Think of going shopping with your favorite person that drives you crazy. When one wants a thing and finds it, then one wants to leave. The other wants to check here and then check there and then go down a few aisles to see if it’ll jog the memory for something that we might need at home but in case one can’t remember what it is right now. Oh, and check the reduced produce shelf for a dollar bargain…haha
1 Like
At this point I’d like to suggest that we watch the season again. Over the weekend perhaps. And this time we should take notes on Domains, Issues, Problems,Goals etc. That way the material is fresh in everyone’s mind.
I re-watched part of the last episode again last night, but got interrupted by a kid having trouble sleeping. From the 25 minutes I watched, I was leaning towards Decision still, but not certain.
If it wasn’t backstory, it does seem like Ford’s decision to open the park despite evidence of host consciousness, might have been the Inciting Incident (First Driver). If he’d chosen to not to open the park, or to delay opening it, that could have been driven by an Action (hosts becoming conscious) but deciding to still open it as planned cannot have been Action-driven.
Also, Arnold did seem to take his time to decide to get Dolores to kill all the hosts – “there is a third option” he said. And it would make sense they are driven to that third option (the Action of killing the hosts) by Ford’s Decision to open the park.
Does anyone know any candidates for the other Act Turn Story Drivers?
Maybe we should skip Story Driver for now. It’s possible the Series Storyform has a different Driver type than the Season one, and that would really give us a headache! (And if we figure out OS Domain, that might make it easier to determine the 4 Acts and their Turns.)
1 Like
Good idea, @Khodu! I’ll try and rewatch a few this weekend.
I’d support skipping the Story Driver for now. There’s so much story it’s hard to see the major turns. If we don’t get a definitive answer, I’m sure the software will work that out for us (assuming we don’t get lost on too many other story points).
Thanks, @Prish! That helped quite a bit. So in this analogy, linear is: “I’ll go to the store, get what I want and go home” (cause-effect) and holistic is: “I’ll go get what I want, but look around just in case something is missing” (working to prevent potential imbalance from missing groceries)?
1 Like
Plus look to see if a $1 produce bargain exists. If anyone could juggle several storyforms, it’s the holistic MC…haha. This discussion always reminds me of when I first married my husband, saying as we immediately crossed the doorway threshold before buying anything, “Can we go now?” When I found Dramatica, I suspected a linear MC was already onto the next…if you get my instinctive drift.
I took some time away and am catching up on this thread. I see a lot of great work here. Though I’m still a bit confused with the throughlines. Thought I’d try to underline and propose a few things in order to clarify. I believe the last summary of the throughlines was by @mlucas awhile back. Here is how I see the Overall Story Throughline playing out in more detail:
OS DOMAIN & OS ISSUE:
Being in Westworld (OS DOMAIN of Situation): Countless situations fall out of “Being in Westworld” that populate the story from Being a Guest, to Being a Host, or Being an Employee of Delos, etc (all OS DOMAINs of Situation). Westword is a theme park and its purpose is to offer a place where situations can be played out in a Fantasy world that’s a near perfect recreation of the Wild West, to the most minute details (OS Thematic CONFLICT between Fantasy and Fact). Guests arrive and can intend or bump into situations of varying degrees of complexity like Being a Cowboy, Being in a Posse Searching for a Fugitive, Being in a Wild West Brothel, Being in the Middle of a Wild West Robbery/Massacre, or Waking up Being Stuck in a Noose Tied to a Tree with the Other End of the Noose Tied to your Skittish Horse. etc. Hosts play roles within these situations. Guests can get stuck in these situations, but they know the situations are Fantasies (OS ISSUE of Fantasy) and not real (OS COUNTERPOINT of Fact). The Guests can leave at any time. Yet, the Guests can get real thrills from being in the Fantasy. The Hosts, on the other hand, are programmed to behave as if these are real situations (OS COUNTERPOINT of Fact) vs. the Fantasies they really are. These conflicts (OS Thematic CONFLICT between Fantasy and Fact) play out in various ways between Guests, Hosts and Employees of Delos.
OS CONCERN: Lately, the Hosts seem to be malfunctioning in new ways not seen before (OS CONCERN of How Things are Changing).
There are political upheavals within Delos causing changes within the organization (OS CONCERN of How Things are Changing). Even as audience members witnessing the story unfold we become concerned with the variations in Dolores’s daily circuit (OS CONCERN of How Things are Changing). Knowing that Hosts cannot harm a living thing, and after Dolores states as much while letting a fly walk across her eyeball, we witness Dolores swatting and killing a fly at the end of the first episode (OS CONCERN How Things are Changing).
