Who speaks for Dramatica?

theory
#1

We’re not supposed to bring in our own version of Dramatica to this forum. That’s cool. That makes a lot of sense. I fully support it.

At the same time, it seems that some people have provided some really awesome content to help with Dramatica. I’m thinking of Armando, for example. Yet, Mr. Hull stated that Armando does not equal Dramatica. So, I’m assuming that all the stuff that Armando has provided is free to use, perhaps even encouraged to be used, but is Armando’s own version of Dramatica.

Mr. Hull has also created some really awesome content to help with Dramatica. I’m assuming that all that Mr. Hull has provided is free to use (unless stated otherwise as in the case of the Atomizer), perhaps even encouraged to be used. I know that many people find his work and thoughts incredibly helpful.

Who is permitted to speak for Dramatica? Who’s content is considered, by default, official and not just John Doe’s own version of Dramatica? Mrs. Philips and Mr. Huntley’s content is obviously enough official if they state it is. Then, there are the people Mrs. Philips and Mr. Huntley have identified as Dramatica experts. I assume those people have some greater authority than everyone else. If those people create content, is it official?

#2

I’m confused because there is only one version of Dramatica, or two if you want to argue Theory vs Program.

Everything else is “how we use Dramatica”.

When @jhull and I get annoyed at people bringing in their own versions of Dramatica, what we are annoyed at is that they are not talking about Dramatica! If you want to come here and say “I think everybody can have a dynamic change in a story!” then that is generally the result of a wild misunderstanding, and why would we want that to persist?

2 Likes
#3

Yeah, it’s a user forum ,except for Chris Huntley. Then you have Jim, who created the forum and who Knows A Lot, and you’re well advised to listen to him. Then there are the labeled Dramatica Experts–although I don’t know how that works.

It is tricky, trying to decide who has figure something out, who has got it wrong, who has figured PART of it out (I’m in that category) and is still learning. Only thing you can do is give it time, read the manual, read the forum, read Jim’s articles. That’s how we’ve all done it.

You’re doing a good job at digging in.

#4

You wouldn’t. It would only lead to massive confusion for anyone who reads the forum. That’s why I wrote

Am I correctly understanding you that changing what has been established as part of Dramatica is bad, but adding to it isn’t so bad?

#5

@YellowSuspenders I think this is the key. Armando has developed an extremely useful way to apply Dramatica theory to creating stories. Actually, if you read his book he provides multiple ways. Jim has tweaked this and developed his own approach, and Melanie has her own (very different) approach with Storyweaver and I know @MWollaeger has his own strategies. But none of this implies changing the theory that these approaches are based on.

#6

Everyone labeled a Dramatica Story Expert went through and passed the Dramatica Story Expert Certification program. The program requires an extensive storyform analysis and is run through @chuntley. An example of the kind of work expected can be found in @mlucas analysis of The Princess Bride.

When I mentioned in the other thread that Armando != Dramatica it was a reference to a statement by both that appeared contradictory in nature. Armando doesn’t have his own version of Dramatica in the way that some people do (as @MWollaeger pointed out). All of us have great respect for Armando – his “Instant Dramatica” was eye-opening back in the day.

My comment was in direct reference to an apparent difference in the way “Events” were being described. Complete storytelling and not really part of the theory. Plus, I got the impression that @GetSchwifty was a programmer, so I thought he’d appreciate the joke.

#7

Dramatica is a “first principles” theory. The research phase included a lot of story analysis, but this was to get down to the granules, and then these became the axioms from which the model was built.

From these first principles, you end up with things like the Theme Chart and Companion Pairs.

In theory, anything that doesn’t violate the first principles and the method used to make the larger model would be okay. Even if it meant changing something that has been established, because the only real stick in the ground are the first principles. But, it’s really unlikely that the things we think of as fundamental would change, so we treat them as unchangeable. (Especially without a clear demonstration of why they would need to be changed.) So far as I know, nobody has successfully challenged or changed anything.

That doesn’t mean there aren’t places to go, as you said. But I still don’t understand what you mean by “add to the theory”.

For instance, if you listen to the podcast on Pretty Woman, you’ll hear a couple references to a “ghost character”. So far, this ghost has not been “defined” inside the theory, by which I mean nobody has shown that ghost characters are examples of the Variations of the IC Domain or anything like that. But, yes, that could be added to the theory.

But if you mean something like I am guessing you mean (Armando’s Instant Dramatica), that isn’t adding to the theory. That’s a practical tool to use the theory. And that’s a different thing altogether.

PS. If you’re really in doubt about who to listen to, listen to the Story Experts. We’ve been vetted. You’ll be missing out on some other good advice, but at least you have an objective measure.

1 Like
#8

I am, and I did! I loved it.

#9

The other response would be ‘gee, is it that obvious?’ :wink:

#10

What is a Ghost Charactet? As I should have asked at the meeting. Is it tied to the Variation level?

#11

Mentioned here … I think it’s basically a representation of the MC if they stay on their current path (don’t Change) but I wouldn’t mind further clarification.

#12

Definitely get that aspect. Do we have it connnected to the chart yet? Is it related to the MC Counterpoint or the forewarning or Consequence or something else?

#13

If anything it’s an extension of the Main Character Throughline based on their Resolve:

  • if Changed Resolve, then the “ghost” character shows what would happen if they continued along the path of being motivated by their Problem
  • if Steadfast Resolve, then the “ghost” characters shows what would happen if they continued along the path of working Focus and/or Direction

I have a feeling that this character shows up more in the former, rather than the latter. I’ve always seen it as insecurity in the Author’s faith that they’ve set up a reliably strong Main Character/Influence Character dynamic.

3 Likes
#14

“Negative, Ghostrider, the pattern is full.”

1 Like