Written by
Melanie Anne Phillips
Based on the Dramatica theory of story
originally developed by Melanie Anne Phillips
and Chris Huntley
Methodology Archetypes
Before the final version of "Dramatica - a New Theory of Story"
there was an earlier draft which contained unfininished concepts and additional theory
that was ultimately deemed "too complex". As a result, this material was
never fully developed, was cut from the final version of the book, and has never seen the
light of day -- until now! Recently, a copy of this early draft surfaced in the
theory archives. The following are excerpts from this "lost" text.
CAVEAT:
Because the text that follows was not fully developed,
portions may be incomplete, inaccurate, or actually quite wrong.
It is presented as a look into the history of the
development of Dramatica and also as a source of additional theory concepts that (with
further development) may prove useful.
Introduction
This segment represents a whole new, previously
unmentioned aspect of Archetypal Characters. After developing the original eight
Archetypes and their Elements with Chris, I went on to consider what the Archetypes might
look like in the Methodologies, Evaluations, and Purposes. Theory-wise, if the
Problem Element of the Objective Story falls in one of these other dimensions of
characters, then the Elements in those dimensions would be the principal ones by which the
Archetypes would be known. In effect, the set of 16 Elements which contains the
Problem Element creates its own, unique "flavor" or variety of Archetypes.
Often, the original 8 Archetypes can seem limiting and lead authors into creating complex
characters when, in fact, all that is really needed is another flavor of Archetypes.
This excerpt describes the first 8 of 24 new Archetypes.
Methodology Archetypes
In Chapter One, when we began our exploration of Characters, we
divided them into eight Simple Archetypes, based on their Motivations. Similarly, as we
begin our exploration of Method, we discover eight Simple Methodologies that the Simple
Characters employ. As before, we divide them into two quads: one reflecting Action
Methodologies and the other, Decision Methodologies.
The Action Methodologies are Assertive, Passive, Responsive, and
Preservative. Let’s take a look at each.
ASSERTIVE: ASSERTIVE: The Assertive approach is based on the "first
strike" concept. When one's method is Assertive, she will take the initiative action
to achieve her goal or obtain what she wants. ASSERTIVE: The Assertive approach is based on the "first
strike" concept. When one's method is Assertive, she will take the initiative action
to achieve her goal or obtain what she wants. ASSERTIVE: The Assertive approach is based on the "first
strike" concept. When one's method is Assertive, she will take the initiative action
to achieve her goal or obtain what she wants.
RESPONSIVE: RESPONSIVE: In Contrast, the Responsive will act only when
provoked, but will then retaliate, seeking to eliminate the threat to her status quo.
RESPONSIVE: In Contrast, the Responsive will act only when
provoked, but will then retaliate, seeking to eliminate the threat to her status quo.
RESPONSIVE: In Contrast, the Responsive will act only when
provoked, but will then retaliate, seeking to eliminate the threat to her status quo.
PRESERVATIVE: PRESERVATIVE: The Preservative methodology is to build back
what has been diminished and take steps to guard things against further encroachment.
Unlike the Responsive Methodology, the Preservative approach will not strike back against
the source of the encroachment but shield against it. PRESERVATIVE: The Preservative methodology is to build back
what has been diminished and take steps to guard things against further encroachment.
Unlike the Responsive Methodology, the Preservative approach will not strike back against
the source of the encroachment but shield against it. PRESERVATIVE: The Preservative methodology is to build back
what has been diminished and take steps to guard things against further encroachment.
Unlike the Responsive Methodology, the Preservative approach will not strike back against
the source of the encroachment but shield against it.
PASSIVE: PASSIVE: The Passive approach will be to "go with the
flow" and hope things get better by themselves, rather than attempting to improve
them. PASSIVE: The Passive approach will be to "go with the
flow" and hope things get better by themselves, rather than attempting to improve
them. PASSIVE: The Passive approach will be to "go with the
flow" and hope things get better by themselves, rather than attempting to improve
them.