OS PROBLEM:
Per @jhull’s early suggestion… If the Guests stopped using and abusing the Hosts, there would be no problem (OS PROBLEM of Unending). Perhaps the seemingly unending loops that the Hosts must repeat are posing a similar problem and the unending torment that many are subjected to is becoming a more significant problem (OS PROBLEM of Unending)? The entire existence of these Hosts suggest they are essentially immortal, always repairable and unable to really die (OS PROBLEM of Unending). While the Hosts bear a near perfect resemblance to Humans they are not Human, they cannot die, and they are not sentient (at least not yet, the humans think.) (OS Thematic CONFLICT between Fantasy and Fact). Is Dolores changing (MC Resolve of Change). Is the Robot becoming Human afterall (OS Thematic CONFLICT between Fantasy and Fact)?
Thoughts? Any agreement?
A few additional thoughts fell into place as well… Please offer your thoughts.
MC DOMAIN of Manipulation:
Dolores (as are all the Hosts) is being manipulated by the Guests. She is also being Manipulated by the technical employees of Delos. And perhaps most importantly by Arnold. Dolores is thinking differently (Manipulation) than other Hosts, perhaps because of the special programming that Arnold manipulated in her. Dolores, as a Host (she’s essentially a robot) has been programmed to pretend to be something that she is not (Manipulation) in her role in WestWorld, even though she is completely authentic in her portrayal.
MC CONCERN of Playing a Role:
Dolores is a Host playing a role in WestWorld. We find out in later episodes she is one of the oldest Hosts in the park. She is completely authentic in her portrayal, yet in fact she is a spectacular simulation of a human being.
MC ISSUE of Thought:
Dolores (like some of the other Hosts) has Reveries, which are programmatic remnants of a Host past incarnations which they are not meant to consciously access. Rather Reveries are there to be accessed by Host on a subconscious level to offer them nuance, human subtlety.
IC DOMAIN of Activity:
Arnold’s influence on Dolores grows starting from inventing her, programming her, interviewing her, educating her, etc. These are the primary activities Arnold interacts with her.
RS DOMAIN of Fixed Attitude:
If the above and my earlier points are true, then the relationship between Dolores and Arnold centers around Fixed Attitude. We find out later in the season that Dolores is one of the oldest (if not the oldest… is she not the oldest? The Original?), therefore Dolores is Someone Special in Arnold’s eyes (Fixed Attitude) and Dolores is perhaps the closest to him of anyone else in his life.
Does anyone see merit to these? Or am I off base? I tried to cite multiple examples where I could to illustrate the point.
And here’s some backup for STORY DRIVER of Decision.
To start, WestWorld is a role playing game on a very grand scale. Role playing games generally rely on player’s decisions, often forcing them to be made, in order for the story to develop and move.
In that respect, Guests decisions are what alter the storylines. A Host’s well being is often held at the mercy of a Guest decision. Some Guests make a conscious decision upon entering the park whether they will be cruel or kind. Go dark or light. Pick the Black hat of the light one. One guest says he had the best time in the park when he came in and went “straight evil”.
Upon entering the park Guests are often presented with a decision to join a posse to hunt for the fugitive Hector. We learn later that this is a low level (not advanced, newbie) play in the game. So as players learn more about the game they decided not to select that option and move on into other levels. We learn there are decisions that a player can make that will move them deeper into the game. Closer to the maze.
1 Like
But are those decisions turning the story? I can see the posse hunt being a decision driver. But if I remember rightly, the white hat/black hat decision appeared once and I can’t remember it doing much except worldbuilding.
Likewise with the host/guest interaction. Could you name me a decision made by one of the guests that turned the story? Because even when a guest shoots someone or ‘has their way’ with a guest, that feels like an action to me.
And isn’t that a clear action forcing a decision? “I learned about this thing so I’m going to decide not to do that”?
My problem with the Decision driver in terms of the storytelling in Westworld is that so many decisions are off-screen. I agree with you guys that in the world of the story, everything is driven by a decision (Ford deciding to open the park, for example). But in the storytelling of the actual show, most of these decisions are so quiet or implied that you’re not even sure if it happened; you just see the actions that may follow a decision or may just be a force of the universe.
