• Character
• Deep Theory
• Getting Started
• History
• Plot
• Storyforming
• Storytelling
• Storyweaving
• Writing Format

Dramatica Frequently Asked Questions

---

Storytelling / Story Encoding FAQs

Q: Define your use of the word ILLUSTRATE in the various stages of story encoding (click here)

Q: I'm finding similar (identical) questions in the story encoding stages i.e. story goal and OS [Objective Story] concern. Why? (click here)

Q: What Dramatica theory is doing then is forcing me as an author to develop extensive arguments for and against the main thesis/antithesis, with three main sub-thesis/antithesis areas to explore in four different contexts. Do I have this right? (click here)

Q: Am I to understand that I must complete interactions for the entire dimension which contains my crucial problem (evaluation)? The relationship between element quads is clear and the "Rule of Three's " is something I have known for years. But how do I handle the different dimension sets that I am using to describe my characters? Does the theory suggest that if I argue conflicts in motivation, evaluation, and methodology, I have to describe the interactions of all of my characters in each of these sets? That would add up to 72 interactions! (click here)

Q: I cannot for the life of me understand the definition of the concept you call "production" found in the questions in the story forming section "MC focus" and S.S. problem. Could you please re define" production" for me and perhaps offer some story examples which I find very helpful, in fact in general, more helpful than the rather abstract definitions included. (click here)

Q: I want to write the novel in a first-person point-of-view (from the main character/protagonist's POV). With this POV, I don't see how I can present the obstacle character's throughline. It is how the audience would view the obstacle character; yet, the storytelling is colored always by the main character's POV. The main character's story line and the subjective story line are easy. The objective story line is working (although somewhat colored by the MC's POV, too.) (click here)

QUESTION:

I have just recently purchased Dramitica Pro and have a question I hope you can answer....

*Define your use of the word ILLUSTRATE in the various stages of story encoding.

ANSWER:

"Illustrate" means to come up a real world event or scenario that fulfills a dramatic function in your story.

The encoding stage of story creation has nothing to do with the actual writing that will become a part of a screenplay, novel, or whatever. It has everything to do with conceptualizing the specific implementation of an aspect of your story's deep dramatic structure by fleshing out the raw idea into a tangible manifestation.

For example, if the goal of your story were to OBTAIN something, that describes the generic nature of the goal from a deep structure standpoint. This kind of information can help make other structural choices for our story, such as the kinds of requirements which might be needed to achieve a goal of OBTAINING, or perhaps help us choose the kind of character who might get caught up in such a goal.

Still, we can't simply write a story in which we say, "The goal is to OBTAIN." We must turn that raw structural concept into a real world item. For example, a goal of OBTAINING might be encoded or ILLUSTRATED as finding a treasure, obtaining someone's love, obtaining a diploma - anything at all that is "obtaining" rather than, say, "becoming". In this manner, the deep structure becomes the heart and soul of the symbols through which you tell your story. In other words, illustrating story points based on deep structure ensures that the audience will feel an overall sense and logic to what they are seeing. Simply, the story will hang together.

If we look at a storyform as a skeleton, encoding puts flesh and blood on it by ILLUSTRATING each bone and joint. The flesh is the nature of the structural appreciations, the blood is the nature of the dynamic appreciations, such as acts or scenes.

Still, this story/body is not in motion until we incorporate Storyweaving. Storyweaving is a lot like the meaning of exposition. It is the process of doling out your encoded deep structure to the audience. Here, the word "illustrate" takes on a different meaning. Now, instead of illustrating the structure, we have to illustrate the encoding!

For example, suppose the raw structural goal in your story is to Obtain. Further suppose that the goal to Obtain is encoded as Obtaining a treasure. Okay, now how do you tell that to your audience? Do you come right out and say it in the first scene? Do you trick the audience into thinking the goal is something else and then let them in on the secret? Do you illustrate the goal by bringing it up in several different scenes in a story, of is it more like Hitchcock's McGuffin, getting the chase started and then never being heard of again until the end of the story? Making these choices is the process of storyweaving, and the choices you make are another form of "illustration".

