The Domains of a Guy Stuck in a Well

[decastell]

@MWollaeger

5. I’m also certain that there are indeed several storyforms that can result in the same movie – but this is probably because most people can write better than they can stick to their storyform! So, they get pulled to the narrative in their head.

True, but the big question for me is whether there’s really a single objective storyform that’s independently discernible from a finished movie or book by multiple people with sufficient training.

@MWollaeger

3. Before the DUG meetings, most of us frequently have an idea of what we think the outcome is going to be. They are usually pretty close. None of us would ever claim they are perfect because they are usually whipped together in just a few minutes to get our minds working.

But would you say that you could take a new movie – not something especially out there but a reasonably mainstream and reasonably well-made film – give it to five people from the group and have them independently come up with, say, the same four throughlines in the same four domains with the same concerns? I’m not talking about getting down to the level of problem/solution/symptom/response or benchmarks, but just down to the level of concerns?

@MWollaeger

1. Those stories might read poorly, so nobody makes or publishes them.

That’s certainly theoretically possible, but it actually seems more likely that many films simply don’t adhere to the four unique domains consistently through a movie. From an analytical standpoint, I think it would be more useful to identify “broken domains” within a film rather than treating them as if they’re all fitting perfectly into the model.

@mlucas

Still, the fact that someone can independently get the exact one storyform out of 32,768 possible means that it can’t be so subjective, right?

I would definitely agree, but again, that would be contingent on multiple people being able to do that.

@mlucas

Now, the films in my list definitely strike me as the easier ones to analyze. So there remains the issue that some stories are more difficult than others, and those ones often need that group participation and consensus. But I think this is because the theory is still young (esp. compared to how long narratives have been around), and because even experts have blind spots that are difficult for them to account for, but are apparent to others. We’re all still learning.

I’m not sure one can have both an absolute certainty that every story has a single objective storyform and that storyform can be discerned from a finished product while simultaneously saying that because the theory is only around twenty years old, everyone’s still learning to apply it. Confidence in the former is contingent on the latter.

My hypothesis is that multiple storyforms can result in the same finished film because of the exigencies of the storytelling process (or as @MWollaeger put it: “most people can write better than they can stick to their storyform”). Because of this, once the film is made, in many if not most cases there is no longer a single objective storyform that can be identified at the exclusion of all others. In some cases there might be 2 or 3 storyforms that could account for the particular finished film, in others it might be much more.

My reason for thinking this is specifically because it seems as if independent experts come up with different storyforms and only later make them conform to each other specifically because there’s a belief that there must be one true objective storyform.

It would also make sense (to me at least) that there wouldn’t be a single objective storyform to be derived from a finished product precisely because most creators are allowing a wide range of factors into their decisions about each beat of a story. If you really go through in complete detail in all the movies in the database, would you really expect to find that the MC throughline of a given movie that’s been assigned the domain of Manipulation precisely follows the signpost sequence of “Developing a Plan” to “Conceiving an Idea” to “Playing a Role” to “Changing One’s Nature” (or whatever sequence the model dictates given the other variables)? Doesn’t it seem more likely that many if not most films have an act in which, for example, that MC domain isn’t fulfilled as it should but instead ends up with a signpost of “Doing” when the model would have said it should be “Playing a Role”? If that’s the case, then the absence of the perfectly formed film means there’s no singular objective storyform to be derived from the finished product. You’re going to get a number (sometimes very small, sometimes large) of storyforms that could have been the reasonable basis for the final result.

This doesn’t negate the value of Dramatica at all, nor even the value of analyzing films using the model. It just argues that in most cases there probably isn’t one absolute objective storyform to be identified from a finished product.

[mlucas]

@decastell

Doesn’t it seem more likely that many if not most films have an act in which, for example, that MC domain isn’t fulfilled as it should but instead ends up with a signpost of “Doing” when the model would have said it should be “Playing a Role”?

It seems likely that should be the case, but it’s probably rare for two main reasons.

First, strong narratives are self-reinforcing. If you have a story where lots of things are off, you can tell it’s not right but it’s hard to know how to fix it. But if you have a story where everything’s right except for MC Signpost 2, you’ll sense the problem in exactly that place and intuitively know how to fix it because everything else in the story will help guide you.

