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

Dramatica Frequently Asked Questions

---

Plot FAQs

Q: In some of Harlan Ellison's stories the only consequences for failure to reach the goal seem to be that things will go on exactly as before. Are these Ellison stories breaking the rule? Or am I misinterpreting something? (click here)

Q: Can you give a definition of Consequences? (click here)

Q: Okay, so unless I misunderstand your meaning, for there to be 2 kinds of forewarnings, there may also be 2 different kinds of consequences (sort of); one is things worsening (or getting better) and the other is things not changing--i.e., "the Goal will not be achieved" (which, is a type of worsening or getting better from the audience's point-of-view). (click here)

Q: I'm confused about Plot Progressions and the Plot Reference. The former has 7 parts for each throughline: 4 signposts and 3 journeys. The latter has six combinations of signpost considerations per four acts. That's 28 versus 24 scenes. 1) How do I reconcile the number of plot events (28 vs. 24) when I write a story? Or perhaps I'm comparing apples to oranges. 2) Regarding the Plot Reference Comparisons, when I'm asked to contrast, oh let's say an analytical look at Understanding to a passionate look at Becoming, do I have to do that in the same scene (perhaps by finding an issue that combines them both), or do I have to compare them in two separate but juxtaposed scenes? (click here)

Q: How do act progressions compare to traditional screenplay rules of thumb? (click here)

Q: How can I reconcile the 3 Act and 4 Act ways to look at a story's structure using Dramatica? How does this fit with Dramatica's StoryGuide with its Signposts and Journeys? (click here)

Q: How does one do subplots? (click here)

Q: What's the difference between the Story Outcome and Story Judgment? (click here)

QUESTION:

In some of Harlan Ellison's stories the only consequences for failure to reach the goal seem to be that things will go on exactly as before. Are these Ellison stories breaking the rule? Or am I misinterpreting something?

ANSWER:

The Consequences in a story, such as in many of Harlan Ellison's works, are that a potential avenue of relief or escape has been denied or prohibited and therefore the quality of "spirit" has been degraded. There is a limited potential for hope or chance of relief in a story such as that, and when a Goal to escape is thwarted, some of that hope is lost. Consequences do not need to be tangible items. That's why items like Being, Becoming, Memory, etc. can be Consequences.

QUESTION:

Can you give a definition of Consequences?

ANSWER:

Consequences are the "or else" in a story. The characters had better achieve the goal, "or else" something they don't want will happen, worsen, or continue to exist longer than they want. For example, in The Godfather, the Corleone family must find a new don and reassert themselves as the reigning family, or else they will lose face and become mere puppets of the stronger families. In Howard Hawks' screwball comedy, Bringing Up Baby, David (Cary Grant) must obtain the million dollar donation or else he will lose his respectability and be labeled a nutcase. In Lawrence of Arabia, the goal is to learn Prince Feisal's political ambitions and how to neutralize any plans of uniting the tribes into an Arabian nation, or else the Arabs might get the idea that they can be independent of the British.

QUESTION:

Okay, so unless I misunderstand your meaning, for there to be 2 kinds of forewarnings, there may also be 2 different kinds of consequences (sort of); one is things worsening (or getting better) and the other is things not changing--i.e., "the Goal will not be achieved" (which, is a type of worsening or getting better from the audience's point-of-view).

ANSWER:

All of the Dramatica story appreciations (or story points) in any single perspective have a relationship to each other. My example involving the story Forewarnings put forewarnings in two different contexts. The first was in terms of the Consequences (forewarnings as indicators of an impending Consequence). The second was in terms of the Goal (forewarnings as indicators that the Goal will not be achieved). Since Consequences are "what happens if the Goal is not achieved," then the second example could be read as: forewarnings as indicators of the Consequence (which is conceptually, if not linguistically, identical to the first example).

I'm not trying to play games with words here. What I'm trying to communicate is that there is a relationship between each of these items and ALL of its compatriot items. You may choose the context in which to look for understanding, but realize that changing the context of your understanding will not alter the relationship between the items. Please let me know if I'm being unclear about this.

Here is a COMPLETELY non-story related analogy that I hope gives you a "feel" for what I mean. Imagine a family consisting of one Father, one Mother, and one Child. The Father and Mother are married to each other. We can look at the child in terms of the Father, the Mother, or both (the marriage). Forewarnings are like the child of Goal and Consequences. They can be seen in either context, both of which are valid. The Child can be shown to be related to the Mother directly (the Child is the offspring of the Mother), or indirectly through the Father (the Child is the offspring of the wife of the Father). Both expressions of the relationship are accurate, but convey slightly different information. It's your job to pick which is most appropriate to the way you want to present the information.

QUESTION:

I'm confused about Plot Progressions and the Plot Reference. The former has 7 parts for each throughline: 4 signposts and 3 journeys. The latter has six combinations of signpost considerations per four acts. That's 28 versus 24 scenes.

1) How do I reconcile the number of plot events (28 vs. 24) when I write a story? Or perhaps I'm comparing apples to oranges.

2) Regarding the Plot Reference Comparisons, when I'm asked to contrast, oh let's say an analytical look at Understanding to a passionate look at Becoming, do I have to do that in the same scene (perhaps by finding an issue that combines them both), or do I have to compare them in two separate but juxtaposed scenes?

