I can.

Or at least I did this afternoon as I trolled through the Dramatica website. A smile crossed my face as I stumbled across the same extensive Dramatica AOL log transcripts that I had read over 10 years ago. Of course, back then there was only America On-Line and Netscape and Windows 3.1. How exactly did we survive back then without blogs or podcasts?

If you were like me, you tried to figure it out on your own. Sure, you had Syd Field’s screenwriting book, but that only took you so far.

During one late night, as I struggled over my latest fantastic idea for a screenplay (one that I now think would be atrocious), I came across this log about something called “Dramatica.” I had always been a screenplay-book junkie and was always interested in the mechanics behind story. So it was with great interest that I started reading it.

Instantly, I was hooked.

There was just something about how obvious it all seemed. The major concepts that stood out for me were:

• The Main Character does NOT have to be the Protagonist
• The difference between a Timelock and an Optionlock
• The concept of an Impact Character and Subjective Story

For some reason, these just clicked with me. How can you argue with the idea that:

…what about stories like Remains of the Day? What was the time limit in that? There was none. So why didn’t the story go on forever? Because it was set up to have a limited number of opportunities for the characters to try and make a relationship happen. And when all the opportunities were exhausted, that’s when the story ends.

Of course! The idea of a Timelock was simple enough (due in no small part to overriding Male Mental Sex), but this one seemed right too. I couldn’t quite grasp it, but I knew on some level that it was right. And this next one, really sold me:

Its important for the audience to know this right up front… they have to know the scope of the argument.

The idea that a story is really an argument - an argument by the author geared towards the audience. It just made sense to me that the reason why limits were set up front, was so that the audience would know what they were in for and would know when a story is reaching that climax. It’s not because there is something instinctually human that 90 minutes into a story you’ve got to drop the hammer down…it’s because the scope of an argument is narrowing down to it’s final last point.

The greatest thing about reading these logs now is that the theory is so raw. Older terms like Focus and Direction, and of course, Subjective Story, are all in there - terms that scared the hell out of me at the time, but now are as easy to use as Main Character and Protagonist.

I just started to read them, but there is a chance you might learn more from these becaues the theory at that time was so new. Melanie (who I think was doing the class) probably had to spend more time elaborating on concepts that most of us might take for granted now. Heading back, you might be able to reverse the path of education that you’re presently on. You’ll be the Marty McFly of story theory.

If you’ve got time this holiday weekend (at least for those of us in the U.S.), take a chance to read through all of the Dramatica-AOL logs. There is ALOT to read - but also, alot worth reading.

What about you? When did you first sense there was something grand about all of this?

Share This

Somewhat related to this article

• User Group Analysis for Next Week→

• the world surrounding a steadfast character→

• Dramatica 10.0→

• circle or a coil→

• balance in the beginning→