StoryGrid’s lack of proper research

#1

Quotes from SG
“This level beneath Genre…”
Beneath are these “foundational elements”
“When I started to do some research to see if anyone else in the Narrative theory universe had explored what’s beneath genre, I couldn’t find anything.”

My head wanted to explode at that last sentence. The freaking arrogance. long string of expletives

I mean I know Shaun and Tim have their cheddar to make, but really? In 10,000+ years of people telling stories you are the first ones to every look at the layers below genre?

This is so disrespectful of all that Dramatica is and does that it made me want to cry because I KNOW they are going to monetize this story trinity (which should be a quad) way more expensively than Dramatica and/or Narrative First. And it’s still going to be unhelpful to people trying to make a story work.

Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhh, Just Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

7 Likes
#2

Lol @jassnip I had a similar reaction when I was listening to it today.

It’s frustrating because I do occasionally find value in things like Story Grid (and McKee, and Truby). The editors’ roundtable had a really great multi-series podcast on the Gone Girl book. Unlike a Dramatica analysis where you’re entirely focused on structure, there’s something to be said for talking about things in a bit less abstract way (and include storytelling).

For example: Coyne/McKee say that a distinguishing feature of the Horror/Thriller genres is that the stakes “go beyond life an death” to “a fate worse than death”. I had an epiphany: the stories they’re talking about are most likely top left Concerns, which have story Consequences of things like Conceptualizing, Understanding and Memory – in contrast to a typical action story that might have a Consequence of Becoming (usually “becoming dead”). Suddenly I had a better understanding of how a “Consequence of Understanding” might be encoded.

On the other hand, so much of what they say is so imprecise that you want to throw up your hands. I mean, seriously, still no concept of a Steadfast character?

Yeah, they almost lost me for good with that comment.

6 Likes
#3

I feel the frustration, also. Honestly, when I was searching for a decent story theory, before I actually dug into how Dramatica worked, StoryGrid was going to have been it.

Then, they lost me by the insistence that the plot and character had to go in opposite directions, and disregarding true tragedies…

By the way, I’m actually in the middle of a similar situation where I actually get to talk to the person: my current writing teacher. He’s steeped in Hero’s Journey and has trouble understanding a story when it isn’t Desire-based.

Somehow, I need to explain to him, in non-Dramatica terms, that the short-film script I’m working on is Knowledge-based. It’s an exploration of the Truth quad.

Interestingly, he did feel something missing from the script, and was right about that. But, he went about trying to give examples of possible ways to fix it that would have changed the meaning. Gratefully, Dramatica helped me figure out the real issues. :slight_smile:

5 Likes
#4

For a long time now, StoryGrid has become an advertising firm for Coyne’s recent musings. Shaun and Tim are Salesmen first, everything else second.
Even ignoring Dramatica, people have been talking about things “below genre” for a long time; regardless of how ambiguous that phrase is.

Just read the articles by the other folks; they’re still interesting.

3 Likes
#5

Can you elaborate? Or point me at the particular podcast where Shaun tries to justify that one?

#6

Why would you be pissed off?

We have a 25 year head-start.

8 Likes
#7

I don’t remember exactly when I came across it, but the idea was presented as follows:

Graph the internal emotions and external resolutions of the characters. Then, in general, when one is going up in feel, the other should be going down. What you’re meant to end up with on average is an X shape with the lines crossing.

The example they were using was Silence of the Lambs, having Clarice’s emotional journey in the downward direction, and the plot in the upward one.

But, ultimately, the way they described it ignores the possibility that those two lines could end at the same place, or double-back on one another. AND, it’s extremely subjective, giving NO help on how to improve something, only whether it might need improvement. (Because the story might not fit that paradigm.)

1 Like
#8

Him saying he’d researched narrative theory and couldn’t find anything, as if no one had addressed it before that. Add to that that Chris and Melanie have been at this for, as you say, a good 25 years.

#9

Yeah. He would fail the literature review for sure.

#10

Honestly, I got spoilt early.
First I read Truby. Fantastic, but still a bit off (closest Chris and Melanie found to their initial stuff).
Read K.M Weiland. I like her and am ETERNALLY GRATEFUL to her. She pointed me to Dramatica.
Tried McKee, couldn’t get past chapter 1.

And I’ve never looked back.

For some reason, I seem to have inherited beef for McKee, especially since he insulted Dramatica in the early days. Sorry that I sound clannish but, you don’t insult Dramatica, EVER!

As for Shaun and Tim, well, I love the grid. I love how it helps me think. I replaced their concepts and everything with Dramatica equivalents. I don’t listen to the podcast much these days because they’re starting to sound so vague on a lot of stuff. Rather, I like the other podcast: The Writers Room. At least they breakdown stuff and I pick a few craft tricks.

Well, I’ve said this before. I’m really gonna give a huge shout out to Dramatica when I win the Hugo or Nebula award. :grin:

8 Likes
#11

And it showed up today. Yes, in my inbox today was the StoryGrid 3 day Trinity Seminar. Guess how much? Yup, you too can listen to Shaun Coyne wax poetic on Genre, Plot, Theme and Character for … $1999 Oh wait if you signup by the end of the “earlybird pricing” it’s only $1499.

I threw up in my mouth a little.

3 Likes