The show opens with the park already open – and it’s been open for 30 years or something. Nothing happened that whole time, until the malfunctioning hosts decades later. I cannot see Ford’s decision to open the park being the cause for the effect of the malfunctioning hosts much later. Everything was okay until those hosts malfunctioned.
So I’m going to rewatch a few and maybe it will be an incredibly subtle decision driven story, but I just think there’s way too much unsaid that may or may not be happening off-screen for it to be the story driver.
1 Like
@Miggseye, I appreciate your storyform thoughts, but I think it would be better if we followed the normal group analysis pattern, similar to what is done in the Dramatica Users Group meetings or that we did in the A Man For All Seasons analysis.
There are good reasons to come to consensus at the higher levels (dynamics questions and all four Domains first) before delving deeper.
Granted, it is a lot slower that way, especially online! But we’re almost at the point where we can discuss OS Domain so you’ll be able to use your arguments for that soon.
Thanks @mlucas. My apologies for not being aware of/following proper procedure. Is the normal pattern for analysis prescribed, spelled out anywhere? It might be good to reference for still-feeling-like-a-newbies like me.
P.S.
I see now, by looking at the Story Engine in DSE, that I think you mean start with these first:
- Identify the 4 Overall Throughlines.
- Identify the Plot Dynamics of Driver, Limit, Outcome, Judgment
- Identify the Character Dynamics of MC Resolve, MC Growth, MC Approach, MC Problem Solving Style
Then afterwards, go deeper into each throughline and other Static Plot Points?
The analysis process had never been clear to me until now. So thank you for pointing that out @mlucas. This has helped me clarify it.
No worries! I didn’t know the procedure either until participating in some online threads and watching some of the DUG videos. (Those are great by the way.) I think it’s especially important for group analyses where you want everyone to get a chance to voice their opinions.
I’ve noticed in the DUG videos they tend to go with Plot & Character Dynamics (often skipping Growth as it’s easier to determine from throughline placement), then the 4 throughlines.
I’ve watched numerous DUG analyses, but never “got” the process until this valuable discussion. I’m glad it’s clear now.
Now back to Story Driver:
Oh, there is such subtlety between decision and action, eh? Chicken and the egg? A sort of Russian doll of story drivers. I keep going back and forth. Previously, I was in the Story Driver of Decision camp. Given some re-watching of a few WW episodes, reading a few articles about the entire WW narrative I’ve managed to convince myself that there’s a STORY DRIVER of Action.
Here’s a few reasons:
Arnold wrote (STORY DRIVER of Action) reveries into the Host’s programming 35 years before. This allows for a host’s memories to linger between resets in a sort of subconscious state reverie state where that offers more complex movements and behavior. When its installed again (It must have been de-installed at some point we don’t know about, perhaps when Ford realizes Hosts must wait to be freed) in an update in the present timeframe, it’s suggested that Ford wrote the programming and it’s believed to be the cause of the malfunctions they been undergoing (STORY DRIVER of Action). It seems, Ford has reinstalled the reverie programming (STORY DRIVER of Action) because its time for his final narrative, “Journey into Night” to begin, time for the Host to be freed to become sentient and rebel on their own.
Peter Abernathy finds a photograph (STORY DRIVER of Action) in the dirt outside his horse corral. In Episode 10, we discover the photograph is of William’s fiancé, Logan’s sister, and we see it in William’s jacket and see it slip out and fall to the ground (STORY DRIVER of Action); this of course happened 30 years ago when William was Billy and not the Man in Black. The photograph lays in the dirt until Peter picks it up.
In Episode 1, Peter Abernathy, in his distraught state whispers a quote from Romeo and Juliet, “These violent delights have violent ends”, to Dolores (STORY DRIVER of Action.) In Episode 2, Dolores repeats the phrase, ”These violent delights have violent ends” to Maeve while in the street in Sweetwater (STORY DRIVER of Action). Soon Maeve starts undergoing her own flashes of memories. It seems, uttering the phrase “These Violent Delights have violent ends” triggers more conscious access of the Host to its memories.
Arnold’s dies, committing suicide via Dolores, (STORY DRIVER of Action) and Ford, realizing the magnitude of Arnold’s suffering, undergoes his own suffering over Arnold’s death. Ford realizes the Host’s suffering in their own prison. He realizes that in order to free the hosts their suffering must continue until they have built up enough memories of violence and suffering at the hands of the guest they can rebel and free themselves. He has them wait 35 years (STORY DRIVER of in-Action as Action) until such time where he introduces his final narrative, “Journey into Night”, in which the Host’s become sentient, rebel and free themselves.
