Right, you need space to see time move and time to see space move. And that’s why people like you and me are blending them together. They’re so connected that they seem interchangeable. But Jim and Chris are saying that there are people who do not see it that way. These people, like the person that is your Dramatica storyform, see the flow of time–this abstract intangible…thing–as separate from the space that is measuring it. So you and I are able to see a changing green indicator without numbers as counting down time. But your storyform person sees a changing indicator with no time amount given and, instead of seeing both the way we do, apparently sees it only as it’s spatial component. So even though you see time in the way things change, it sounds like your storyform only sees time when the whole temporal description, including the numerical amount, is given–or at least it only sees a story as being locked when that full numerical description is given (note: I’m not sure that’s completely right because 1.i’m apparently a space-time blender, and 2. I’m cutting some corners to describe things i’m otherwise not quite sure how to describe. Also, i keep saying “what Jim and Chris are saying”. I am, of course, only sharing my interpretations and don’t mean to put any words in anyone’s mouths. Forgive me if I misspeak, I’m hoping I’m mostly on the right track.)
Each new wave of re-iteration on this thread makes me waffle, haha.
Most likely a Timelock. I liked the High Noon example, and it’d be easy to work that in. The story’s about an impending disaster, and the cast has the means to calculate the moment of no return. And while the protagonist toys with alternative options, he kind of knows already what has to be done, and so it’s just a matter of, “Can we get it to work in time? Can I persuade / coerce the right people to work together on this and get over their personal baggage before doom knocks at the door?”
…Hrm. I don’t know. Frankly, I’m not convinced. But at this point…
looks back at thread
…I’ve clearly derailed the whole point of this conversation. I had a purpose, I swear! I was trying to demonstrate how adding Time or Options to the Limit could make sense, but to do that, I had to explain my constant vs. discrete thing, and that just spiraled. 
I wash my hands of this whole affair. I’m of the belief that my framework is useful and captures a meaningful distinction, whereas Time vs. Space does not. If you are really one of these people who find use out of the Space framework, if such people really do exist… have at it.
It’s called Dramatica. And clearly, plenty of people find it useful.
…Low blow, man. :’( I’ve made no secret of how much I love Dramatica. I think the Influence Character is a work of genius, I love the distinction between Outcome and Judgment, and the Contagonist… 
And it’s not even that I disagree with the notion that stories can be separated into Timelock Limits and Optionlock Limits! I’m just befuddled with this explanation with Space and all it entails. I was only half-joking when I called my explanation a “heresy:” I meant it purely in the sense of “an alternate understanding that deviates from the orthodoxy,” but clearly I’m touching on something so fundamental to the theory that I’m either blazing a new trail or wandering out into the weeds.
…Looking back, I guess I did want to be a little snide about it. I really do think I have the correct understanding of Dramatica theory in this instance, but… I get why saying that out loud rankles a bit. >_< Maybe I’m wrong. I am young, and I have a lot less experience with the theory than the experts, but… it sure feels like my explanation hews more closely to what I see in the stories. I wanted to be the genius who stormed into the debate, threw down some wisdom, and made everything clear. …Heh. 
…I’m sorry for the jab. If Chris and Melanie say there really are people for whom an anumerical timer is more closely related to Aladdin’s 3 wishes than a numerical timer, then… for the sake of site harmony, I can at the very least swallow my pride and keep my heretical notions to myself. Maybe even give them a little credit that they have a lot more experience than I do, and maybe they know something I don’t.
Please feel free to move my diversion into a separate thread, perhaps, to be properly quarantined. Or delete it entirely; at this point, I deserve it. >_<
So, uh…high noon, you say?
No worries. I’d rather leave it up so writers with similar concerns can learn from the experience.
It’s not so much what Chris and Melanie say about “people” as it is that the entire theory is based on this concept. And we’ve provided tons of resources and links to information regarding Mental Relativity and it doesn’t seem like you’ve taken the time to read it - only that you don’t agree with it.
It’s not heresy - it’s not taking the time to learn what Dramatica is all about. It’s not “orthodoxy”, it’s a theory–which means its helpful to understand what the theory is really trying to say before trying to change it.
Plenty of writers encounter the theory, find parts of it difficult to comprehend, decide the theory is wrong, and leave saying “Well, that’s just the way I see it.” To me, that always comes off as a cop-out, as a means of avoiding growth rather than participating in it.
I find Dramatica magical in its ability to predict narrative and don’t understand why the rest of the world isn’t as fascinated with it as I am, or why they don’t dive into what actually makes it all work.
Haha, not quite. I specifically liked the use of the clock to show the audience that time is winding down to the climax. I’ll probably have something like a ‘doomsday’ countdown – if it hits zero, the disaster arrives and irreversible damage happens.
I’m not sure you were the one who derailed it. And anyway, I thought it was great fun, informative, and a great learning experience. The good news is that while Dramatica seems like a really great tool for putting a together a story, it’s clearly not required. If we don’t see something the same way as Dramatica does, what’s the worst that can happen? We have a weak story limit? We have a Tale? Not the worst that could happen to a narrative. Have you seen what they’ve done with Star Wars?
