Why Dramatica Is Different From Other Story Paradigms

It’s been over a year since I last added to my exploration of other story paradigms. Several people asked about Linda Seger’s work so I decided to take a look at three of her books to see what was cookin’. I’m glad I did. I expected the same ol’ same ol’, but I found several positive surprises—something definitely worth writing about.

NOTE: This is part of an ongoing series of articles that I’m writing. I’ll eventually work the main points of this article into the larger, more comprehensive piece. Until then, please read that article to see full explanations and comparisons to the other story paradigms.

I've limited my comparisons of Dramatica’s story paradigm and other story paradigms into four major topics of comparison: Story Throughlines; Hero, Protagonist, and Main Character; Character Growth and Resolve; and Plot Structure. I've also included an overview of the source materials, some initial observations, and a summary at the end.

RESOURCE MATERIALS

The following describes my research for Linda Seger's work.

LINDA SEGER: I read her seminal book, “Making A Good Script Great,” (Seger, 1984) and read sections of two of her other popular books, “Creating Unforgettable Characters” (Seger, 1990), and “Advanced Screenwriting: Raising your Script to the Academy Award Level” (Seger, 2003).
DRAMATICA: I used, “Dramatica: A New Theory of Story,” Special Tenth Anniversary Edition, by Melanie Anne Phillips and Chris Huntley (Write Brothers, 2004) as my source for most of the Dramatica material. As co-author of the book and co-creator of the Dramatica theory of story, I was familiar with the material already.

INITIAL OBSERVATIONS

Linda Seger’s books’ greatest strengths are in her methods of getting to the heart of an author’s intent and her understanding of storytelling techniques—what a writer wants to say and how to express it effectively. She uses real world examples and has lots to say about writing, most specifically about writing screenplays. She is also one of the few well-known women in a predominantly male industry. Ms. Seger covers a lot of familiar territory but she brings a seasoned voice into the mix. I enjoyed reading her books.

Though the non-Dramatica story paradigms I studied are different in their specifics, I was surprised to find that they each more or less fit into one of two broad categories.

The first category I call the post-Aristotelian story paradigm. This category finds its roots in the work of Lajos Egri (The Art of Dramatic Writing!) who significantly expanded the function of Character in story beyond Aristotle's Poetics.
The second category I call The Hero's Journey story paradigm and finds its roots in adaptations of Joseph Campbell's work (Hero with a Thousand Faces).

Linda Seger falls mostly into the first category, but acknowledges and incorporates the concepts of the hero’s journey as one of several “myth” forms a story may use.

Dramatica does not fall neatly into either category. It appears to be a much broader story paradigm—one that encompasses elements from both categories and then some.

One major difference between Dramatica and more traditional story theories seems to be this:

Dramatica works with story from the objective author's view that allows writers to clearly manipulate elements of a story's structure. From this author's perspective, it is difficult to find the meaning of specific author's choices.
Linda Seger's story paradigm works with story from the subjective audience's view that allows writers to see the meaning of flow and elements of the story. From this audience's perspective, it is difficult to predict which story elements are essential and how they should go together.

So the question was how this difference in perspective manifested itself in understanding the nature of Story.

STORY THROUGHLINES

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 somewhat from Linda Seger who sees stories as working best with a plot and one or more subplots.

Unlike the other story paradigms I have studied so far, Linda Seger’s has bits and pieces and hints and elements of Dramatica’s four throughlines. Her plot and subplots aren’t as well integrated as the throughlines, but I was pleased to see the nuggets of them popping up here and there in her descriptions of character and plot.

In simplified terms: Linda Seger describes her structure in terms of an “A Story” (plot) and one or more subplots (B Story, C Story, etc.).

Seger's "A Story" or “story spine” fairly closely resembles much of Dramatica's Overall Story Throughline. This is the objective, “big picture” thread of a story often thought of as a story’s plot.
Seger’s Main Character development (“character spine”) closely resembles Dramatica’s Main Character Throughline (the character through whose eyes the audience experiences the story). There are some differences, which are discussed later on, but they are similar enough for general comparisons.
Seger’s “B Story” subplot is similar to (but not the same as) Dramatica’s Main Character vs. Impact Character (MC/IC) Throughline which describes the relationship between the main and impact characters that counters the objectivity of the Overall Story throughline by adding a passionate, subjective perspective. Without the MC/IC throughline, the story lacks heart. Where Dramatica’s MC/IC relationship throughline describes an essential emotional component of the story. By contrast, Ms. Seger’s relationship subplots include any important relationship explored in the story (e.g. according to Seger, Tootsie has five subplots [“Making a Good Script Great, p. 38]).
Seger’s catalyst character loosely resembles Dramatica’s Impact Character (IC) Throughline. The Impact Character is the character whose alternative perspective forces the Main Character to address his personal issues. It 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 idea of the Seger’s catalyst character is sound, but Seger’s description of its development is limited and overly generalized.