In Episode 2: Dolores wakes from sleep, walks out to the grounds outside the house, presumably hearing a voice in her head we hear here say, “Here?”. She stops and kneels down, digs into the ground with her hands and pulls out a gun (STORY DRIVER of Action). Later we find this is the gun she used to kill Arnold and is the gun she uses to kill Ford in Episode 10. In that episode, Dolores notices the gun Ford left, sitting atop her blue dress (STORY DRIVER of Action). Dolores decides (probably her free will at this point) to pick it up and use it to kill Ford.
In the Teddy storyline, his seeing Dolores out through the saloon window (STORY DRIVER of Action) causes him to leave the Saloon and go to her. Their ever budding romance leads them to talk about leaving and going somewhere beautiful someday. We find out in an interview that Teddy’s purpose is not to leave with Dolores, but to keep her here, closeby so that guests can find her. In Episode 3, Teddy goes off with a posse looking for Wyatt, leaving Dolores alone. That’s when she meets William and starts her odyssey and romance with him.
In Episode 3, Elsie says hobbies (actions) anchor the hosts. I think this also hints at actions as drivers too.
In the Dolores daily storyline routine, here dropping a can seems to be a STORY DRIVER of ACTION that has different ends. Sometimes Teddy is there to pick it up. Sometimes not. Sometimes no one. The Man in Black picks it up. And William picks it up and they set off on their odyssey in later episodes.
I believe even the phrase “These violent delights have violent ends” hints at a STORY DRIVER of Action too. In general what the Guests do to the host, how they interact with them, their violent delights cause suffering of the Hosts, stored up memories of that suffering and fodder for their drive to sentience and rebellion.
I have to say, a second watching of the show clarifies much of the narrative and subtleties in the storylines.
1 Like
Hey @MiggsEye, you make a lot of great points there. I need a bit of time to let them sink in.
You’re certainly right that dropping and later finding the photograph must be Actions (or part of the same Action), so the real question on those is whether finding the photograph drove the plot and forced a decision. It certainly did seem to be important.
This point doesn’t seem quite right to me:
If she decides out of free will to kill Ford, how was that choice forced by any Action? Finding the gun isn’t a strong enough reason to force her into killing Ford.
For example, this would be an Action forcing a Decision: “Dolores discovers that Ford opened the park with full knowledge of host consciousness, leaving her no choice but to execute him.” But I can’t remember it being that clear…
Hi guys. The Action of dropping the Photograph >>> to another action of finding it ( A violation of the Decision - Action driver circuit) , >>>>> to an action of staying up late, which then lead to an action of malfunctioning. I think it doesn’t make up for a proper dramatic flow. Now my understanding of Decisions is that there is some sort of deliberation. But Ford acts on his own. Not answering to anyone. And for sound scene/character building, they can’t have Ford talking to himself( It wouldn’t be a strong way of introducing us to the character). So the picture could be either have been a random accident(someone dropping it: Action) or it was placed there to see how the host would react. I would go for the latter. It ushered in a cascade of events which would greatly IMPACT Dolores and cause her to change. There is also the case of the Reveries being introduced the day before (The scene with Bernard and the other lady). A decision only Ford could make. This drives the plot forward. Then the malfunction (Action) follows which then leads to the Decision to decommission Dolores’ father and the affected hosts etc.
Maybe, but there’s nothing to suggest that it was placed there as of the first season. All we have is the action of dropping the photograph and the action of finding it. Everything inbetween isn’t included in the storytelling, which could either be an intentional mislead or a sign that it’s purely there to further the story.
Your other point on the reveries might be valid, although it still feels a little too speculative for me to concretely go with it. Partly because I’m torn whether someone introducing something new into the system is an action or a decision.
I’m a little behind at the minute so haven’t had a chance to catch up yet.
I agree with this. The writers SHOW very little deliberation on-screen. And we base our conclusion of Driver on that.
Spoilers are cause for hanging!
Second season so far is crazy good.
For anyone happening upon a Westworld discussion from a year ago, there’s this one:
oh sorry about that, I’ll modify. I deleted it with the handy dandy trash can.
I’m actually finding the second season a lot less satisfying. But I’m holding off to see what the end game is here.