Second, even if there is a whole bunch of “doing” that happens in that act related to the MC, it would be the one moment of Being that would feel important – the part of the story’s skeleton that’s discernible beneath its fancy storytelling clothes.

Now, I’m assuming that your example is talking about a story where nearly everything fits a single storyform. It is certainly likely that there will be lots of movies where creators butt heads and don’t agree on things, have different visions of the story, or just aren’t telling a solid narrative from the get-go. But in these cases they don’t end up with every story point right except one; they end up with a bigger mess.

@decastell

there wouldn’t be a single objective storyform to be derived from a finished product precisely because most creators are allowing a wide range of factors into their decisions about each beat of a story

But they’re still trying to tell a good story…

I agree that it does seem absolutely crazy and insane that Dramatica can predict what it does – until you accept that it’s a model of the mind’s problem-solving, as is narrative itself. (It was hard for me to accept in the beginning, but then I did this experiment, which had only a 1 in 32 chance of succeeding.)

---

I apologize that most of my post is just assertions rather than ways you can verify things yourself. Maybe we need to design experiments where we validate Dramatica statistically? I’m sure it could be done. Teams of 2+ people analyzing films independently…

[MWollaeger]

@decastell

But would you say that you could take a new movie – not something especially out there but a reasonably mainstream and reasonably well-made film – give it to five people from the group and have them independently come up with, say, the same four throughlines in the same four domains with the same concerns?

Down to the concern level? Sure.[quote=“decastell, post:48, topic:1266”]
That’s certainly theoretically possible, but it actually seems more likely that many films simply don’t adhere to the four unique domains consistently through a movie.
[/quote]

You clearly have been spared the amount of “can you read my script” that many people in LA have endured. These are replete with poorly designed ideas, and the stories they produce are worse.

Anyway, and maybe this is your point – some authors let the storytelling overwhelm the storyform and the result is that things are not perfect. I think Hitchcock has a bunch of things like this, but I’ve never investigated it for sure.

[jhull]

@decastell

But would you say that you could take a new movie – not something especially out there but a reasonably mainstream and reasonably well-made film – give it to five people from the group and have them independently come up with, say, the same four throughlines in the same four domains with the same concerns? I’m not talking about getting down to the level of problem/solution/symptom/response or benchmarks, but just down to the level of concerns?

Absolutely. This happens all the time. In fact, most of us watch the film several days before and kind of try and figure it out on our own (the way you suggest) and then we come in and see where we all think the source of conflict is.

When our arguments fall flat - when they don’t hold up to scrutiny from others - that’s when we come to an overall consensus.

This sort of independent analysis happens all the time. I’ve been doing it for years as a means of improving my understanding of narrative.

I will concede that labeling them “Broken Storyforms” is not the best – probably “Insufficient Storyforms” would be better, but at the time I wanted to be more obvious about the deficiencies of those films. At one time @crayzbrian came up with a quad of these that might clear up any confusion (hopefully he’ll share it here).

@decastell

My reason for thinking this is specifically because it seems as if independent experts come up with different storyforms and only later make them conform to each other specifically because there’s a belief that there must be one true objective storyform.

This isn’t what we do–we conform because the storyform we come up with is actually better than any other storyform. It’s actually demonstrably better BECAUSE of those implied story points. I feel like my post above about the implied story points was skipped over, but it’s really the most important part of this conversation.

@decastell

It would also make sense (to me at least) that there wouldn’t be a single objective storyform to be derived from a finished product precisely because most creators are allowing a wide range of factors into their decisions about each beat of a story.

True, but the whole concept of Dramatica is that it is based on the mind’s problem-solving process and therefore each and every one of us instinctively constructs creative works based on this process. The theory is, we can’t help but organize narrative into a storyform because we want it to conform to the way we think. We’re not intuitive storytellers – stories are intuitively us.

[LunarDynasty]

@decastell

A group coming together to revisit and then redefine the single true objective storyform for a movie isn’t an objective process – it’s a conclave…

We’re talking about the difference between philosophical reasoning and empirical measurement.

The line between these two is fuzzier than you might think, and ‘evidence via consensus’ is part of many otherwise “hard” sciences.

