Hey Maynard,
I started a mentorship with Jim Hull in the spring of 2016. Jim has graciously helped me work through how Dyspraxia impacts my ability to tell and read stories. I hold degrees in Mathematics and Philosophy. However, I am currently in my final year as a Screenwriting graduate student at LMU. I think I can make very quick work of this issue you are having coming from a post-structuralist education in lit theory but also needing structure in order to write.
The mathematical work that will help the most is to look at the work of Kurt Godel who discusses consistent systems and their incompleteness. In the world of Dramatica, the fractal nature is recursive. But, this is a strength of the model because storytelling is inherently inductive. Those of us that wish it were deductive are wishing that story could do more than it is designed for. And, Dramatica focuses on how induction fractalizes recursively. Now, you can’t see all of that recursion occuring because the chart is only part of the model. There are sixteen equations that manipulate things that are discussed by Melanie in the Quad theory class. Part of what you are noticing is that the multiplication and division is non-commutative in this Ring. However, a lack of commutivity in a Ring does not imply logical inconsistency. This is because Dramatica is logically consistent with in it’s own walled garden. The same is true of the monomyth that you sited.
You will find however, that these systems have contradictory axioms at their foundation. Because of that, we have to switch gears when applying models. There are times in writing when one model is less useful than another. But, the cool thing about dramatica is that it is such a great model that it works for every story with a Grand Story Argument. For example, the monomyth is priceless for backstory where Dramatica doesn’t focus on backstory because it doesn’t change the Story Form of the Grand Story Argument.
I can tell you that Dramatica is incomplete and there are true statements in this model that do not flow from the axioms. But, the same is true for all consistent models. Dramatica is internally consistent and is built on the way we resolve gestalt dissonance. Because of that, there are some axioms that we abandon in other systems. But, the same could be said about geometry or algebra. While geometry and algebra are formalized now, the older proofs were not so formal, but are still inlcuded in the canon of theory. The same is true for the pioneers of Dramatica.
As someone who can have a very hard time putting gestalts together, I have developed strengths and weaknesses around storytelling and problem solving. Dramatica is a key tool in my toolbox because it is like the seeing eye dog to my internal blindness. So, if your point is that there is no structure that replaces the territory, that is just the nature of maps. A map can never be a territory. But, Dramatica is a great map and it will get you from here to the moon. If you want to go from the moon to the stars, you might need another map. But, when you get to that far reaching Planet among the stars, you’ll need Dramtica again to land you vessel. And, it will serve you for all the drama that occurs inside the space ship.
Post structuralism and Post modernity should mean that we appreciate many structures and don’t misapply them. But, it errors when it throws the maps out all together. The best thing we can do is discuss if this map is the right one for the job and be willing to switch to the right one for the next job. In ergonomics, the old adage is that the next position is the best position. And, the same is true here. We are very lucky that Chris and Melanie have given us what they have so that we aren’t misapplying Robert McKee’s or Blake Snyder’s rules of thumb everywhere we go. At the same time, their work is even less formalized than Dramatica.
Hope this helps,
Brian