ANSWER:

Signposts and Journeys are a bit like apples and oranges. Signposts are more structurally oriented, while Journeys are more oriented on story dynamics. Signposts focus on content/subject matter; Journeys focus on experiences and transitions. From a COMPLETELY analytical point of view (God's eye view or Author view), each of the four signposts appear to consume the entire "plot" of the story which leaves the journeys to be viewed as "turning points." Conversely, from a COMPLETELY experiential point of view (Audience view), the three Journeys appear to consume the entire "plot" of the story which leaves the signposts to be viewed as, well, signposts that mark progress along the story journey.

The differing interpretations presented by the two approaches is the cause of confusion between the 3 Act and 4 Act methods of understanding stories. The reality is that we, as authors and audiences of our own works, alternate between both views. This alternation has its advantages and disadvantages. The principle advantage is that we can see both the logic and feeling of the story, predict the events and understand the meaning. The disadvantage is the confusion that is created when we get the two mixed up either as author or audience.

Theme tends to be associated with "meaning" more than "prediction." Therefore, the six thematic comparisons are best worked into the journeys (on average 2 per journey). OR, if you prefer the more structural signpost approach, you can weave 3 thematic comparisons for each HALF (2 signposts) of the story. The bottom line is that material for each signpost and journey and thematic comparison (and everything else in the storyform) need to be woven together in the finished product.

We created the Signpost/Journey methodology in Dramatica to accommodate both techniques so that ALL the bases were covered. Authors will naturally emphasize one over the other.

REGARDING QUESTION #2:

The answer is that you can accomplish the comparison both ways, either by direct comparison or by juxtaposition. That is COMPLETELY a matter of personal preference and is done during the storyweaving process. What Dramatica is trying to say is that a comparison should be made between these two perspectives and the context within which each is to be shown. How you accomplish this is truly up to you as author.

QUESTION:

How do act progressions compare to traditional screenplay rules of thumb?

ANSWER:

A way to correlate the 30/90/120 page rule in screenplays to Dramatica is as follows:

Pages 1-30 = Signpost #1

Pages 30-60 = Signpost #2

Pages 60-90 = Signpost #3

Pages 90-120 = Signpost #4

This is a PURELY structural view and does not account for Journeys as independent "pieces." The structural view is also the "author's" view and therefore the least touchy-feely way to analyze a story.

The "audience" view of a story, the MOST touchy-feely way to experience a story, would be to look only at the journeys:

Journey #1 == begins somewhere between pages 1 - 30

and ends somewhere between pages 30 - 60

Journey #2 == begins somewhere between pages 30 - 60

and ends somewhere between pages 60 - 90

Journey #3 == begins somewhere between pages 6 - 90

and ends somewhere between pages 90 - 120

The leftovers before Journey #1 and after Journey #3 become the "prologue" or setup, and the "epilogue" or payoff/author's proof.

The Aristotelian "3 Act" structure is most akin to the 30/90/120 form with which you are familiar. It happens to be a blend of both the author AND audience perspectives and sort of fits the following format:

Pages 1-30 = Signpost #1

Pages 30-90 = An amalgam that consists mostly of Journey #2

Pages 9-120 = Signpost #4

The primary advantage of this approach is that it provides partial author and audience perspectives meaning that you can (to a limited degree) both logic the story and feel the story. The disadvantage to this approach is that it is neither fish nor fowl and therefore you cannot DO anything SPECIFIC with the story. You can only get generalized impressions about the story.

Since a finished work MUST account for both the author AND the audience perspectives, and should work for BOTH of them, there are specific guidelines you should follow. These, however, are not unbreakable RULES and, in fact, the guidelines have pretty fuzzy edges. Specifically, the guidelines I am referring to are both the signposts and the journeys provided in the Dramatica approach to story. Where one signpost leaves off and a journey begins is a matter of debate. In point of fact, each are coexistent in a story and it is only our perspective (as author or audience) that impinges these "edges" on the seamless continuum of a story.

As tools, use either signposts or journeys as your primary act progression reference "aid." Then use the other one to check your work and/or fill in any gaps you may find. By doing this, you are less likely to inadvertently slip into a blended view that might allow for inconsistencies or "plot holes."

---

QUESTION:

How can I reconcile the 3 Act and 4 Act ways to look at a story's structure using Dramatica? How does this fit with Dramatica's StoryGuide with its Signposts and Journeys?

ANSWER:

The short answer is that the paradox or dichotomy between the 3's and 4's (taken to their extremes) is actually like mixing oil and vinegar. The 3's point of view is the experiential (audience) point of view. The 4's point of view is the logistical (author) point of view. The StoryGuide with it's Signposts and Journeys is somewhat of a cheat, kind of like mixing the oil and vinegar. The signposts are 4's and the journeys are 3's. If you mix them up enough they SEEM to blend to create a smooth homogenous consistency, but let them sit still for a moment and they appear to separate back into oil and vinegar, 3's and 4's.

QUESTION:

How does one do subplots?

Answer:

We refer to them as substories because they can have plot, character, theme, and even genre elements. The best way to deal with substories in Dramatica is to create a completely separate storyform for it. Then, when you go about creating the finished work, use your storyweaving skills to thread the story and substory(s) together. Substories are particularly good devices to get yourself out of a character or plot corner. Objective characters do not change their characteristics over the course of a story -- they don't grow within the context of the central issue of the Objective Story throughline. However, change the context and they can behave however you want them to. For example, in Star Wars, Han Solo is an archetypal Skeptic--he disbelieves and opposes everything. The only time he behaves differently is when we pop into his substory concerning Jabba the Hut. Then he is very willing to help--whether it's getting ObiWan et al off of Tatooine, or rescuing Princess Leia from termination. Proper use of substories can really spice up otherwise predictable stories.