The DUG meeting began promptly at 7:00 p.m. Chris Huntley, the meeting's moderator, made the following announcements:

• The FREE 9 week Dramatica course had just begun (Mondays, 7-10 p.m.). The instructor, Katy Monahan Huntley, was introduced.
• An AFI affiliated Dramatica course was tentatively announced pending confirmations and clarifications from AFI. Firm dates and times to be announced later (though the tentative dates were June 18 through August 13, Thursdays, 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.).
• The Dramatica Mail List was highly recommended as a source for Dramatica discussion and information.
• Reactions to Dramatica 3 were solicited. Positive reactions were returned.

About 7:15 p.m., the DUG began its analysis of the film, "Il Postino" (The Postman) [See related article Il Postino for a detailed story analysis]. The Main Character was easily identified as Mario, the postman. After a short discussion, it was determined that the poet, Pablo Neruda, was the Obstacle Character. The Subjective Story throughline was identified as Mario and Pablo's relationship as it related to poetry. This was later refined to the teacher/student relationship of the poet master and his novice "apprentice." The Objective Story throughline in "Il Postino" seemed to be much more illusive. Many suggestions were made, most of them very abstract. Only after much discussion (and much later into the evening) was the description of clashing ideologies accepted.

CHARACTER DYNAMICS

It was determined that Mario is a Change character. This choice was the subject of some debate. Some argued that he had to be a Change character because Pablo doesn't change, therefore Pablo is Steadfast and Mario must then be a Change character. Chris pointed out the dangers of assuming the MC is a change character just because the OC is a steadfast character. One must look for examples that illustrate the MC's change. It was decided that the MC changed in the following manner: in the beginning, Mario used other people's (most particularly Pablo's) words and ideas to express himself through poetry. By the end of the story, Mario chooses to create his own poetry , thus freeing himself and the muse within him.

Almost without question, it was determined that Mario is a Start character.

Mario is a Do-er, but almost in a "passive" manner. This passive do-er was an interesting mix that seemed fairly different and refreshing (though annoying, at times).

Much discussion was made regarding Mario's Mental Sex. His almost passive mannerisms led some to believe he is a Female mental sex. Chris warned that passivity and aggression are not indicators of Mental Sex. Examples of Mario's problem solving techniques support his use of Male mental sex. Mario is linear in his problem solving, looking to cause and effect to make sense of his world--baffled when his predicted effects (such as the "impersonal" autograph in his copy of Pablo's book) do not correlate with his anticipated causes (his personal request to Pablo for a personal inscription).

STORY DYNAMICS

The Story Driver of Action v. Decision was heavily discussed (no easy answer here). Only after identifying the key story events was it agreed that Decisions seemed to drive actions: the Italian government's decision to ignore the Chilean edicts regarding Pablo Neruda; Mario's father's decision that it was time for Mario to find a non-fishing job; Mario's decision to ask Pablo for aid in wooing and winning Beatrice; the people's decision to vote for the obviously corrupt democrat; etc.

The Story Limit almost defaulted to Optionlock due to the lack of any obvious Timelock. Chris argued, however, that the optionlock was loosely or poorly (you're choice) illustrated which gave the sense of a false, early ending shortly after the marriage.

The Story Judgment was easily identified as Good. In spite of the fact that Mario dies, he is clearly a happy, fulfilled man as he is about to read his poem (dedicated to Pablo) in front of his Communist brethren.

The Story Outcome was tough to determine because the story Goal was very abstract. Once we clarified that the goal related to a clash of ideologies (ways in which people think, not necessarily what they think), it seemed to fall cleanly into the Failure category. By the end of the story, no ideologies or groups espousing them seemed to solve anybody's problems.

THEMATIC CHOICES

From the outset, there were a few people who strongly favored the Objective Story Domain of Psychology. Other choices were mentioned with far less assurance and even less support. After a bit of "what iffing," Psychology was accepted as the OS Domain, Physics as the Subjective Story Domain, Universe as the MC Domain, and Mind as the OC Domain.

The remainder of the evening was spent trying to identify the story Concerns (which went around and around and finally was pinned down by the OS Concern of Conceiving), story Issues, and the story Problem. By the time the group got to the OS Problem, many felt we were spinning our wheels. The story seemed to incorporate so many of the choices that it was difficult to pick one. Chris suggested an OS Problem of Acceptance (based on a storyform he and Katy had concocted prior to the DUG meeting), with an OS Solution of Non-acceptance. After a few examples, this sounded good to most everyone (plus it was getting late). One note that Chris made was about the OS Solution. Since the story was an Outcome Failure story, the OS Solution is never appropriately put into effect. Therefore, rather than not accepting hollow pledges from corrupt politicians and vague promises of political equality by government entities, the populace of the small, Italian island continue to accept the unacceptable (no water, no political fairness, no ability to effect real and positive change). [See Il Postino Storyform for the Dramatica story engine settings.]

Next month's film, "Arsenic and Old Lace."