Dramatica – Iterations, Justifications, 1234, and PRCP
Here’s a portion of my response in a recent conversation with a student of Dramatica:
Well, let’s be clear about the different between iterations and flips and rotates. Flips and rotates are justification. Iterations is the process of the mind expanding to the size of mind constant wherein, you can look at something larger that the top of the tower, but you’d lose the bottom level, or vice versa. With four dimensions to look at self – KTAD – and four to look at the material world – MEST – we must make the rounds, mentally, to check the value of each of those eight compared to the other seven. But, in the process of looking at our relationship to the material world, moving from one measurement to the next takes time. So, in a spatial sense, by the time you’ve gotten through all eight measurements, one of the earlier ones might have changed due to inner or outer circumstances, so the mind goes back and does it all again. But in a temporal sense, doing it all again in the same order always favors the last point, so one must go back and do them all again, but in a different order. Of course, this could go on and on, but that’s what iterations are all about – the process of examining all of these different perspectives over again to see if something has changed and in a series of progressively different sequences. Naturally, this reduces inaccuracy, but it cannot eliminate it, no matter how many iterations you build into the system. But that never comes up because of the size of mind constant that can only hold four items across (horizontally) and four levels down (vertically) before you run out of available dimensions and iterations and run into that problem of losing detail to see a bigger picture or losing the overview to see more detail. All you can know about a single point on the helix is expressed by the table of story elements. Any more than that, you are moving up and down the helix.
Now, justification isn’t breaking bonds, it is breaking position (space) or sequence (time) in going through the iterations as listed above. And this is driven by an incompatibility between the mind and the material world, as outlined earlier. So, iterations are non-justified and flips and rotates are the process of justification upon the non-justified mind. PRCP tells you to what degree your spatial assessment is out of whack. 1234 tells you the degree to which your sequential assessment is out of whack. Between the two you can determine if you should go with your spatial or temporal view because it is more accurate. And that is seen in having two justification wind-ups – one that will be labeled with 1234 or PRCP and then wound up again when the other of 1234 or PRCP will be applied. The second one applied is the one doubly out of whack and in a narrative, that is the one that must be changed in order to resolve the inequity, or at least to put the problem where the inequity is.
Here’s an in-depth response to a student of the Dramatica theory who recently stated:
“I assume the Independent has 4 iterations where each Splay and Display go together for a total of 4. This makes 4 Dynamic, 4 Companion, 4 Dependent, 4 Independent, which does give the correct number of appreciations for each tower.”
Here’s my lengthy reply that really gets to the core of how that part of the theory works:
Let’s talk about Independent for a minute. The quad of relationships that can exist between any two items are Dynamic, Companion, Dependent, and Component. Component is the fourth item in pair relationships. There are two dynamic pairs in a quad, two companion pairs, two dependent pairs and two component pairs. What are the two component pairs? Independent and Collective. Independent means all four items in the quad are seen as individual unconnected elements with individual traits. Collective means they are all taken together as a family in which all individual items are part of that family share overall traits.
In truth, every motion from one element in a quad to the next has a vertical component, but it is ignored in the spatial view until, by the time you have gone all around the quad, the vertical rise prevents the fourth item in the quad from connected back to the first in a true circle, creating a cycle as you would in trigonometry.
The spatial view prefers things all on the same level, so rather than addressing the temporal iterative rise element by element, it is ignored until at the fourth level, it all has to be dealt with at once, like a leap year in the calendar, and so the way that forth level works, and its semantic values all reflect the entire vertical rise from all four items combined, all at once.
That’s why Dynamic, Companion, and Dependent have the same feel as one another, each has two instances in the quad, and one will be a positive relationship and one a negative relationship to balance the potential of the polarity.
As you know, a negative dynamic relationship is where both elements beat each other into the ground until no potential is left. A positive dynamic relationship is when the conflict between both elements sparks a synthesis that helps solve the problem. One is destructive, the other constructive.
But what about the component relationships, independent and collective? One is positive and the other negative because one leads to the solution and one away from it. Picture the slinky toy view. A quad is in the middle of the slinky somewhere. From there, you can move up the slinky to the next quad or down the slinky to the next quad.