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. (For a full discussion of this topic, click here to read it in the full article.)

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.

Interestingly, Linda Seger’s story paradigm is the first I’ve analyzed in these comparisons to approach having the hint of all four of Dramatica’s throughlines.

HERO, PROTAGONIST, AND MAIN CHARACTER

This brings me to another way in which Dramatica is different from other story paradigms. Linda Seger calls the principle character in a story the Main Character: “The main character is the protagonist. This is who the story is about. This is the person who we’re expected to follow, to root for, to empathize with, to care about. Almost always it’s a positive figure. It’s the hero of the story…” [Making a Good Script Great, p 161].

Dramatica separates the concept of the character who leads the efforts to achieve the Story Goal (protagonist), from that of the character through whose eyes the audience experiences the story on a personal level (Main Character).

The Protagonist is one of many Objective Characters in the Overall Story throughline. The objective characters are defined by their function in the Overall Story throughline. For example, an archetypal protagonist represents the motivation to pursue and consider the goal and problems. Other Objective Characters in the Overall Story throughline include archetypes such as the antagonist, the sidekick, the skeptic, and others.
The Main Character is a Subjective Character and gives the audience a personal view inside the story. It is through the Main Character's perspective that the audience gets the first person (I), “This is what it's like to have personal problems” experience. The other principle Subjective Character is the Impact Character who consciously or unconsciously challenges the Main Character's world view by offering an alternative way of seeing or doing things.

One primary advantage to separating the Main Character from the Protagonist is to be able to work with the Main Character and Overall Story throughlines separately. (For an example, click here to read the full explanation in the complete article.)

Unlike Dramatica, Seger blends the perspective of the main character with the role of the protagonist in the Overall Story throughline.

CHARACTER GROWTH AND RESOLVE

Character change is a major element of most story paradigms. Dramatica makes a clear distinction between a Main Character's personal growth and his resolve. Here's the distinction between growth and resolve:

Character Growth: In order for a character to change or remain steadfast, a character needs to be able to distinguish between the source of conflict and its symptomatic effects. The character is “blinded” from seeing both by either being too close or too far from the problem. The character growth brings the character to the point where all options are visible to the character. Character growth is akin to a “character arc.”
Character Resolve: Once a character has grown, it can stay the course (remain steadfast) or radically alter its perspective (change). Character Resolve is not a value judgment, nor is it a description of what could or should have happened. Identifying a character's resolve simply determines whether the character's perspective is fundamentally the same or different.

Linda Seger describes character development in terms of a Character Spine and a Transformational Arc.

Seger’s character spine “is determined by the relationship of motivation and action to the goal” [Making a Good Script Great, p110]. This may describe character growth depending on other factors. My interpretation of Seger’s intent is that the character spine is part character growth and partially a description of the efforts of a protagonist trying to achieve the Story Goal.

Seger’s transformational arc describes when a character “comes to the story with certain attitudes, actions, and emotions, and leaves the story having made changes on each of these levels. These changes create the beats which make up the transformational arc” [Making a Good Script Great, p 147]. This probably describes more of the character growth, but definitely describes a change character.

Unlike the other non-Dramatica story paradigms, Linda Seger allows for both Change Main Characters and Steadfast Main Characters: “Usually the character transformed is the protagonist...Sometimes the main character stays the same, but the supporting characters change” [Making a Good Script Great, p. 147].

I was happy to see that Seger acknowledged steadfast main characters. Many great stories involve characters that remain steadfast against all efforts to change them. Moreover, the fact that they “stay the course” is an essential component of each story's message. Imagine Job in the Old Testament of the Bible telling God he's had too much and is throwing in the towel, or Dr. Richard Kimble in "The Fugitive" giving up his search for the one-armed man and heading off to Bermuda. Both might work as stories but their meaning would be changed considerably. To tell the stories successfully, each would be constructed differently from the originals so that the character growth naturally led to the new character resolve.