It is important to note that Assertive and Passive are not the
Dynamic pair here. Rather, Assertive and Responsive complement each other. This can be
seen by thinking in terms of the borders of a country. Assertive and Responsive will both
cross the border, one for a first strike, the other only in retaliation. But Passive and
Preservative will never cross the border, one allowing itself to be overrun, and
one building defenses.
Whereas the Action Methodologies indicate the approach to
manipulation of the environment that is acceptable to a given Character, the Decision
Methodologies indicate the mental approach that will be acceptable. The Decision
Methodologies are Dogmatic, Pragmatic, Cautious, and Risky.
DOGMATIC: DOGMATIC: The Dogmatic approach will only consider data that
has been "proven" as being correct. Speculative or second-hand information is
rejected out of hand. DOGMATIC: The Dogmatic approach will only consider data that
has been "proven" as being correct. Speculative or second-hand information is
rejected out of hand. DOGMATIC: The Dogmatic approach will only consider data that
has been "proven" as being correct. Speculative or second-hand information is
rejected out of hand.
PRAGMATIC: PRAGMATIC: In opposition to that approach the Pragmatic
Methodology widens their considerations to include information that may prove to be
correct based on circumstantial evidence. PRAGMATIC: In opposition to that approach the Pragmatic
Methodology widens their considerations to include information that may prove to be
correct based on circumstantial evidence. PRAGMATIC: In opposition to that approach the Pragmatic
Methodology widens their considerations to include information that may prove to be
correct based on circumstantial evidence.
CAUTIOUS: CAUTIOUS: When one decides in a Cautious manner, she
determines the relative likelihood of various data, giving greater weight in her
considerations to information that appears more certain. CAUTIOUS: When one decides in a Cautious manner, she
determines the relative likelihood of various data, giving greater weight in her
considerations to information that appears more certain. CAUTIOUS: When one decides in a Cautious manner, she
determines the relative likelihood of various data, giving greater weight in her
considerations to information that appears more certain.
RISKY: RISKY: The Risky approach considers all information that is
not definitely ruled out as incorrect, giving all data equal weight in the Decision
process regardless of its likelihood. RISKY: The Risky approach considers all information that is
not definitely ruled out as incorrect, giving all data equal weight in the Decision
process regardless of its likelihood. RISKY: The Risky approach considers all information that is
not definitely ruled out as incorrect, giving all data equal weight in the Decision
process regardless of its likelihood.
In the Decision Methodologies, Dogmatic pairs with Pragmatic, and
Cautious complements Risky. As a group these four Action and four Decision approaches
constitute the Eight Simple Methodologies, and make up our first organization of Plot. We
know these types, don't we? They appear in our world, they appear in our stories, they
appear in ourselves. They appear in our stories because they appear in ourselves.
As with the Eight Simple Characters, they can be divided in Quads.
The Eight Simple Methodologies
The Action Quad
| RESPONSIVE |
| PASSIVE |
PRESERVATIVE |
| ASSERTIVE |
The Decision Quad
| PRAGMATIC |
| CAUTIOUS |
RISKY |
| DOGMATIC |
As with the Eight Simple Characters: No Character should
represent more than one Methodology in a given Dynamic Pair. In other words, just as
one Character should not be the Protagonist and Antagonist, one Character should
not be Assertive and Responsive.
Now you may have noticed that every time we talk about the
Methodologies we speak of them as the ways in which Characters act or decide. The
immediate question that comes to mind is whether or not these Simple Methodologies of Plot
are tied to specific Simple Characters. Let's find out.
Archetypal Methodologies in Star Wars
Returning to Star Wars, we can analyze the Method each Simple
Character employs to see if: a) they limit themselves to one, and b) if there is a match
between Character Motivation and Character Method.
