Hatrack River Writers Workshop   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Writers Workshop » Forums » Open Discussions About Writing » Dramatica Theory (Page 2)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Dramatica Theory
extrinsic
Member
Member # 8019

 - posted      Profile for extrinsic   Email extrinsic         Edit/Delete Post 
Kleos is appeals of pedigree, and ethos, appeals of ethical integrity and credibility, both in part through source attribution to acknowledged extant knowledge.

I cannot in good conscience further discuss Dramatica or the topic with its disciples until formal introductions, as informal as they may be, post in the introductions forum and a cease-fire of inflammatory refutations based on unsupported assertions. Support the assertions; do not claim others' opinions are "absurd," please. That violates Hatrack's, writing workshops' generally, principal conduct rule: address the writing, not the writer.

Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reziac
Member
Member # 9345

 - posted      Profile for Reziac   Email Reziac         Edit/Delete Post 
By this logic, you should not speak to me either, as I've never formally introduced myself. But if one is to address the writing, not the writer, then it matters not who the writer is. /irony

My main thought in reading this discussion is that this sort of reduction-to-a-formula is precisely why I find "literary fiction" boring as hell.

Posts: 782 | Registered: Dec 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
extrinsic
Member
Member # 8019

 - posted      Profile for extrinsic   Email extrinsic         Edit/Delete Post 
Yes, some Hatrack members, even ones of long standing, say December 2010, did not introduce themselves on the introduction forum -- formally or informally. As a writing matter addressed, subversion of workshop decorum is expectable when respectful.

Writers do not lightly abide presupposed notions of organizational structure, per se hegemony -- informal "rules" of social interaction actually enumerated in Roberts Rules of Order. Even not knowing Roberts' principles of casual parliamentary procedures, many people socially abide regardless, to variable practical degrees. That's responsible social participation learned from family, acquaintances, and hierarchal institutions -- work, mall grazing, government, public safety reps, etc.

Kleos is akin to ethos, appeals of pedigree and credibility, respectively, two very relevant and significant appeals, especially when asserting claims of argumentation. Writers generally respect successful writers' opinions, and at the same time often envy their success. Successful writers' kleos resolves from their both social and professional presence, plus, of course, their advices for success, meanwhile, also their humanity and folly, like survivorship bias (I succeeded; so anyone can).

Formulas for writing success abound, some vary to such a degree that they are mutually exclusive of others. Yet such cognitive dissonance is reconciled by appreciation a formula, or formulas, is only a bare skeleton of support. A whole and fully realized narrative comprises much more than bare bones; not to mention numerous structural organization principles could be used for one narrative, say, endo- and exoskeltons and a nonlinear causality timeline.

Literary fiction's structural arrangement is anything but conventional. Unconventionality is the convention of substance. One of the more relevant aspects for literary fiction is experimental forms and variances from customs -- throws out customary structure, denies plot's tyranny. Unconventional structure requires more effort to appreciate, which a significantly numerous reader niche enjoys and an also numerous readership denies. Tel est la vie de escritur: Such is the life of writing.

Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reziac
Member
Member # 9345

 - posted      Profile for Reziac   Email Reziac         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by extrinsic:
Literary fiction's structural arrangement is anything but conventional. Unconventionality is the convention of substance.

So its formula is, "Throw out all the formulas." Oddly, the result is a marked similarity in tone, at least in what I've read of it.

I'm reminded of that parody slogan from the hippie era: "Let's all be different, same as me."

Posts: 782 | Registered: Dec 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
extrinsic
Member
Member # 8019

 - posted      Profile for extrinsic   Email extrinsic         Edit/Delete Post 
Tone in writing parlance is attitude toward a subject, topic, or theme. Opponents and proponents weigh in on most every subject, topic, and theme of the cosmos and no two closely agree. One possible feature of plot is an attitude movement regardless whether literary fiction or otherwise -- a persuaded change of attitude, or resistance to change, successful or otherwise.

Similar language is natural and necessary within any literature category and discourse community. A screening editor consensus complaint is sameness of language across the literature culture gamut. Writers strive for grammar proficiency and universal access of a type that fosters sameness of language. The language "voice" is a universal English television normal and about as lackluster weak as stale water, again, regardless of category. A useful voice for formal writing of a mediocre attitude. However, lively prose uses regional idioms and dialects, vivid descriptions, and sharp attitudes.