We have proof that the brain exists. There is extensive knowledge about synapses and brain functions and more than enough proof that the brain is the ‘thinking’ organ.

But we haven’t proved, in a lab, the existence of “The Mind.”

Yet that hasn’t stopped the fields of psychology or psychiatry from studying how the “Mind” works and how to help it when it breaks down. Narrative theory (Dramatica) finds itself in a similar place because it’s studying the same subject.

So why do people continue in these fields? Why are they trying to do hard science on a ‘soft’ subject? Because for the most part, they work.

Asked another way, why do I stick to Dramatica as it currently is? Because nothing else comes remotely close to explaining and unifying the wide variety of narratives that I have loved over the years.

The first Jim Hull article I read used the four throughlines to show why typical “Hero’s Journey” films feel related, and then within the same framework, it showed why decidedly non-hero’s journey films were also compelling. I’ve been hooked since.

@decastell

When you assert that there’s a single absolute objective storyform to be found in each finished movie, you need to demonstrate that empirically, not through argumentation.

Except that a storyform is not an instruction manual for building a Lego set, or any object you can easily observe, measure, and quantify. A storyform is a model of a single “Mind.” How do you discover what’s on someone’s mind?

You talk to them. You argue. You have a conversation.

And like a clinical psychologist, you have to separate what’s conscious (storytelling) from what’s unconscious (storyforming), and sometimes figure out if the patient is actually lying to you (obscuring the storyform). The average person is terrible at parsing this.

My point is that your suggestion for how to empirically prove the “one storyform to rule them all” hypothesis rests on the assumption that people can perfectly and robotically translate unconscious processes into conscious data sets, all on the first try. This is difficult even for trained professionals in ‘psych’ fields. It requires conversation, argumentation, revision, and yes consensus, to come to a final appreciation.

[decastell]

There’s a lot of stuff to unpack there and terms that are getting conflated. I’ll start by confessing that I’m not a scientist, but having at least basic exposure to science in university, I’ll do my best.

@LunarDynasty

The line between these two is fuzzier than you might think, and ‘evidence via consensus’ is part of many otherwise “hard” sciences.

In my life I’ve never heard of “evidence via consensus”. You have evidence and then it gets interpreted and that can lead to a consensus. Evidence is, pretty much by definition, outside of the interpretation.

@LunarDynasty

But we haven’t proved, in a lab, the existence of “The Mind.”

Yet that hasn’t stopped the fields of psychology or psychiatry from studying how the “Mind” works and how to help it when it breaks down. Narrative theory (Dramatica) finds itself in a similar place because it’s studying the same subject.

Psychology validates hypotheses through empirical studies. It’s not done simply by theorizing or debating, but by devising experiments specifically designed to produce an objective measure (the evidence) that can then be interpreted.

@LunarDynasty

So why do people continue in these fields? Why are they trying to do hard science on a ‘soft’ subject? Because for the most part, they work.

Things may have changed since I was taking psych courses in university, but back then, there were no studies that showed that psychiatry was more effective at managing mental illness than any other active attempt on the part of the patient to seek help (e.g. seeing pastors, talking to spirit guides, or whatever else) except for drug therapies.

And doing “hard science” specifically means empirical studies, not philosophical reasoning or debate. When psychologists are performing ‘hard science’ on a ‘soft subject’, they’re subjecting theories to rigorous empirical experiments.

@LunarDynasty

Except that a storyform is not an instruction manual for building a Lego set, or any object you can easily observe, measure, and quantify. A storyform is a model of a single “Mind.” How do you discover what’s on someone’s mind?

You talk to them. You argue. You have a conversation.

Again, a couple of things are really getting conflated here. You’re interchangeably using the Dramatica conceptual term of the “story mind” with a human mind. You talk to, argue with, and have a conversation with a human because that one person is the only one who can describe their thoughts. That’s what’s meant by ‘what’s on someone’s mind.’

Dramatica isn’t a person. You can’t “talk to, argue with, or have a conversation” with a movie. You’re having it with other people, none of whom are inside the movie or the figurative ‘mind’ that you’re referring to.

