|
|
|
|
Dramatica: A New Theory Of Story
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | To illustrate the proper way, your Main Character must hold on to his Resolve and remain Steadfast if he is to succeed, because he truly is on the right path. |
| To illustrate the improper way of dealing with a Problem, your Main Character must change to succeed, for he is going about it the wrong way. |
Of course, Success is not the only Outcome that can befall a Main Character. Another
way to illustrate that an approach for dealing with a Problem is proper would be to have
the Main Character Change his way of going about it and fail. Similarly, the improper way
can be illustrated by a Main Character that remains Steadfast and fails.
So, choosing Change or Steadfast really has nothing directly to do with being correct or
incorrect; it just describes whether the Main Character's ultimate Resolve is to stay the
course or try a different tack.
Just because a Main Character should remain Steadfast does not mean he doesn't consider
changing. In fact, that is a temptation with which he is constantly faced: to give up or
alter his approach in the face of ever-increasing opposition.
Even if, in spite of difficulties and suffering, the Main Character remains steadfast, the
audience may still not want him to ultimately succeed. This is because simply being
steadfast does not mean one is correct.
If the audience is shown that a character is misguided yet remains steadfast, the audience
will hope for his ultimate failure.
Similarly, a Change Main Character does not mean he is changing all the time. In fact, in
most cases, the Change Main Character will resist change, all the way to the moment of
truth where he must choose once and for all to continue down his original path, or to jump
to the new path by accepting change in himself or his outlook.
Regardless of the benefits to be had by remaining steadfast, the audience will want the
Change Main Character ultimately to succeed if he is on the wrong path and changes.
However, if he does not change, the audience will want him to lose all the benefits he
thought he had gained.
Your selection of Change or Steadfast has wide-ranging effects on the dynamics of your
story. Such things as the relationship between the Objective and Subjective Story
Throughlines and the order of exploration of your thematic points is adjusted in the
Dramatica model to create and support the ultimate decision of your Main Character to
either change or remain steadfast.
The second essential question determine the direction of the Main Character's growth.
Whether or not a Main Character eventually Changes his nature or remains Steadfast, he
will still grow over the course of the story, as he develops new skills and understanding.
This growth has a direction.
Either he will grow into something (Start) or grow out of something (Stop).
A Change Main Character grows either by adding a characteristic he lacks (Start) or by
dropping a characteristic he already has (Stop). Either way, his make up is changed in
nature. As an example we can look to Ebeneezer Scrooge in Dickens' A Christmas Carol.
Does Scrooge need to Change because he is miserly or because he lacks generosity?
Scrooge's Problems do not stem from his active greed, but from his passive lack of
compassion. It is not that he is on the attack, but that he does not actively seek to help
others. This reflects a need to Start, rather than Stop. This difference is important in
order to place the focus of conflict so that it supports the overall argument of the
story.
In contrast, Steadfast Main Characters will not add nor delete a characteristic, but will
grow either by holding on against something bad, waiting for it to Stop, or by holding out
until something good can Start.
For a Steadfast Character, growth is not a matter of Change, but a matter of degree.
Change is still of concern to him but in his environment, not in himself. Conversely, a
Change Character actually alters his being, under the influence of situational
considerations. This helps clarify why it is often falsely thought that a Main Character
MUST Change, and also why Steadfast characters are thought not to grow.
To properly develop growth in a Main Character one must determine whether he is Change or
Steadfast and also at the direction of the growth.
A good way to get a feel for this dynamic in Change Characters is to picture the Stop
character as having a chip on his shoulder and the Start character as having a hole in his
heart. If the actions or decisions taken by the character are what make the problem worse,
then he needs to Stop. If the problem worsens because the character fails to take certain obvious
actions or decisions, then he needs to Start.
Of course, to the character, neither of these perspectives on the problem is obvious,
as he must grow and learn to see it. The audience can empathize with the character's
failure to see himself as the source of the problem even while recognizing that he should
or should not change because the audience is shown another view the character does not
get: the objective view. It is here that Start and Stop register with the audience as
being obvious.
Essentially, if you want to tell a story about someone who learns he has actually been
making the problem worse, choose Stop. If you want to tell a story about someone who has
allowed a problem to become worse, choose Start.
A Steadfast Main Character's Resolve needs to grow regardless of Start or Stop. If he is a
Start Character, he will be tempted by indications that the desired outcome is not going
to happen or is unattainable. If he is a Stop Character, he will find himself pressured to
give in.
Remember that Direction of growth in a Steadfast Character is largely seen in his
environment. His personal growth is seen as a matter of degree.
The third essential question determines the Main Character's preferential approach to
problem-solving.
By temperament, Main Characters (like each of us) have a preferential method of
approaching Problems. Some would rather adapt their environment to themselves through
action, others would rather adapt their environment to themselves through strength of
character, charisma, and influence.
There is nothing intrinsically right or wrong with either Approach, yet it does affect how
one will respond to Problems.
