Chris has written an amazing article comparing Dramatica to other, more familiar story theories proposed by Robert McKee, Christopher Vogler, and Syd Fields.

In it, he explains that the most profound difference is a matter of perspective (which, you’ll find in Dramatica, comes up quite often!). The other gurus come from the perspective of an audience member seeking meaning. He explains that’s why their ideas always “feel” right.

Dramatica, on the other hand, comes from the perspective of an author trying to predict what story elements are needed and where to put them.

And because it’s a matter of perspective, you can’t hold both in your head at the same time (e.g., try to form an objective viewpoint of yourself!). Chris explains further…

How Dramatica Is Different From Other Story Paradigms

PART 1

by Chris Huntley

I have spent nearly sixteen years avoiding reading anything of substance by competing (Hollywood) story theorists such as Syd Field, John Truby, Christopher Vogler, and the granddaddy of them all, Robert McKee. I didn¹t want to ³corrupt² my development of Dramatica and so I avoided direct interaction with competing theories. Plus, I really dislike reading non-fiction even though I write a lot of it. Hey, no one¹s perfect.

I recently decided to come down from my high tower (or up from my grotto) to see how other story paradigms worked. I figured my understanding of Dramatica was mature enough that I don¹t have to worry about ³contaminating² it by exposure to the competing theories. OK, I¹ve been a bit of a story theory snob (it goes with the territory), but I¹m trying to get beyond it. I felt that it was past time that I figured out how other story theories are similar and dissimilar to Dramatica, why they are different (assuming they are), and what those similarities and differences mean.

I¹m still early on in the process.

I watched Syd Field¹s video, ³Screenwriting Workshop.² It¹s well made for a talking head instructional video though the opening music is cheesy and dorky. Syd comes across as warm and authoritative. He gives good writing advice.

I watched the Michael Hauge (Writing Screenplays That Sell) and Christopher Vogler (The Writer¹s Journey) DVD, ³The Hero¹s 2 Journeys.² The production values of this DVD were fair. Having these two story guys working together was very interesting. They¹re story paradigms appear to be very different but are surprisingly compatible. Both Hauge and Vogler are good speakers and communicators.

My initial response to what all three of these guys have to say is that they assume your story has a Main Character who Changes and is also the Protagonist in a story with a happy ending (Success/Good). Lip service was given to the idea of Steadfast main character. Their structural elements were somewhat rigid and overly specific. I had to assume that there is more to their understanding of story than covered in the videos or DVDs, so I decided to dig further. I chose to start with Christopher Vogler¹s book, ³The Writer¹s Journey² (2nd Edition).

Though this is not meant to be a book review of ³The Writer¹s Journey,² I would like to make a few comments about it. First off, it¹s is well written. Chris Vogler has an engaging writing style and strong command of the English language. He goes out of his way to give credit where due and provide appropriate caveats for exceptions and rules. It seems honest, direct, and sincere. And, it goes into greater depth than the DVD (no surprise there). The greatest area of expansion over the DVD is discussion of his character archetypes.

I was surprised that many of Vogler¹s observations about character and the hero¹s journey ³felt² right. Specifically, Vogler discussed the ³meaning² of certain archetypes or events in the story and how they correlate to ³meaning² in the real world. So much of it sounded good and useful, but I also saw all the conditions where those observations didn¹t hold up

What bugged me was that there seemed to be some ³Truth² to his observations about character and plot. These truths didn¹t contradict Dramatica so much as suggest deficiencies in the Dramatica theory. How could they both be right?

It wasn¹t until I was talking this over with someone that I had an ³aha² moment of clarity. I related how Vogler talked about what elements in a
story meant. That¹s when it clicked.

An early axiom determined in the development of the Dramatica theory was
this: If you look for Meaning, you cannot Predict. If you look for Prediction, you cannot find meaning. In other words, you can try to find meaning in a work OR you can predict how to put it together

In other words, meaning is tied to the audience¹s experience of the story while structure is tied to the author¹s perspective of the story. The audience perspective allows a synthesis of the underlying story elements to discover its ³meaning.² The author¹s perspective assumes a given meaning (author¹s intent) to manipulate the arrangement of the story¹s structure and dynamics. It¹s all a matter of context.

So, the major difference between Dramatica and more traditional story theories (based on my limited exposure) seems to be this:

[] Dramatica works with story from the objective author¹s view that allows writers to see clearly and manipulate elements of a story¹s structure. From this author¹s perspective, it is difficult to find the meaning of specific author¹s choices.

[] Many other story theories work with story from the subjective audience¹s view that allows writers to see the meaning of flow and elements of the story. From this audience¹s perspective, it is difficult to predict which story elements are essential and how they should go together.

In retrospect this seems like a ³duh.² I¹ve known that many story gurus developed their ideas from examining lots and lots of stories. I¹ve known that Dramatica WASN¹T created that way
author) and the difference in intent (meaning vs. prediction).

My new understanding of the differences in how Dramatica looks at story differently than others gave me an insight into something we call, ³the Dramatica effect.² In a nutshell, the Dramatica effect is an ³aha² moment that many writers have approximately two weeks after exposure to Dramatica¹s ³Twelve Essential Questions.² These are the eight story dynamics questions and identifying the Overall Story¹s Domain, Concern, Issue, and Problem. If a writer¹s exposure to these concepts is more than cursory, the effect is likely to hit him two weeks later. Suddenly the writer ³gets² Dramatica in some fundamental way that escaped him earlier.

My insight into the ³Dramatica effect² possibly explains what the effect is. I think that the ³aha² comes from a writer going from seeing story from the subjective, audience perspective in which he has been trained to the more objective author¹s perspective offered by Dramatica. It¹s probably less a ³switch² than a broadening of his horizons. It¹s a brief glimpse into the possibilities that Dramatica offers.

I¹ve yet to choose the next guru¹s book to read but I look forward to it

Share This

Somewhat related to this article

• Become Less Invested in your Writing→

• breaking down the art of storytelling→

• Ask Me a Question about Structuring Your Screenplay→

• explaining the Dramatica quad→

• Free Instructional Videos on Screenwriting→