Making this topic current…
I’d be interested to know what anyone finds that is not quite right with this summary of Dramatica. It seems like the author has a good sense of what the theory is.
“The viewpoint character [MC] is the one we most closely identify with, and the impact character [IC] is the one who prompts the viewpoint character to change. “
The devil is in the details. The last word makes all the difference in this error. An MC, as well as an IC may CHANGE or remain STEADFAST. So, that is not the function of the IC or the MC in a story.
I’ll hang back and we can see how others fare, but there are more errors to uncover. So, don’t be shy.
Where to start? “The talk about Throughlines only covers two characters, because it’s only interested in how the Main Character and the Impact Character affect each other.” And what about a story that is mostly Objective, with little emphasis on MC etc., i.e. mysteries. It is not an interest in but an observation of dynamic flow. It sounds dismissive of the other objective characters that readers/viewers just love. That’s why the human brain includes them in stories. Every sentence should be adjusted, and would the site allow a complete re-write? “It’s important to note that the antagonist and contagonist are not always the villians.” When I first read the theory book, I started watching the new TCM channel’s movies and found that the contagonist existed in many/most of the old films as a character who had its own agenda. These basics have been around for a very long time.
Perhaps, a separate trope page could be created? i.e. Dramatica, a complete writing theory, i.e. Dramatica, a writer’s tool, i.e. Dramatica complete, etc.
Or perhaps we could discuss each sentence, here?
Or put a disclaimer at the beginning, that this page is one writer’s understanding through usage, but there are more usage options? It seems rather bold to entitle it after a copywrited software. But I’m just an insignificant person with not much knowledge about this stuff.
One strong possibility gleaned from taking lots of psychology classes, anyone who gets interested in Dramatica from this trope article and goes to the official website could end up feeling smarter than that author, after finding the missing pieces.
3 Likes
I was focused only on the errors of what was said. But, now I’m seeing that Errors and Omissions are both at play. This must be what Twitter and Facebook are thinking about with COVID mis/dis info.
I’m Real Estate, we tried using designations, but the public doesn’t know what a CCIM is for example.
I sure appreciate the Dramatica Certification process more and more as we go.
I totally agree with the comment you added. I think many people are reading for positive or negative tone or mood instead of getting the technical details. So, that is a growing bias to track when people pile on just like on other social media.
1 Like
Well, perhaps it could be a beginners introduction to Dramatica…and the fractal-like-details one understands the more you look at the theory, the more you understand the theory, the more you use the theory help to make “distinctions” about each of the words in this intro.
For instance, the steadfast character is prompted to change–just doesn’t. A distinction on the verb “prompt.”
One thing for sure, they won’t remember much from that article when they find the official dram site. (Remembering back on how many times I read the theory book before I even got the objective characters straight … haha)
Seems misleading to say that any single character is prompted to change other than the change character from the author’s perspective. Even in The Devil Wears Prada, we would be more inclined to say both subjective characters prompt one another to grow.
Still, not all steadfast characters are prompted or even consider changing.
@didomachiatto was correct in saying that Steadfast Main Characters are “prompted to change”. That prompt comes from the Influence Character.
1 Like
Did you read the article of reference?
Please re-read the post as that is not what was stated.
Anything with the word “tropes” in it is a complete waste of time.
I was merely confirming what @didomachiatto was saying.
Glad you agree with my position that it is misinformation and shouldn’t be relied on.
It’s a direct quote from the article that she was commenting on. So, you might want to examine it anyway.