Structure Is What Happens When

theory
#1

Because, you know, trying to compare narrative with the mind’s problem-solving process is like using first grade math to solve Fermi’s problem. (eye roll)

I think I’ve found a way to handle my weekly frustration with the Scriptnotes Podcast (because the hosts are professional screenwriters so you have to listen), and that’s to realize that they know nothing about Dramatica. That’s the only way to come to terms with the constant degradation of script “gurus” and consultants and their consistent belittling of anyone who finds a form to narrative exciting and compelling.

Dramatica isn’t simple. Its not remedial math or even high school math. Anyone who has worked with it knows how difficult it is and how it actually makes the process of writing more complex. They’re obviously talking about “How to Write a Movie in 21 Days” or the “Mini-Movie Method” or “Save the Cat!”, but Dramatica of course gets lumped in with all of those.

In their latest podcast Making Things Better by Making Things Worse they spend an awful lot of time trying to say that structure is a combination of who, what, where, why and when. Basically they make a strong case for what storyTELLING is, not storyFORMING (what we think of when we think of structure).

Its funny too to hear talk about “two-handers” when Dramatica considers all narrative at its core a “two-hander” (Main and Influence Character). Going to have to wait for the transcript on this one before coming up with a decent rebuttal.

2 Likes
John Truby’s analysis of American Hustle
#2

I haven’t listened to it in ages, mostly because I don’t find much of what they discuss very useful (to be quite frank). I also like to think that the difference between an amateur and professional screenwriter is one gets paid and the other doesn’t. Money doesn’t mean very much in terms of quality, just ask the guy who can’t find someone at the bar willing to go home with him and has to rely on paying a hooker.

Did I really just say that?

3 Likes
#3

Yes, you did.

But, I really agree with product bought isn’t necessarily better than product free. With writing, from what I’ve seen, it a matter of whoever lets their inner critic go is who will succeed the most. As in, you have to write. You have to write a lot, and have a lot to sell. Not just because the more you write the better you get, but also (from looking at self published authors, and that one who was talking about how to make a living off ebooks) just having more product to sell and selling it cheap is more likely to make you more money than slaving away on one book for ten years.

And even though in publishing there are checks and balances (like getting an agent to begin with and having it edited) when I’m reading books I have often read way better stories for free online from hobbyist.

#4

A lot of times when I’m looking up writing advice I run into this problem. Normally, I only look up info on prose not structure, because I already know that Dramatica is the one I really like. But sometimes when I’m on a writer’s blog I’ll get sucked into one post or another that links me to something else, and then it always ends with me being like . . . so close, you’re on the right track, but—

Though, often times, they have heard about Dramatica and just don’t like it. And that always just makes me feel so disappointed.

3 Likes
#5

I will admit that I do like listening to ScriptNotes Podcast. It’s entertaining and I often learn a lot. I enjoy the 3 page challenge. I also learned about:

  1. The game Dungeon World

  2. The game Fiasco

I cannot remember the episode dates and numbers but every once in a while they will dedicate an episode to analyzing a movie. Disney’s The Little Mermaid for example was very frustrating. they were describing different through lines but did not have the vocabulary and they were stuck on who the Protagonist was (in their limited world) they thought the story had problems because it should be the Ariel’s story but she wasn’t the protagonist (or something like that) The only thing that saves writers who don’t know Dramatica (I suppose) is the fact that they are human and therefore use their minds and when they don’t let their limited “structure" get in their way they actually might write something that resembles a decent story form. because, of course Dramatica is based on the fractal psychology of the human mind.

2 Likes
#6

I think the guys at Scriptnotes, like a lot of writers, don’t comprehend anything beyond the three-act ‘Save the Cat’ formula. Which is fine, it sells. Judging by their filmography, they’ve made quite a bit of money with some not-so-great movies. But they don’t seem (in my opinion) to grasp anything beyond that rigid three act structure. I understand that they have sold scripts, and lots of people heed their advice and words as crucial lessons. But I personally don’t want to write that same story again and again. Dramatica helps me create something unique, and it doesn’t treat the users as though they are stupid - something the ‘Save the Cat’ formula fails at.

1 Like
#7

The problem with Scriptnotes and Dramatica is that it’s two arguments with no overlap. It’s someone who thinks a protagonist is a hero, or that a script can have co-protagonists, talking to someone who thinks that a protagonist and a main character are separate functions occasionally occupying the same character.

I’m going to go listen to the podcast now.

#8

It’s almost like psycholinguistics: to us it’s crystal clear because we have a structure and terminology to derive meaning from. For them, it’s like looking into a bowl of muddy alphabet soup, struggling to make sense of the abstract they know exists… it’s just there’s no words for it - hence no meaning and ultimately understanding. Caveman Cog know wheel go round and round. But you ask Cog for “tire”, Cog just drool, check pulse and grunt “Cog no tire.”