Certainly Obi Wan seems RESPONSIVE. He never attacks, just responds
to attacks , such as the Cantina scene where he cuts off the creature's arm after
it had attacked Luke. But here the direct relationship breaks down. This time Obi is not
balanced by Darth, but by the Empire which is the key ASSERTIVE Character in the story.
This is exemplified in the Empire's unprovoked attack on Leia's home world of
Alderan, and
their efforts to track down and destroy the rebel base. Darth takes on a PRESERVATIVE
approach, which works nicely with his charge to recover the stolen plans. Every step he
takes is an attempt to get back to start. Even when he leads his fighters into the trench
on the Death Star, he cautions his henchmen not to chase those who break off from the
attack, but to stay on the leader.
Rounding out the Four Simple Action Methodologies, Luke fills the
role of PASSIVE. Luke, Passive? Yep. When Uncle Owen tells Luke that he must stay on one
more season, Luke argues, but does he accept it? When Obi tells Luke that he must go with
him to Alderan, where does he end up? When the Cantina Bartender tells him the droids must
stay outside, does he even argue?
Looking at the Decision Quad, Han reads very well as the DOGMATIC
approach, which matches nicely with his role as Skeptic. Leia, on the other hand is
clearly Pragmatic, adapting to new and unexpected situations as needed. Note the way
Dogmatic Han screws up the rescue attempt in the detention block with his inability to
adapt, compared to Leia blasting a hole in the corridor wall, manufacturing an escape
route.
Interestingly, the joint Sidekick of R2D2 and C3PO is split by the
Methodologies of RISKY and CAUTIOUS. R2D2 is always the one jumping into the fray, going
out on a limb, trailblazing through blaster fire. In Contrast, C3PO doesn't want to go
into the escape pod, doesn't want to go on R2's "mission" to find Obi, and
excels at hiding from battle whenever he gets the chance.
If we hang the Star Wars Character names on the Simple Methodology
QUAD we get:
Action Quad
RESPONSIVE - OBI WAN - OBI WAN RESPONSIVE - OBI WAN RESPONSIVE - OBI WAN |
| PASSIVE -
LUKE |
PRESERVATIVE
- DARTH |
| ASSERTIVE
- EMPIRE |
Decision Quad
PRAGMATIC - LEIA - LEIA PRAGMATIC - LEIA PRAGMATIC - LEIA |
| RISKY
- R2D2 |
CAUTIOUS -
C3PO |
| DOGMATIC
- HAN |
For the first time we begin to get a sense of some of the conflicts
between Characters that we felt in Star Wars, but were not explained by the
Motivations of the Simple Characters alone. For example, we can see that in terms of
Methodology, Obi is now in direct conflict with the Empire. Suddenly the scene where he is
stopped along with Luke by the Storm Troopers on the way into Mos Eisley makes much more
sense. As does the scene where he must avoid the Storm Troopers and deactivate the Tractor
Beam.
From the Methodology standpoint, Luke is now diametrically opposed
to Darth, and that defines that additional conflict between them that does not grow from
Luke as Protagonist and Darth as Contagonist. The scene in the Trench where Darth attacks
Assertively and Luke ignores him with calm Passivity is a fine example of this.
The antagonism (appropriate word) between Leia and Han has a firm
grounding in the Dogmatic versus Pragmatic approach. This is what gives that extra edge
between them that is not created by their Simple Characters of Reason and Skeptic.
Of particular note is how R2D2 and C3PO, who share a Character role
of Sidekick, are split into a conflicting Dynamic Pair of Risky and Cautious. So many of
their scenes have them diverging, even while loyally following Luke. The sniping that goes
on between them is a direct result of their opposing Methodologies, and enriches what
otherwise would be a flat relationship. After all, if they both agreed with each other's
approach AND were jointly the Sidekick as well, how could you even tell them apart, other
than by the shape of their costumes?
Finally, notice how poor Chewbaca ended up with no Methodology at
all. Perhaps that explains why he never really does anything.
