An article I wrote on October 26, 1993 explaining our early work on Dramatica Theory
What is Dramatica -- REALLY!!
All self aware minds work in the same patterns. They have the same points of view and understandings available to them. Personal experiences put different input to those points of view creating different values to the understandings. So minds don't differ in their operating system, only in the software that is running on it.
Dramatica has mapped out this intrinsic operating system using fractal patterns, non-linear equations, chaos theory, as well as new means of appreciating systems that are unique to Dramatica. When views with these tools, the reason for Characters, Themes, Plots, Acts and Scenes becomes clear: they all represent nodal points in the spatial and temporal processing of the Story Mind. The specific story that is being told is the software that is loaded into the Story Mind's operating system.
Dramatica allows an author to set values in the Story MInd - values that create justification and inequities. The unfolding of a story is the path by which the Story Mind attempts to rid itself of inequities and shake itself free of justifications. Sometimes the Story Mind can accomplish this and sometimes not. All the specifics are interrelated so that a change in Character (representing a point of view of the Story Mind) will have an effect upon the plot (representing a methodology of the Story Mind).
When all is said and done, Dramatica allows an author to document a single problem or inequity completely and move an audience to understand the impact and outcome of such an imbalance.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Main Character by Class
From 1993, and article about our early concepts in Dramatica:
Understanding the intrinsic nature of Main Characters by Class is much different than understanding a storyline by class. In storylines, Universe Class represents a situation, Mind Class a fixed attitude, Physics Class and activity, Psychology Class a manner of thinking. These four views describe two major sources of difficulties that will be created in the story: Internal or External. Both of these categories can be further divided into a state and a process. Mind Class is an internal state. Psychology Class an internal process. Universe is an external state, Physics an external process.
However, when we are considering a Main Character's Class, rather than that of a storyline, the categories are a bit different. Mind and Psychology still refer to the character's internal state and process, but Universe and Physics refer to her body.
From this perspective, a Physics Class Main Character is physically active, such as in Rambo, Flashdance, or Robin Hood. A Universe Class Main Character is one with a steady body state. We see this kind of character in the Elephant Man, My Left Foot, Ghost, or Dumbo.
A Universe Main Character is bombarded by pressures to succumb to the limitations of their body's attributes. Body limitations does not mean they have less ability for, as we see in Dumbo, there is plenty of ability to fly. The real issue is one of physical self worth, and the change/steadfast issue revolves around the decision to accept one's bodily limitations and cease trying to achieve a thing of difficulty or to continue to strive to overcome them.
Either decision can be correct, depending upon the author's point of view. For example, in Johnny Got His Gun, a young soldier wakes up to find he has lost his arms and legs and cannot move. He is utterly helpless. He ponders giving in to this terrible fate and drifting off into non-awareness. Ultimately he determines to hold on so that he might be able to help prevent future wars by showing the horror of what was done to him. He finds a way to communicate by blinking his eyes. After months of struggling to get through, he remains steadfast until a nurse catches on. He is then able to talk to the generals and express his wishes. They hob nob and decided that their positions would be threatened by his public appearance so the put his room off limits and leave him there to be cared for, but denied public visitation for the remainder of his life. This is a Universe Class Main Character, Steadfast, Success, Bad story.
Understanding the intrinsic nature of Main Characters by Class is much different than understanding a storyline by class. In storylines, Universe Class represents a situation, Mind Class a fixed attitude, Physics Class and activity, Psychology Class a manner of thinking. These four views describe two major sources of difficulties that will be created in the story: Internal or External. Both of these categories can be further divided into a state and a process. Mind Class is an internal state. Psychology Class an internal process. Universe is an external state, Physics an external process.
However, when we are considering a Main Character's Class, rather than that of a storyline, the categories are a bit different. Mind and Psychology still refer to the character's internal state and process, but Universe and Physics refer to her body.
From this perspective, a Physics Class Main Character is physically active, such as in Rambo, Flashdance, or Robin Hood. A Universe Class Main Character is one with a steady body state. We see this kind of character in the Elephant Man, My Left Foot, Ghost, or Dumbo.
A Universe Main Character is bombarded by pressures to succumb to the limitations of their body's attributes. Body limitations does not mean they have less ability for, as we see in Dumbo, there is plenty of ability to fly. The real issue is one of physical self worth, and the change/steadfast issue revolves around the decision to accept one's bodily limitations and cease trying to achieve a thing of difficulty or to continue to strive to overcome them.
Either decision can be correct, depending upon the author's point of view. For example, in Johnny Got His Gun, a young soldier wakes up to find he has lost his arms and legs and cannot move. He is utterly helpless. He ponders giving in to this terrible fate and drifting off into non-awareness. Ultimately he determines to hold on so that he might be able to help prevent future wars by showing the horror of what was done to him. He finds a way to communicate by blinking his eyes. After months of struggling to get through, he remains steadfast until a nurse catches on. He is then able to talk to the generals and express his wishes. They hob nob and decided that their positions would be threatened by his public appearance so the put his room off limits and leave him there to be cared for, but denied public visitation for the remainder of his life. This is a Universe Class Main Character, Steadfast, Success, Bad story.
Sub Plots
An early Dramatica article from October 23, 1993
How do Subplots work?
Subplots are miniature stories in their own right with one important difference: the Main Character of each subplot is also a character in the Main Plot, but is never the Main Character. There reasons for this are simple. Stories provide an audience with a subjective view of the problem through the eyes of a Main Character. They also provide an objective view through the eyes of the author. If a Main Character of a story had a subplot attached to them they would have two subjective views: one for each plot. As a result the two views would overlap each other obscuring the message of the story.
The uses of subplots are many, but all revolve around one consideration: the author wants to explore some aspect of the main story in more detail that would prove interesting. To overcome this constraint, an author can create a mini-story revolving around a character in the main story that resides in the area of interest. In this manner, new dramatic tensions can be created that will sustain interest while the author explore.
Subplots can also be used to maneuver a character into a new understanding so a necessary function they must fill in the main plot will not appear to come out of left field.
How do Subplots work?
Subplots are miniature stories in their own right with one important difference: the Main Character of each subplot is also a character in the Main Plot, but is never the Main Character. There reasons for this are simple. Stories provide an audience with a subjective view of the problem through the eyes of a Main Character. They also provide an objective view through the eyes of the author. If a Main Character of a story had a subplot attached to them they would have two subjective views: one for each plot. As a result the two views would overlap each other obscuring the message of the story.
The uses of subplots are many, but all revolve around one consideration: the author wants to explore some aspect of the main story in more detail that would prove interesting. To overcome this constraint, an author can create a mini-story revolving around a character in the main story that resides in the area of interest. In this manner, new dramatic tensions can be created that will sustain interest while the author explore.
Subplots can also be used to maneuver a character into a new understanding so a necessary function they must fill in the main plot will not appear to come out of left field.
WORDSMITH
One of our earliest attempts to share what we had learned about story theory. This was before we ever considered turning our theories into story development software. When Wordsmith was written, we intended simply to publish a book on the subject. Unlike the eventual book, "Dramatica - A New Theory of Story", Worsmith is a much more conversational work, rather than an academic textbook approach used in Dramatica.
WORDSMITH
(A tool for writing)
He wanted to write a story. But he was confused. Sure, he had ideas: settings, characters, even entire scenes that had just sprung up in moments of inspiration. But he also had big blank areas between the ideas, and no idea how to fill them in.
Where should he begin? How should he organize his story. For that matter, should he organize at all or just jump right in? Being the sort who looks before he leaps, and not wanting to waste time stumbling in the dark, he decided to do some research.
His name was John.
Now, John checked the libraries and bookstores; he subscribed to magazines and periodicals. He took seminars and watched movies and TV. He came away more confused than ever. THIS authority said to do THIS. And THAT authority said to do THAT. But THIS and THAT often disagreed. What was worse, the both seemed to work some of the time. And even worse: most of the time they didn't (at least not completely).
So John, being the sort who doesn't give up, decided to visit other successful writers and see how THEY did it.
His first visit was with a very prolific author who never outlined anything in advance. This fellow just hammered away at the keyboard letting one thought create the next in a never ending chain of thought until THE END. But when John went home to try it himself, he found that his work came out directionless. And although the words were pretty and the scenes grand, his characters wandered about aimlessly, or at best just went along for the ride.
So he visited another successful writer. And this author spent a full year researching and outlining until he knew what every paragraph would be before he wrote a word. But when John tried it, his work lost spontineity and came out dry and lifeless.
He gave the "visit" scheme one more try. This author used a formula for everything he wrote. He simply plugged in his ideas until he had a complete story, then merely expanded them into a finished work. "Wow!", thought John. But, alas, when John tried it, everything came out looking the same, time after time.
He had nearly given up and gone to work for the phone company when a flyer appeared in his mail. It read: "Story problems? Learn the Science of Story Structure from Professor Wordsmith." Included were an address and business hours.
John knocked on the Professor's door. A kindly old man with the firey eyes of a sage greeted John, identifying himself as the Professor in question and invited him in. Unlike the working space of the authors he had visited before, Wordsmith's facility was a modern scientific laboratory, and although devoid of clutter, was filled with a plethora of odd objects in endless variety. "Inspiration!", smiled the Professor, anticipating John's question. Along the back wall were three doorways labelled, "Motivation Room", "Supply Room", and "Play Room". But before John could comment, the Professor rambled on.
"So you want to know about story structure, right? And you want to know why I think I have discovered the end-all system, right? And you want me to prove it to you, right? And then you want to know how to use it yourself, RIGHT?" John could only nod.
"Then let's begin.", he began. "In the past, most systems for understanding stories used INDUCTIVE logic. That is, they analyzed existing works looking for patterns. Then they "boiled down" what they found into rules or laws. Problem is: if you start with "4", how can you tell if it was created by 2 + 2, 2 x 2, 1 + 3, 20/5 or what? You can't! That's why inductive analysis has failed to offer complete explanations of all story situations. Further, it is almost impossible to create a story from scratch using techniques that are geared toward breaking complete works into their component parts."
The professor smiled wryly. HIS system, he explained, relyed on DEDUCTIVE logic. That is, he started from an understanding of where a story "grows" from and combines the elements to arrive at a finished product. The Science of Story Structure, therefore, is a most useful tool in not only analysing existing works, but in creating new ones as well.
But where does a story grow from, wondered John. But before he could pose the question, the professor answered it: Story grows from the mind. The mind trying to solve a problem. We can "reason" our way to a solution, or act solely on our "feelings" about it. We can "accept" pondering the problem, or "ignore" it. That's ALL we can do. No matter what the problem is, there are ONLY THESE FOUR APPROACHES to solving it.
But we are faced with two types of problems in life. Those of the mind, and those of the body. One is posed in the inner world, the other in the physical world around us. But ONLY THESE FOUR APPROACHES exist for us to solve either.
Now the problem of the inner plane is a "moral dilemma". Not to be mistaken as a religious issue, but rather question of basic right or wrong. And the problem of the phyical plane is a question of expediency. Meaning, "What is the best way to accomplish my goal(s)?"
Primary characters represent these four approaches. In the most simple stories each of the primary characters represents one of these four approaches and uses it for both the moral dilemma and the physical quest. In complex stories, as we shall later see, characters may represent more than one of these approaches, or a different one for the moral choice than on the pysical question, or only one for the moral choice, and none for the physical, ad nauseum.
The point being, that once you understand the FOUR APPROACHES, you can mix and match in almost limitless variety to create virtually any story you desire. Hence, we have the "Motivation Room" that contains the "Character Generator", where you make these decisions of combination.
But characters alone have nothing to due, much as pure energy cannot act without something physical to be applied to. So the second room, is the "Supply Room". This is the "plot" room where we pull from an infinite inventory the materials we wish our characters to employ. These materials may be vocations, interpersonal relationships, setting, time, talent, knowledge, posessions... In short, any ability, knowledge, situation, or object that a character can move, manipulate or employ.
But where do they do this? In the "Play Room". This is the "Story" room where it is all put into motion. You see, just as energy cannot accomplish anything without materials to act upon; materials without energy remain motionless. But when you apply characters to plot, story happens.
Of course, play must occur on a playing field. And the exact dimensions and nature of that field are wholly up to the author. Further, the materials from the supply room may be added or removed from the "Play Room" at any time during the story. This room may have objects bolted to the floor that serve as obstacles, or pitfalls, that may or may not be hidden to the characters. And both obstacles and pitfalls may be moved, removed, or changed in nature throughout the play at the whim of the author.
The essential point to remember is: Once you have established a playing field, filled with materials, manipulated by characters, the success of your story depends upon your ability to "call the game".
"But that is just the surface explanation!", the Professor continued. "To learn how to use this system to create your own stories you must examine each concept at it's most elemental level, then combine these basics into the next level of complexity... You wanna learn?", he demanded. John nodded the afirmative, and the Professor threw open the door to the "Motivation Room", motioning John inside...
