The do's and don'ts of dramatica

analysis
#1

During the analysis of Edge of Tomorrow, @MWollaeger made an observation that I think warrants its own thread, so here goes.

@MWollaeger pointed out the danger, during a story analysis, of hanging onto an element that fits perfectly - whether it be a concern, issue, or whatever - and then create an argument to support that element while neglecting to explore other possibilities which, ultimately, would lead to a better storyform.

This is something I find myself doing all the time and need to learn to stop.

1 Like
#2

On this note, there’s another don’t I often find myself doing…

As @jhull pointed out during the forum analysis of The Sweet Hereafter, I was failing to address the inequity driving the story and instead was spinning my wheels describing what was going on in the story.

The difference is like describing a wall instead of tearing off the plaster to observe the beams holding up the wall. The Dramatica story engine deals with the beams, not the plaster. Learning how to tear off the surface to find the underlying inequity driving the story is a skill that isn’t easy to develop, one has to look beyond the obvious.

Perhaps there are some here who, more experienced than others, can help us develop this skill?

1 Like
#3

This is a hard thing to answer. Watch whatever you can that has an official Dramatica analysis and begin to recognize Genre as a problem. Begin to recognize what an Overall Story Throughline in Situation feels like and how it differs from an Overall Story in Activities or Fixed Attitudes or Psychology. And you can’t simply read those analyses. You have to watch those films and read those books and experience what that organization of conflict feels like.

It’s like that same bit of advice professional screenwriters give when they tell you to ignore gurus and story professors and instead simply read whatever you can. Read read read, and then read some more. They are asking you to learn by osmosis and I’m suggesting you do the same. Read read read and watch watch watch, but within that context of feeling the Genre of conflict. You’ll reap the same rewards offered by the pros – only you’ll actually be learning something concrete, rather than simply developing your intuition.

Besides the “watch everything you can in context of Dramatica” suggestion, I would always ask “if this was removed, would there still be a problem?”

In other words–I think you’re referring to the discussion of Throughlines in Edge of Tomorrow. Many many many people new to Dramatica (and old) have difficulty identifying the difference between an Overall Story in Situation and an Overall Story in Activities. They think, “Well, of course it is Situation – everyone is stuck in this Time Loop.” But for those of us who have participated in hundreds of analyses and have gained familiarity (Experience) with where different stories fall in, there was no way this film was anything else but an Activity Overall Story Throughline.

So how do you develop that Skill in the meantime? How can you begin to see it for yourself? What if you were someone who thinks, “Of course it is Situation story, everyone is stuck in that Time Loop.”

OK, well what if the humans/good guys were no longer stuck in the Time Loop, would there still be a problem?

And the answer is yes,–the bad guys/Mimics would still be attacking and killing and destroying humanity–which means the OS probably isn’t a Situation. You would need to find more examples just to be sure, but chances are it isn’t.

On the other hand, what if the bad guys/Mimics stopped attacking, killing or destroying humanity – would there still be a problem?

And the answer is No. This is a GREAT sign that the Overall Story Throughline is Activity because without that activity there would be no conflict and no inequity. No inequity, no storyform – which is what Dramatica is all about identifying.

And you can use this litmus test for all the different appreciations. I use it a lot for the Story Driver. It works great for the Story Limit too (in my classes and workshops I use the film 16 Blocks as an example of this).

This is also why Dr. Malcom Crowe from The Sixth Sense is a Fixed Attitude Main Character, not a Situation Main Character as was suggested in the original official analysis of that film. If Malcom was suddenly in a different body or managed to break free from his connections to his wife, that kid and that neighborhood would he still have a problem? Of course. But if he knew that he was dead, would there still be a problem? No. Clear indication that he is a Fixed Attitude Main Character.

With Dramatica you’re trying to identify where the problems are. That should be central to everything you work with it. If you remove what you think the problem is and there still is a problem … well then, you’ve got a problem. :wink:

2 Likes
#4

I think Jim’s point is great. I’ll point out that if you simply read the analyses without trying to re-create them on your own, you fail to take advantage of a major tool.

To use Edge of Tomorrow as an example here: The OS Problem is Nonacceptance and the Solution is Acceptance.

Imagine looking at the point of the movie where the inequity disappears – when Cage successfully delivers grenades into the Omega – and trying to tie that to “Acceptance.” You wouldn’t be able to do it. Whereas, if you go through the process (with or without the podcast at your side) you’ll see, “Oh, the problem is that the army fails to believe in the time travel, whereas if they (the generals) just accepted it they would fly 100 planes to the Louvre.” End of movie. As it is, that’s not how it plays out – but acceptance is still the answer, it just has to do with J team. Either way, this has zero to do with the specific actions at the Louvre. [Except that Cage has to accept the death of Vrataski before he can do what he does – different throughline here, though.]

Just to point out a funny irony – seeing Edge of Tomorrow and Malcolm Crowe in Situations means looking at a major component of how they solve their problems and labelling it a problem! Totally backwards.

1 Like
#5

Here are some suggestions for getting better at this:

  1. Have Jim Hull sitting next to you. If you can’t afford this, use the next best option: if you have nagging inclinations, listen to them. Just test them out. So what if they’re wrong?

  2. Follow your decisions through. If you listen to the podcast, for lots of it, I was arguing an OS Concern of Obtaining. But merely one level down – at the Issues – this completely fell apart. A good way to prove something wrong is to prove one of the consequences of the decision wrong. If you are flat-out tied to one thing, completely convinced, attack the story at a place you aren’t going to be so stubborn.

