Without my measuring stick, I feel no pain

theory
#1

Forgive the rephrasing of the incredible Leon Redbone.

When I have a dynamic pair, like Fact and Fantasy, I can use the other two elements in the quad as the measuring stick. That’s what the theory book says.

Sometimes I have trouble getting my head wrapped around that but it’s a fairly simple concept. It helps me to draw that out and state it.

2019-04-24 at 8.53 AM.jpg697×421 21.8 KB

just slide fact or fantasy up and down the stick until you think it’s right.

Here’s how it looks for another quad:

when I’m rationalizing, coming up with an artificial reason for excusing my actions or attitude, does it have more to do with a commitment I’ve made and must keep or avoid at all costs (a self-centered act), or does it have more to do with my sense of responsibility and caring for others, where I am protecting or harming someone because of it? (the blind spot is obligation)

when I have an obligation, when I accept or don’t accept a poor situation as my duty, is it because I made a commitment, or refused to make a commitment, or is it because my concern for others overrode or didn’t override my self-interest? (the blind spot is rationalizing)

@jhull gee this almost looks like it could be a detail control in a software application … :wink:

by the way, this looks to me like it’s another way of getting at that ‘view of the three from the one’…

#2

Hmm you can also expand this to the whole quad.

now the way this works out for me is:

the IC is concerned about some facts, and how they contribute to his security, or are a threat. He is also faced with fantasy, his own and the fantasies of others, which are more or less a threat and may help or hurt his security.

Because this is the IC THROUGHLINE, I’m using the second pair to do this:

The MC is hearing this from the IC and is doesn’t know what to make of it. The threats that the IC perceives, are they real threats or is this just in the IC’s mind? And the things he’s going to do achieve security, or to ignore it, how much of that is based on the reality, and how much of it on wishful thinking?

Interesting how well that works, at least in the case of this quad and this throughline.

#3

I’m going through the same quad right now for Relationship Story Act 2.

My process is much more minimalist though – I usually look at the quad and get a strong sense that the whole quad “feels right” for this part of the story. But I usually have absolutely no idea what each item’s illustration is. So I just kind of shrug and keep writing.

Then during or after writing a scene it will hit me what the PSR item is. In this case, Fact was the simple fact that there really is a relationship here, that they really do have that Pet/Owner bond, and it brings them closer together. But I only realized after that cropped up in the scene. Here’s my RS Act 2 from Subtext:

image.png766×292 17.3 KB

Now, I was planning ahead a bit and I think I know what the Security and Threat are now (trying to keep each other safe, the relationship becomes threatened by what must be done, while the strength of their bond also poses a threat to the antagonist).

I still have no idea what the Fantasy part is although the random gist from Subtext about hallucinations feels totally right, it may end up being exactly that.

1 Like
#4

I hear you.

I have a very particular way of learning things, and it seems to be, after many years of doing it, the only way I can learn things–to go into the details, internalize it all, don’t use it until I’ve lifted every rock and looked under it. I suspect I have a learning disability. The way this turns out over the long run is that I get to the place you’re talking about - it’s all so internalized that I don’t need to do that process any more. I get less done, initially, but then it often turns out I have internal resources that others who haven’t done the work don’t have. Will that turn out to be true with Dramatica? Beats me. Maybe.

I’m pretty much there, but I’ve had to take every step through the theory to get here. We all do things differently. The last two days I’ve been freewheeling it with Jim’s app, and relaxing into my story a bit. I’ve exhausted my theory yen for awhile.

I see now the wisdom of the Way of Jim, but only because I handled every spice in the kitchen.

2 Likes
#5

by the way, I like your illustration very much. well done.

2 Likes
#6

Yeah, definitely do what works for you. I’ve just found the “actual writing” (first draft words) to be so much harder than planning, so I do whatever I can to make that process easier. For me an important part of that is not to plan too much, so that the process of drafting includes a lot of discovery.

I’ve also found that, generally, my subconscious gets Dramatica and story structure better than I do. So using Dramatica is still crucially important but it’s more about aligning my conscious ideas of what my story is, to what my muse/subconscious/right brain is coming up with. And also about figuring out any blind spots.

One blind spot for me is often the Antagonist(s). I might have just as much written down and planned for them, but I don’t quite grok them or know their actual plans or motivations. Everything tends to feel kind of vague. But once I know the storyform (for my current story it wasn’t until I was nearly done Act 1), I can use the OS Problem, Issue, Concern and Domain to figure out what’s really driving them. Especially the OS Problem – that helps a lot.

1 Like
#7

The writing is easy for me. The planning is hard.

And I don’t find my subconscious gets Dramatica until my conscious does.

2 Likes
#8

Ah! So it makes sense that we would have very different processes, since we’re practically polar opposites there!

1 Like