---

QUESTION:

I'm finding similar (identical) questions in the story encoding stages i.e. story goal and OS [Objective Story] concern. Why?

ANSWER:

This is because the Story Goal will be the common Concern shared by all the characters. When not seen as the Story Goal, however, Concern (in the Objective story) is descriptive of the broad category in which all of the objective characters' personal concerns can be found. For example, a Concern of Obtaining might have one character concerned with obtaining a diploma and another concerned with obtaining a raise at work. In each case, "obtaining" describes their concerns, but the specific illustration or "encoding" is unique to each.

In contrast, the Story Goal is the singly encoded concern SHARED by ALL of the objective characters. For example, all the character are concerned with obtaining a lost treasure. In this case, the specific treasure is of interest to every character in one way or another. It doesn't have to be the prinicpal concern of each character as an individual, but the one common concern shared by them all. Some may be for it and some against, but all share an interest in that singular concern which is, by definition, the Story Goal.

In stories, it is possible to have any one of the four throughlines' Concerns be the Story Goal. (The four throughlines are the four perspectives of a story from which an audience seeks meaning - Obejctive, Subjective, Main Character, Obstacle Character). Which throughline holds the story's overall Goal is simply a matter of the author determining which points of view he or she wants to emphasize - in essence, where the author wants the most commentary as the story unfolds. For example, if all the other characters are focused on the Main Character's Concern, that becomes the Goal of the story as a whole as well.

In most storys told in Western culture, the Objective throughline will be home to the Story Goal, simply because it is easier in our culture to visualize a shared goal from an outside perspective. Because of this convention, the Story Goal provided by the Dramatica software will ALWAYS be doubled up with the Objective Story Concern.

Since Dramatica, as a theory, is a completely new paradigm for story structure, when creating the software it didn't make sense to clutter the already daunting prospect of learning new concepts (such as the four throughlines) with too many alternatives - at least not at first. Once more people are familiar with the basics, future versions of the software will open up to allow the Story Goal to be selected from any of the four throughlines.

QUESTION:

Theme encoding involves three acts; in each the main thesis vs. antithesis is presented within a sub-thesis/antithesis. The sub-thesis/antithesis can be argued six different ways--that's eighteen arguments. Multiply that by the four through lines for an astounding 72 arguments. I'm overwhelmed!

Am I missing something here?

What Dramatica theory is doing then is forcing me as an author to develop extensive arguments for and against the main thesis/antithesis, with three main sub-thesis/antithesis areas to explore in four different contexts. Do I have this right?

I wasn't thinking of writing a 400 page novel here! <G> Is there any way to simplify at all? Do ALL of the 72 arguments need to be there? (Again, what if I leave out one throughline?)

ANSWER:

Your question concerns the quantity of information that can be necessary to completely explore the thematic arguments in a story. You ask, do all 72 arguments (interactions) need to be there? The answer is, yes and no. To completely argue the thematic issue, all of its relevant positions need to be made. HOWEVER, the depth to which this is done is COMPLETELY at your discretion. For example, you can illustrate Self Interest v. Morality in a single sentence or observation: "I slave day in and day out for our family, never taking any time for myself, and all you think about is getting more money so that you have a nose job!" That simple example (I have no idea where it came from) could easily act as the exploration of one of the 72 thematic issues. If you're an adept and clever writer, you can be far more original and succinct in your own examples.

Whatever you do, at least address the thematic conflicts in each of the four throughlines. Otherwise an entire aspect of your story will be noticeably absent.

QUESTION:

Am I to understand that I must complete interactions for the entire dimension which contains my crucial problem (evaluation)? The relationship between element quads is clear and the "Rule of Three's " is something I have known for years. But how do I handle the different dimension sets that I am using to describe my characters? Does the theory suggest that if I argue conflicts in motivation, evaluation, and methodology, I have to describe the interactions of all of my characters in each of these sets? That would add up to 72 interactions!