How is a main character's growth affected by the character's resolve?

The answer is simple and significant:

Change Main Character Growth: A change main character comes to the story with pre-existing “baggage” in the form of justifications (inner walls) that blind the character to his personal problem. Whether you call the baggage the character's problem (Dramatica), or push and energy (Seger [Advanced Screenwriting, p. 147]), the main character comes to the story “fully loaded” and ripe for change. Each act describes the tearing down of the justifications that hide the main character's personal problem from his direct awareness. Once the character has grown enough to see beyond the justifications and recognize the true nature of his personal problems can he then fundamentally alter his world view (change).
Steadfast Main Character Growth: A steadfast main character generally starts off at the beginning of the story with everything in balance. An external force disrupts this balance and the main character responds by committing to a method of restoring balance. Each act describes the main character's efforts to reinforce his commitment as external forces grow and change. Once the character has reached the edge of his breaking point—when the limit of his efforts to reinforce his motivations match that of the maximum external pressure to alter course—he makes one last commitment and forms a justification that blinds him from his initial choice of action. In this way he remains steadfast in his resolve.

By allowing for Main Characters who change and Main Characters who remain steadfast, Dramatica opens up the story world to the other half not adequately explained by most other paradigms. These include steadfast main characters such as Romeo in “Romeo and Juliet,” Jim Starke in “Rebel Without A Cause,” Jake Barnes in “The Sun Also Rises,” Clarice Starling in “Silence of the Lambs,” and Jake Gittes in “Chinatown.”

By separating character growth from character resolve, Dramatica lets you determine both where your character goes and how he gets there. This gives authors flexibility in forming their stories. It also better represents the choices we have in real life and therefore brings greater verisimilitude to an audience's story experience.

Seger allows for character growth and character resolve. Her film examples are excellent and varied. However, their value in story construction is limited because her descriptions of how to implement them are too generalized. This is further complicated by Seger’s interlocking of the functions of the protagonist with the perspective of the main character.

PLOT STRUCTURE

Plot structure is the temporal backbone of a story. Stories need plot structure to hold them together. Story paradigms need plot structure to explain how to create plots for stories and how to recognize and fix plot problems. I chose to focus on the one area each story paradigm manages to integrate (one way or another)—Act Structure.

A Word About Author and Audience & Overview

(Click here for an explanation of these topics.)

Plot Paradigm Illustrations

Example 1: The Linda Seger Three-Act Structure.

Click illustration to enlarge

Seger’s “A Story” Plot (or story spine) is a straightforward three-act structure. It has a setup, which starts with an image, establishes the story catalyst (inciting incident), and raises the central question (goal). It has two major turning points in the plot that separate Act One from Act Two and Act Two from Act Three, and ends with a climax and resolution. Seger’s three-act structure allows for subplots which can accommodate a relationship “B Story” and more.

Example 2: Dramatica's “Act Structure”

 Click illustration to enlarge

Dramatica clearly uses a four-act structure. It starts with a setup of plot points and story dynamics and an inciting incident. It has regular turning points in the plot to indicate act breaks driven by the Story Driver, and ends with a crisis, climax, and resolution of plot points and story dynamics. It also explores four throughlines; two more than most other story paradigms. The Overall Story throughline is the rough equivalent of the outer journey found in other paradigms. The Main Character throughline is the counterpart to the inner journey. Dramatica counterpoints the Main Character throughline with the Impact Character throughline. Exploring the relationship between the Main and Impact Characters is done in the MC/IC Relationship throughline.

Initial Comparisons

My initial reaction after comparing the various plot paradigms was that Dramatica looked dry and complicated, while the other paradigms seemed somewhat easier to digest. Seger’s "Three-Act Structure" seems “friendly” and approachable. There are several reasons why Seger’s plot system suggests an easier writing approach than Dramatica.