A bright glow radiated from the beaconing door, but the professor was prepared, handing John a pair of darkened safety glasses and donning a pair himself. "Put these on.", he explained. "This room contains the energy that runs the story machine, much as a nuclear reactor creates the electricty to do physical work."
As his eyes adjusted, John could see that the walls were featureless except for a set of shelves containing four brilliant crystaline cylinders from which burst the intense light. One glowed blue, one red, another yellow, and the last a pure white. John turned to see that the center of the room was dominated by a large machine possessed of four slots, obviously designed to hold the cylinders, and a single fiber-optics line running from the machine through a hole in the wall to the Play Room.
"These", the Professor exlpained, "are the FOUR APPROACHES to solving problems in the "Moral Plane". The blue one is "Reason". A Character driven by reason will approach the moral dilemma with logic and attempt to "figure out" a solution. Similarly, the red cylinder is "Emotion". Obviously, this character lets his feelings soley determine his conclusion on the Moral Plane, even if he flies in the face of logic. Yellow is the color of the Character called "Denial", who won't even consider the moral issue, pretending to be unaware of it, or simply denying it is an issue at all."
"What about the White one?", John inquired. "Ah!", the Professor's voice took on a reverential quality. "The White resepticle contains "Acceptance". This is the Character who accepts the burden of considering the moral question and acts as moderator to the debate. He is colorless in purity, not only because he must consider the other three moral approaches and therefore their primary colors combine into white, but also because he is neutral in his approach until he finally makes the moral decision. It is only this "pure" Character who can make the final, decisive choice."
"Give me a minute!", John stammered, his head reeling.
"Read the One Minute Manager!", retorted the Professor, not unkindly.
"Now, if the only decisions to be made in a story were "moral" ones, this would be enough. But the "real" world intrudes on this simplicity. In story as in life, physical existence demands its due, as neither mind nor meat can survie without the other. So, "plot" decisions occur at every turn, and each must be handled before the story can continue.
"These Four Approaches each have a plot equivalent. Although not identical, these Plot Approaches act in similar manners to their moral kin.
WORDSMITH
(A tool for writing)
He wanted to write a story. But he was confused. Sure, he had ideas: settings, characters, even entire scenes that had just sprung up in moments of inspiration. But he also had big blank areas between the ideas, and no idea how to fill them in.
Where should he begin? How should he organize his story. For that matter, should he organize at all or just jump right in? Being the sort who looks before he leaps, and not wanting to waste time stumbling in the dark, he decided to do some research.
His name was John.
Now, John checked the libraries and bookstores; he subscribed to magazines and periodicals. He took seminars and watched movies and TV. He came away more confused than ever. THIS authority said to do THIS. And THAT authority said to do THAT. But THIS and THAT often disagreed. What was worse, the both seemed to work some of the time. And even worse: most of the time they didn't (at least not completely).
So John, being the sort who doesn't give up, decided to visit other successful writers and see how THEY did it.
His first visit was with a very prolific author who never outlined anything in advance. This fellow just hammered away at the keyboard letting one thought create the next in a never ending chain of thought until THE END. But when John went home to try it himself, he found that his work came out directionless. And although the words were pretty and the scenes grand, his characters wandered about aimlessly, or at best just went along for the ride.
So he visited another successful writer. And this author spent a full year researching and outlining until he knew what every paragraph would be before he wrote a word. But when John tried it, his work lost spontineity and came out dry and lifeless.
He gave the "visit" scheme one more try. This author used a formula for everything he wrote. He simply plugged in his ideas until he had a complete story, then merely expanded them into a finished work. "Wow!", thought John. But, alas, when John tried it, everything came out looking the same, time after time.
He had nearly given up and gone to work for the phone company when a flyer appeared in his mail. It read: "Story problems? Learn the Science of Story Structure from Professor Wordsmith." Included were an address and business hours.
John knocked on the Professor's door. A kindly old man with the firey eyes of a sage greeted John, identifying himself as the Professor in question and invited him in. Unlike the working space of the authors he had visited before, Wordsmith's facility was a modern scientific laboratory, and although devoid of clutter, was filled with a plethora of odd objects in endless variety. "Inspiration!", smiled the Professor, anticipating John's question. Along the back wall were three doorways labelled, "Motivation Room", "Supply Room", and "Play Room". But before John could comment, the Professor rambled on.
"So you want to know about story structure, right? And you want to know why I think I have discovered the end-all system, right? And you want me to prove it to you, right? And then you want to know how to use it yourself, RIGHT?" John could only nod.
"Then let's begin.", he began. "In the past, most systems for understanding stories used INDUCTIVE logic. That is, they analyzed existing works looking for patterns. Then they "boiled down" what they found into rules or laws. Problem is: if you start with "4", how can you tell if it was created by 2 + 2, 2 x 2, 1 + 3, 20/5 or what? You can't! That's why inductive analysis has failed to offer complete explanations of all story situations. Further, it is almost impossible to create a story from scratch using techniques that are geared toward breaking complete works into their component parts."
The professor smiled wryly. HIS system, he explained, relyed on DEDUCTIVE logic. That is, he started from an understanding of where a story "grows" from and combines the elements to arrive at a finished product. The Science of Story Structure, therefore, is a most useful tool in not only analysing existing works, but in creating new ones as well.
But where does a story grow from, wondered John. But before he could pose the question, the professor answered it: Story grows from the mind. The mind trying to solve a problem. We can "reason" our way to a solution, or act solely on our "feelings" about it. We can "accept" pondering the problem, or "ignore" it. That's ALL we can do. No matter what the problem is, there are ONLY THESE FOUR APPROACHES to solving it.
But we are faced with two types of problems in life. Those of the mind, and those of the body. One is posed in the inner world, the other in the physical world around us. But ONLY THESE FOUR APPROACHES exist for us to solve either.
Now the problem of the inner plane is a "moral dilemma". Not to be mistaken as a religious issue, but rather question of basic right or wrong. And the problem of the phyical plane is a question of expediency. Meaning, "What is the best way to accomplish my goal(s)?"
Primary characters represent these four approaches. In the most simple stories each of the primary characters represents one of these four approaches and uses it for both the moral dilemma and the physical quest. In complex stories, as we shall later see, characters may represent more than one of these approaches, or a different one for the moral choice than on the pysical question, or only one for the moral choice, and none for the physical, ad nauseum.
The point being, that once you understand the FOUR APPROACHES, you can mix and match in almost limitless variety to create virtually any story you desire. Hence, we have the "Motivation Room" that contains the "Character Generator", where you make these decisions of combination.
But characters alone have nothing to due, much as pure energy cannot act without something physical to be applied to. So the second room, is the "Supply Room". This is the "plot" room where we pull from an infinite inventory the materials we wish our characters to employ. These materials may be vocations, interpersonal relationships, setting, time, talent, knowledge, posessions... In short, any ability, knowledge, situation, or object that a character can move, manipulate or employ.
But where do they do this? In the "Play Room". This is the "Story" room where it is all put into motion. You see, just as energy cannot accomplish anything without materials to act upon; materials without energy remain motionless. But when you apply characters to plot, story happens.
Of course, play must occur on a playing field. And the exact dimensions and nature of that field are wholly up to the author. Further, the materials from the supply room may be added or removed from the "Play Room" at any time during the story. This room may have objects bolted to the floor that serve as obstacles, or pitfalls, that may or may not be hidden to the characters. And both obstacles and pitfalls may be moved, removed, or changed in nature throughout the play at the whim of the author.
The essential point to remember is: Once you have established a playing field, filled with materials, manipulated by characters, the success of your story depends upon your ability to "call the game".
"But that is just the surface explanation!", the Professor continued. "To learn how to use this system to create your own stories you must examine each concept at it's most elemental level, then combine these basics into the next level of complexity... You wanna learn?", he demanded. John nodded the afirmative, and the Professor threw open the door to the "Motivation Room", motioning John inside...
A bright glow radiated from the beaconing door, but the professor was prepared, handing John a pair of darkened safety glasses and donning a pair himself. "Put these on.", he explained. "This room contains the energy that runs the story machine, much as a nuclear reactor creates the electricty to do physical work."
As his eyes adjusted, John could see that the walls were featureless except for a set of shelves containing four brilliant crystaline cylinders from which burst the intense light. One glowed blue, one red, another yellow, and the last a pure white. John turned to see that the center of the room was dominated by a large machine possessed of four slots, obviously designed to hold the cylinders, and a single fiber-optics line running from the machine through a hole in the wall to the Play Room.
"These", the Professor exlpained, "are the FOUR APPROACHES to solving problems in the "Moral Plane". The blue one is "Reason". A Character driven by reason will approach the moral dilemma with logic and attempt to "figure out" a solution. Similarly, the red cylinder is "Emotion". Obviously, this character lets his feelings soley determine his conclusion on the Moral Plane, even if he flies in the face of logic. Yellow is the color of the Character called "Denial", who won't even consider the moral issue, pretending to be unaware of it, or simply denying it is an issue at all."
"What about the White one?", John inquired. "Ah!", the Professor's voice took on a reverential quality. "The White resepticle contains "Acceptance". This is the Character who accepts the burden of considering the moral question and acts as moderator to the debate. He is colorless in purity, not only because he must consider the other three moral approaches and therefore their primary colors combine into white, but also because he is neutral in his approach until he finally makes the moral decision. It is only this "pure" Character who can make the final, decisive choice."
"Give me a minute!", John stammered, his head reeling.
"Read the One Minute Manager!", retorted the Professor, not unkindly.
"Now, if the only decisions to be made in a story were "moral" ones, this would be enough. But the "real" world intrudes on this simplicity. In story as in life, physical existence demands its due, as neither mind nor meat can survie without the other. So, "plot" decisions occur at every turn, and each must be handled before the story can continue.
"These Four Approaches each have a plot equivalent. Although not identical, these Plot Approaches act in similar manners to their moral kin.
Can / Need
Some notes from our early development of the Dramatica theory of story. Probably written around 1991:
CAN/NEED
GOAL -- WANTS TO BE HAPPY
* Begins in a negative state of being. "I am not happy. I don't know how to become happy, but I want to BE happy".
* Tries to resolve "unhappiness". Looks inside of self for answer but cannot find it. "What can I DO to become happy? I don't know what to do to become happy".
* Looks outside of self for answer. "Let me look at others who are happy. If I become what they ARE, I too will BE happy".
(NOTE: This is the first level of Justification. They are looking at what they DO, not what they ARE. To BE is a state of being, not reachable by DOing. However, the PROOF is preceived as the reactions of others to ones deeds and since a can/need person is unable to measure BEing in any other terms, it is as good a place to start as any.)
* Decides on a course of action. "If I DO what they are doing, I will BE what they ARE". Specifically, "What do I NEED to do to do what they are doing", or, "I NEED to do what they did to BECOME what they ARE".
* Something occurs (or is) that threatens to worsen their situation and/or condition if they proceed on the course of action.
POTENTIAL DILEMMA
* If risk to situation and/or condition is perceived to be minimal they may decide to go for it and actual dilemma is averted.
* If risk to situation and/or condition is perceived to be greater than the potential of achieving the goal, they will find a way to try and have both by trying to NEGOTIATE their situation. "I'll give you fifty cents on Tuesday for a hamburger today".
"I will DO something that will eventually let me DO what I NEED TO DO so that I CAN BECOME what I NEED TO BECOME to BE HAPPY without worsening my current situation and/or condition".
* The "I will DO something" is a limited term OBLIGATION. The first justification is their belief in the NEED to do it before proceeding with their own goal. It can be argued that they subconsciously know that it is actually buying them time to better understand their own goal. The second justification is their perception that they are UNIQUELY ABLE to fulfill the OBLIGATION.
CAN/NEED
GOAL -- WANTS TO BE HAPPY
* Begins in a negative state of being. "I am not happy. I don't know how to become happy, but I want to BE happy".
* Tries to resolve "unhappiness". Looks inside of self for answer but cannot find it. "What can I DO to become happy? I don't know what to do to become happy".
* Looks outside of self for answer. "Let me look at others who are happy. If I become what they ARE, I too will BE happy".
(NOTE: This is the first level of Justification. They are looking at what they DO, not what they ARE. To BE is a state of being, not reachable by DOing. However, the PROOF is preceived as the reactions of others to ones deeds and since a can/need person is unable to measure BEing in any other terms, it is as good a place to start as any.)
* Decides on a course of action. "If I DO what they are doing, I will BE what they ARE". Specifically, "What do I NEED to do to do what they are doing", or, "I NEED to do what they did to BECOME what they ARE".
* Something occurs (or is) that threatens to worsen their situation and/or condition if they proceed on the course of action.
POTENTIAL DILEMMA
* If risk to situation and/or condition is perceived to be minimal they may decide to go for it and actual dilemma is averted.
* If risk to situation and/or condition is perceived to be greater than the potential of achieving the goal, they will find a way to try and have both by trying to NEGOTIATE their situation. "I'll give you fifty cents on Tuesday for a hamburger today".
"I will DO something that will eventually let me DO what I NEED TO DO so that I CAN BECOME what I NEED TO BECOME to BE HAPPY without worsening my current situation and/or condition".