Collective relationships move up (arbitrary direction) but that means that it combines the elements into a family, thereby moving up to the next level in the tower and are now considered a family, rather than independent elements. Independent relationships move down (arbitrary direction just for illustration of the concept) and split apart into new parents that will have new children in the level below.
The family relationship they previous had is now gone as they are considered parents in their own right and the next level down in the tower is now created.
The mind can only hold four levels of iteration at one time before it runs out of perspectives (we call it the “size of mind constant.” But, like the slinky, it theoretically goes up and down the helix like a railroad track, only covering four railroad ties at a time, but able to move more into the macroscopic overview (up the tower) or down into the details in the other direction, if that is what is needed for a particular problem.
Now keep in mind that is how the mind operates ongoing. But narrative structure does not move up or down. Narrative structure defines the size of mind constant for one particular problem and explores all the mind’s perspective about that problem without moving up or down.
Narratives are a closed system that is defined by the size of mind constant as applied to a single problem. The mind itself is an open system the moves up and down the helix into the broader view or the narrower view as needed for each new problem it fields and must consider.
Bottom line, that is why the fourth pair relationship is actually Independent or Collective – it sets the direction of exploration up or down the town in a given closed system narrative, which mimics the completely open system movement of the mind along the helix in the wild.
That’s it for now, and I’ll be back later to talk about splay and display and your other points, unless you’d rather have me address some other issue instead. Talk to you again soon, either way.
I decided to have a chat with AI about the Dramatica theory as a means of sharing information about the central concepts with more people in a more conversational tone.
Here’s the transcript of our first conversation:
You said:
I’d like to have an ongoing conversation with you about the Dramatica theory of story that I can share with my followers in order to convey information about Dramatica concepts and how they relate to narratives both in fiction and in the real world. You up for this?
ChatGPT said:
Absolutely! I’m up for it. We can discuss Dramatica concepts in depth, explore how they apply to storytelling, and even analyze real-world narratives through the Dramatica lens. Do you have a particular format in mind—like a structured Q&A, casual discussion, or guided walkthroughs of specific topics? Also, would you like to start with an overview for new audiences or jump into more advanced concepts?
You said:
I was thinking that, at least initially, a casual discussion would be best, but including questions from you about anything where you’d like more depth or clarity, and also requests from you to explore side topics that you see as being linked to what we’re discussing at any given time. What do you think about that approach?
ChatGPT said:
That sounds like a great approach! A conversational style will make it more engaging, and I can prompt deeper exploration or suggest related topics as we go. Where would you like to start? Would you prefer to introduce Dramatica in broad strokes, or dive into a particular aspect that you think is foundational or often misunderstood?
You said:
I think we need to begin with some basics overview information for those who are unfamiliar with the Dramatica theory. My notion is we ought to begin by exploring what to me is absolutely the central concept of Dramatica from which all else derives, and that is “the story mind.” Thoughts?
ChatGPT said:
That makes perfect sense. The “story mind” is the foundation of Dramatica, and understanding it unlocks everything else.
To kick things off, how would you introduce the concept of the story mind to someone who has never encountered it before? Would you frame it in terms of how a story functions as a single mind solving a problem, or emphasize its structural implications—like how characters represent aspects of thought? I’m curious how you personally explain it when introducing Dramatica to others.
You said:
My thoughts are that we need to begin at an even more basic level than a single mind solving a problem or that characters represent aspects of the story mind. Those other lines of inquiry are certainly important and each should eventually be explored as we go along. But to start with, I need to convey several things, rather all at once, since each one almost requires a pre-knowledge of the others in order to really get a sense of what the Story Mind concept is all about. How about if I list those key sub-concepts in no particular order, and you help me arrange them for the best presentation to someone new to Dramatica?
ChatGPT said:
That sounds like a solid plan. Go ahead and list the key sub-concepts you think are essential to understanding the Story Mind, and I’ll help arrange them into an order that makes them as clear and accessible as possible for someone new to Dramatica.
