botmaster defends the logic of dramatica

October 19, 2005

Found an interesting discussion concerning the usefulness of Dramatica. I was drawn to it initially with the phrase:

If you need help writing a story and are adverse to the mainstream plot-twists of Dramatica…

Which really shocked me. Because if there’s anything I consider Dramatica, it’s not mainstream. Mark Marino goes on to describe a new narrative device called i.plot.

But be sure to read the comments section near the bottom. There you will find a fascinating discussion with botmaster Dirk Scheuring. Choice selections:

For the writer/storyteller in general, GAS (Grand Argument Story) describes how the elements of a story that falls within its analytical range relate to each other to form a logic argument. It doesn’t say anything about how this argument is symbolized to the audience.

True. All the materials supporting Dramatica always encourage you the writer to express your story your way. You’re not locked in to plot twists at pages 30, 60, and 90 (although there is a reason why most fall there…). Dirk goes on to explain it:

There are no “archetypal plots” given which limit you (the writer, as ever, does all of the elementary generation, and I, for one, would never use something as crude as Propp functions). You can, however, fit Propp functions, or the “Hero’s Journey model, or the Linda Seger’s character model, or the Syd Fields plot structure over the GAS grid, and see that they are all easily subsumed by the GAS.

And finally, he concludes discussing Dramatica with the statement that the:

theory helps with designing computable story logics; it neither helps writers write stories, nor will it ever, by itself, help machines to produce them.

Well said!