* The "I will DO something" is a limited term OBLIGATION. The first justification is their belief in the NEED to do it before proceeding with their own goal. It can be argued that they subconsciously know that it is actually buying them time to better understand their own goal. The second justification is their perception that they are UNIQUELY ABLE to fulfill the OBLIGATION.
Story
Extended version of one of our first attempts to organize our work on story structure theory. Though undated, I probably wrote this some time in 1991.
Here 'tis.....
Contagonist. A word you've probably never heard. But it was the starting point to our discovery of a new system of story analysis and construction nearly ten years ago.
We had a script that didn't work. Try as we might, we couldn't figure out why. So, we decided to look to other similar screenplays for inspiration. We wondered if there were certain plot devices, rythms, patterns, and characters that appeared in all fulfilling screenplays of a similar basic nature to our own. If we could find the same thing in most of them, we should use it too. But at this stage we didn't even know if there were any aspects at all that were alike from one successful story to another, or if you really did have to write by the seat of your pants.
As we analyzized these other scripts, certain patterns began to emerge. Patterns of conflict, patterns of dramatic tension, patterns of structure and character. In fact, in simple adventure stories such as ours, many of the same character types kept reappearing, almost as if there were a limited number of types to deal with. Indeed, there were fewer than one dozen different characters we cataloged at that most naive stage of exploration.
There were the obvious two: A Protagonist (the hero) and an Antagonist (the villian). But everything from Star Wars to The Wizard of Oz to Jaws seemed to have one character that tried to reason his way out of problems, and another that responded primarily by emotion, almost with disregard to logic. There was also a Skeptical character that kept complaining and whining that they could never succeed. All he wanted to do was surrender or retreat, or not even admit there was a problem.
Of course, the Sidekick was around, but looked to us like just a plot device for the Protagonist to express his thoughts to, and an achiles heel to be used by the villian against the hero.
Every night for weeks we would get together or talk on the phone, and each time, we made what we felt was an incredible discovery. Then the next night, we would find problems with our Divine Inspiration only to make another discovery that built on the first one, making us feel Divinely Inspired until that brilliant concept fell the next night.
Eventually, we'd drop the whole effort for years at a time, then dabble at it, find new tools and new perspectives, hit a brick wall and put it back in the box for another day. This went on for nearly ten years until we got serious. One day, over breakfast, we realized the time was right. Suddenly, we both wanted to finish the bastard up and get the monkey off our backs once and for all.
Was there anything to this or not? Could a system actually be developed that would allow a writer to structure a story from scratch without becomming formula? Were there even any underlying principles at all to the art and craft of writing?
Okay, so we dusted off our file folders, fished our scraps of notes out of the shoebox and tackled the project in earnest. Once again we had daily inspirations, only to have them dashed and rebuilt the next day. But, strangely, it wasn't so much like blasting each previous days work, but more like rising to a new level and seeing the same thing from a different and more encompassing perspective.
And that is the way we're going to tell it to you. Because once we put the finishing touches on the system, everything, and we mean EVERYTHING had a place. Character, plot, motivation, moral decision, what have you. BUT!!!
You can't see the forest for the trees. The perspective that makes sense of story is alien to our normal way of thinking. This is because the concepts that govern story are derived from the way we think, and until we learn, STEP BY STEP how stories and character parallel our own minds, we cannot see the patterns for they are too much like ourselves.
So we're going to describe the way we came to discover the Overview. In essence, we're going to rediscover it with you. First, making startling revelations, only to discover the exceptions. But TRUST US! When we have arrived at the summit, THERE WILL BE NO EXCEPTIONS. Once you have scaled the Overview, ALL ASPECTS OF STORY STRUCTURE WILL BE SIMPLE AND CLEAR TO YOU.
So strap on your backpack and join us as we retrace the steps that led us to the Overview of Story Structure.
When we dusted off the files, we recalled that we had discovered two other common, almost essential characters. One was a helper or teacher who pulled the Protagonist out of scrapes and offered moral guidance.
But there was one other character that didn't quite fit any molds we'd been taught to cast characters with. This guy seemed to ve a villian, yet he was not the Antagonist. He might speak against a course of action, yet was not the Skeptic. He was a repugnant character in some stories, an admirable character in others, and could be associated with either the Antagonist or Protagonist. What kind of a character was this? He was Darth Vader and the Mayor in Jaws. He is Burke in Aliens, Belloq in Raiders and the Wizard in Oz. We were confused as blazes. The only thing he ALWAYS did in each and every case, was hinder the Protagonist. So we called him the Contagonist.
Now these are the characters we ended up with that kept showing up in all kinds of stories (we shall use simple adventure stories as examples for now as this most basic set of characters was derived from that genre).
The Protagonist: Luke Skywalker, Chief Brody, Indiana Jones. All easy to see, all simple to understand.
The Antagonist: The Shark, the Aliens, the Nazis.
The Emotional: Chewbaca, the Tin Man, Quint.
The Intellectual: Leia, Hooper (Dreyfus in Jaws), and the Scarecrow (yes, intellectual -- think about it!)
Skeptic: Han Solo, the Cowardly Lion.
Sidekick: C3PO, Toto, Newt (to Ripley in Aliens).
Teacher/helper: Glinda, Obi Wan.
Contagonist: Burke (in Aliens), Belloq, the Mayor (in Jaws), the Wizard, Darth Vader.
Okay, you get the idea. But we wanted to know if these characters are related. Yep. They're opposites and they all come in pairs.
Darth Vader is Balanced by Obi Wan, Lukes faith is balanced by Han's lack thereof. Quint's emotionalism is balanced by Hooper's Reason. The Antagonist is the Problem and the Sidekick holds the solution.
Now this was news. We always thought the Protagonist was balanced by the Antagonist. Not so. The Antagonist is the Problem. The Protagonist wants to solve it, the Skeptic wants to avoid it.
Things were shaping up nicely here. We had a pattern and it looked an awful lot like a morality play. Not religious morality, but the "good vs. evil" type thing. And this is what it looked like:
First diagram of simple characters goes here.
So what have we got? We've got a prolem represented by the Antagonist. The Protagonist (or Faithful character) wants to solve the problem; the Skeptic wants to run away. One character tries to reason a solution and his opposite responds without thinking. The whole process is swayed by the Contagonist ( representing temptation) who hinders the Protagonist and by the Guardian (representing moral conscience) who protects and aids him.
Next step: Each of these characters represents an aspect of the human mind in dealing with a problem. When a problem (Antagonist) appears, our will to overcome it (Protagonist) wishes to move forward toward a solution, but is held back by the fear of failure (Skeptic). We have feelings about how we want it solved (Emotion) and logic about the most efficacious way to solve it (Reason). We are swayed by the temptation to take the immoral but "easy" way out (Contagonist) and urged to do what is "right" by our conscience (Guardian).
Very definately: a morality play.
As we looked at the chart it became clear that there is not a single Protagonist, but rather, a Protagonistic Group. The Faithful, Skeptical, Emotional, and Intellectual represent aspects of a SINGLE MIND in dealing with a problem and move (in spite of interal conflict) as a team. Luke and Han and Chewy and Leia, Dorothy and Lion, and Tin Man and Scarecrow. Quint and Hooper and Brody and... and... And the characters are so easy to understand. But... what about the skeptic in Jaws? Who was that? What a devestating question. After all, if Brody is the Protagonist, who in the story was the skeptic? It wasn't Quint: he wanted to kill the shark. It wasn't Hooper: he wanted to kill the shark. It wasn't the Mayor: he wanted the shark problem to go away, but hindered Brody. He was the Contagonist. But... Brody was afraid of the water. And Brody said "You gotta get a bigger boat". Brody was both Protagonist AND skeptic.
Next step: Character types can be combined into a single indivdual. The strongest internal conflict is to combine opposites. This tears the poor Protagonist apart, until he succombs to or overcomes his own foreboding. Suddenly a whole new world of slightly more complex characters opened up: the self doubting hero who accepts the responsibility of the quest while doubting the success of the venture. But the nice thing was, he could be analyzed, designed and built to exact specifications because we knew what was going on in his head.
Previously for us, writing for this type of character was confusing and frustrating. But now, we could see much more clearly what drove him and therefore our heros could become more interesting, human, and three dimensional. The one caution was never to lose sight of the dual nature of this character. He must be consitant and true to both his motivations, which therefore must be clearly defined. Brody was faithful to his sense of duty, but skeptical due to his fear of water, but he was not wishy-washy about his drive to hire Quint and go after the shark. Similarly, he was not corageous, but terrified when he went out on the water.
Aha! Once aspect of his personality was plot oriented - what he had to do. And the other was motivational - how he felt. That is how he didn't get muddled. Each aspect operated in a different realm.
Next step: All characters operate on two levels, a Motivational Level and a Situational Level.
What do we mean by that? Well, we found that each character plays two roles. First he represents an approach to solving the "moral" problem on the internal or motivational level. Second, he represents an approach to solving a "plot" problem on the external or situational level. But wouldn't the approach be the same on both levels for a given character? In SIMPLE characters, they are. That, in fact, is exactly what MAKES them simple, by definition.
More precisely though, we discovered that the approaches on both the level of the mind and the level of the body were SIMILAR, not identical. Let's describe each simple character on both levels and see how the approaches differ.
The moral level represents the human mind trying to solve a mental dilemma; trying two choose between two ATTITUDES, one right, but difficult, one wrong, but easy. For example, in Jaws, Brody must decide whether or not to overcome his fear of the water, or succomb to it.
If he makes the "right" choice and conquers his fear, he MUST succeed at the plot level in defeating the shark or we, the audience would feel cheated. Making the proper moral choice is what makes a hero, and the hero MUST win once he has done so. (Remember we are talking about SIMPLE characters in adventure stories at the moment. Obviously, this is not true for more complex characters in other genres. Rest assured, we will address those as well STEP by STEP).
If the hero chooses incorrectly, he is hero no longer and MUST be defeated by the Antagonist for us, the audience, to feel fulfilled.
But notice here the connection between a moral choice and success in the plot. They are intimately bound up together. What happens when we separate them for analysis purposes?
The faithful character is made up of the moral aspect of accepting the burden of considering the moral dilemma. His opposite, the skeptic, refuses to consider the issue. Indeed, he may even deny the issue (or question) exists. Acceptance and Denial, the first moral pairing.
On the plot level, the faithful character Pursues the quest, while the Skeptic avoids it. Pursuit and Avoidance, the same characters paired on the plot level.
But note the subtle differences Acceptance is a condition, not a process like pursuit. Similarly, Denial is a condition, not a process like avoidance.
Now let us look at the Emotional. On the moral level, he approaches the dilemma with his feelings. On the plot level, he is FRENZIED. This creates the stereotypical character who reacts violently without thinking, common in simple stories. And the Intellectual. On the moral level he employs reason, but applies that reason on the plot level with calm and almost calous disregard for the "human" impact of his action, and is not influenced by how people feel about a situation. Again, a pairing of opposites on both levels. Feelings are not equal to Frenzy, and Reason is not equal to Calm, but they go hand in hand in simple characters in simple stories.
What about the Antagonist? Well, on the moral level, he causes the moral dilemma to exist. As long as he exists, he forces the Faithful (Accepting) character to consider the issue. And he cannot be defeated until the Faithful character makes his moral decision. Luke cannot destroy the deathstar until he turns off his computer and "trusts the force". Indiana Jones cannot defeat the nazis until he finally believes in the power of the arc "Close your eyes, Marianne; don't look at it!". Brody cannot defeat the shark until he overcomes his fear, "Smile, you son-of-a-bitch!".
Only AFTER the faithful character has made his moral decision can he face the Antagonist in the final showdown. Corollary: Once the moral decision has been made, the faithful character MUST face the Antagonist in a final showdown.
On the plot level, the Antagonist represents the external obstacle that must be overcome to achieve an external goal.
On the moral level problems must be solved. On the plot level obstacles must be overcome.
The Guardian at the moral level acts as Conscience and at the plot level to help.
The Contagonist at the moral level acts as a Tempter and at the plot level to hinder.
It took us a long time to see the subtle differences between characteristics on the two levels because we were looking only at simple characters. In that case, these characteristics match up with the most similar one from the other level. That is exactly why the characters ARE simple.
But once we realized that there were two levels, we wondered what would happen if you rotated one level in relation to the other, creating characters that possessed dissimilar attributes. What we discovered was that these "complex" characters explained just about every other character we could think of.
Mix and Match. Any one of the moral approaches can be matched with any one of the plot approaches to create a complex character.
First, we tried it among the four protagonistic group characters. For example: Suppose you match the moral approach of Feelings with the plot approach of Calm. You might end up with a much more interesting character who is driven to his decisions by his convictions, but institutes his plans methodically. His direct opposite might be a character who Reasons his way to solutions, but pursues his goals in a rampant, inefficient manner.
