When was the moment that you saw for yourself how Dramatica would help you? (and I do mean “saw for yourself”, being told that it’d be helpful by someone else doesn’t count)
What were you doing; rewriting, plotting, editing, pantsing, ? What actually happened that sold you on Dramatica? Please be as specific as you’re able.
Reading about the Concept of Main Character Growth: Stop or Start. It was the first time I ever read anything about narrative that didn’t come with exceptions or caveats, it explained in no uncertain terms the direction of growth of character and didn’t tie it to spirituality or cultural norms. It just was.
Haven’t stopped yet.
3 Likes
Are you not starting off with your own moment? Or have you not reached it yet?
For me, there wasn’t any big aha moment for the overall theory. It was more that I came across it and thought “if Dramatica is what it says it is, of course it will be super helpful.” Then I started reading the theory book and Narrative First. Back then, Narrative First had every article listed in order, and I think every analyses, pretty much on one page. I started at the bottom and worked my way up. When I was done I started working through Storymind and Dramaticapedia (not as easy to navigate).
There were several small aha moments along the way (“aha, that’s why everyone was dealing with that characters problem, but why they also had another problem that no one was dealing with”, “aha, that’s how you separate throughlines”, and etc.). But I was sold pretty early on. And the more I worked through it and read about it and the more I got it, the more sold I became. That process is still ongoing.
There was, however, a couple of big aha moments for me with the RS throughline. I wrote out a couple of paragraphs about it, but deleted it so as not to go into personal details. I wouldn’t mind sharing all the details–linearly, you people have no idea who I am, what do i care if you know personal details that you would never be able to connect to me? But holistically my wife might see this post and know that, on balance, someone had that information that she didn’t want anyone to have, so best not to do it–anyway, without giving too many details, my wife and I were taking separate stances on an issue when one of our daughters started yelling at us about something. We immediately came together as one to deal with the issue. It was like we went from being on opposite sides to the same team just like that. And it hit me that that was an RS moment. That’s also when it clicked for me that the RS isn’t “me and you” but “us” and what the difference was. It was pretty incredible.
There was another moment when I thought to myself that my family was having a Mind problem if ever there was one (note:i’m not great at analyzing, particularly at the time and particularly on the fly, it probably wasn’t a Mind problem) so I decided to try to flip it to a Situation. Again, it was my daughter being mad about something. Instead of having the spat I had expected we’d have over the next hour plus (my daughter has strong emotions, and ONLY strong emotions) I told her to get in the car so we could go for a ride. There was no destination in mind. We were just going to be stuck in a car together for a while, no way to escape. I didn’t say anything to her, just let her do all the talking. Instead of the hour or so I figured it would take for her to calm down, it took about ten minutes. (I have to end here, i’m verging on going into too much detail)
Anyway, those are the two big moments that really turned me on to trying to use Dramatica in every day life to deal with everyday issues rather than just using it to write stories. And even though I’m no expert, and often afraid I’m going to make something worse rather than better, I keep turning to Dramatica for suggestions and I think things keep getting better. That said, I can’t imagine going another day of my life without being completely fascinated and obsessed with what Dramatica has to offer.
4 Likes
I discovered Dramatica about a year ago.
I was struggling with a few specific structural problems that I couldn’t figure out using other story theories. For my first my first novel I had used a kind of typical 3/4 Act structure (mostly Larry Brooks but also James Scott Bell) and it totally worked, and I feel that novel was success. But I couldn’t figure out how to apply it to more ambitious new projects and I kept getting stuck.
John Truby and Libbie Hawker (who uses Truby) were the closest I came to getting better answers, but there was still something incomplete.
Then I read an article by @jhull about the difference between Change and Steadfast characters, and my mind was blown. This distinction, which in retrospect seems so obvious and clarifying, was completely absent from any other theory.
I wrote about other things that missing from other theories in a journal entry from last April:
Specifically, none of the three/four act writers have good answers for how to a) write multiple protagonist books, b) how to write a series c) how to integrate character arc with overall story arc d) how to structure reveals e) (related) how to separate story structure from weaving of scenes.
Dramatica’s approach is the only one I’ve found so far that is comprehensive — i.e. it comfortably accommodates all the things that I was missing in the other structures, or seems to.
In other words, Dramatica theory had ways to appraoch all of those creative problems.
-
What I was calling “multiple protagonist” (I meant “multiple main character”) is either not really, or is a work with multiple storyforms.
-
There are a number of articles on the Internet about how use Dramatica to structure a series.
-
Integrating character arc with overall story arc = OC throughline + MC throughline (of course you can’t forget the IC and RS too).
-
How to structure reveals and twists has to do with the distinction between storyforming and storytelling — something I didn’t see anyone else address (with the partial exception of Truby), which is a pretty big oversight if you aspire to write anything complicated.
In short, I couldn’t find anything else out there that was remotely as comprehensive as Dramatica. When it came to how to structure an even somewhat complex story, Dramatica was the only theory left standing.
That said, the Dramatica learning curve has been way steeper than I thought it would be when I charged in last year. I’m making better progress now — I’m 20K words in on my current draft, and feeling pretty good about it. Every so often I wonder if I’ve gone too far down the rabbit hole and if being in the Dramatica weeds is costing more time and effort than its worth.
