light of a different brightness that might shift the highlights and shadows so a different picture might be visible to you, like that one that is a young lady looking away from you if you focus on one set of lines and an old woman’s profile if you focus on another set of lines.
So here it goes, Shift of focus:
One of the definitions of be-er is that they problem solve by trying to change themselves. The entire scene you posted above is evidence of his be-ing-ness. He from start to finish is trying to self-sooth. He isn’t “doing” anything about his problem of the date not going well, he’s trying to make himself feel better, to change how he is feeling. He’s still trying to self-sooth when he goes back to the dorm and starts writing the base code. He does being things all throughout the movie. He doesn’t call the boys back that had the idea for the software, he avoids confrontation with his best friend when he cheats him, time after time after time he is all about what feels good to him. That’s the whole narcissist aspect of the MC throughline
Does that help with the Be-er/Do-er question?
As to the steadfast/change aspect, I’m gonna have to go back and watch the movie again. Despite it being Aaron Sorkin, that one didn’t stay with me very long. I went and played with the storyform and having him as a change character makes other story points “feel” more right than having him be steadfast, but I can see why you think it might be so.
To my knowledge Aaron Sorkin doesn’t use Dramatica, so it is possible that he intended that character to appear stuck in the same mental place, hence the small mirroring of the beginning and the end. One thing I’ve heard Melanie says is that not all structures are perfect and better a good story than a perfect structure. They only way to know for sure would be to ask Aaron what he intended. shrug.
However,
I think @jhull might have something. Mark tells Erica very explicitly in that opening scene that he doesn’t want to be friends, but by the very end, after he’s driven off everyone else, or they’ve bailed on him because they were always fair-weather, his change is too little too late and we see how pathetic he really is, because now that he’s alone, he’d take being “just friends”, which is what gives the whole “bad” feeling. If he were really steadfast, he’d never ask, he’d still be stuck in the “I’m the smartest guy in the room and they are the ones privileged to know me” mentality. Think about it. if he leaned into his narcissism even more would you feel bad for him? I don’t think so. You’d just be like whatever dude. You can’t even see it. But because there’s that change at the end that moment of human, lonely weakness of asking someone you’re pretty sure dislikes you to be your friend. That’s the gut punch of a bleak ending.
Okay, y’all carry on.
D.
2 Likes
Okay Jassnip, thank you. Hunter was helpful and messaged me earlier, and basically just told me, “these are Dramatica’s definitions on the words. Like they’re in stone.
I’ve been reading a lot of story structure books to help myself, and connecting the ideas from everything I’ve learned up to now. Hunter suggested to me that the “Dramatica team” advises against this, that I or anyone should try to view Dramatica solely on it’s own terms. I just like the idea of trying to connect dots from everything to make a bigger picture. Dramatica doesn’t play nice with others, or like they’re a vegan, so it’s hard to brunch with others. 
I do see what you are saying, but before I thought I could play connect the dots.
1 Like
I’d say it’s more like story structure is white light, most theories out there are the colors of the rainbow, and Dramatica is the prism. What you’ll find eventually is that Dramatica reflects all the other theories, but it matters where you’re looking from.
3 Likes
I read a smaller earlier version of Dramatica, I’m now reading the newer (424 page) version, so I’ll read, read, read.
I really was more interested in the linear/holistic box, but everyone was more focusing more on the others. I should just go study Dramatica’s terms like the bible. I’m sorry, for going on.
The Dramatica’s textbook doesn’t say a lot on the “mental problem solving techniques” though. I’ll watch more of the videos, but the boxes still feel rigid to me. But thank you
I’ll see if I can rewatch it Monday or Tuesday. I don’t remember his approach, other than dodging things he didn’t want to face.
Don’t be sorry. You felt strongly about your interpretation and presented in good faith and humor. Dramatica is a very deep pool and it’s easy to flounder. I’ve been at this nearly as long as Jim and I still get muddled all the time. I’ve been known to disagree here from time to time (Shhhh. y’all, quit laughing) but I pretty much always start from how the heck am I not seeing what everyone else is seeing.
What is it about the binary that bothers you?
2 Likes
Yes, it’s called Dramatica Story Expert and of the two it’s the better version. More robust.
Definitely agree. And, I can’t wait until they finish the upgrade for Big Sur.
I want a Mac version, so, so bad.
A lot. Lol most of the stuff I mentioned already. Sorry I’ll watch some more videos.
Just my two cents – and this depends entirely on what your goal is – if the intent is to write something great, nothing beats writing. (In other words, don’t let study overwhelm the practice of writing).
Remember that Dramatica is tool that describes how the storymind already works. My own experience is that it’s eerily accurate. In the past where a particular storypoint hasn’t made sense to me, this is almost always because I wasn’t understanding some aspect of how the model worked (e.g. go back in earlier threads and see me trying to argue that Belle in Beauty and the Beast is a Be-er in Mind. I don’t think I would make that mistake if I were analyzing that story now).
But also remember that ninety-nine percent of the “complete” stories we analyze were obviously written by people with no knowledge of Dramatica. (The most “perfectly structured” ones are probably Shakespeare’s plays).
The value of Dramatica for writing is a) to help you better figure out your narrative upfront to speed up writing and b) to diagnose something where you’re sure something is off but you can’t figure out what, or how to fix it.
On the other hand, if you’re writing something and your understanding of Dramatica says “do X” and your intuition says “do Y” – you should go with Y. It’s more likely that your understanding of the Dramatica model is wrong or incomplete on a particular point than that your intuition is “wrong”.
6 Likes
Thank you, Lakis.
Okay, so I did some reading from my Dramatica “special tenth anniversary Edition”, and it says do-ers adapt their environment through action, be-ers through strength of character, charisma, influence. It also says don’t confuse do-er or be-er with active and passive, and I was doing some of this, as well as a bunch of other things. But here’s another quote on pg.181: a do-er deals in competition, a be-er in collaboration, so I’m now asking, so I understand according to Dramatica theory, does this still make Mark in The Social Network a “be-er”? Or would this be a example of a film that bends/twists the rule?
2 Likes
One of the reasons it’s so tricky is that there are at least three reasons why an MC Be-er can appear to be a Do-er, or vice versa:
- The MC player is acting in relation to something outside of their personal issues. For example, they’re acting in their OS role.
- Since Be-er/Do-er only indicates a preference for solving their personal problems, they may try the other approach when they don’t see another good option.
- The MC may be acting under the influence of the IC (at any point in the story).
Instead of thinking it as bending/twisting, it may help to consider things in light of the above.
5 Likes