We found that any of the characteristics of the protagonistic group on one level could be matched to any characteristic on the other. And, of course, you could still combine characteristics on one level into a single character. In fact, they could all be placed in one character, just as they are in a real person. But this makes it difficult to see each aspect clearly, which defeats the purpose behind creating stories in the first place. Still, it was perfectly correct to do so, and explained alot of other characters we had encountered.
The main thing to remember is that each characteristic on each level MUST be represented somewhere, or the story is not as well rounded as it should be. That is to say that an aspect of the human mind in dealing with a problem will be missing and the point you, as author, are trying to make will not be as convincing. You will have left a hole in the complete pattern of proving your moral or situational point.
Once you start combining moral approaches with dissimilar plot approaches, characters become consistant, but unpredictable to the audience, and therefore much more interesting. The course of action such a character will embark upon, as well as his attitude stems to how that character perceives the weight of moral obligation to plot necessity. And which of these somewhat conflicting internal approaches will prevail shifts from scene to scene, situation to situation, as that balance changes or is perceived to change by that character.
Next, we tried swapping the Contagonist and Guardian on the two levels and found that, indeed, the Guardian could be the conscience on the moral level, but hinder the Protagonist at the plot level, especially if the Protagonist is trying to do something wrong. Similarly, the Contagonist could be temptation on the moral level, and HELP the Protagonist to achieve his incorrect goal. This made for much more interesting characters in these roles.
Now, our curiosity at full power, we tried mixing the role of conscience with Frenzy, or Calm or any of the others, and found that, once again, YES you can do it successfully, but it tends to make the visibility of the workings of each aspect less clear. Nevertheless, it can and does work, and explains many other complex characters.
The next logical step was to try putting only one aspect from one level in each character. This would require eight protagonistic group characters, two for each of the original simple characters, and two for Antagonist, Contagonist, and Guardian as well.
Again, YES you can do it. But it tends to simplify the characters so much, that they tend to appear unreal, and less than well rounded. But it is possible, and explains even more characters.
Now, let's look back. Stories reflect how the human mind deals with problems. Characters represent the approaches. There is a mental or motivational level and a physical or situational level. The mental level deals with morality, the physical level deals with plot. The moral level requires a decision to solve the problem; the plot level requires action to reach a goal. Simple characters combine the most similar aspects, one from each level. Complex characters combine dissimilar aspects, one from each level.
Now we felt we understood individual characters fairly well by themselves. By mixing and matching between the levels we could analyze virtually every character we came across. Better still, we could CREATE unpredicable, yet consistent characters, with a full understanding of their motivations, and a complete knowledge of what they would and would not do. Plus, we knew all the basic approaches that needed to be represented so there would be no holes in our We had it all wrapped up. Except we couldn't write a story from it.
We could design the most interesting and well-rounded characters, but we didn't know what to do with them. We could conceive of the most explosive combinations of traits, but had no clue how to employ them. Character motivation, no matter how well designed and understood, is only dramatic POTENTIAL It told us which characters might come into conflict, but not what that conflict would be. -- Frozen Potential.
The obvious finally occurred to us: Story is like a machine. It is a physical apparatus run by energy to accomplish a task. Without energy, the machine will not move. Without the physical gears and rotors, there is no way for the energy to accomplish anything. Only when energy is APPLIED to physical material is WORK done. In other words, for a current to flow, potential must be applied across a resistance.
Story is the current, Motivation is energy or potential, Situation is the machine or resistance.
Motivation told us WHY something might happen, but not WHAT (resistance/situation/plot) or HOW (current/action/story).
So where do you start? Anywhere you want! You can begin with anything at all that makes you want to tell a story and fill in the other blanks from the character structure. In a moment, we'll show you how. The point is: different authors get their inspirations in different ways. Even a single author may be inpsired by a person he knew or a period in history or a geographic location, ad nauseum.
Now here's the first beautiful thing: You can write about anything you want. outer space, the Civil War, homeless children, a man hen-pecked by an overbearing wife, a puppy trying to find his way home, whether it is better to do a sure thing for yourself or a chancey thing for others, a low-level government clerk who uncovers a plot to overthrow Zsa Zsa Gabor -- ANYTHING!! And note that we listed a mixed bag. Some items were plot, some a setting, some a character, moral dilemma, whatever.
But even in this wide open field, structure exists to guide us. Let's back track for a moment to "morality". Who exactly is it that decides what is moral? In real life, that role is ostensibly reserved for the Creator, and in Story, the role is the same.
The author decides what morality is in Story. That is the author's Point Of View. Without a point of view there is no way for the audience to know if the Protagonist makes the right choice or not.
Try to imagine writing a story without a point of view. Everything that happens, everything that is done, the actions of every character are neither good nor bad, they simple are. There are no villians, no heros, and no satifaction for the audience. It would be a dull story indeed!
And look at why you write stories in the first place. Do you want to make a statement that will lead to people taking action to stop a war? Do you want to document a migrant worker's courage. Do you want to share the joy of a special Christmas morning you had as a child. Do you simply want the audience to thrill to the exploits of a larger than life hero?
Fact is, no matter what inspired you to write a story in the first place, you always end up establishing a moral point of view that tells the audience how to feel about the characters and the situation.
We all know what theme is: point of view applied to situation. And now we all know what morality is: point of view applied to motivation.
Okay, so you've got your starting point and your point of view, which suggests your theme and your morality. All you need to get started is a plot goal. And again, a plot goal can be anything you want it to be. A priest might want to become a painter, a small child might want to find the parents who abandoned her, a general might want to overthrow a president -- ANTYTHING AT ALL!!
Let's take stock: Morality, Situation, Point Of View, Theme, Goal, Moral Decision, all of these are connected and interrelated. And once you have nailed them down and selected your characters, you have all the elements to begin telling a story.
So how do you nail them down? By design or by chance, it doesn't matter. You see, you could write a story about a priest who wants to find the parents that abandoned him or about a general who wants to be a painter. And they could be in outer space, or in the Civil War. It really doesn't matter. If you had no preference, you could put several hats on the floor, drop goals in one, themes in another, settings in another, etc., then draw one from each hat and have a complete story at your disposal. And we guarantee it would not be formulaic. All you would have to do is decide how you were going to mix and match the moral and plot character aspects and you could start writing. Of course, it would make a much more integrated story if the Theme, Moral Dilemma, Point of View, etc., were all related. THAT way, you could make a very strong statement to get your point of view across to the audience.
Now, you have all the elements you need to write a story. Great! Except there's still no clue as to what SCENES you need to create. And you sit there with all your characters and situations and settings and don't know what to do with them.
There is a solution.
Conflict. A very simple word, but essential to determining what scenes are needed in a story.
Here 'tis.....
Contagonist. A word you've probably never heard. But it was the starting point to our discovery of a new system of story analysis and construction nearly ten years ago.
We had a script that didn't work. Try as we might, we couldn't figure out why. So, we decided to look to other similar screenplays for inspiration. We wondered if there were certain plot devices, rythms, patterns, and characters that appeared in all fulfilling screenplays of a similar basic nature to our own. If we could find the same thing in most of them, we should use it too. But at this stage we didn't even know if there were any aspects at all that were alike from one successful story to another, or if you really did have to write by the seat of your pants.
As we analyzized these other scripts, certain patterns began to emerge. Patterns of conflict, patterns of dramatic tension, patterns of structure and character. In fact, in simple adventure stories such as ours, many of the same character types kept reappearing, almost as if there were a limited number of types to deal with. Indeed, there were fewer than one dozen different characters we cataloged at that most naive stage of exploration.
There were the obvious two: A Protagonist (the hero) and an Antagonist (the villian). But everything from Star Wars to The Wizard of Oz to Jaws seemed to have one character that tried to reason his way out of problems, and another that responded primarily by emotion, almost with disregard to logic. There was also a Skeptical character that kept complaining and whining that they could never succeed. All he wanted to do was surrender or retreat, or not even admit there was a problem.
Of course, the Sidekick was around, but looked to us like just a plot device for the Protagonist to express his thoughts to, and an achiles heel to be used by the villian against the hero.
Every night for weeks we would get together or talk on the phone, and each time, we made what we felt was an incredible discovery. Then the next night, we would find problems with our Divine Inspiration only to make another discovery that built on the first one, making us feel Divinely Inspired until that brilliant concept fell the next night.
Eventually, we'd drop the whole effort for years at a time, then dabble at it, find new tools and new perspectives, hit a brick wall and put it back in the box for another day. This went on for nearly ten years until we got serious. One day, over breakfast, we realized the time was right. Suddenly, we both wanted to finish the bastard up and get the monkey off our backs once and for all.
Was there anything to this or not? Could a system actually be developed that would allow a writer to structure a story from scratch without becomming formula? Were there even any underlying principles at all to the art and craft of writing?
Okay, so we dusted off our file folders, fished our scraps of notes out of the shoebox and tackled the project in earnest. Once again we had daily inspirations, only to have them dashed and rebuilt the next day. But, strangely, it wasn't so much like blasting each previous days work, but more like rising to a new level and seeing the same thing from a different and more encompassing perspective.
And that is the way we're going to tell it to you. Because once we put the finishing touches on the system, everything, and we mean EVERYTHING had a place. Character, plot, motivation, moral decision, what have you. BUT!!!
You can't see the forest for the trees. The perspective that makes sense of story is alien to our normal way of thinking. This is because the concepts that govern story are derived from the way we think, and until we learn, STEP BY STEP how stories and character parallel our own minds, we cannot see the patterns for they are too much like ourselves.
So we're going to describe the way we came to discover the Overview. In essence, we're going to rediscover it with you. First, making startling revelations, only to discover the exceptions. But TRUST US! When we have arrived at the summit, THERE WILL BE NO EXCEPTIONS. Once you have scaled the Overview, ALL ASPECTS OF STORY STRUCTURE WILL BE SIMPLE AND CLEAR TO YOU.
So strap on your backpack and join us as we retrace the steps that led us to the Overview of Story Structure.
When we dusted off the files, we recalled that we had discovered two other common, almost essential characters. One was a helper or teacher who pulled the Protagonist out of scrapes and offered moral guidance.
But there was one other character that didn't quite fit any molds we'd been taught to cast characters with. This guy seemed to ve a villian, yet he was not the Antagonist. He might speak against a course of action, yet was not the Skeptic. He was a repugnant character in some stories, an admirable character in others, and could be associated with either the Antagonist or Protagonist. What kind of a character was this? He was Darth Vader and the Mayor in Jaws. He is Burke in Aliens, Belloq in Raiders and the Wizard in Oz. We were confused as blazes. The only thing he ALWAYS did in each and every case, was hinder the Protagonist. So we called him the Contagonist.
Now these are the characters we ended up with that kept showing up in all kinds of stories (we shall use simple adventure stories as examples for now as this most basic set of characters was derived from that genre).
The Protagonist: Luke Skywalker, Chief Brody, Indiana Jones. All easy to see, all simple to understand.
The Antagonist: The Shark, the Aliens, the Nazis.
The Emotional: Chewbaca, the Tin Man, Quint.
The Intellectual: Leia, Hooper (Dreyfus in Jaws), and the Scarecrow (yes, intellectual -- think about it!)
Skeptic: Han Solo, the Cowardly Lion.
Sidekick: C3PO, Toto, Newt (to Ripley in Aliens).
Teacher/helper: Glinda, Obi Wan.
Contagonist: Burke (in Aliens), Belloq, the Mayor (in Jaws), the Wizard, Darth Vader.
Okay, you get the idea. But we wanted to know if these characters are related. Yep. They're opposites and they all come in pairs.
Darth Vader is Balanced by Obi Wan, Lukes faith is balanced by Han's lack thereof. Quint's emotionalism is balanced by Hooper's Reason. The Antagonist is the Problem and the Sidekick holds the solution.
Now this was news. We always thought the Protagonist was balanced by the Antagonist. Not so. The Antagonist is the Problem. The Protagonist wants to solve it, the Skeptic wants to avoid it.
Things were shaping up nicely here. We had a pattern and it looked an awful lot like a morality play. Not religious morality, but the "good vs. evil" type thing. And this is what it looked like:
First diagram of simple characters goes here.
So what have we got? We've got a prolem represented by the Antagonist. The Protagonist (or Faithful character) wants to solve the problem; the Skeptic wants to run away. One character tries to reason a solution and his opposite responds without thinking. The whole process is swayed by the Contagonist ( representing temptation) who hinders the Protagonist and by the Guardian (representing moral conscience) who protects and aids him.
Next step: Each of these characters represents an aspect of the human mind in dealing with a problem. When a problem (Antagonist) appears, our will to overcome it (Protagonist) wishes to move forward toward a solution, but is held back by the fear of failure (Skeptic). We have feelings about how we want it solved (Emotion) and logic about the most efficacious way to solve it (Reason). We are swayed by the temptation to take the immoral but "easy" way out (Contagonist) and urged to do what is "right" by our conscience (Guardian).
Very definately: a morality play.