@LunarDynasty

And like a clinical psychologist, you have to separate what’s conscious (storytelling) from what’s unconscious (storyforming), and sometimes figure out if the patient is actually lying to you (obscuring the storyform). The average person is terrible at parsing this.

I don’t think this metaphor is serving you well here, which is why it’s generally not a good idea to construct a metaphor from something that’s similar to what it’s attempting to refer to (describing a cat through the metaphor of a cartoon cat isn’t likely to work well.)

Look, there’s a movie. It’s a real thing. It exists, can be watched and can be measured. It’s delivering a story – a subjective experience interpreted by the audience. Some aspects of a movie present a widely shared experience: most people watching Die Hard can tell you when you’re seeing the hero versus when you’re seeing the villain. Other aspects of a movie are less widely shared, such as whether the cause of the breakdown in the hero’s magic is his fault for his actions or his wife’s for not accepting him for who he is (or vice versa). Then you have a storyform – an abstract construct intended to map out the underlying characteristics of the story. Some aspects of a storyform will be easily discerned by those examining the movie, for example, almost everyone would readily identify the MC of Die Hard as Bruce Willis’s character. Other aspects will be less widely accepted, such as whether there’s only one IC (the cop), or two (the wife). I’m not saying it’s the latter – I’m just saying it’s not as self-evident.

The question is whether there’s a single, absolute, objective storyform that can be discerned from a finished movie.

@LunarDynasty

My point is that your suggestion for how to empirically prove the “one storyform to rule them all” hypothesis rests on the assumption that people can perfectly and robotically translate unconscious processes into conscious data sets, all on the first try. This is difficult even for trained professionals in ‘psych’ fields. It requires conversation, argumentation, revision, and yes consensus, to come to a final appreciation.

No, because the psychiatrist doesn’t pretend to know with absolute certainty what your thoughts are even after talking to you. And the psychiatrist who goes and debates it with ten other psychiatrist also doesn’t know with absolute certainty what your thoughts are. They work on probabilities. Given what the patient is describing and other measurable factors, there’s strong evidence to suggest diagnosis A. There’s also evidence that it could be diagnosis B. Or C. They choose one based on a balance of probabilities and the relative risk of applicable treatments.

There’s a term for a psychiatrist who claims that through conversation they can discern with absolute certainty the precise thought in your head: a quack.

I’m not saying that for Dramatica to have value any five people have to instantly be able to independently achieve the same storyform after watching a movie. I’m saying that without that you need to be very hesitant about insisting that there’s a single, absolute and objective storyform behind a movie.

Dramatica provides tons of insights and benefits in the story creation process. It also poses fascinating and illuminating questions about finished works – ways for someone to reconsider what they thought they saw. You don’t have to treat it as a religious certainty to derive value from it. But if you do want to insist that it provide the one true explanation for the underpinnings of a film and that this manifests as a single, correct storyform, you aught to be able to demonstrate that with at least some attempt at empirical objectivity.

[LunarDynasty]

I think it likely we’re all talking past each other at this point. I’m not sure there’s even an argument because:

@decastell

the psychiatrist who goes and debates it with ten other psychiatrist also doesn’t know with absolute certainty what your thoughts are. They work on probabilities. Given what the patient is describing and other measurable factors, there’s strong evidence to suggest diagnosis A. There’s also evidence that it could be diagnosis B. Or C. They choose one based on a balance of probabilities and the relative risk of applicable treatments.

That sounds a lot like a Dramatica User’s Group session.

I think you think that we’re all trying to defend…

@decastell

that there’s a single, absolute and objective storyform behind a movie.

I believe why we’re all debating with you is that we actually disagree with:

@decastell

…there might be 2 or 3 storyforms that could account for the particular finished film, in others it might be much more.

I suggest we can argue against the latter without defending the former. To hearken back to your psychiatry scenario, those doctors aren’t going to go forward with a treatment until they agree upon one superior diagnosis and associated treatment. I suggest that’s the same with Dramatica analyses, especially at the official User Group sessions. I believe at one session no one could agree on a storyform for Leviathan. So it didn’t get an official storyform “diagnosis.”

You used a probability scale earlier – some storyforms may match 40%, some %60, etc. That may be a useful way of approaching it personally, but I don’t know how it would be useful officially, either at group analyses or on the website. If a storyform emerges dominant during an analysis I don’t see the harm in treating it as the “official” storyform (even if in unseen reality it only matches %80 or %90), so long as it’s superior to the alternative proposals.