From the chart we can see that the opposition of Dynamic Pairs
between Characters is not necessarily carried over into their Methodologies. Indeed, some
Characters might be in conflict over principles but not in approach, and vice versa. This
relationship between the Motivation Level and the Methodology Level is the embryonic
beginning of more believable "3 dimensional" or "well rounded"
Characters. To get a more clear understanding of this phenomenon, we can put the Simple
Character Quads side by side with the Simple Methodology Quad.
Driver Motivation Quad Action Methodology Quad
LUKE
PROTAGONIST |
LUKE
PASSIVE |
OBI WAN
GUARDIAN |
DARTH
CONTAGONIST |
OBI WAN
RESPONSIVE |
EMPIRE
ASSERTIVE |
EMPIRE
ANTAGONIST |
DARTH
PRESERVATIVE |
Passenger Motivation Quad Decision Methodology Quad
R2D2 +
C3PO
SIDEKICK |
LEIA
PRAGMATIC |
CHEWBACA
EMOTION |
LEIA
REASON |
R2D2
RISKY |
C3PO
CAUTIOUS |
HAN
SKEPTIC |
HAN
DOGMATIC |
When viewed in this manner, the ebb and flow of conflict can be seen
as not a single relationship between Characters, but a complex multi-level
interrelationship. Yet, we are still dealing here with Simple Methodologies. Just
as we had found that each of the Eight Simple Characters contained two components, the
Eight Simple Methodologies are composed of two aspects as well: Attitude and Approach. As
before, let's separate the Simple Methodologies into their respective components.
The Sixteen Methodologies
ASSERTIVE
Approach Plogistic: The assertive character takes Proaction
to upset a stable environment in order to achieve her goals.Approach Plogistic: The assertive character takes Proaction
to upset a stable environment in order to achieve her goals.
Attitude Plogistic: She Evaluates her situation to
determine what action she should take. Attitude Plogistic: She Evaluates her situation to
determine what action she should take. Attitude Plogistic: She Evaluates her situation to
determine what action she should take.
RESPONSIVE
Approach Plogistic: When Responsive, a character Reacts
to changes in her environment. Approach Plogistic: When Responsive, a character Reacts
to changes in her environment. Approach Plogistic: When Responsive, a character Reacts
to changes in her environment.
Attitude Plogistic: The Responsive Re-evaluates her
environment in light of unwanted changes, and creates a goal to recapture stability.
Attitude Plogistic: The Responsive Re-evaluates her
environment in light of unwanted changes, and creates a goal to recapture stability.
Attitude Plogistic: The Responsive Re-evaluates her
environment in light of unwanted changes, and creates a goal to recapture stability.
PRESERVATIVE
Approach Plogistic: This character employs Protection to
prevent what she has from being eroded. Approach Plogistic: This character employs Protection to
prevent what she has from being eroded. Approach Plogistic: This character employs Protection to
prevent what she has from being eroded.
Attitude Plogistic: She is driven by Non-Acceptance of
the diminishing of her situation. Attitude Plogistic: She is driven by Non-Acceptance of
the diminishing of her situation. Attitude Plogistic: She is driven by Non-Acceptance of
the diminishing of her situation.
PASSIVE
Approach Plogistic: The Passive character exists in Inaction,
making no move to counter threats against her. Approach Plogistic: The Passive character exists in Inaction,
making no move to counter threats against her. Approach Plogistic: The Passive character exists in Inaction,
making no move to counter threats against her.
Attitude Plogistic: She Accepts whatever comes her
way. Attitude Plogistic: She Accepts whatever comes her
way. Attitude Plogistic: She Accepts whatever comes her
way.
DOGMATIC
Approach Plogistic: Dogmatic deals only in Actualities. Approach
Plogistic: Dogmatic deals only in Actualities. Approach Plogistic: Dogmatic deals only in Actualities.