As we looked at the chart it became clear that there is not a single Protagonist, but rather, a Protagonistic Group. The Faithful, Skeptical, Emotional, and Intellectual represent aspects of a SINGLE MIND in dealing with a problem and move (in spite of interal conflict) as a team. Luke and Han and Chewy and Leia, Dorothy and Lion, and Tin Man and Scarecrow. Quint and Hooper and Brody and... and... And the characters are so easy to understand. But... what about the skeptic in Jaws? Who was that? What a devestating question. After all, if Brody is the Protagonist, who in the story was the skeptic? It wasn't Quint: he wanted to kill the shark. It wasn't Hooper: he wanted to kill the shark. It wasn't the Mayor: he wanted the shark problem to go away, but hindered Brody. He was the Contagonist. But... Brody was afraid of the water. And Brody said "You gotta get a bigger boat". Brody was both Protagonist AND skeptic.
Next step: Character types can be combined into a single indivdual. The strongest internal conflict is to combine opposites. This tears the poor Protagonist apart, until he succombs to or overcomes his own foreboding. Suddenly a whole new world of slightly more complex characters opened up: the self doubting hero who accepts the responsibility of the quest while doubting the success of the venture. But the nice thing was, he could be analyzed, designed and built to exact specifications because we knew what was going on in his head.
Previously for us, writing for this type of character was confusing and frustrating. But now, we could see much more clearly what drove him and therefore our heros could become more interesting, human, and three dimensional. The one caution was never to lose sight of the dual nature of this character. He must be consitant and true to both his motivations, which therefore must be clearly defined. Brody was faithful to his sense of duty, but skeptical due to his fear of water, but he was not wishy-washy about his drive to hire Quint and go after the shark. Similarly, he was not corageous, but terrified when he went out on the water.
Aha! Once aspect of his personality was plot oriented - what he had to do. And the other was motivational - how he felt. That is how he didn't get muddled. Each aspect operated in a different realm.
Next step: All characters operate on two levels, a Motivational Level and a Situational Level.
What do we mean by that? Well, we found that each character plays two roles. First he represents an approach to solving the "moral" problem on the internal or motivational level. Second, he represents an approach to solving a "plot" problem on the external or situational level. But wouldn't the approach be the same on both levels for a given character? In SIMPLE characters, they are. That, in fact, is exactly what MAKES them simple, by definition.
More precisely though, we discovered that the approaches on both the level of the mind and the level of the body were SIMILAR, not identical. Let's describe each simple character on both levels and see how the approaches differ.
The moral level represents the human mind trying to solve a mental dilemma; trying two choose between two ATTITUDES, one right, but difficult, one wrong, but easy. For example, in Jaws, Brody must decide whether or not to overcome his fear of the water, or succomb to it.
If he makes the "right" choice and conquers his fear, he MUST succeed at the plot level in defeating the shark or we, the audience would feel cheated. Making the proper moral choice is what makes a hero, and the hero MUST win once he has done so. (Remember we are talking about SIMPLE characters in adventure stories at the moment. Obviously, this is not true for more complex characters in other genres. Rest assured, we will address those as well STEP by STEP).
If the hero chooses incorrectly, he is hero no longer and MUST be defeated by the Antagonist for us, the audience, to feel fulfilled.
But notice here the connection between a moral choice and success in the plot. They are intimately bound up together. What happens when we separate them for analysis purposes?
The faithful character is made up of the moral aspect of accepting the burden of considering the moral dilemma. His opposite, the skeptic, refuses to consider the issue. Indeed, he may even deny the issue (or question) exists. Acceptance and Denial, the first moral pairing.
On the plot level, the faithful character Pursues the quest, while the Skeptic avoids it. Pursuit and Avoidance, the same characters paired on the plot level.
But note the subtle differences Acceptance is a condition, not a process like pursuit. Similarly, Denial is a condition, not a process like avoidance.
Now let us look at the Emotional. On the moral level, he approaches the dilemma with his feelings. On the plot level, he is FRENZIED. This creates the stereotypical character who reacts violently without thinking, common in simple stories. And the Intellectual. On the moral level he employs reason, but applies that reason on the plot level with calm and almost calous disregard for the "human" impact of his action, and is not influenced by how people feel about a situation. Again, a pairing of opposites on both levels. Feelings are not equal to Frenzy, and Reason is not equal to Calm, but they go hand in hand in simple characters in simple stories.
What about the Antagonist? Well, on the moral level, he causes the moral dilemma to exist. As long as he exists, he forces the Faithful (Accepting) character to consider the issue. And he cannot be defeated until the Faithful character makes his moral decision. Luke cannot destroy the deathstar until he turns off his computer and "trusts the force". Indiana Jones cannot defeat the nazis until he finally believes in the power of the arc "Close your eyes, Marianne; don't look at it!". Brody cannot defeat the shark until he overcomes his fear, "Smile, you son-of-a-bitch!".
Only AFTER the faithful character has made his moral decision can he face the Antagonist in the final showdown. Corollary: Once the moral decision has been made, the faithful character MUST face the Antagonist in a final showdown.
On the plot level, the Antagonist represents the external obstacle that must be overcome to achieve an external goal.
On the moral level problems must be solved. On the plot level obstacles must be overcome.
The Guardian at the moral level acts as Conscience and at the plot level to help.
The Contagonist at the moral level acts as a Tempter and at the plot level to hinder.
It took us a long time to see the subtle differences between characteristics on the two levels because we were looking only at simple characters. In that case, these characteristics match up with the most similar one from the other level. That is exactly why the characters ARE simple.
But once we realized that there were two levels, we wondered what would happen if you rotated one level in relation to the other, creating characters that possessed dissimilar attributes. What we discovered was that these "complex" characters explained just about every other character we could think of.
Mix and Match. Any one of the moral approaches can be matched with any one of the plot approaches to create a complex character.
First, we tried it among the four protagonistic group characters. For example: Suppose you match the moral approach of Feelings with the plot approach of Calm. You might end up with a much more interesting character who is driven to his decisions by his convictions, but institutes his plans methodically. His direct opposite might be a character who Reasons his way to solutions, but pursues his goals in a rampant, inefficient manner.
We found that any of the characteristics of the protagonistic group on one level could be matched to any characteristic on the other. And, of course, you could still combine characteristics on one level into a single character. In fact, they could all be placed in one character, just as they are in a real person. But this makes it difficult to see each aspect clearly, which defeats the purpose behind creating stories in the first place. Still, it was perfectly correct to do so, and explained alot of other characters we had encountered.
The main thing to remember is that each characteristic on each level MUST be represented somewhere, or the story is not as well rounded as it should be. That is to say that an aspect of the human mind in dealing with a problem will be missing and the point you, as author, are trying to make will not be as convincing. You will have left a hole in the complete pattern of proving your moral or situational point.
Once you start combining moral approaches with dissimilar plot approaches, characters become consistant, but unpredictable to the audience, and therefore much more interesting. The course of action such a character will embark upon, as well as his attitude stems to how that character perceives the weight of moral obligation to plot necessity. And which of these somewhat conflicting internal approaches will prevail shifts from scene to scene, situation to situation, as that balance changes or is perceived to change by that character.
Next, we tried swapping the Contagonist and Guardian on the two levels and found that, indeed, the Guardian could be the conscience on the moral level, but hinder the Protagonist at the plot level, especially if the Protagonist is trying to do something wrong. Similarly, the Contagonist could be temptation on the moral level, and HELP the Protagonist to achieve his incorrect goal. This made for much more interesting characters in these roles.
Now, our curiosity at full power, we tried mixing the role of conscience with Frenzy, or Calm or any of the others, and found that, once again, YES you can do it successfully, but it tends to make the visibility of the workings of each aspect less clear. Nevertheless, it can and does work, and explains many other complex characters.
The next logical step was to try putting only one aspect from one level in each character. This would require eight protagonistic group characters, two for each of the original simple characters, and two for Antagonist, Contagonist, and Guardian as well.
Again, YES you can do it. But it tends to simplify the characters so much, that they tend to appear unreal, and less than well rounded. But it is possible, and explains even more characters.
Now, let's look back. Stories reflect how the human mind deals with problems. Characters represent the approaches. There is a mental or motivational level and a physical or situational level. The mental level deals with morality, the physical level deals with plot. The moral level requires a decision to solve the problem; the plot level requires action to reach a goal. Simple characters combine the most similar aspects, one from each level. Complex characters combine dissimilar aspects, one from each level.
Now we felt we understood individual characters fairly well by themselves. By mixing and matching between the levels we could analyze virtually every character we came across. Better still, we could CREATE unpredicable, yet consistent characters, with a full understanding of their motivations, and a complete knowledge of what they would and would not do. Plus, we knew all the basic approaches that needed to be represented so there would be no holes in our We had it all wrapped up. Except we couldn't write a story from it.
We could design the most interesting and well-rounded characters, but we didn't know what to do with them. We could conceive of the most explosive combinations of traits, but had no clue how to employ them. Character motivation, no matter how well designed and understood, is only dramatic POTENTIAL It told us which characters might come into conflict, but not what that conflict would be. -- Frozen Potential.
The obvious finally occurred to us: Story is like a machine. It is a physical apparatus run by energy to accomplish a task. Without energy, the machine will not move. Without the physical gears and rotors, there is no way for the energy to accomplish anything. Only when energy is APPLIED to physical material is WORK done. In other words, for a current to flow, potential must be applied across a resistance.
Story is the current, Motivation is energy or potential, Situation is the machine or resistance.
Motivation told us WHY something might happen, but not WHAT (resistance/situation/plot) or HOW (current/action/story).
So where do you start? Anywhere you want! You can begin with anything at all that makes you want to tell a story and fill in the other blanks from the character structure. In a moment, we'll show you how. The point is: different authors get their inspirations in different ways. Even a single author may be inpsired by a person he knew or a period in history or a geographic location, ad nauseum.
Now here's the first beautiful thing: You can write about anything you want. outer space, the Civil War, homeless children, a man hen-pecked by an overbearing wife, a puppy trying to find his way home, whether it is better to do a sure thing for yourself or a chancey thing for others, a low-level government clerk who uncovers a plot to overthrow Zsa Zsa Gabor -- ANYTHING!! And note that we listed a mixed bag. Some items were plot, some a setting, some a character, moral dilemma, whatever.
But even in this wide open field, structure exists to guide us. Let's back track for a moment to "morality". Who exactly is it that decides what is moral? In real life, that role is ostensibly reserved for the Creator, and in Story, the role is the same.
The author decides what morality is in Story. That is the author's Point Of View. Without a point of view there is no way for the audience to know if the Protagonist makes the right choice or not.
Try to imagine writing a story without a point of view. Everything that happens, everything that is done, the actions of every character are neither good nor bad, they simple are. There are no villians, no heros, and no satifaction for the audience. It would be a dull story indeed!
And look at why you write stories in the first place. Do you want to make a statement that will lead to people taking action to stop a war? Do you want to document a migrant worker's courage. Do you want to share the joy of a special Christmas morning you had as a child. Do you simply want the audience to thrill to the exploits of a larger than life hero?
Fact is, no matter what inspired you to write a story in the first place, you always end up establishing a moral point of view that tells the audience how to feel about the characters and the situation.
We all know what theme is: point of view applied to situation. And now we all know what morality is: point of view applied to motivation.
Okay, so you've got your starting point and your point of view, which suggests your theme and your morality. All you need to get started is a plot goal. And again, a plot goal can be anything you want it to be. A priest might want to become a painter, a small child might want to find the parents who abandoned her, a general might want to overthrow a president -- ANTYTHING AT ALL!!
Let's take stock: Morality, Situation, Point Of View, Theme, Goal, Moral Decision, all of these are connected and interrelated. And once you have nailed them down and selected your characters, you have all the elements to begin telling a story.
So how do you nail them down? By design or by chance, it doesn't matter. You see, you could write a story about a priest who wants to find the parents that abandoned him or about a general who wants to be a painter. And they could be in outer space, or in the Civil War. It really doesn't matter. If you had no preference, you could put several hats on the floor, drop goals in one, themes in another, settings in another, etc., then draw one from each hat and have a complete story at your disposal. And we guarantee it would not be formulaic. All you would have to do is decide how you were going to mix and match the moral and plot character aspects and you could start writing. Of course, it would make a much more integrated story if the Theme, Moral Dilemma, Point of View, etc., were all related. THAT way, you could make a very strong statement to get your point of view across to the audience.
Now, you have all the elements you need to write a story. Great! Except there's still no clue as to what SCENES you need to create. And you sit there with all your characters and situations and settings and don't know what to do with them.
There is a solution.
Conflict. A very simple word, but essential to determining what scenes are needed in a story.
In The Beginning....
Back in the very earliest days of Dramatica development, we decided to document what we had learned so far. So, we wrote the following short introduction to our work.
Before Robert Mackee camed out with his noted book, we had decided to call our work:
STORY
Contagonist. A word you've probably never heard. But it was the starting point to our discovery of a new system of story analysis and construction nearly ten years ago.
The system itself is not based on searching stories for similarities, but rather, looks at why stories exist, and therefore what they must do to fulfill their purpose.
Stories exist as a replica of the way a human mind solves a problem. We can apply REASON or decide based on our EMOTIONS. We can have FAITH in our ability to solve the problem or SKEPTICISM that it can be solved at all.