[decastell]

@LunarDynasty

That sounds a lot like a Dramatica User’s Group session.

The point was that the psychiatrist doesn’t claim to know with certainty what’s going on inside the patient. They work on probabilities. It’s the constant notion of absolute certainty in an objective storyform – regardless of how many times that storyform may need to be changed and revisited – that seems like it calls for an empirical test.

@LunarDynasty

I suggest we can argue against the latter without defending the former. To hearken back to your psychiatry scenario, those doctors aren’t going to go forward with a treatment until they agree upon one superior diagnosis and associated treatment. I suggest that’s the same with Dramatica analyses, especially at the official User Group sessions. I believe at one session no one could agree on a storyform for Leviathan. So it didn’t get an official storyform “diagnosis.”

We’re sort of going round and round on this, and I’m not sure repetition is producing more understanding. So let’s say the conventional wisdom on this was true: there is a single, absolute objective storyform discernible for most movies (excluding broken ones) and this is the means by which one arrives at it. A Dramatica user therefore spends a fair number of years achieving a high level of proficiency with the model in order to reach a point where they can conceivably and with the help of several other similarly proficient users arrive at a storyform for a movie that might be right. Or, it might later turn out to be wrong once other proficient Dramatica users have spent time reconsidering it.

How does that benefit the Dramatica writer compared to the one who perhaps never achieves this zen-like objective view of story but instead devotes that portion of their time to writing and – equally importantly – to developing the many skills that are necessary to the writer’s craft but not solely concerned with structure? You can say they’re not mutually exclusive, but time is a finite resource whether you’re writing on the side or if it’s your day job.

I can only speak for my own profession, but I cannot imagine someone thinking this was a sound approach to becoming a novelist. Writing is an incredibly rich and multi-faceted activity. Prose matters – it takes constant study and practice. Rhetoric matters – an Aaron Sorkin monologue isn’t easy to achieve. Ideation matters – the ideas don’t come out of thin air. Research matters. Having a sense of the boundaries of suspension of disbelief within one’s genre and sub-genre matters. And yes, structure matters, too, but the notion of spending so many hundreds of hours of time hoping to reach a point where you can kind-of, sort-of, in a group analyze a movie or book?

The only thing that makes this level of compromise between craft skills necessary is this commitment to the notion that there’s only one right storyform. That belief is likely to cost a bachelor’s degree’s worth of study and even then requires debate and consensus and later revision. It’s got vastly more in common with an academic endeavour than a creative one – making for an interesting life pursuit, but putting Dramatica’s usability so far out of reach of most writers that I’d imagine many if not most simply get frustrated and move on to something else.

I can still see the virtue in a Dramatica Expert as a story consultant (something I’ve leaned on @jhull for many times), and I can see the four throughlines as a useable guide for most writers (who can get the idea of distinguishing between OS, MC, IC, and RS and benefit from them), but as someone who’s spent a few years with Dramatica and put quite a bit of time and thought into it, the analysis process – which constantly gets referenced as vital to being able to use Dramatica for story creation – ends up looking indistinguishable from an exercise in sophistry.

Maybe the middle ground is finding “levels” of Dramatica which deliver different benefits as you go for a deeper and deeper understanding and so each user finds their natural stopping point. For me there’s tons of value in the model and the questions it poses – it’s been helpful in a number of my published novels – but the point of diminishing returns is at the notion of buying into the idea of extracting singular objective storyform from a finished work.

@jhull: I’m still up for writing an entirely dramatica-driven novel sometime, though!

[DanThut]

Some of the discussion here is above my pay grade right now, but, I read something this morning that reminded me of the debate going on within this thread. I’m referring specifically to the argument that some stories may be better served by assigning the same domain to multiple throughlines instead of forcing a pseudo-arbitrary four-way split.
http://dramatica.com/questions/concept/domains/all

See the final section “Why do all four Domains have to be explored?”, especially the final paragraph:
‘Using different perspectives on the same domain shows the effects of the inequity within the different contexts of the perspective. This may give us a greater understanding of the difference in the perspectives, but it would not give us any greater understanding of the inequity as it is expressed in that single domain. Conflict does not exist BETWEEN a domain and a perspective, so shifting perspectives on a domain will not provide more insight into the nature of the inequity.’