The first is that it is much simpler and therefore easier to follow.
The second reason Seger’s system seems more “writable” is that the labels used to describe their various plot points are more story-like than Dramatica's labels. Seger’s "Three-Act Structure" uses straightforward terms like setup, climax, and resolution. By comparison, Dramatica's Signposts, Journeys, and Story Driver sound less writer friendly.
The third reason Dramatica seems more difficult to write from is its complexity. Dramatica has four throughlines to worry about instead of one or two. It has sixteen Signposts—four for each throughline. The nature of each Signpost is determined by a “storyform.” Just knowing how Dramatica's structure is put together is not enough. In fact, it's unlikely a writer could create a story just by looking at Dramatica's act structure as shown in the illustration. More information seems necessary even to begin writing.

Is less plot structure better?

When it comes to identifying and fixing plot problems, “less” usually is not better. In fact, persistent plot problems are often more closely tied to plot elements an author has NOT considered than plot elements the author has reworked. Having more tools with which to evaluate and construct a story is more valuable in those instances. In this regard, Dramatica surpasses Seger’s "Three-Act Structure."

Dramatica's Comparative Strengths And Weaknesses (Abbreviated)

The Dramatica act structure's single greatest strength is its comprehensiveness. It covers everything necessary to make your plot work well. It has over one hundred unique story points (not including recurring plot points or character interactions) with at least forty-four specifically plot-related. Dramatica's plot explores four separate but interconnected throughlines instead of the two or more implied in Seger’s "Three-Act Structure."

Dramatica ties each plot point to the storyform. Storyforms describe the story's underlying structure and dynamics and the interconnections between Character, Theme, Genre, and Plot—in essence, the author's intent. This is a tremendous advantage because it gives an author an idea of how to explore his subject matter as it progresses act to act.

Seger’s "Three-Act Structure" only explicitly explores one of the four throughlines necessary for a complete act structure, with the main character throughline implied. Seger describes incorporating a catalyst character and key relationship, but they are subplot add-ons to the main plot and guided more by storytelling choices that story structure choices.

The qualities that make Seger’s "Three-Act Structure" simple to understand make it difficult to use for writing. Dramatica is more comprehensive than Seger’s plot structure. It is better suited to building stronger plots since it approaches story from the author's perspective. By separating plot and Storyweaving, Dramatica makes identifying plot problems easier. The Dramatica storyform connects the plot to character, theme, and genre better than any other system. Plus, the storyform indicates the nature of plot events without limiting subject matter. For these reasons I think Dramatica's Act Structure plot paradigm is the most capable system examined.

NOTE: In “Advanced Screenwriting,” Linda Seger identifies what she calls storytelling structures. By storytelling structures she means the way in which a story is laid out for an audience. The idea incorporates several concepts found in Dramatica’s Storytelling, Storyweaving, and Story Reception. I mention it here because the one thing Seger’s storytelling structure does not contain is story structure. It describes how the storytelling is constructed, not how the story is constructed. This is an extremely useful distinction to make when you have problems with your plot. Is it a structural problem or a storytelling problem? The answer to that question tells you where you have to do your work. Linda Seger has a lot to say about storytelling structures. Dramatica has a lot to say about story structure.

Summary And Conclusions

Exploring Linda Seger's story paradigm as described in “Making a Good Script Great” (and other books) has been educational and eye opening. I've only scratched the surface but I feel I've learned a lot. Dramatica shares some common ground with Seger but is different in approach and perspective.

Click here for full summary and conclusions for the other paradigms.

As tools to understand and develop stories, Linda Seger's story paradigm has its own relative strengths and weaknesses. Dramatica seems to cover more story territory and provide a clearer insight into a story's inner workings; it also appears complex and filled with specialized vocabulary. Linda Seger uses more conversational terminology, feels more accessible, and has scads more to say about how to express your story. While I think her books are light on providing solutions to serious story structure problems, I think her books are strong on tapping into a writer’s inner drive and describing how to tell a story effectively.

I believe that no single story paradigm holds all the answers. Each paradigm has its story development treasures to offer. I've dug up a few and explored them to a limited degree. I look forward to continuing my search by delving deeper into these story paradigms and investigating others.

REFERENCES

Huntley, C. N., & Phillips, M. A. (2004). Dramatica: A New Theory Of Story, Special 10th Anniversary Edition. Glendale, CA: Write Brothers, Inc.

Seger. L. (1984). Making a Good Script Great. New York: Dodd, Mead & Company.

Seger, L. (1990). Creating Unforgettable Characters. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

Seger, L. (2003). Advanced Screenwriting: Raising your Script to the Academy Award Level. Beverly Hills: Silman-James Press