While some parts of the Dramatica model seem to make sense, there are still portions of it that can make you wonder, “Why the heck was it set up this way?” It almost seems counter-productive towards the process of writing great fiction. In this article, Melanie Anne Phillips, one of the co-creators of the theory, goes on to explain why certain choices were made to bring this revolutionary story theory to light.
As with my last article about why you shouldn’t care about how Dramatica works, there is even greater discussion popping up on the Dramatica MailList. Unfortunately, because of the nature of email listservs, much of this information is not readily available unless you happen to be subscribed at the time of posting. I’ll try to post the best of the best here.
And this is definitely one of them.
Melanie begins her insight into Dramatica with this:
Dramatica is actually a four dimensional model [of] story. But you cannot depict a four dimensional model in a four dimensional universe. You can only look at three dimensions at a time. (You have to stand on one dimension as your point of view in order to see the other three relative to your perspective). Therefore, you must take a three-dimensional “slice” of the true four-dimensional model if you are to make it tangible at all, rather than just conceptual.
We had to determine which dimension to lose in order to make it possible to describe the model in standard math, and therefore to be able to program an engine based on it. We looked at all ways to make this slice - one of which would have simply eliminated time from the Story Engine, preventing it from predicting act-order, scene-order, and so on. But, we felt that was really useful functionality.
So, we chose to limit the “perspective” from which we can appreciate Dramatica.
This is my re-interpretation of that: When appreciating anything in this universe that we live and breathe, there are four perspectives you can take:
- Third Person Impersonal or ”They”
- Third Person Personal or ”We”
- First Person Impersonal or ”You”
- First Person Personal or ”I”
These are the only four perspectives that exist in our universe - there are no more. Consequently, you have to assume one of these points-of-view if you want to acquire some meaning to the events that happen around us (and as it so happens, in a story as well). The one you choose becomes your Blind Spot as it is the one you are using; it becomes your given - the thing you don’t question - the thing you don’t see.
In a similar fashion, there are four ways of appreciating the external universe that surrounds us, and four ways of appreciating the internal universe within our minds. The former should be relatively familiar to those with even the most rudimentary understanding of Physics. The latter, not so much:
- External - Mass, Energy, Space and Time
- Internal - Knowledge, Thought, Ability and Desire
These eight are listed in comparable order, i.e. Knowledge is the Mass of the Mind, Thought is the Energy of the Mind and so on.
The Dramatica theory of story, by definition (short definition) is an analogy to the human mind as it tries to solve problems. With that in mind, and the above concept that you have to choose one as a spot from which to appreciate all the others, one of those four areas of the Mind had to be chosen as the Blind Spot for the Theory Model itself.
Knowledge was chosen as this spot.
Melanie goes on to explain why:
There are four primary perspectives in Mental Relativity, the theory of psychology behind Dramatica. They are: K,T,D,A. These stand for Knowledge, Thought, Desire, and Ability. These are the internal equivalents of Mass, Energy, Space, and Time - our four dimensions. So think of KTAD as the four dimensions of mind.
Next thing you’ll need to know is to recall that the pairs of elements in every quad fall into four kinds of relationships - Dynamic (represented by diagonals), Companion (horizontal pairs), Dependent (vertical pairs), and Component or Colllective (seeing all the elements of a quad as individual items or as part of the same family).
Dynamic Pairs have the most direct opposition (as I’m sure you know), and therefore generate the most intense and most easily understood and portrayed dramatic energy.
Dynamic Pairs are what you see from a K-based perspective. A K-based perspective is a very male, very Western, Industrialzed point of view. It sees things in binaries and opposites. It defines things, which (philosophically) creates fences of meaning in which something is described by falling inside the fence and everything else is classed together because it falls outside.
I could write equivalent descriptions of what things look like in a T, A, or D-based perspective, but that would digress as we are concerned at the moment only with the functionality of the system of Dramtica as it currently exists.
We chose the K-based perspective to limit the model to just three dimensions and thefore to make it possible to program it as an interactive engine.
Why K instead of the others. Dramatica was released to our primary market (the USA and other Western-thinking countries). That market is composed almost exclusively of variations of K-based societies. That is why science
is so big here - we define, we specify, we create 1’s and zeros.
Hence, our art-forms favor K-based expressions based on K-based structural foundations by a very wide margin. This is what leads to the standard “Hollywood Hero-based Action Movie.” Certainly other forms are used in
our (and similar) cultures, but in the Western world, K-based art is the big favorite.
So, if we were to release a revolutionary theory and the software that implements it and had to choose one of four perspectives, we’d be foolish not to choose the one in which most people in our market have been trained or are inherently biased toward.
It is hard enough trying to convince people about a whole new “world is round” point of view without trying to cast it in a perspective they either can’t or have never learned how to see!
So, we settled on K-based, figuring that if we ever had the time and resources, we could work out the other T,A, and D versions later. In a K-based system then, it is all about opposites - Dynamic Pairs. The key, when slicing a four-dimensional model down to just one perspective in order to lose one of the four dimensions is that you have to be consistent throughout the entire model or it will not be accurate.
In other words, in for an inch, in for a mile. If you have one thing in K-base, you can’t suddenly have some other part of the structure or dynamics in T-base and expect it to function.
In fact (you might be interested to know) after we built the K-based engine and tested it and found that it worked. We decided to try and make the MC and IC a companion pair rather than a dynamic pair. We assigned them companion attributes in the seminal engine and the durn thing just ran haywire. It couldn’t function. It was a paradox in very literal truth.
To avoid the paradox in a three-dimensional model of a four-dimension phenomenon you must limit yourself, and if you intend to keep Time as part of the model, limiting perspective is the best place to do it.
The WHOLE model must remain K-based or the consistency of dramatic intent, clarity of message, and predictive value of the engine are forfeit.
So, there you have the inarguable reason (at least from my perspective)
0 responses so far ↓
There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.
Leave a Comment