Apols in advance if I am missing the point (I’m a Dramatica Neophyte), but, in the spirit of trying to contribute:

For me, I am happy to assign throughlines to domains and know that some feel more ‘spot on’ than others.
This is no problem for me even if I think the ‘other’ throughlines would feel better were they to be assigned to the same domain as one that has already been assigned.
I don’t object to the ‘others’ feeling a little more arbitrary in that they now have to be juxtaposed with their partner throughline. It doesn’t bother me because I intuit that not all strands of my story have to be dialled up to 11. It’s a question of emphasis and perspective.
The most important throughlines for my narrative get preferential assignation in the domains. The ‘other’ domains/throughlines serve to explore those important domains (even though they may do so at a lower volume than that favoured by Spinal Tap!).
I’m OK with this because I know I can’t give equal weight to everything. I also know I need all four throughlines represented if I am to satisfactorily explore my key domains, which carry the bulk of my story’s message.
Now, if I decided to change the emphasis of the same story, then I might shuffle the domains/throughlines to give preference, or more volume to one of the ‘other’ domains to achieve this, but I’m still happy to move the others around again so I have just one domain per throughline. I’m happy to move the them around to make space for my new key domain/throughline because even with this shift in emphasis/perspective, I need to have the other three represented in order to explore the subject fully.

[LunarDynasty]

@decastell

We’re sort of going round and round on this, and I’m not sure repetition is producing more understanding

Agreed. You have a specific question (is there truly, certifiably one absolute storyform per complete story) that you want a yes/no answer to, but the rest of us don’t think that either yes or no are entirely true, so we keep altering the question.

You should ask Chris Huntley directly, because I don’t think we’re going to satisfy you here.

[MWollaeger]

Finding a storyform requires many things to happen.

At some point, a story is made. Preceding this, or simultaneous to its creation, the Story is organized in the author’s mind, it is illustrated and then it is expressed.

Then it is shared. Then we interpret it and we decode it.

That’s, like seven steps.

When I illustrate something, it’s going to become more “Mike” than a pure storyform. Then when I write it, my goal isn’t just to get the Story across, but to make it compelling. So now it’s Storyform + Mike + Spellbinding.

Then you watch it or read it and it’s Storyform + Mike + Spellbinding + You + “I’ve never understood Mike all that well”. And if I want to be honest, I’ll add in this step, which I’ll just call “people higher up on the hierarchy that think you need to tweak this part just a little bit.”

Unravelling this takes effort, and it’s fallible.

But I hope one day, you lock in on a storyform, see it in all its holistic glory and understand.

[decastell]

@MWollaeger

But I hope one day, you lock in on a storyform, see it in all its holistic glory and understand.

I had a similarly worded sentiment expressed to me the other day by a nicely-dressed fellow carrying a bible.

Seriously, though, I’m grateful for the extended discussion and everyone’s contributions. I’m actually more comfortable now with ambiguity in the interpretive process. I still see value in looking at a film or book and trying to place it within a storyform as in the case of speculating about Blade Runner 2049 and looking at it from other people’s perspectives. It’s just a matter of letting go at the point where the drive towards a single objective storyform ceases to be useful for me as an individual.

With that, I’d better go finish this book, or else I’ll be singularly, objectively, and absolutely screwed.

[jhull]

Running through this post, there are some things here that need to be addressed.

In the past I’ve been pretty strict when it comes to people suggesting their own version of the Dramatica theory–in fact, it’s one of the first things mentioned when you sign up. But I can see now that the confusion that drives this kind of thinking is based on a misunderstanding of the theory itself, so I’ll do my best to clarify what Dramatica is, and what Dramatica isn’t.

Plus, I can’t get rid of @decastell - he gives me too much to write about!

@decastell

I’m not saying the model creates a bias, but that there may be a flaw in the process of interpretation. I want to be really clear here because I’m trying to avoid a conversation that ends in, “either you believe in Dramatica or you don’t” – so I’m numbering each clause in my argument to make it easier to spot the places where we might agree or disagree.