Only these four approaches can be taken.
In the human mind, we flit from one to another, considering them all simultaneously. In Story we use individual characters to illustrate these approaches.
In simple stories, one character represents each approach. Examples: 1. In Star Wars, Luke is the FAITHFUL, Han Solo the SKEPTICAL, while Chewbaca is EMOTION, and Leia, REASON. The other characters will be explained later. 2. In Wizard of Oz, Dorothy is FAITHFUL, the Cowardly Lion, SKEPTICAL, Scarecrow, REASON, and Tin Man, EMOTION.
These approaches can be combined within one charachter, as in Jaws, where Quint is EMOTION, Hooper is REASON, and Brody combines both FAITH and SKEPTICISM. This leads to his inner conflict between his sense of duty and his fear of water.
This establishes a set of a maximum of four characters we call the PROTAGONISTIC GROUP. It is our contention that there is no single protagonist unless he combines all four approaches. But for clarity of conflict, most stories separate them.
The PROTAGONISTIC GROUP is identified by the sharing of a common goal, whether it be to kill the shark, evade the Empire, or see the Wizard. They simply try to solve the problem in the manner of the approach they represent.
Imagine a circle with FAITH at the top, SKEPTICISM at the bottom, REASON on the left, and EMOTION on the right. The greatest conflict is between characters on opposite sides, or if a character embodies two approaches, the greatest internal conflict is generated the same way.
But there are other characters. The Mind in solving a problem is swayed by CONSCIENCE and TEMPTATION. These are represented by the GUARDIAN and CONTAGONIST. Obi Wan Kenobi and Darth Vader. Glinda, and the Wicked Witch of the West.
It was the discovery of the Contagonist that set us down the decade-long path toward this final and complete version of "Story".
Characters like the Mayor in Jaws are not the antagonist - the shark is. But they still hinder the PROTAGONISTIC GROUP in its goal. The CONTAGONIST function as a hinderer, while the GUARDIAN serves to protect.
The remaining simple character is the ANTAGONIST who is defined as the character in DIRECT opposition to the sucess of the PROTAGONISTIC GROUP in achieving its goal.
These seven characters round out the list of the maximum necessary to tell a story.
Before Robert Mackee camed out with his noted book, we had decided to call our work:
STORY
Contagonist. A word you've probably never heard. But it was the starting point to our discovery of a new system of story analysis and construction nearly ten years ago.
The system itself is not based on searching stories for similarities, but rather, looks at why stories exist, and therefore what they must do to fulfill their purpose.
Stories exist as a replica of the way a human mind solves a problem. We can apply REASON or decide based on our EMOTIONS. We can have FAITH in our ability to solve the problem or SKEPTICISM that it can be solved at all.
Only these four approaches can be taken.
In the human mind, we flit from one to another, considering them all simultaneously. In Story we use individual characters to illustrate these approaches.
In simple stories, one character represents each approach. Examples: 1. In Star Wars, Luke is the FAITHFUL, Han Solo the SKEPTICAL, while Chewbaca is EMOTION, and Leia, REASON. The other characters will be explained later. 2. In Wizard of Oz, Dorothy is FAITHFUL, the Cowardly Lion, SKEPTICAL, Scarecrow, REASON, and Tin Man, EMOTION.
These approaches can be combined within one charachter, as in Jaws, where Quint is EMOTION, Hooper is REASON, and Brody combines both FAITH and SKEPTICISM. This leads to his inner conflict between his sense of duty and his fear of water.
This establishes a set of a maximum of four characters we call the PROTAGONISTIC GROUP. It is our contention that there is no single protagonist unless he combines all four approaches. But for clarity of conflict, most stories separate them.
The PROTAGONISTIC GROUP is identified by the sharing of a common goal, whether it be to kill the shark, evade the Empire, or see the Wizard. They simply try to solve the problem in the manner of the approach they represent.
Imagine a circle with FAITH at the top, SKEPTICISM at the bottom, REASON on the left, and EMOTION on the right. The greatest conflict is between characters on opposite sides, or if a character embodies two approaches, the greatest internal conflict is generated the same way.
But there are other characters. The Mind in solving a problem is swayed by CONSCIENCE and TEMPTATION. These are represented by the GUARDIAN and CONTAGONIST. Obi Wan Kenobi and Darth Vader. Glinda, and the Wicked Witch of the West.
It was the discovery of the Contagonist that set us down the decade-long path toward this final and complete version of "Story".
Characters like the Mayor in Jaws are not the antagonist - the shark is. But they still hinder the PROTAGONISTIC GROUP in its goal. The CONTAGONIST function as a hinderer, while the GUARDIAN serves to protect.
The remaining simple character is the ANTAGONIST who is defined as the character in DIRECT opposition to the sucess of the PROTAGONISTIC GROUP in achieving its goal.
These seven characters round out the list of the maximum necessary to tell a story.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
March 2, 1992 - Dramatica Development Memo
Hypercard format needs to be revamped, as the quad box arrangement of elements is different for each thematic perspective.
The Thematic points ARE the simple characters. Theme describes the outcome, Character describes potential.
The Right minded nodal point load up is important, because it is actually part of the structure and dynamics of each story. The Thematic points in the RMNPLU will appear to be the premises of the Left. They will be such things as Greed, Fear, Hate, Love, Lust, etc.
Outcome (Theme) and potential (Character) are only one dynamic pair of the quad. The other pair is in the RMNPLU. They will be the Resistance and the Current. Only by including the RMNPLU in the engine will many aspects of story dynamics be predictable.
When we looked at plot and seemed to see invalidations of the Z pattern, we were actually seeing the effect of the RMNPLU on the story universe. Again, the white elements remain the same. They are the maximum diffusion of the perspectives that function as a single pivot point to all aspects of story structure.
The Type names in the RMNPLU will be TKAD and Time Space, Mass and Energy. Each load up is a way of looking at the totality of the interrelationships between Mind and Universe. The Left version shows the relationship between Mind and Universe, the Right version shows the relationship between the Mind's view of the Mind and the Mind's view of the Universe.
Togther, they create the four points of the Justification map we used to have on the dry marker board. M, M', U, U'. When looking at the Dynamic Quardrangle for a specific story, we get the projection we were working with that had a quad of Character, a quad of Theme, a quad of Type, and a quad of Perspectives. But to create the engine that determines the generic arrangement of the Dynamic Quadrangle, we need the RMNPLU.
One set of quad names in the RMNPLU will be Fear, Lust, etc. The other set will be Intersecting, Parallel, Speed, Direction - all the physical terms we discarded months ago. One man's character is another man's premise. Fear and Lust, will describe the nature of a character as much as Protagonist.
When the Left of Right is seen as Structure, the other is seen as Dynamics. The relationship between Structure and Dynamics is like that of Musical Notes and Melody. The levels of each Load Up provide Harmony in Structure and Sychopation in the Dynamics.
Melanie
The Thematic points ARE the simple characters. Theme describes the outcome, Character describes potential.
The Right minded nodal point load up is important, because it is actually part of the structure and dynamics of each story. The Thematic points in the RMNPLU will appear to be the premises of the Left. They will be such things as Greed, Fear, Hate, Love, Lust, etc.
Outcome (Theme) and potential (Character) are only one dynamic pair of the quad. The other pair is in the RMNPLU. They will be the Resistance and the Current. Only by including the RMNPLU in the engine will many aspects of story dynamics be predictable.
When we looked at plot and seemed to see invalidations of the Z pattern, we were actually seeing the effect of the RMNPLU on the story universe. Again, the white elements remain the same. They are the maximum diffusion of the perspectives that function as a single pivot point to all aspects of story structure.
The Type names in the RMNPLU will be TKAD and Time Space, Mass and Energy. Each load up is a way of looking at the totality of the interrelationships between Mind and Universe. The Left version shows the relationship between Mind and Universe, the Right version shows the relationship between the Mind's view of the Mind and the Mind's view of the Universe.
Togther, they create the four points of the Justification map we used to have on the dry marker board. M, M', U, U'. When looking at the Dynamic Quardrangle for a specific story, we get the projection we were working with that had a quad of Character, a quad of Theme, a quad of Type, and a quad of Perspectives. But to create the engine that determines the generic arrangement of the Dynamic Quadrangle, we need the RMNPLU.
One set of quad names in the RMNPLU will be Fear, Lust, etc. The other set will be Intersecting, Parallel, Speed, Direction - all the physical terms we discarded months ago. One man's character is another man's premise. Fear and Lust, will describe the nature of a character as much as Protagonist.
When the Left of Right is seen as Structure, the other is seen as Dynamics. The relationship between Structure and Dynamics is like that of Musical Notes and Melody. The levels of each Load Up provide Harmony in Structure and Sychopation in the Dynamics.
Melanie
From 1996 - "The Story Mind"
This is a transcription of an online audio recording I made in 1996:
Hi, this is Melanie Anne Phillips with another Dramatica Sound Byte. Today's topic: The Story Mind. Story mind... what is that? And more importantly, what does it have to do with writers or writing? Well, if there is a central concept to the Dramatica Theory of Story, it is the notion of The Story Mind. According to Dramatica theory, every complete story is an analogy to a single human mind, trying to deal with an inequity. That's quite a mouthful, so let me say it once again for clarity. Dramatica sees every complete story as an analogy to a single human mind trying to deal with an inequity.
In other words, stories are not really about characters, plot, theme, and genre, but rather, characters, plot, theme, and genre represent different families of consideration that go on in a single human mind when it is trying to come to terms with an inequity. Characters are the different motivations of the Story Mind that influence each other, jockey for position, or come into conflict. Theme represents the value standards of the Story Mind - the measuring sticks by which the Story Mind determines what is better and what is worse. Plot demonstrates the Story Mind's methodologies or techniques it employs in trying to resolve the inequity at the heart of the story. And genre determines the Story Mind's personality - what kind of a mind it is that is doing this consideration.
Well, that's a rather bold statement to make. After all, why would such a complex model of psychology end up being at the center of story structure? Surely writers didn't sit down and say, "I think I'll write an analogy to a single human mind trying to deal with an inequity." Not hardly. So where does the Story Mind come from? According to Dramatica, this model of the mind happens quite naturally, by itself, as a byproduct of the process of communication.
When we seek to communicate we can't reach our audience directly - mind to mind . Rather, we must transmit our message through a medium. To do this, we fashion a symbolic representation of what we have in mind in the hope it will affect our audience the same way it does us. In effect, we create a model of what we are thinking and feeling for the audience to embrace. Which symbols we use depends upon our personal experiences and the culture in which we are working. But beneath the specific symbols are the essential human qualities that are the same in all of us - all cultures and all times.
In and of themselves, these qualities do not yet constitute a model of the mind. For example, if we wanted to convey fear, then we would choose a symbol that would invoke fear in our audience. That human quality would then be communicated. But it is only a small part of what makes up each of our minds.
As communication evolved, the earliest storytellers progressed beyond simply expressing basic emotions or single concepts and began to tell tales. A tale is a progession of symbols that connect one feeling or consideration to the next in an unbroken chain. In this way, an author could lead an audience along an emotional journey and also illustrate that a particular approach led to a particular outcome.
It didn't take these authors long to realize, however, that the human heart cannot leap from one emotion to another indescriminately without passing through the emotions in between. This concept is well documented in The Seven Stages of Grief, and even in Freud's Stages of human development.
Similarly, a logistic chain must not skip any links or it will be held as invalid. So, when telling a tale, the early storytellers developed a feel for which intermediate symbolic steps were required to get from one point of view to another, both logistically and emotionally. We see the result of these discoveries in concepts such as the hero's journey, and story as myth.
Still, this is not a complete model of the mind. A tale is simply a statement that a series of concepts led from point A to point B. In other words, the message of a tale is that a particular series of events can happen. It will be accepted or rejected by an audience solely on the basis of taking the right steps logistically and making the right connections emotionally. Yes, this could happen, or no it could not.
Many fine works through the ages and even today in novels, motion pictures and television are really not complete stories, but simply tales. So what constitutes a story? Well, if a tale is a statement, then a story is an argument. A tale says, "this path led to this outcome indicating it is a good way or a bad way to go about solving a problem". A tale states that a particular outcome is possible. A story says, "this path always leads to this outcome indicating it is always a good way or a bad way to go about solving a problem". A story argues that a particular outcome is inevitable.
If an early author made a statement that a particular case was good or bad, he or she would simply have to prove that a particular approach led to a positive or negative outcome. But if that author tried to tell the audience the approach was always good or always bad, more than likely someone in the audience would "Well, what about under these conditions," or "what about in this context?" Being right there, the author could counter that rebuttal by explaining how the approach would still be best or worst even in that additional case. He or she would either make the point, or fail to make it, in which case the argument would be lost, and the tale would remain as a only a statement, true for that case alone.