ANSWER:

That's right. An absolutely, air tight, fully developed story will explore are four dimensions fully, but this is an exception rather than a rule in screenplays. Novels have the luxury of storytelling "real estate" in which to explore all of the character elements and their interactions in depth. Films are generally much more limited in the time (and "space") with which they have to spend illustrating the character element interactions. Therefore, exploring one dimension fully acts as a short-hand for exploring all four (much as archetypal characters act as a short hand for complex characters). You need only touch the other dimensions that differ from the "norm" that should be explored explicitly. I should note that more than one interaction can be done at a time, particularly if you have many objective characters present. Try to get as much mileage out of your storyweaving as possible by doubling or tripling up on your interactions, etc.

QUESTION:

I cannot for the life of me understand the definition of the concept you call "production" found in the questions in the story forming section "MC focus" and S.S. problem. Could you please re define" production" for me and perhaps offer some story examples which I find very helpful, in fact in general, more helpful than the rather abstract definitions included.

ANSWER:

Production means creating something from very little to nothing. Production, in and of itself, is not problematic. However, put into the proper context, production can create all sorts of conflict.

As an SS Problem, conflict might arise between the MC and the OC when one or the other "makes a production" out of something that the other feels isn't warranted. For example, in Auntie Mame starring Rosalind Russell (spelling?), Mame invites her nephew's fiance and future parents-in-law over for a "little" cocktail party. She makes a HUGE production of the affair which results in alienating her nephew's potential new in-laws. If it had been a simple affair (as expected), it is likely that there wouldn't arise any conflict between Mame and her nephew (MC & OC). This is one way to look at it.

As an MC Focus, production might be seen as problematic (a symptom of the problem for a Change character, and the primary area of conflict for a Steadfast character) in any number of ways. Let's say the MC is a "Producer" and she is involved in a "runaway production." The costs are growing, the cast is growing, everything about the production is growing except the budget -- this is very problematic. The MC would then look to the MC Direction of Reduction as a treatment for the runaway production. She would work to cut scenes, locations, etc. to slow down or stop the runaway production. Another way Production could be an MC Focus is if your MC felt that that she (or people whom she observed) was always making "much ado about nothing." In other words, blowing things out of proportion. The bottom line is that Production in the context of the MC Focus will appear as some form of creation or creating that appears to be the source of their troubles (yet is really only its primary symptom).

QUESTION:

I've gone through the entire process for one story and am ready to write it. But I want to write the novel in a first-person point-of-view (from the main character/protagonist's POV). With this POV, I don't see how I can present the obstacle character's throughline. It is how the audience would view the obstacle character; yet, the storytelling is colored always by the main character's POV. The main character's story line and the subjective story line are easy. The objective story line is working (although somewhat colored by the MC's POV, too.)

ANSWER:

Concerning your question about the Obstacle Character POV in a predominantly Main Character (first person) story, there are several points to consider. The first and foremost is the relationship between the MC and the OC. The MC has a perspective (world view) that comes into conflict with the world around him/her. The OC is defined by his or her alternative perspective (or world view), and by how that alternative impacts the MC. One of the two perspectives, the MC's or the OC's, will make better sense and have a better feel than the other. Ultimately, one perspective will give way to the other (for better or worse).

It is easy to illustrate the alternate world view, even from the first person narrative form. For example, Jay Gatsby in "The Great Gatsby" is the obstacle character to the MC and narrator, Nick Carraway. Nick Carraway was raised to be tolerant of other's moral shortcomings. By his presence, Jay Gatsby forces Nick to reconsider this long held belief. Ultimately, to quote our story analysis, "The events that occurred in the summer of '22, however, gave him an aversion to the ways of the corrupt and dissolute, and his essential nature changed."