The model does have a bias. That’s how it works–in fact, that’s the only way it can work. Without bias you have no position, no place to stand, and therefore would be open to all kinds of subjective interpretations (pretty much the problem with many discussions like this).

@DanThut

Dramatica is expressly focussed on Grand Argument stories.
It believes that a narrative missing one or more Throughlines is a ‘Tale’ not a Story.
Therefore, if your hypothetical does not intend to be broad enough to accommodate the constituent parts of the theory as set, then it is by internal definition, a Tale and not a Grand Argument Story?

Don’t know how I missed this one the first time around, but this is brilliant, clear and succinct - if your hypothetical does intend to be broad enough to accommodate constituent parts of the theory as set, then it is by internal definition, a Tale and not a Grand Argument Story.

It’s not Dramatica.

@decastell

Absolutely correct, but here I’m assuming the other throughlines will be added to the story. I just didn’t want to get lost in the weeds of “you have to look at all four throughlines” because the point of the question is to discern whether some scenarios must be in a particular domain.

You absolutely have to look at all Four Throughlines at once because you measure the accuracy of one based on the other three. You can always make an argument for a perspective in any Domain to the exclusion of the other three. This isn’t “lost in the weeds”–this is actually how Dramatica works.

The best example of this right now is the thread on The Domains of The Sixth Sense. Yes, you can make an argument for Malcom’s personal problem to be in Universe or Mind–but it fails to hold up to scrutiny when you look at the other three Throughlines–as you must.

@decastell

This interchangeable use of terms like “source” turns something that I suspect is meant to be very specific into something untenably vague. It sends you down the rabbit hole of either why did the guy get stuck in the well, or why is being stuck in a well a problem, and you can recursively keep asking both those questions endlessly.

When Dramatica says it looks at the source of the problem (inequity) it means why is being stuck in a well a problem?. Why he got stuck in the well is Backstory.

@decastell

The suspicion I’m coming to is that the Dramatica throughline domains may not be a precise delineator within a story. One can generally fudge them together by deciding one scene is more important than another, but that ends up becoming a subjective determination about which scenes “feel” more important than others.

Only if you’re not taking into consideration the other four perspectives (Throughlines).

@decastell

Can anyone, however, name any movie that has all four throughlines but which fails to be a Grand Argument Story because more than one of those throughlines is in the same domain?

This is backwards.

Throughlines are not in Domains–Domains are in Throughlines. The Throughlines are perspectives. Perspectives, by definition, do not see the same thing–so it’s impossible that two different perspectives would find conflict in the same area.

@decastell

Framed differently, imagine if Chris and Melany suddenly announced that, actually, multiple throughlines could have the same domain…Are the analyses as they are because the films themselves present those different domains, or because the model demands they be present, and so we just interpret them that way?

The model doesn’t demand they be present, the reality of the difference in perspectives demands it.

[decastell]

@jhull

Throughlines are not in Domains–Domains are in Throughlines. The Throughlines are perspectives. Perspectives, by definition, do not see the same thing–so it’s impossible that two different perspectives would find conflict in the same area

Why is it impossible for two perspectives to find conflict in the same area?

[jhull]

Because if I look at the same thing from two different perspectives, there’s no way it can possibly look the same.

[decastell]

@jhull

Because if I look at the same thing from two different perspectives, there’s no way it can possibly look the same

That doesn’t stop two people with two different perspectives from both dealing with a problematic situation, or problematic activities…etc. Two people looking at a burning building won’t see the same sides but they both see a burning building.

[jhull]

Two different people are not two different perspectives. Two different people are a They perspective.

If you want to use the analogy of a burning building to stand in for an Inequity, then a more accurate way to describe different perspectives would be from inside the building (I) and outside the building (They).

They couldn’t possibly look the same.

[decastell]

@jhull

If you want to use the analogy of a burning building to stand in for an Inequity, then a more accurate way to describe different perspectives would be from inside the building (I) and outside the building (They).

They couldn’t possibly look the same.

You keep equating the fact that two people (let’s say one inside a burning building and the other outside) experience different things with the idea that what they’re experiencing must be in different domains. The one doesn’t necessarily follow from the other.