Choosing "Do-er" or "Be-er" does not prevent a Main Character from
using either Approach, but merely defines the way they are likely to first Approach a
Problem. The Main Character will only use the other method if their preferred method
fails. Having a preference does not mean being less able in the other area.
Do-er and Be-er should not be confused with active and passive. If a Do-er is seen as
active physically, a Be-er should be seen as active mentally. While the Do-er jumps in and
tackles the problem by physical maneuverings, the Be-er jumps in and tackles the problem
with mental deliberations.
The point is not which one is more motivated to hold his ground but how he tries to hold
it.
A Do-er would build a business by the sweat of his brow.
A Be-er would build a business by attention to the needs of his clients.
Obviously both Approaches are important, but Main Characters, just like the real people
they represent, will have a preference.
A martial artist might choose to avoid conflict first as a Be-er character, yet be quite
capable of beating the tar out of an opponent if avoiding conflict proved impossible.
Similarly, a school teacher might stress exercises and homework as a Do-er character, yet
open his heart to a student who needs moral support.
When creating your Main Character, you may want someone who acts first and asks questions
later, or you may prefer someone who avoids conflict if possible, then lays waste the
opponent if they won't compromise.
A Do-er deals in competition, a Be-er in collaboration.
The Main Character's effect on the story is both one of rearranging the dramatic
potentials of the story, and also one of reordering the sequence of dramatic events.
The fourth Essential Character Question determines a Main Character's problem-solving
techniques to be linear or holistic.
Much of what we do as individuals is learned behavior. Yet, the basic operating system of
the mind is cast biologically before birth as being more sensitive to space or time. We
all have a sense of how things are arranged (space) and how things are going (time), but
which one filters our thinking determines our Mental Sex as being Male or Female,
respectively.
Male Mental Sex describes spatial thinkers who tend to use linear Problem solving as their
method of choice. They set a specific Goal, determine the steps necessary to achieve that
Goal, then embark on the effort to accomplish those steps.
Female Mental Sex describes temporal thinkers who tend to use holistic Problem solving as
their method of choice. They get a sense of the way they want things to be, determine how
things need to be balanced to bring about those changes, then make adjustments to create
that balance.
While life experience, conditioning, and personal choice can go a long way toward
counter-balancing those sensitivities, underneath all our experience and training the
tendency to see things primarily in terms of space or time still remains. In dealing with
the psychology of Main Characters, it is essential to understand the foundation upon which
their experience rests.
How can we illustrate the Mental Sex of our Main Character? The following point by point
comparison provides some clues:
In stories, more often than not, physical gender matches Mental Sex. From time to time,
however, gender and Mental Sex are cross-matched to create unusual and interesting
characters. For example, Ripley in Alien and Clarice Starling in The Silence of
the Lambs are Male Mental Sex characters. Tom Wingo in The Prince of Tides
and Jack Ryan in The Hunt for Red October are Female Mental Sex. In most
episodes of The X Files, Scully (the female F.B.I. agent) is Male Mental Sex
and Mulder (the male F.B.I. agent) is Female Mental Sex, which is part of the
series' unusual feel. Note that Mental Sex has nothing to do with a character's sexual
preferences or tendency toward being masculine or feminine in mannerism--it simply deals
with the character's problem-solving techniques.
Sometimes stereotypes are propagated by what an audience expects to see, which filters the
message and dilutes the truth. By placing a female psyche in a physically male character
or a male psyche in a physically female character, preconceptions no longer prevent the
message from being heard. On the downside, some audience members may have trouble relating
to a Main Character whose problem-solving techniques do not match the physical
expectations.
We have presented four simple questions, yet each carries such weight in regard to the
way an audience will be struck by a story that knowing the answers provides a strong sense
of guidelines for an author in the construction of his message. The one seeming drawback
is that each of the questions appears binary in nature, which can easily lead to concerns
that this kind of approach will generate an overly structured or formulaic story. One
should keep in mind that this is just the first stage of communication, storyforming,
which is intended to create a solid structure upon which the other three stages can be
built.
As we proceed through this process, we shall learn how the remaining three stages bring
shading, tonality, and more of a gray-scale feel to each of these questions. For example,
the question of Resolve leads to other questions in each of the other stages that
determine such things as how strongly the Main Character has embraced change or how
weakly he now clings to his steadfastness, how big was the scope of the change or how
small the attitudes that didn't budge, how much does change or steadfast really matter to
the state of things in the story: will it alter everything or just a few things in the big
pond. In the end, the Character Dynamics firmly yet gently mold the point of view from
which the audience will receive its most personal experiences in the story.
Proceed
to the Next Section of the Book-->
How to Order Dramatica:
A New Theory of Story
Back to
the Table of Contents
Back to the Dramatica Home Page
Copyright 1996, Screenplay Systems, Inc.
The Dramatica theory was developed by Melanie Anne Phillips and Chris Huntley
Chief Architect of the Dramatica software is Stephen
Greenfield
Dramatica is a registered trademark of Screenplay Systems Incorporated
|
Index of Dramatica Theory Materials
The Dramatica Theory Historic Documents Speculations
Our Most Popular Products |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