But then I get an amazing insight that convinces me that I’m on the right track. I understand the theory at a far deeper level than I did last year — hoping that year two will see some real acceleration in application.
4 Likes
With all respect, I haven’t had my moment yet. I’m keeping an open mind, though. I kinda feel like that one church member who hasn’t yet started speaking in tongues. I guess we’ll see.
2 Likes
Definitely keep that open mind! It’s crucial. I remember that when I first realized what Dramatica was saying, it almost seemed like too much. Like its assertions were too far-reaching, and I was skeptical.
But in order to determine whether it was accurate, I realized I’d have to trust it for a while. No way I could learn if I was constantly doubting. So I put the skepticism in the corner where it could watch, but not distract me. I think this was crucial to finding success with the theory.
One day I noticed Jim Hull had posted a storyform analysis of Zootopia on his blog. My family planned to watch Zootopia that same day, so I decided to do an experiment. I purposely did not read that blog article – did not know a single story point from his analysis. Nor did I know how to conduct my own analysis yet (at that point I didn’t even understand throughlines). But I decided to watch Zootopia and guess at the MC Unique Ability.
It seemed pretty obvious the MC Unique Ability had something to do with recognizing the poison agent from the plants, due to Hopps growing up as a farmer. I looked at all the Variations and let myself have two choices, and decided it was either Knowledge or Experience. So I had a 1 in 32 chance of being right. And in Jim’s analysis (confirmed later through user group) the MC UA was indeed Experience!
That kind of blew me away. I wouldn’t say it was my Eureka moment, but it definitely proved to me that Dramatica was onto something. (Note: in hindsight I think I was lucky the MC UA was so obvious in this film. Choosing that first is usually a terrible way to storyform.)
4 Likes
My Eureka moment was probably this… Before Dramatica, I was trying to develop this story idea that I was really passionate about. But when trying to delve into the main character more, I COULDN’T DO IT. I would literally feel sick to the stomach answering outline questions about her, regardless of what book or advice or blog post I was following.
Like literally. “What is the Lie your character believes?” “What is the Truth that would set her free?” Crap, I’m going to throw up! 
A couple times I managed to push past the nausea and write some stuff down that I thought was okay. But when I came back to read it, I wanted to puke again.
Then I found Dramatica, and after studying it and applying it to my story, I realized my MC was Steadfast. WHOA. That’s why I had felt sick before – I was trying to shoehorn a Change arc onto my Steadfast MC, and my subconscious was giving me visceral signals to let me know how wrong I was!
5 Likes
This is most definitely KM Weiland, did she not have the “flat arc” concept at that time?
The whole,
The truth your character knows/believes and s/he will bring about a change in their world?
3 Likes
Yep, it clearly is K.M Weiland. I used to go to her blog too for writing tips (I still do but only for storytelling tips, not structural tips) and for her long time, the idea of the Three Acts Structure and Change character arc sat right on my mind - theorically speaking. But when it came to writing, I just couldn’t do it : my outline felt like a bunch of (often meaningless) things happening with graduating tension, and it felt really formulaic. But every blogs I came across said that was how things were done, so maybe I had to swallow my ego and not pretend my story was above the rules.
I ran into an article on her blog that explained that the Main Character wasn’t always the Protagonist - something I figured out when working on another project back at the time. Nowhere else, neither on her blog nor outside of it, did I find anything resembling that. So I searched it up and discovered Narrative First. I read a bit about it, agreed with it, and after a while, after having reached the end of the fifth article or something, I was like “Okay, what is this Dramatica thing the author keeps talking about ?” It was nothing like what I’ve read before and well, I tried to read the theory after some times. I gave up for a week afterwards because it was too complex, but my mind kept getting back at it and I really couldn’t do it with the Three Acts Structure anymore. So my only choice was to go forward ; can’t say I regret it. Had many “aha !” moments since then.
4 Likes
Feast your eyes on my three, they all have one thing in common:
The first for me was the Change/Steadfast distinction. That was a huge eye-opener, since every other book on screenwriting was all about ‘the moral change’. It was wonderful to find a place that’s so open to something other than variations on the hero’s journey.
The second is the Influence Character – that’s the one that firmly sold me. This idea that there’s a character pushing the Main Character to change their ways, but not necessarily a villain. Again, it was just so radically different from everything I’d been taught that it appealed strongly to the nonconformist in me, and it made so much sense. So much sense.
And the other thing that kept me hooked has nothing to do with the theory technically, but it’s being part of the community here. To be able to directly contact and talk with the creators of the theory, or the experts of the theory, or just other learners, is a huge help. Before this, I failed quite a bit and bailed a lot on the theory for Save the Cat or something similar, got frustrated with the result and came back, rinse and repeat. But it’s much better to fail on here (see: Coco thread, where I got every storyform except the right one) because I know I’ll learn something valuable from it. I can’t think of any other place where I found that to be the case.
Basically, it was every time I realised that the theory wasn’t the same as every other paradigm.
