Some readers aren’t aware that you can actually ask me questions if you feel so inclined. While I don’t profess to know everything about this theory, or screenwriting in general, I do feel like I have a unique voice on the matter and enjoy helping to make stories and, more specifically, screenplays, better. The following is an example of the kind of feedback you’ll expect when you click on “Contact” above…
Right off the bat I have to say, if you really want to know the exact precise answer to your question, your best bet is to head over to Dramatica.com and ask Chris Huntley yourself. Since he was one of the co-creators of the theory, he can claim a certain authority on the matter!
Dramatica points out your own inherent unavoidable blind spots
But as I said above, I do feel like I’ve got a unique perspective on the theory - of trying to apply it to real-world screenplays for the past 10 years or so (on and off of course, due to family matters, a real career, and good old fashioned writer’s block). Recently, someone asked a series of questions about the distinction between the Impact Character Throughline and the Subjective Story Throughline. What stood out about this email was that so many of the questions seemed familar to me.
Mainly because I had asked them myself several years ago.
Hopefully, what I learned can help save you some time and help you to better understand how to make your screenplay better…
1. I want to get clear on Concerns. Each throughline has a concern. And, if I’m correct, the OS Concern becomes, basically or literally, the story Goal. Is this correct? Are there sub-goals, given that each of the concerns reflect something that needs fulfillment?
Yes - the OS Concern is the same appreciation as the OS Goal. While all the objective characters will share possibly different concerns, there is one singular goal that they are all concerned with.
2. Can an outcome of failure in OS goal be okay if you set up a more important Concern/goal in, let’s say, the M/I concern/goal? A judgment of Good, in this case, would indicate that the MC is okay with the outcome of failure b/c the goal in M/I was fulfilled. Is this the concern (GOAL) within one or more of the other throughlines that was successful?
While I’m not sure if the Goals of other Throughlines has yet to be put into the software, you could say that the MC Concern could also be the MC Goal…but you really don’t need to go that far. I would say that would be pushing the analysis farther than it needs to be.
OS Outcomes of Failure with MC Judgments of Good are perfectly “okay” - in fact, they often make great stories! (Personal opinion) And yes, I think you can temper the failure in the OS with a success in the SS (by incorporating the SS Solution). I wrote a similar story like that once and it seemed to do the job (it was even nice because the MC Judgment was also Bad - so even though it was an all-out tragedy, there was a nice balance with a resolution to the Subjective Story).
3. I’m not totally clear on IC. As I look at the settings and think of the story, I’m thinking in terms of this individual who has the concerns, problems, etc. But it’s all in relationship to that character’s impact. How does this translate? I’m not picturing it.
I’ve always had trouble with this…but only when I tried to think about it too much. As long as it is in there it doesn’t matter if it is the IC in particular who has these Concerns, Problems, etc. or whether these are Concerns, Problems, etc. that have impact. I think it is enough that you put these items in the story. Because of what they are “made of” they will have an impact on the Main Character. You’ll see that it fits quite naturally once you start writing the story.
4. Given this, how does the crucial element play its part? I need a practical example.
Lucky for you (and for me!), I’ve already written a huge article on The Keys to the Crucial Element in Screenwriting. I’d start there.
5.. M/I is the subjective relationship. Wetness to the dry OS perspective. It’s the interaction between MC and IC. So I forget about the IC and MC throughline and everything that’s associated and just look at M/I?
Exactly! Although parts of the MC and IC throughlines will spill over into the Subjective Story. You can’t entirely divorce your own issues from the relationships you have with others. By the way, I love the use of “wetness” to describe a way to offset the Subjective Story from the “dry” Objective Story.
Take a married couple. You can have a man with a persistent alcohol problem (MC) and a woman obsessed with her appearance (IC). But you also have their marriage (SS) which could either be growing or dissolving because of their own personal problems. This is where the “heart” of the story is. Primarily because the “heart” of a story exists on an emotional connection - and what better way to show this connection than through a relationship.
6. Can the MC discuss or continue to have the MC problem in the part of the story that deals with the M/I?
You can do anything you want, and it’s probably richer to mix in bits of other throughlines into the one you’re focusing on in the current scene.
7. What does it mean that it’s just their relationship? And what about the debate between the two of them? We’re using their respective throughlines to argue back and forth with, not the M/I, right? So why do we have the M/I?
I think to provide an emotional perspective on the central story problem at hand. Again, people can have different kinds of relationships: marriages, friendships, work place, father/son, owner/pet, and so on. Even though they have these kinds of relationships, they still have their own “stuff” they have to deal with.
8. Isn’t it MC Concern against IC concern? One argues from one view, visa versa?
No to the first question. The second explains the Subjective Story. The IC Concern serves more to “jar” the MC out of their own malaise and force them to consider either Changing or Remaining Steadfast.
9. IF it’s the M/I when they are together then when do they argue from their respective views, when they are around others and the audience picks up on how they see things differently?
You can do whatever you want, encode it however you see fit for your story. The only wrong assortment will be the one that is not from you.
10. Is it as simple as a romance where, as individual we see them dealing with something that’s focused on the MC’s problem and the IC’s impact on that problem and then at times there is a shift where it’s just about their relationship, nothing to do with MC’s problem?
Yes! Oh great, I spent all this time answering, and you already had it figured out!! I should’ve read through the whole email first…
Incidentally I think the main reason you might be having trouble is that (and I really hope this is not taken as sexist), males have a difficult time describing or dealing with problems in “relationships.” It’s a stereotypical perspective, but I think it’s a perspective that exists for a reason. It’s our blind spot.
Which is another reason why Dramatica is so fantastic. It can help point out your own inherent blind spots and allow you to write a fully developed, emotionally rich story. Most males would leave out the Subjective Story (see: just about every summer blockbuster!). With Dramatica, at the very least you get an idea of what you should be talking about when it comes to the most important relationship in your story.
Share This
1 response so far ↓
1 sechaba morojele // Jun 16, 2007 at 2:18 am
Hello. dramatica sure is a fantastic ool for writers. I wanted to know more about the distinction between IC and SS throughlines. Sometimes the IC is a story in itself (like you have with the mariage example) and at times (like in the help menu) it is about how the IC person’s character impacts on the MC. Which is the one. Also in which story line do we get the IC changing the MC if he does change? I would have thought it would be in the SS hroughline but then the IC throughline is there to impact on the MC to change - I hope I am making sense. Also how does one get to read all the other questions that you have answered
Leave a Comment