As the art of communication evolved beyond the spoken word to the written word, however, the author was no longer physically present to argue the point. Instead, if an author wanted to "prove" inevitability, he or she would have to anticipate all resonable challenges to that statement, and preclude dissension by incorporating all appropriate arguments in the work itself. In this manner, by the time the story is told, not only is a statement made that an approach is good or bad, but all necessary supporting arguments have also been made to "prove" it could not be any other way.
To make these supporting arguments, an author needs to look at the story not only from his or her own point of view, but to anticipate all the other points of view on the issue that audience members might take. By the time the work is finished, it should represent a full exploration of the issue at the heart of the story - both logisitcally and emotionally, addressing all considerations a human mind might explore within the scope of the argument. In so doing, a complete mind-set is created - an full analogy of a single human mind trying to deal with an inequity - the Story Mind.
Characters, plot, theme, and genre, evolve naturally out of this process to represent the full spectrum of considerations made by the human mind. Acts, Sequences, Scenes, and Events also evolve naturally as the Story Mind finishing considering the issue from one point of view and shifts it's attention to another.
A story suffers if it's argument is left incomplete because a valid point of view is not considered. To avoid plot holes, missing charcters, unblanced themes, and sporadic genres, it pays an author well to consider the story mind as a foundation upon which to build a story.
Hi, this is Melanie Anne Phillips with another Dramatica Sound Byte. Today's topic: The Story Mind. Story mind... what is that? And more importantly, what does it have to do with writers or writing? Well, if there is a central concept to the Dramatica Theory of Story, it is the notion of The Story Mind. According to Dramatica theory, every complete story is an analogy to a single human mind, trying to deal with an inequity. That's quite a mouthful, so let me say it once again for clarity. Dramatica sees every complete story as an analogy to a single human mind trying to deal with an inequity.
In other words, stories are not really about characters, plot, theme, and genre, but rather, characters, plot, theme, and genre represent different families of consideration that go on in a single human mind when it is trying to come to terms with an inequity. Characters are the different motivations of the Story Mind that influence each other, jockey for position, or come into conflict. Theme represents the value standards of the Story Mind - the measuring sticks by which the Story Mind determines what is better and what is worse. Plot demonstrates the Story Mind's methodologies or techniques it employs in trying to resolve the inequity at the heart of the story. And genre determines the Story Mind's personality - what kind of a mind it is that is doing this consideration.
Well, that's a rather bold statement to make. After all, why would such a complex model of psychology end up being at the center of story structure? Surely writers didn't sit down and say, "I think I'll write an analogy to a single human mind trying to deal with an inequity." Not hardly. So where does the Story Mind come from? According to Dramatica, this model of the mind happens quite naturally, by itself, as a byproduct of the process of communication.
When we seek to communicate we can't reach our audience directly - mind to mind . Rather, we must transmit our message through a medium. To do this, we fashion a symbolic representation of what we have in mind in the hope it will affect our audience the same way it does us. In effect, we create a model of what we are thinking and feeling for the audience to embrace. Which symbols we use depends upon our personal experiences and the culture in which we are working. But beneath the specific symbols are the essential human qualities that are the same in all of us - all cultures and all times.
In and of themselves, these qualities do not yet constitute a model of the mind. For example, if we wanted to convey fear, then we would choose a symbol that would invoke fear in our audience. That human quality would then be communicated. But it is only a small part of what makes up each of our minds.
As communication evolved, the earliest storytellers progressed beyond simply expressing basic emotions or single concepts and began to tell tales. A tale is a progession of symbols that connect one feeling or consideration to the next in an unbroken chain. In this way, an author could lead an audience along an emotional journey and also illustrate that a particular approach led to a particular outcome.
It didn't take these authors long to realize, however, that the human heart cannot leap from one emotion to another indescriminately without passing through the emotions in between. This concept is well documented in The Seven Stages of Grief, and even in Freud's Stages of human development.
Similarly, a logistic chain must not skip any links or it will be held as invalid. So, when telling a tale, the early storytellers developed a feel for which intermediate symbolic steps were required to get from one point of view to another, both logistically and emotionally. We see the result of these discoveries in concepts such as the hero's journey, and story as myth.
Still, this is not a complete model of the mind. A tale is simply a statement that a series of concepts led from point A to point B. In other words, the message of a tale is that a particular series of events can happen. It will be accepted or rejected by an audience solely on the basis of taking the right steps logistically and making the right connections emotionally. Yes, this could happen, or no it could not.
Many fine works through the ages and even today in novels, motion pictures and television are really not complete stories, but simply tales. So what constitutes a story? Well, if a tale is a statement, then a story is an argument. A tale says, "this path led to this outcome indicating it is a good way or a bad way to go about solving a problem". A tale states that a particular outcome is possible. A story says, "this path always leads to this outcome indicating it is always a good way or a bad way to go about solving a problem". A story argues that a particular outcome is inevitable.
If an early author made a statement that a particular case was good or bad, he or she would simply have to prove that a particular approach led to a positive or negative outcome. But if that author tried to tell the audience the approach was always good or always bad, more than likely someone in the audience would "Well, what about under these conditions," or "what about in this context?" Being right there, the author could counter that rebuttal by explaining how the approach would still be best or worst even in that additional case. He or she would either make the point, or fail to make it, in which case the argument would be lost, and the tale would remain as a only a statement, true for that case alone.
As the art of communication evolved beyond the spoken word to the written word, however, the author was no longer physically present to argue the point. Instead, if an author wanted to "prove" inevitability, he or she would have to anticipate all resonable challenges to that statement, and preclude dissension by incorporating all appropriate arguments in the work itself. In this manner, by the time the story is told, not only is a statement made that an approach is good or bad, but all necessary supporting arguments have also been made to "prove" it could not be any other way.
To make these supporting arguments, an author needs to look at the story not only from his or her own point of view, but to anticipate all the other points of view on the issue that audience members might take. By the time the work is finished, it should represent a full exploration of the issue at the heart of the story - both logisitcally and emotionally, addressing all considerations a human mind might explore within the scope of the argument. In so doing, a complete mind-set is created - an full analogy of a single human mind trying to deal with an inequity - the Story Mind.
Characters, plot, theme, and genre, evolve naturally out of this process to represent the full spectrum of considerations made by the human mind. Acts, Sequences, Scenes, and Events also evolve naturally as the Story Mind finishing considering the issue from one point of view and shifts it's attention to another.
A story suffers if it's argument is left incomplete because a valid point of view is not considered. To avoid plot holes, missing charcters, unblanced themes, and sporadic genres, it pays an author well to consider the story mind as a foundation upon which to build a story.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
New Dramatica Semantics Ideas from Jun 11, 1997
From: "Melanie Anne Phillips"
To: "Chris N. Huntley" ; "Stephen Greenfield"
Cc: "Katy M. Huntley"
Subject: Re: A Dramatica User's comments...
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 23:26:41 -0700
Excellent wish list! And I agree. I believe that any words which are difficult to understand in the semantic chart should be replaced immediately with more accessible words that are just as accurate.
For example, Conceiving and Conceptualizing are much too osbcure to be of use to the vast majority of writers. They should absolutely be replaced. Unfortunately, I have personally been unable to come up with alternatives.
We need to investigate an approach whereby writers themselves, having acommand of the vocabulary, might suggest replacement words which we could consider. I don't know who the Dramatica user is who sent along these comments, but perhaps he would be a good person with which to start.
As a test case, let me give some "plain English" definitions of the term she used as examples, and see if he, or any of us, can find different words that fit the definitions.
First, he notes that the difference between Mind and Psychology is "paper thin". That is probably due to our choice of words. In fact, the definitions between the two are quite far apart.
The most notable difference is that Mind is a state and Psychology aprocess. Mind can also be defined as our fixed attitude on any subject. It is also how we feel about things emotionally, such as what we enjoy eating, the sports we like to watch, who we love, whether we like the mountains or the beach better. It also means our whole collection of memories. It is also includes our prejudices. Part of Mind is describedby the phrase, "Hey, that's just where his head is at."
What "Mind" DOESN'T mean: It is NOT a person's personality. It is NOT their instinct. It is NOT thought or consideration. Personality is a combination of the fixed attitudes AND the mental processes in which ani ndividual engages. Instinct describes how a mind responds to its environment based on built-in tendencies, meaning that intinct is seen asthe behavior, not what causes it. Thought and Consideration are mental processes, so they have no place in a descripition of a STATE.
Perhaps the best way to come up with words is to look at the whole quad. Each quad is really based on the very same relationships among four items as any other quad. It is the relationships that define the quad, not thewords in it. So, if you can find one word in a quad that makes sense, youcan base the other three words on that relationship.
For example, a quad of Male, Female, Masculine, Feminine, has exactly the same relationship among the words at Mass, Energy, Space, and Time. This is also the same relationship as Up, Down, Higher, Lower or Knowledge,Thought, Ability, Desire, and Dead, Alive, Getting older, Becoming more youthful.
So, if we look at the quad containing Mind and Psychology, we see that Universe, Mind, Physics, and Psychology has that same relationship inconcept: in this case, an external and internal State and Process. That's really all it means. Just that: Universe, an external state. Mind, and internal state. Physics, and external process. Mind, and internal process.
Armed with this perspective, we can see why Mind would describe which sports we like to watch, while Psychology would describe the path our thoughts and emotions take while watching the game.
Okay, so for those two words, we now have a number of explanations available from which to work. Now, the question is: what better words can be chosen for these two distinct meanings that are more accesible, cover the complete ground of each meaning, do not stray into the other word's meaning in connotation or denotation, and fit as appropriately with the other two words in the quad (Universe and Physics) while maintaining the foundational quad relationship which must hold true in every quad.
As I mentioned, I've personally been unable to come up with more appropriate alternatives, but fresh minds considering the above definitions may find a solution more apparent.
Now, looking at the remaining words suggested as prime candidate forc hange:
Preconscious and Subconscious.
Preconscious is a filter which prevents sensory information from making itsway into the energy patterns of the mind, be they logistic, emotional, or even autonomic. It does not matter where this filter comes from to fit this definition. It might come from built-in brain patterns caused by genetic memory, caused by brain injury or damage, caused by experience at such a low level it doesn't even effect one's subconscious drives and desires.
The key point is that even the SUBCONSCIOUS is not affected by the Preconscious in a proactive way. Rather, Conscious, Memory, and Subconscious are equally presented with filtered sensory information sothat the Observation we Perceive may not be an accuate representation of the information in which our sensory organs were actually bathed.
In contrast, Subconscious is the mean average of ALL the sensory experiences which actually get into the mind and aren't stopped cold by thefilter. Conscious, Memory, and Subconscious ALL receive sensory information directly, as well as receiving sensory information from eachother which has already been processed by one or both of the other two. But none of those three receive ANY information which hasn't already been filtered by the Preconscious.
What sets the Subconscious apart is that it is not a mental force caused by specific observation, but is more like a field of snow drifts of different breadth, depth, and shape. This field is modeled by the constant driftdown of sedimentary thoughts which evaporate out of inactive considerations, forming the storm clouds of memory, which drop a gentle snow fall on the field of the Subconscious.
So, whereas Preconscious would be like sitting in a room with a ticking clock, and after a while no longer hearing it (habitation), Subconscious would be more like having a gut level reaction to some person, place or thing you had never met, been, or seen before - either to be drawn towardit or repulsed by it.
Preconscious determine of what we will be aware. Subconscious determines which of those things we will pay attention to above others, because of asense of attraction or repulsion. As simply as I can put it: Preconscious determines what we see, Subconcious determines what we perceive. Preconscious determine if we hear. Subconscious determines if we listen.
Again, we must look at the whole quad to determine if our new words work in the essential relationships among all four items that define the quad in the first place. This quad has Memory, Conscious, Preconscious, and Subconscious in the same positions as Mass, Energy, Space, and Time, and Dead, Alive, Growing older, Getting younger, as well as all the other examples listed above. The new words must also fit.
Finally, my most hated of words in the whole chart: Conceiving and Conceptualizing
Simply put, Conceiving is the process of determining what is needed. Conceptualizing is determining how to fill that need. Now that is a really warped view, but it is simple. For example, Conceiving would be looking atall the things that might lower the night-time crime rate in a third world city to find the best thing to do the job. Conceptualizing would be visualizing how to build an electric light.
Conceiving takes time because it requires the consideration of a number of alternatives: a bigger police force, turning vicious dogs loose at dusk, more severe punishments for night-time criminals, arming the populace, etc. Each time a new item comes to mind, Conceiving concludes.
So, some stories might be about the mental work of trying to arrive at just one idea, while the course of the story is filled with frustration until that happens. But another story might show a series of efforts ofconceiving, each of which is shown not to be satisfactory, so the process begins again. In the example above, the story would not end until someone conceived of using artificial lighting of some sort, rather than dogs or vigilantes.
In that story, no one spends time figuring out how to actually PAY for more police, how to keep the dogs from attacking innocent people who were visiting sick relatives, how to know which members of the population shouldreceive guns since the criminals would receive them as well if the whole population got them, OR how to build an electric light bulb. All of THOSE ideas require Conceptualizing, rather than Conceiving.