Attitude Plogistic: She relies on Deduction to reduce
data to an irrefutable conclusion. Attitude Plogistic: She relies on Deduction to reduce
data to an irrefutable conclusion. Attitude Plogistic: She relies on Deduction to reduce
data to an irrefutable conclusion.
PRAGMATIC
Approach Plogistic: The Pragmatic concerns herself with Potentialities,
looking at all alternative explanations that can be created from existing data.
Approach Plogistic: The Pragmatic concerns herself with Potentialities,
looking at all alternative explanations that can be created from existing data.
Approach Plogistic: The Pragmatic concerns herself with Potentialities,
looking at all alternative explanations that can be created from existing data.
Attitude Plogistic: She employs Induction to generate
alternatives. Attitude Plogistic: She employs Induction to generate
alternatives. Attitude Plogistic: She employs Induction to generate
alternatives.
CAUTIOUS
Approach Plogistic: The Cautious character bases her
decisions on Probabilities: the most likely of alternatives. Approach
Plogistic: The Cautious character bases her
decisions on Probabilities: the most likely of alternatives. Approach
Plogistic: The Cautious character bases her
decisions on Probabilities: the most likely of alternatives.
Attitude Plotgistic: She uses Reduction to narrow the
field of conceivable alternatives. Attitude Plotgistic: She uses Reduction to narrow the
field of conceivable alternatives. Attitude Plotgistic: She uses Reduction to narrow the
field of conceivable alternatives.
RISKY
Approach Plogistic: The Risky character considers all Possibilities
equally, regardless of their relative likelihood. Approach Plogistic: The Risky character considers all Possibilities
equally, regardless of their relative likelihood. Approach Plogistic: The Risky character considers all Possibilities
equally, regardless of their relative likelihood.
Attitude Plogistic: She processes information with Production
to create any alternatives that are not ruled out by known data. Attitude
Plogistic: She processes information with Production
to create any alternatives that are not ruled out by known data. Attitude
Plogistic: She processes information with Production
to create any alternatives that are not ruled out by known data.
Placing these Plogistics in a Quad table we get:
| Internal
Approach Set |
External
Approach Set |
| ACTUALITY |
PROACTION |
| PROBABILITY |
POSSIBILITY |
PROTECTION |
INACTION |
| POTENTIALITY |
RE-ACTION |
| Internal
Attitude Set |
External
Attitude Set |
| DEDUCTION |
EVALUATION |
| REDUCTION |
PRODUCTION |
NON-ACCEPTANCE |
ACCEPTANCE |
| INDUCTION |
RE-EVALUATION |
Looking at these sixteen Methodologies, it is important to remember
what they represent. DRAMATICA looks at each and every element of story structure as an
aspect of the Story Mind dealing with a problem. And we can clearly see that these sixteen
points represent part of that process.
When examining our environment, we all make Evaluations,
Re-Evaluate in light of a changing situation, choose whether to Accept our lot
or Not Accept it. We all employ Deduction to determine what we know, Induction
to keep our minds open to other explanations, Reduction to determine what is most
likely, and Production to be creative. From these we establish what we see as Actuality,
Potentiality, Probability, and Possibility, as well as the need for Proaction,
Reaction, Protection, or Inaction.
Once again, in stories, these Methodologies can be illustrated in
individual Characters or combined in ways that do not violate their potential. The
DRAMATICA rules for combining characteristics apply here as well.
Based upon these rules, we can easily create our own multi-level
Characters. Let's return to the simple story we wrote about Joan, the Screenplay writer.
As you'll recall, we created Joan, the Protagonist, who wants to
write a screenplay. She was in conflict with the Studio Executive, our Antagonist, who
wanted to sell a screenplay of her own instead. Joan's father was a Skeptic, not believing
in his daughter's talent, but Joan's writing teacher was her faithful Sidekick. As
Contagonist, we created Joan's friend, the Computer Whiz, who tempts Joan to use "the
System". Guardian to Joan is the Seasoned Writer, who keeps the execs of her tail and
counsels her to be true to herself. The Prostitute, a student of the Classics served as
Reason, and the Avaunt Guard Artist was Emotion.