5 Likes
#9

Nah, they don’t believe it exists.

#10

I was thinking in terms of what Jim said with two-hander. There’s obviously an awareness, they just don’t have any concept for it in their vocabulary and fumble conveying it.

1 Like
#11

I disagree with Jim that “everything is a two-hander” – but that’s because what Jim is talking about is at the level of structure, and what these guys are talking about is at the level of screen time. Is Hamlet really a two-hander? What about Lost? It’s all about our perspective.

Also, FWIW, I"m halfway through the podcast, and I’m having trouble disagreeing with these guys. It is all about the why; isn’t that exactly why Dramatica is so much more valuable than saving cats?

#12

Ugh, I had two comments not post.

I still disagree that these guys believe there is something underneath. I don’t think they feel that a two-hander is somehow drawing them towards a deeper understanding…

#13

Ok, ok, you’re going to force me to listen to it. I’m making something of a generalization based on Jim’s comments and some of the previous podcasts from a while ago - in particular where JA talks about fumbling around on the screenplay he was working on at the time and just the overall back and forth they seem to struggle with at times. I know at the time I said it was nice to know that they’re human, but I was still somewhat baffled with their disconnect between knowing what you want to convey and not knowing how to go about doing it.

#14

They use “two-handers” as shorthand for not understanding the dynamics between Main and Influence Character perspectives. They make matters worse when they then talk about these two characters changing or arcing as if it is a special subset of storytelling.

Lost is a collection of “two-handers”. Every character had their Influence Character and a corresponding Relationship Story–or at least they tried to. The whole thing fell apart halfway through the 2nd season.

If they just referred to screen time then your comment about Hamlet would be accurate. Unfortunately, like everything structurally related in their show, they blend storytelling and storyforming into one huge mess. Knowing Dramatica and listening to these guys is a very frustrating experience.

#15

Ok, I can understand some of what they’re saying - but what is problematic is they’re making generalizations, specifically Craig, which makes it all the harder to buy into his perspective. It’s certainly not a persuasive argument by any means, it’s merely their opinion (and in Craig’s case, I can only wonder if it’s a defense toward his critics. Yes, he’s a working professional, but his work gets criticized an awful lot).

What they SHOULD be doing is calling out specifically what gurus and theories they’re readily dismissing and why instead of lumping everyone into the same worthless category. I didn’t buy into Craig’s explanation of plot is yadda, yadda, yadda. My high school English teacher would have wrapped his knuckles good! What’s he’s trying to say is they all play an intricate role in the story - but to not delineate and know the differences between their functions and how they contribute to the whole and casually dismiss those elements as “plot”? Aye aye aye.

#16

I haven’t listened to it all the way through, so I haven’t heard them refer to the inter-character dynamics yet. But I have ZERO DISAGREEMENT that they cannot distinguish between storytelling and storyweaving and structure. They talk about everything being interconnected, which it is, but then they also talk about not being able to take things apart and look at them… which I disagree with.

At any rate, your point that Lost is a collection of two-handers goes to my point, which is that it’s true if you look at Lost as a collection of stories with their own MC/IC pairs, but it’s not true from any other perspective. Perspective matters.

But, I don’t want to overlook their other point, which is that they are talking about screenwriting books that promise if you take certain steps, things will work. We all know that isn’t true. It’s why we’re willing to dedicate ourselves to Dramatica. And to that end, we all agree that hard work is mandatory; there is no magic pill.

#17

I’m realizing that a better misconception that points towards a deeper structure is in lots of horror movies: everyone says that the problem the Protagonist (read: main character) has must relate to the horror that is plaguing everybody. “It has to be a metaphor.”

This indicates the problem/symptom quad more than anything else I’ve come across, while still not being there.

#18

Okay, listened to the whole podcast now, and it gets more frustrating after the midpoint. I’m so with Jim.

They talk about charlatans and their step by step formula. Then they go on to say “you have to dissolve the character” – first of all, what? Second of all, if that’s not the same kind of meaningless mid-point garbledygook, I don’t know what is. There’s more too it than that, a few more steps in their formula, but they really go on and propose the same kind of thing they excoriate.

However, I’m going to back them on one crucial point. Mazin talks about how it has to be honest. I’ve heard him criticize formula books as suggesting bloodless story. I agree with him here. Even Dramatica can be bloodless if we forget that the subjective characters have to have a subjective experience.

1 Like
#19

“Dissolve the character”

Argh…luckily the transcript is now up, or has been, so we can reread for clarity.

#20

He says “disintegrate” not “dissolve”