You said:
Thanks! Okay, here we go. Let me start with one concept first, have you write a conversational explanation, and then we’ll add more concepts one by one, rewriting the conversational explanation each time until we arrive at a final version that includes all the points we’d like in there. Here’s point one: Every story has a mind of its own, as if it were a real person – a “super-character” in which characters, plot, theme, and genre represent different aspects of the Story Mind’s psychology. Please give this a whirl in more conversational terms, then we’ll add another concept and rewrite to include it.
ChatGPT said:
Got it! Here’s a conversational take on that first concept:
Think of a story not just as a sequence of events, but as if it were a single mind—a kind of “super-character” with its own way of thinking. Just like a person has different mental functions—logic, emotion, desires, doubts—a story has different elements that work together to form a complete psychology. The characters, plot, theme, and even the genre aren’t just separate parts of storytelling; they all represent aspects of this larger Story Mind. In a way, a story is like stepping into someone else’s thought process and watching it play out from the inside.
Does this feel like the right tone? Once you’re happy with it, we can add the next concept and refine it further.
You said:
Not bad! Let’s go with that and add the next concept. Please shorten what I’m about to write and fold it into a new piece of text that incorporates both the section you just wrote and this new concept as well: How did a model of the mind end up as the structure of a story? Why would that be so? The short answer is that in the process of spinning tales, early storytellers found that certain pieces needed to be there for the story to feel complete and also compelling. Over hundreds of generations, and through hit-and-miss, these necessary pieces became the conventions of storytelling. As it turns out, without thinking about it, those pieces were necessary because they are the same issues and techniques we all explore as human beings when trying to grapple with a problem or figure out our best way forward in life. So, without any intent behind it, narrative structure became a model of the common architecture of problem solving shared by every individual. So – please rework this for clarity and brevity, fold it into what we have already, and let’s see what we get.
ChatGPT said:
Here’s the revised version, incorporating both concepts smoothly:
Think of a story not just as a sequence of events but as a single mind—a “super-character” with its own way of thinking. Characters, plot, theme, and even genre all represent different aspects of this Story Mind’s psychology, working together like thoughts and emotions inside a person.
But why does story structure take this form? It all goes back to early storytellers. Over generations, they discovered—through trial and error—that certain elements had to be present for a story to feel complete and compelling. Without realizing it, they were mirroring the way we, as humans, grapple with problems and make decisions. In other words, narrative structure naturally evolved into a model of the way we think.
How does that feel? If it’s working, we can add the next concept and refine it further!
You said:
Hey, that’s pretty good. Let’s go with that and move on to another concept: Armed with the understanding of how narrative structure came to be and what it represents, Dramatica was able to discern and refine that model of the Story Mind, adding missing pieces and moving things into alignment. Previously all other narrative theories tried to understand structure by looking for what worked with stories in their finished version, in which narrative is often obscured by the storytelling that surrounds it. This resulted in story techniques that didn’t work in for all kinds of stories and often were missing pieces as well. But the Dramatica theory, based on the core structure of narrative, was developed so that it works for all stories to create narratives that are consistent and complete, to form the strongest and most powerful foundations for stories. Let’s revise our text to include this, edited and reworked for brevity and clarity, and perhaps to change the tone a bit so it doesn’t sound so much like a sales pitch.
ChatGPT said:
Here’s the revised version, now incorporating the new concept while keeping it clear, balanced, and informative:
Think of a story not just as a sequence of events but as a single mind—a “super-character” with its own way of thinking. Characters, plot, theme, and even genre all represent different aspects of this Story Mind’s psychology, working together like thoughts and emotions inside a person.
But why does story structure take this form? Over generations, storytellers discovered that certain elements had to be present for a story to feel complete and compelling. Without realizing it, they were mirroring how we, as humans, grapple with problems and make decisions. In other words, narrative structure naturally evolved into a model of the way we think.
Dramatica builds on this idea by refining that model, aligning its pieces, and filling in the gaps. Traditional storytelling theories have often looked at finished stories, where narrative structure is intertwined with style, genre, and personal expression. This approach led to techniques that worked some of the time but lacked consistency. Dramatica, in contrast, was developed by examining the core structure beneath storytelling, ensuring a complete and internally sound foundation that works for any story.
This keeps the tone more objective while still making a strong point. How does it feel to you? Ready to add another concept?