5 Likes
For me I first heard about Dramatica from KM Weiland. She spoke of an Impact charcter. So in my quest to understand characters, I went to YouTube. Then I came across Melanie. She spoke of the four dimensions of characters, and then mentioned Dramatica (again!). I was like this same Dramatica keeps coming up so I’ll go see what it’s all about. I went to storymind.com ,downloaded the theory book, started reading and then… “goodbye my lover…” (tune playing)
In all honesty , comparing all of the theories. Cos I’ve read almost everything. Truby seems the closest in a way; at like 50% accuracy. But I now realise that Dramatica was created by aliens. Honestly! It’s from the future and we’re in one grand cohort study. Lol. I’m “self aware”.
5 Likes
She might have. But there are two MAJOR problems with her so-called “flat arc”.
First, in much of her material she forgets to mention it. i.e. in many articles and podcasts she implies that the Lie etc. is something all main characters have. So unless you’ve read all her stuff, you won’t know there’s another possibility.
Second, I know for a fact that even if I’d read about “flat arc” I would’ve dismissed it because the way she describes it doesn’t fit my MC. The examples she gives (Thor) make it sound like the character is going around shouting this Truth at everyone. My Steadfast MC doesn’t care about changing the world, she just wants to get out from under oppression and find her lost sister.
3 Likes
I got a lot out of K.M. Weiland’s writing when I first read it, but I completely agree with this.
“Flat” to me has a pretty pejorative connotation. I don’t want to write forgettable entertainment with “flat” characters who never change! I want my readers to care about my characters and be invested in their growth!
The idea of a “steadfast” character on the other hand implies someone who may have his or her worldview rocked and deeply challenged and yet still not change. And, by the way, that could be good – or it could be really bad! So many more possibilities.
You know, when I think about this now, it actually seems very simple. Dramatica has a reputation for being really hard, and that’s true in a lot of ways. But there are some ways (like this) in which a basic understanding of the theory actually radically simplifies and clarifies things.
2 Likes
The issue with K.M’s theories is that its too formulaic for me. As a person, she is very nice. But what I feel the Lie she is referring to is the Change characters Justifications. I’ve read all her stuff too. At least the ones on the craft. The change character usually starts the story with baggage. This includes the emotional wound and the Lie(justification) to cover that up. The thing with Dramatica is that it has all bases covered. I always tell people, Dramatica is like a driving a spaceship to a car show. It’s not just understands almost all story understandings so far, it makes the ideas quite clear. So while others may struggle to transfer that specific understanding, here it’s laid bare. Even Dramatica also has it’s own fare share of misunderstandings but not from being mistaken, but being too accurate. e.g Uncontrolled. Free seems a better fit.
The Eureka moment is that once you start working with Dramatica you get them every now and then.
Here are some of my best Eureka moments:
- that you can develop from a simple idea a solid story form in no time
- that the first story form is not perfect but good to dig deeper into your idea and make it work as a story
- that you can write a first draft once you have a story form and feel you have a story to tell
- that you can change the story form after you have written the first draft without messing everything up
- that you realise, after you changed the story form, that your 1st draft scenes fit now even better
- that you suddenly understand that your main characters problem is actually not avoid but control
- that you suddenly grasp the meaning of LUDO: you learn dramatica, understand it, do it and get your first draft
- that you need a story goal, a protagonist and antagonist, otherwise your story is going nowhere
- that you are getting more productive and are forced to think more clearly to make it work
4 Likes
For me, there was a sort of two-fold Eureka, with a bit of “Hey, this is interesting.” thrown in for good measure.
My introduction to the idea of Dramatica was “that site which shall not be named” when the Dramatica site was still very 90’s Academic in appearance with the pillbox and definitions. (Does anybody remember that version? I’m feeling nostalgic. Is there an archived version of this anywhere?) However, because I was blinded by the inaccurate portrayal from that other site, I didn’t really have my first Eureka moment until I read three points directly from the theory:
- Dramatica allowing for the 16 different Types of Goals.
- The explanation of how Theme isn’t really arbitrary.
- The 4 possible endings. My favorite is apparently Failure/Good.
It was the second point that really sold me on the analysis power, as I had always seen Theme as extraordinarily arbitrary. Once that clicked, I actually wished I had the program back when I was in my literature classes.
My second Eureka moment was really about how it could help me write. I expected it could help and entered with a somewhat blind trust. (That’s the “Hey, this is interesting” part.) However, I had the true Eureka moment for writing in two parts: Once I figured out that I had multiple stories (writing a series) and figured out my initial driver for only the first book, most of the other scenes and parts clicked. (And totally explained why I felt I needed to remove or change a chapter, even thought it’s one of my favorites. Deliberative chapter trying to move an Action Driver plot forward.)
The most illuminating thing for me, though, is that I now viscerally understand Steadfast. And why the heck so many literary teachers kept telling me that Marty McFly doesn’t “developed” as a character, while I was “screaming” back at them that he clearly does. It also explained why so many things of writing advice just didn’t work for my story…
There are also quite a few other mini-moments, just as there almost always with any theory as complex as Dramatica.
Anyway, that’s my bit.
4 Likes