I like it. I don’t know that I’ve ever worked with a Timelock, and it’s become clear that I need to go back to all my old stuff and work on my Optionlocks.
If 24 had never used the ticking clock displayed in the series, would it have still been a timelock? What if we also removed any mention of specific (numerically represented) time from the script?
Obviously, the audience could still have used their own watches if inclined. I often do this unconsciously, because I don’t want my entertainment to end, or I can’t wait for it to end – depending on the quality of the entertainment.
If the audience picked up the clues concerning continuous and unbroken time (clothes being the same, split screen, things happening during the commercials, etc.), maybe they would have been inclined to look at their watch…
Another way to ask that would be, is there a difference between:
an event being measurable in time
and
an event that is measured in time?
Also, I wonder if there is a difference between:
an event being measured in time by the story mind
and
an event being measured in time by the audience.
Obviously, a novel is completely different than a tv series. A tv series occupies a definitively measurable block of time. Because of this, the timelock in 24 was reinforced by the temporal limitations of the medium. However, they still elected to show a ticking clock at times and I am sure (though I did not see the show more than once) that the characters probably said the time on occasion.
On a side note, I also like to muse out loud. Is that correlative to a having a female mental sex? It is less enjoyable for me to create a logical whole before writing a post. I like to throw thoughts out there because I feel like they could or might be important (sometimes they aren’t). I dislike always having to make a logical proof of their value or having to worry about being right or wrong.
Conversely, depending on context, I sometimes try to preventively eliminate confusion and answer questions before they are asked. If someone asks me a question, I ask myself questions about why they asked their question. I like to understand the why.
And finally, could mental sex be defined in degrees instead of absolutes (like a slider scale):
51% female mental sex
vs
49% male mental sex
I think that I allow information to percolate in my head rather than coming to direct conclusions. I’m also often indecisive by nature, but decisive by need. What can I say, I’m a Libra. I have always felt a neutrality in my thinking process. Could there be an inter mental sex (male sex, female sex, intersex)?
I learned a lot from this thread too. I didn’t know if Timelocks had to be fixed, but Chris made that pretty clear. More importantly, I now understand WHY they have be fixed.
What was most applicable for my writing, though, was learning how Optionlocks can be illustrated using phenomena we might consider time-based, like celestial events. In the story outline I worked on with Jim last year, when he told me I’d forgotten to include a Story Limit until the final Act, I was at a loss for how to include the Limit all the way back in Act 1. But I did have something about phases of the moons toward the end, so Jim’s advice was simply to incorporate that in Act 1.
I thought that was cool, and agreed. But part of me still doubted – I didn’t quite “get” it because I felt that would make it more about a time deadline than space. Now I can really see how it works, and I have even more, better ideas on how to incorporate that when it comes time to write the story.
That’s a great example of how Dramatica can be used to make up for a writer’s blind spots. Though I understand Limits logically, my blind spot is that I usually forget to include a Limit, and my muse is pretty vague on Limit ideas. Maybe the blind spot comes from years of playing D&D and trying to pretend that our campaigns – which had no end in sight – were part of a big unfolding narrative!
I’m actually not sure that every season was a Timelock (let alone a complete story). For it to be a Timelock, you’d need an in-story deadline (connected to inequity and Story Drivers) that brings on the climax. From what I remember of the first season, though, it was a Timelock that had to do with the timing of the California Presidential Primary, and maybe the presidential candidate’s speech afterwards (when the assassination was supposed to occur)?
The nice thing about the ticking clock, is that if it is a Timelock, you’ve got a great built in way of illustrating how much time has passed.
With all this discussion of time and space, please don’t lose sight of the scale at which the Story Limit, and therefore Timelocks and Optionlocks (aka Spacelocks), operates. It is/they are story wide, not any smaller than that.
You may include smaller instances of limited time, deadlines, limited options, etc. (e.g. the hour glass toward the end of The Wizard of Oz and the count down at the end of the Star Wars as the Death Star approaches the Rebel base), but they are not part of the Story Limit.
I think I just had an “aha” moment for simple labels for timelocks and optionlocks. If you look at them as each having a “state” version and a “process” version, they look like this:
TIMELOCK
- Deadline (state)
- Countdown (process)
OPTIONLOCK
- Limited Space (state)
- Limited Options (process)
Thanks Chris. That’s great.
Question though – we’re free to include both versions within the same story, right?
For example, in a Timelock story you mention both the deadline (wedding date - March 1) and the number of days remaining.
In an Optionlock story, you might have both space and options delineated. “We’re driving to my cousin’s wedding and all three of us are going to find dates on the way.”
Or do you think it’s better to focus on one version over the other?
You can include anything you want in the story. How you use it matters.
Regarding the wedding one, which one is relevant to the story? I doubt it could be both.
Sort of. Both of them won’t work as a limit UNLESS they meet at the same point at the end.
Right, makes total sense. Thanks Chris.
I challenge you to find a movie where this happens.
In theory, practice and theory are the same. But in practice…
The Desire is there, but the Ability is not, and since I’m male and forced to multiply them together…