But to say, as I did, that this was just about figuring out what was needed (Conceiving) and what would fill that need (Conceptualizing) is seriously misleading, if not absolutely wrong.
Conceiving and Conceptualizing also apply to internal issues, and even emotions. And, they don't have to be about a lack, but can be about anover abundance. AND, they don't have to be about something that is a problem, but can be about something that is good. AND they don't have to be about changing anything, but can be about fully appreciating orexperiencing something.
So, a person who sits for hours at a computer answering email might engagein Conceiving by looking for the aspect of that activity which most attracts her. She also might Conceptualize some other more healthy activity which would bring the same pleasure. Or, she might Conceptualize a way to make email answering revolve around the most joyous aspect even more. (Clearly, this example is fiction!)
In truth, Conceiving and Conceptualizing do not require each other. One might be a cave man who conceives of the need for artificial lighting, but will never Conceptualize an electric light bulb or any other means because the pre-requisites simply don't yet exist.
Similarly, one might conceptualize an electric light bulb without havingany idea to what use it might be put. That is the "D" in "R & D". Development in the hope that once something is actually created, a use for it will be found.
Again looking at the quad, Conceptualizing, Conceiving, Being, and Becoming have the same relationship at Mass, Energy, Space, and Time. They don't feel like it though, do they? That is because we are in the Psychology Class, and that class is the one of the four in the quad of Classes that isat the "end of the trail". Just like, Dead, Alive, Growing older, and Becoming Younger, the last one, "Becoming Younger," is the least accessibleto simple understanding.
So, the Psychology Class is the hardest to see in a logical mode. But, since Conceiving and Conceptualizing are down at the Type level, they arealready two levels into the area in which logic works least well. That means that these areas are really best understood in terms of emotion. Idon't mean words describing emotion, but in terms of actually FEELING the meaning, rather than THINKING the meaning.
But, we can't put feelings directly in the chart. So, when we go even one more level down in the Psychology Class, we get even farther away from the experiential aspect. For example, the Variations Rationalization, Obligation, Commitment, and Responsibility are all understandable as things we see in others, but they are SUPPOSED to describe how those things feel to US.
What do YOU FEEL when you have a sense of Obligation - a sense so strong that even though all your logic and common sense tell you to chuck it all,y ou still stick around? This is one reason people stay in awful marriageseven though they are quite aware of all the awful things they endure. There is that gut-level twang of Obligation, or Responsibility, or a truly motivational, adrenaline-rush sense of commitment, or that strange littlef orce of Rationalization which allows you to lie to yourself about yourreal reasons for doing something, yet buy it hook line and sinker until youabsolutely believe it as if it were the gospel.
So, jumping back up to Conceiving and Conceptualizing, the new words must not only capture the definitive meanings but also the much more important emotional feel of what is going on.
Finally, we must note that although every quad illustrates the same relationships among four items, there is a reason why each quad uses four different words. The entire structure is based on the upper left item in the topmost quad which we call "Universe". That is the Knowledge positionin the quad, which is why we call the structure a K-based system. That is also why we say that the whole structure is biased toward K. In our society, we read from upper left to lower right, which makes that Universe postion the most powerful.
But more than that, whatever we chose to be the upper left item would set the tone or bias for the approach by which the other semantic terms need to be chosen. This means that the quad is not only about relationships, but that each of the items in the quad, even before it is named, has some intrinsic value.
For example, if we picked four math functions: addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, each has a meaning in and of itself. Now suppose we put these functions in a quad - not the names like "addition", but the actual functions themselves.
The FUNCTION of addition might go in the upper left of a K-based quad, and then following the same pattern as all our previous examples the subtraction, multiplication, and division functions would follow. We still haven't named them, just made their functions operate in each of the four spaces in the quad.
So, each has an identity without a name. Now, if we create a second quad under the addition function and give that quad the very same four functions something interesting happens. If we want to look at that quad, we have to go through addition first. In other words, we would have to perform the addition function before we could get to the subtraction below it, or anyof the others in the second level quad. We are applying one operation on top of another. Clearly, the order in which these functions are played out will change the result of the equation we are creating. This means that wec annot consider the second level equations except in the context of the operation which was already performed to get there.
The result of all this is that if we wanted to name each item in the second level quad under "addition" in the top quad, the names would have to be different than those under "division" in the top quad, even though the same four functions are at work.
This creates a fractal nesting to the whole structure. And, with any fractal structure one can see repetitive patterns. So, when we compare the second level word, "Past" to its parent "function", Universe, this has the exact same relationship as the second level word, "Memory" compared to ITS parent function, Mind.
Therefore, when we come up with new words, they must not only match the definition of the function and maintain its relationship with the otherthree items in its quad, but must ALSO maintain an analagous relationship with any parents above it and any children below it COMPARED TO all other items and their parents and their children.
Tha'ts why it took so long to create. You start from K and work your way down to the elements and maintain identities, intra-quad relationships, inter-quad relationships, and analagous fractal relationships.
So, in conclusion, I absolutely agree that some of the words in the chart are difficult to access. Absolutely we must find better alternatives. But since we aren't just talking words here, but semantic representations of mathematical relationships and functions, it is important to be sure accuracy is not lost in the quest for accessibility.
The only reason the Dramatica chart and Story Engine work at all is because the algorithms which created them are accurate and mathematically precise. The most accurate appreciation of it would be to simply understand the structure without any words at all. But, since that is virtually inaccessible to most, the next best thing is to assign words to each of the functions that intuitively describe their identities and illustrate their relationships. It is almost as if distance between terms in the model holds meaning, and if one pre-supposes a meaning, one could know precisely where to chart it on the model.
Let us move forward, then, with all haste to replace obscure words, but let us also move forward with utmost caution to ensure that accuracy is maintained. For if the words chosen to not accurately fulfill all of the precise identities and relationships they are intended to represent, then the model they create as semantics will no longer function accurately tohold and predict meaning. The Story Engine will keep working according to its programming and the chart will still be nested, but the meaning of the chart and the semantic output of the engine will start missing the mark as being intuitive. The Dramatica effect will be diluted, and the power, usefulness, and magic of the theory and product will be reduced.
By all means, we MUST make things more accesible, but I firmly believe we do writers a better service by providing slightly obscure absolute accuracy than by providing slightly accurate absolute understanding. With an accurate model, a certain amount of learning can ultimately provide complete understanding, but with an inaccurate model, the more one learns, the more obscure it becomes.
If you've read this far, congratulations on your tenacity: you are ready toc onsider all the variables you'll need to juggle in the process to suggest alternative semantics.
Melanie
Search Engine Idea from 1997
From 1-16-97 - a preliminary note from me to Chris and Steve about using Mental Relativity concepts to create a new intelligent search engine algorithm. This was later followed by a more extensive and detailed description of the actual agortihm. If I ever find a copy of that document, I'll include it also.
Here's the short memo:
On another note, since I've been working on the Mental Relativity stuff so much lately, the old idea of a software version of a thinking machine as a proof of concept came to mind. I was thinking about it early this morning, when I recalled an article I recently read about engines designed to assist users to locate information of use to them on the internet. Also, I had just read how Microsoft Internet Explore browser 4.0 will actually replace the desktop on Windows 95 and become the new operating environment, based entirely on HTML links (they even showed some screen shots!)
As you probably have heard, Microsoft Office 97 has updated the bundled programs including Word, Excel, and Power Point to be fully functional with HTML and links. In fact, Word 97 will save anything to HTML using the OLE format for embedding, and recognizes URLs in the text and turns them into hot links automatically, right in the Word document!
Well, it all came together in my mind this morning, and I sat down and wrote out the design for a database search engine that is self-teaching and self-organizing, and learns as it goes. It can be guided by the user like a boss to an employee, or turned loose to net surprises. In the end, it is both reflective of an individual user's interests, and also a source of new connections to keep things fresh.
It is both denotatively and connotatively oriented, and comes in two varieties: SBOS and TBOS, which might be used separately or in conjunction to provide parallax and alternatives. Best of all, it doesn't require any new technology, but incorporates essential MR concepts that simply have not been used before, likely making it patentable as software.
After working it out, I realized that in implementation it could benefit greatly from such things as your PFM technology, as well as SSI experience with recognition of gramatical units such as slug lines and dialog.
I thought I'd outline this for you should you at some time in the future think the internet market is one you should tap, and if the notion of a context-driven search engine / data organization tool might appeal to you.
I realize this falls outside the realm of our current and proposed contracts, but I thought since it just plopped out, I'd send the idea your way in case you wanted first crack at it.
Let me know what you think.
Melanie
Here's the short memo:
On another note, since I've been working on the Mental Relativity stuff so much lately, the old idea of a software version of a thinking machine as a proof of concept came to mind. I was thinking about it early this morning, when I recalled an article I recently read about engines designed to assist users to locate information of use to them on the internet. Also, I had just read how Microsoft Internet Explore browser 4.0 will actually replace the desktop on Windows 95 and become the new operating environment, based entirely on HTML links (they even showed some screen shots!)
As you probably have heard, Microsoft Office 97 has updated the bundled programs including Word, Excel, and Power Point to be fully functional with HTML and links. In fact, Word 97 will save anything to HTML using the OLE format for embedding, and recognizes URLs in the text and turns them into hot links automatically, right in the Word document!
Well, it all came together in my mind this morning, and I sat down and wrote out the design for a database search engine that is self-teaching and self-organizing, and learns as it goes. It can be guided by the user like a boss to an employee, or turned loose to net surprises. In the end, it is both reflective of an individual user's interests, and also a source of new connections to keep things fresh.
It is both denotatively and connotatively oriented, and comes in two varieties: SBOS and TBOS, which might be used separately or in conjunction to provide parallax and alternatives. Best of all, it doesn't require any new technology, but incorporates essential MR concepts that simply have not been used before, likely making it patentable as software.
After working it out, I realized that in implementation it could benefit greatly from such things as your PFM technology, as well as SSI experience with recognition of gramatical units such as slug lines and dialog.
I thought I'd outline this for you should you at some time in the future think the internet market is one you should tap, and if the notion of a context-driven search engine / data organization tool might appeal to you.
I realize this falls outside the realm of our current and proposed contracts, but I thought since it just plopped out, I'd send the idea your way in case you wanted first crack at it.
Let me know what you think.
Melanie
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Replacing Dramatica's Semantic Terms
Here's a note I wrote to Chris in 1994 on thoughts about replacing Dramatica's logical terminology with a more emotional set of semantics which would be just as accurate but more easily accessible.
Semantic Conversions from a K based system to a D based system.
Chris - I think we can create a completely different semantic "overlay" of template that can translate the engine into a D based system without having to do anything but replace the existing words. If we label the structure with dynamic terms and change the descriptions of 12 essential questions, the entire underlying mechanism can remain the same, yet the right minded view of storyform will be completely accessible.
In practice:
The only quad that remains the same is the TKAD quad. After that, everything takes a different name. Sample conversions are:
Pursuit = yearn
Avoid = shun
Self-Interest = Greed
Morality = Generosity
Situation = conditions
Circumstances = relationships
Some terms would naturally remain the same, as they are common to both minds.
The 12 essential questions would become more emotional in their power to evaluate. For example:
Success = Joy
Failure = Sorrow
Good = Satisfied
Bad = Unsatisfied
The new 12 questions would give rise to new high level appreciations such as:
Content or Discontent
Fulfilled or Unfulfilled
Seems to me that if we could develop this template and supporting definitions, it might be easy enough to offer this perspective in the first version release. The original semantics would be Cognitive (logical) and the second set would be Affective (emotional) - of course we will need better words than these as they are both too sterile. The point is, that right now we are only providing an intellectual appreciation of the story model that works best for calculating writers. But for the touchy-feely writers, the emotional approach will be much more comfortable.
map
Semantic Conversions from a K based system to a D based system.
Chris - I think we can create a completely different semantic "overlay" of template that can translate the engine into a D based system without having to do anything but replace the existing words. If we label the structure with dynamic terms and change the descriptions of 12 essential questions, the entire underlying mechanism can remain the same, yet the right minded view of storyform will be completely accessible.
In practice:
The only quad that remains the same is the TKAD quad. After that, everything takes a different name. Sample conversions are:
Pursuit = yearn
Avoid = shun
Self-Interest = Greed
Morality = Generosity
Situation = conditions
Circumstances = relationships
Some terms would naturally remain the same, as they are common to both minds.
The 12 essential questions would become more emotional in their power to evaluate. For example:
Success = Joy
Failure = Sorrow
Good = Satisfied
Bad = Unsatisfied
The new 12 questions would give rise to new high level appreciations such as:
Content or Discontent
Fulfilled or Unfulfilled
Seems to me that if we could develop this template and supporting definitions, it might be easy enough to offer this perspective in the first version release. The original semantics would be Cognitive (logical) and the second set would be Affective (emotional) - of course we will need better words than these as they are both too sterile. The point is, that right now we are only providing an intellectual appreciation of the story model that works best for calculating writers. But for the touchy-feely writers, the emotional approach will be much more comfortable.
map
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