  3. But… don’t give up on things just because you can’t find the answer. This is unfortunately the opposite of the above two things. For instance, for a while, we couldn’t figure out the Illustration of the OS Concern, or even what Acceptance/Nonacceptance were in both the MC and OS throughlines. But eventually, these got cleared up.

3b. Another example of this, though this is probably better understood through instinct training: the OS of the movie had a clear slide through Acts 2 & 3. The destruction of the Omega reeked of being Obtaining. But the storyform said it was Understanding. So what to do here: you have to come to terms with the idea that there is usually a better way of looking at things than the way you are used to looking at them, and you have to try to generalize your understanding. So instead of tying the signposts to events, you look for value in their pattern, and: Act One was “before time travel”, Acts 2 & 3 were a slide and were “during time travel”, Act 4 was “after time travel”. This is far juicier than “Act 4 should be Obtaining” – and once that was discarded, the final act seems to be “What do you do when you have all of the Understanding you are going to get?”

  1. Focus on finding specific examples. Nothing is as unforgiving as being unable to find at least two examples of what you are arguing.

Hope that helps.

3 Likes
#6

Guys,

Thank you so much for this. I have to admit my analysis of Edge of Tomorrow was so far off the mark it left me feeling like I’d first heard of Dramatica only a few days ago. Just goes to show how much more studying I need to do.

Mike, not sure what you mean by the quote above.

Yeah that, right there, is sandpaper on skin. Un - frickin’ - pleasant.

#7

Only that the actual problem in Edge of Tomorrow would surely wipe out the human race, except for the fact that there is a time-loop. The time-loop isn’t a problem, it creates the opportunity for a solution. Without it, bye-bye.

So, it’s pretty much exactly backwards to see the time-loop as a problem.

#8

I love Mike’s first suggestion. :monkey_face:

As far as feeling like you “first heard of Dramatica only a few days ago”. I’ve been doing this for almost 20 years now and still managed to bork the Main Character Resolve in the Ida analysis a couple months back. It’s more important that you understand the right answer then it is you get it right the first time.

1 Like
#9

Got it.

I think there’s a trap I’ve fallen into time and time again using Dramatica, one that’s been addressed by others, but that I still find myself falling into nevertheless. Maybe I just need to develop the right methodology in order to circumvent it.

In short, the mistake I make is to cling to the first thing I feel is right and then build a defence to protect that choice (similar to what @MWollaeger pointed out during the Edge of Tomorrow analysis) .

With Edge of Tomorrow, I now realize that I only asked, “If the Mimics weren’t there, would the problem go away?” Obviously, the answer’s “yes,” so I concluded, prematurely, that the OS was in Situation and then proceeded to defend it. I wasn’t even looking at the time loop thing, just the presence of the Mimics as being the source of the problem.

I think one way I might be able to step around this inclination of jumping to conclusions is to ask a Situation, Activity, Fixed Attitude and Manipulation question for each of the throughlines and then see which one resonates over the others. It’s tedious and slow, maybe even a little absurd at times, but a little homework might go a long way.

As per the official method, first isolate the four domains and give them titles:

OS: “Aliens are in the process of wiping out humanity.”
MC: “Cage, the military PR guy.”
IC: “Rita, the Angel of Verdun.”
RS: “Fellow soldiers with a hint of romance.”

Then, test the four domains with the four throughlines (with 2 options for each):

OS Situation (option 1):
Q: Is the presence of the Mimics the source of the problem?
A: Yes. If there were no Mimics, there’d be no threat, there’d be no story.

OS Situation (option 2):
Q: Is the Mimics’ ability to jump back in time the source of the problem?
A: Maybe. It does make them “impossible to defeat,” but it’s also their greatest vulnerability because humans can also acquire the ability through osmosis. So, actually, the answer is no. It’s not the problem. (Thanks, Mike!)

OS Activity (option 1):
Q: Is the Mimics relentless effort to exterminate humanity the source of the problem?
A: Yes. If the Mimics had come in peace, there’d be no war, no threat for the survival of humanity.

OS Activity (option 2):
Q: Is the military campaign waged against the Mimics the source of the problem?
A: No. If humanity laid down their arms, the Mimics wouldn’t stop their onslaught (at least, there’s no indication of that).

OS Fixed Attitude (option 1):
Q: Is the military’s conviction that they will see little resistance on the French beach the source of the problem?
A: No. Even if the military knew what they were up against, there’d be no way for them to win the war. The Mimics are too strong.

OS Fixed Attitude (option 2):
Q: Is General Brigham’s refusal to believe Dr. Carter’s theory regarding the Mimics the source of the problem?
A: Yes. If General Brigham believed in the theory, they could use it on Cage, or Rita beforehand, locate the Omega and wipe out the Mimics with minimal casualty.

OS Manipulation (option 1):
Q: Is the Mimics use of deception and trickery the source of the problem?
A: No. The Mimics seem plenty able to wipe out humanity without screwing with anyone’s head.

OS Manipulation (option 2):
Q: Is humanity’s use of military intimidation the source of the problem?
A: Not in the slightest.

So, on the first run, we have options for Situation, Activity and Fixed Attitude. Yeah, this ends up being a really tedious approach, involving no intuition whatsoever, but at least for now it might be helpful to illustrate that there are more options than one might first assume. Of course, I’d have to do the other three throughlines just to help get an idea of what options there might be.

PS
Yes, having Jim sitting next to me would be amazing. He is, after all, a very handsome guy. :wink:

1 Like
#10

This thread just got a whole lot better.

#11

This one’s for you, big guy. :love_hotel:

#12

You can’t see is on the video, but when Jim said he wanted to kiss me, I swooned.

#13

Looks like Jim’s going to have to chose between the two of us. Threesomes are too much for me; can’t deal with all that passion.