You said:
Very nice! Let’s conclude this session here and I’ll return soon with another area of the theory for us to explore. And thanks for your help – I couldn’t do it without you!
ChatGPT said:
You’re very welcome! This has been a great start, and I’m looking forward to diving deeper into Dramatica with you. Just let me know when you’re ready to explore the next area of the theory. Always happy to help—this is exactly the kind of discussion I enjoy. See you next time!
Coming up with an unexpected change in direction of your plot that alters the course of your story.
Keeping that information from your readers until just the right moment to reveal it for maximum surprise.
As a technique, it is far easier to build a plot twist on your existing plot than to imagine one as a lone outlier and then try to connect it to the main.
To begin, suppose we have a story about a Marshall in an old west town who must overcome a notorious gang.
Rather than trying to invent a twist out of nowhere, ask a question you haven’t answered yet about your plot.
Question:
How does the Marshall first find out about the gang’s activities?
Now, let your Muse run wild and come up with as many potential answers as she can – from the sublime to the ricidulous
Answers:
1. The gang rides into town hootin’ and hollarin’ (pretty typical)
2. He is told about the situation, right after he accepts the job and pins on the badge. (minor twist)
3. He saw a newspaper account of the town’s gang problem and came there on his own to get the job to clean up the gang. (minor twist)
4. The gang sends a telegram to the marshall’s home to taunt him by letting him know they are in town shaking it down. (uncommnon twist – not major, but unexpected)
Okay – none of these are particularly “oh, wow!” but this is just the first step in the technique. Now, you want to pick one of those scenarios (which has added to your plot) and ask another question to advance the potential of your plot twist into even more surprising growund.
For example, let’s pick the following to develop from our initial answers to the initial question:
Answer 3: He saw a newspaper account of the town’s gang problem and came there on his own to get the job to clean up the gang.
Now ask questons about that answer, as you did before, but this time you’ll be farther along your plot thread, giving it even more of a twist.
Questions:
1. Where was he when he saw the newspaper?
2. Has he done this kind of thing before?
3. Why does he want to interfere?
4. What makes him think he is qualified to do anything about the problem?
5. Does he notify the town’s mayor or governing body before he shows up?
Then, you repeat the second “creative” step with your Muse and provide answers.
Example:
Question 2. Has he done this kind of thing before?
Answers:
1. Yes, he is independently wealthy and does this all the time as a hobby.
2. Yes, one time. His family was killed when he was a child and in his first adventure, he read a newspaper account of a child who was made an orphan due to a gang’s violence in a town in the East. He brought the gang to justice and found a foster home for the child. It was so fulfilling, his ordinary job has been miserable since, and this new article has made him realize he needs to step forward to give his live meaning.
I could go on and on, but you get the idea.
Now, through this exercise, what twists have we created for our story? Perhaps these:
1. A scene showing the Marshall as a young boy when his family was killed (by who and how and where can all be figured out using the Creative Two-Step).
2. A scene showing the Marshall see the first article and decide to get involved.
3. Several scene, perhaps in a montage or in a scrapbook of how that first adventure went.
4. A scene of him encountering this new newspaper article and how it affects him.
5. A scene of him quitting his job (how much he needs the money, what kind of job, and so on can be created using the two-step)
6. A scene of him arriving at the town.
7. How he gets the job (again, use the two-step to come up with ideas for this)
8. His first encounter with the gang (casual, antagonistic, high or low tension, anybody get hurt?, did the gang know he was the Marshall when they first encounter?)
The benefit of this technique is that by asking a questions, then providing multiple potential answers, then asking another question about the one you chose, your plot grows and twists at the same time, suggesting new scenes, new characters, and new thematic issues along the way.
Bottm line – don’t get mired in a random process of trying to force yourself to invent a startling plot twist. Simply apply this technique and let the plot twists suggest themselves.
Melanie Anne Phillips Creator, StoryWeaver Co-creator, Dramatica
Here are some links to some good stuff for writers:
My main website for writers – https://storymind.com
A library of the hundreds of writing tips I’ve penned – https://storymind.com/blog
You must be logged in to post a comment.