Why Dramatica Is Different From Other Story Paradigms
by Chris Huntley

PART 2—March 24, 2006

While waiting for my copy of the Robert McKee book, “Story,” and John Truby’s eight-hour basics DVD set, I thought I’d describe something else that differentiates Dramatica from other story paradigms.

A key concept in Dramatica is that all complete stories have four separate but interrelated storylines that are present from the beginning to the end of the story called “Throughlines.” This differs from Syd Field, Christopher Vogler, and Michael Hauge who, each in his own way, describe at most two essential storylines.

In simplified terms:

• Vogler describes two throughlines as the Hero’s Journey and the Hero’s Inner Journey.

• Hauge describes two throughlines as the Outer Journey (plot) and the Inner Journey (journey to fulfillment for the Hero).

• Syd Field describes a Dramatic Structure he calls “The Paradigm” which is a plot structure with a Main Character woven in.

These correlate to two of Dramatica’s four throughlines:

• The Overall Story Throughline (the objective, “big picture” thread) closely resembles Vogler’s Hero’s Journey, Hauge’s Outer Journey, and much of Field’s plot structure.

• The Main Character Throughline (the character through whose eyes the audience experiences the story) closely resembles Vogler’s Hero’s Inner Journey, Hauge’s Inner Journey, and Field’s main character development.

The two Dramatica throughlines not clearly defined, not deemed essential, or just plain absent in the other story paradigms are:

• The Impact Character Throughline—The character whose alternative perspective forces the Main Character to address his personal issues.

• The Main Character vs. Impact Character (MC/IC) Throughline—The relationship between the main and impact characters that counters the objectivity of the Overall Story throughline by adding a passionate, subjective perspective.

It is inaccurate to say these two throughlines are altogether absent from the other story paradigms. Here’s what each seems to offer:

• Hauge has bits of the Impact Character blended into his Nemesis and Reflection characters. One function of the Reflection character is to reveal the Hero’s inner conflict. A function of the Nemesis character is to embody the Hero’s inner conflict. His Romance character implies a relationship throughline—and by extension an Impact Character--but only appears in stories with romantic relationships.

• Vogler’s character Archetypes may embody aspects of the Impact Character, but their functions in the story may or may not correspond to the functions of the Impact Character. Vogler describes many relationships between the Hero and the other characters in the story, but none is specific enough to constitute a MC/IC throughline.

• Field doesn’t adequately describe anything identifiable as either the Impact Character throughline or the MC/IC relationship throughline.

Stories without an Impact Character throughline and Main Character vs. Impact Character relationship throughline feel incomplete for a number of reasons:

• It is the Impact Character that forces the Main Character to address his personal issues. The Impact Character represents an alternative way to resolve the Main Character’s problems and as long as it is around the Main Character cannot ignore it. So, to get the Main Character to deal with his personal problems, the Impact Character needs to be present (in some form or another) for the entire story. No Impact Character throughline—no realistic Main Character growth.

• The Main Character vs. Impact Character (MC/IC) relationship throughline provides the “passionate” perspective in the story. Whether the relationship is romantic, professional, familial, or otherwise, the conflicts in the relationship provide an emotional connection for the audience. Without the MC/IC throughline, the story lacks heart.

As a theory of Story, Dramatica offers an explanation for why a story has four throughlines and not one, two, three, five, seven, or any other number. Here’s the nutshell version:

Dramatica defines a story (grand argument story) as an analogy to a human mind trying to resolve an inequity. In other words, stories are fictional representations of problem solving.

There are four perspectives available to everyone while trying to identify and resolve troubles.

In our own lives:

• We can experience firsthand what it is like to have a personal problem (the “I,” Main Character perspective).

• We can experience firsthand what it is like for someone to have an alternative viewpoint on a problem (the “you,” Impact Character perspective).

• We can experience firsthand what it is like to have a troubled relationship (the “we,” MC/IC perspective).

• BUT, we CANNOT experience firsthand what it is like to stand outside ourselves and objectively see how we’re connected to a problem (the “they,” Overall Story perspective).

On the other hand, in other people’s lives:

• We CAN experience firsthand what it is like to stand outside of someone and objectively see how they’re connected to a problem (the “they,” Overall Story perspective).

• We can experience firsthand what it is like to have a troubled relationship with someone (the “we,” MC/IC perspective).

• We can experience firsthand what it is like to have an alternative viewpoint on a problem (the “you,” Impact Character perspective).

• BUT, we CANNOT experience firsthand what it is like to be in that person’s troubled shoes (the “I,” Main Character perspective).

Stories have four throughlines because that’s the number of unique perspectives we can experience firsthand in real life. Within the context of our own lives we can see three directly and one indirectly. Within the context of other people’s lives we can see a different set of perspectives directly and a different one indirectly. In real life, we never get the whole picture.

Here’s an amazing thing about grand argument stories: Complete stories provide an author and audience all four perspectives within the single context of the story. They give us something we cannot get in real life. And THAT’s one of the reasons why audiences can watch or listen to a story over and over. Even after the storytelling has gone stale, stories give the audience an experience it cannot have in real life.

Bact to Top   |    Index