As an exercise, let's assign each of these Eight Simple Characters
one of the Eight Simple Methodologies. As we've already determined, there is no
requirement that a particular Methodology must be matched to a particular Character. So,
if we start with Joan who is of primary importance to us, which one of the Methodologies
do we like best for our Protagonist? We have a choice of Assertive, Reactive,
Preservative, Passive, Dogmatic, Pragmatic, Cautious, and Risky.
Try each one against what we know of Joan. It is clear that any of
the eight would create a believable and much more three dimensional Character than the
simple Protagonist by herself. And yet, there will be some combinations that will appeal
to one Author that are not at all acceptable to another. Protagonist Joan as an Assertive
young writer, or Protagonist Joan as Risk taker? Our hero, the adamant, close minded
Dogmatist, or the Passive putz? Is she to be Reactive to every ripple in her pond, or
Cautious about every move she makes. Doe she try to Preserve what she already has, or take
a Pragmatic approach, adapting to a changing scenario? The choices are all valid, and all
open to you, the Author.
For our tastes (where they happen to be after lunch as we write
this) let's pick a Risky Protagonist. So Joan, the "wanna-be" Script Writer is a
real Risk taker, jumping across the stream and looking for the next stone while in mid
air. So what kinds of things will this reckless writer do? She'll wager her contract on
being able to make a waitress cry with the sentence she scrawled on a napkin in the diner.
If her mother's health is failing because she can only afford half the dosage of essential
medication that she needs, she'll spend the medication money to fix her broken typewriter
so she can finish her outline and get enough of an advance (if they like it) to buy her
the full dose. Real Risk taker, our Joan!
So now, we have the rival Studio Exec, our Antagonist. And she can
be any one of the seven remaining Methodologies. We could put her in direct conflict of
Methodologies as well as Characteristics, by making her the Cautious type. As such, she
would lay out all the ground work to assure that her script will be chosen, leaving
nothing to chance. Or she could be Responsive, and attack Joan every time she sees Joan's
advancement as threatening her own. Or she could be Assertive and attack Joan without
provocation, because she feels it will help her own cause. We'll pick Assertive, because
we want an Action story, and our Protagonist is not an action Character.
We continue in this manner until we have assigned a Simple
Methodology to each Simple Character. So, finally, we have Risky Joan, who wants to write
a screenplay and is embattled against the Assertive studio Executive who wants to stop
her, opposed by her Preservationist Father, supported by her Passive Teacher, tempted by
her friend, the Cautious Computer Whiz, protected by the Responsive Seasoned Writer,
counseled by the Dogmatic Prostitute to copy the classics, and urged by the Pragmatic
Avaunt Guard Artist to break new ground.
This is beginning to sound a lot less like other stories we've seen
before. And that is just with the Simple Motivations and Methodologies. When you figure in
complex Motivations and Methodologies by mixing and matching sixteen Motivations with
sixteen Methodologies, then group them together in uneven ways: more to some Characters
and fewer to others, you can begin to see the great variety of Characters that can be
created using the DRAMATICA structure. And that is the real beauty of DRAMATICA. Because
it is a system of interrelationships, a relatively small number of variables creates an
astronomical number of specific structures. Form without Formula. And it works because it
mirrors the structure and functioning of our own minds in the Story Mind.
Continuing along that parallel, we can see that the Story Mind in
dealing with a problem will not only be motivated and apply a methodology, but will also
monitor feedback to determine the effectiveness of the method and the propriety of the
motivation. This function is defined by our third level of Character, Evaluation.
[Lost Theory Book Contents]
Format:
Windows / Mac CD-ROM