A critics' common complaint for a category of literary fiction is its use of vulgar language, vulgar to mean common, pop-mass culture language. Several recently acclaimed literary fiction writers draw such criticism, though the criticism is a ploy to surreptitiously demean topics instead of language.

In any case, literary fiction's language is about as similar as any other genre category's: not similar, and at the same time is similar. No narrow writing label, such as tone, as yet suffices for the vagaries of language variance or sameness, save maybe idiom somewhat. For example, an idiom of traditional literary fiction is often a matter of syntaxis: an emphasis of complex-compound sentence syntax as opposite to simple-sentence syntax emphasis.

[ October 28, 2015, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: extrinsic ]

Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reziac
Member
Member # 9345

 - posted      Profile for Reziac   Email Reziac         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by extrinsic:
The language "voice" is a universal English television normal and about as lackluster weak as stale water, again, regardless of category.

My ear disagrees. Give me 30 seconds (often much less) of any television program, even with nothing definitive happening or in view (eg. distinctive props/costuming), and I'll know its genre. They all have different voices.

It occurs to me that the Hallmark Hall of Fame series (which also have their own voice) are TV's answer to "literary".

Posts: 782 | Registered: Dec 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
James Maynard Gelinas
Member
Member # 10484

 - posted      Profile for James Maynard Gelinas           Edit/Delete Post 
I realize this is an old thread. And that one person has already been accused of having created an account primarily to respond here, a charge for which I admit guilt. But the subject interests me. So here I am.

For the last couple of weeks I've spent the time to read the Dramatica Theory book. And attempted to implement some of it manually on a corkboard with index cards to resolve a problem I have with one of my projects. I don't pretend to be an expert. Nor do I sell consulting. Or have any affiliation with Dramatica developers.

Some points. I don't think Jim Hull - or the project - helps their standing by promoting Dramatica as some grand revolution in storytelling. It's bit too public relations. And I don't think the company does itself a service by tying their software product so closely to their theory advocacy. It's a bit too forced synergy for my taste.

But in reading this thread, particularly comments by extrinsic, I concluded that not a single detractor has seriously presented any kind of real critique of the theory itself. There's a lot of handwaving about the term Throughline having been used long ago by Stanislavsky, and how Aristotle's Poetics remains the standard by which storytelling theory should be judged. And then a bunch of umbridge over copyright claims to anonymous comments, quoted in part on Hull's site, where he rebuts without offering a comment section for counter-rebuttals.

Blah blah blah. None of this even attempts to answer the original question. It is misdirection masquerading as commentary. So, given my limited experience with the theory, I'll actually try to provide some meaningful answers.

First, criticism:

The theory is overly complex, its terminology baroque, its rigidity of form a flaw and not a feature, and overblown claims notwithstanding it does NOT offer a complete theoretical approach to solving development of all storyform. Not even close.

One of the indicators that this MUST be so can be found at Jim Hull's web site. He sells his skills as a Dramataica expert, particularly in screenplay form. I expect he's actually good at that. But if one digs into his published film analyses, there are several 'scratch your head' moments in the division between his "Story Score" and "Entertainment Score".

For example, Guardians of the Galaxy. A decent pop SF flick following the "Five Man Band" "Ragtag Bunch of Misfits" who transform into a "Badass Team" bound together by "Family of Choice" (to use TVTropes terminology). It's not 2001: A Space Odyssey. But it's not a terrible movie either. In fact, audiences loved it. And the fact that Jim Hull rated it so poorly in Story terms should say something about Dramatica Theory. Because if the theory can't predict which stories will emotionally impact audiences, it's not a useful theory for crafting story. By definition. Right?

Yet that problem isn't limited to Dramatica. Poetics won't tell you which stories will have impact either. Nor will more modern screenplay theorists like Robert McKee, Syd Field, and Blake Snyder. The first fiction textbook I was ever assigned so lamentably long ago, Writing Fiction by Janet Burroway (a good introductory textbook), says as much too.

So what attracted me to spend the time digging through Dramatica theory? At its core is one insight that authors should consider seriously. That story characters and events symbolically represents divergent and competing psychological states within the author. Much like multiple personality disorder. That the process of reading evokes the same in the audience. And from this insight one can learn something useful about successful craftsmanship.

Not that Dramatica theorists were the first to come to this insight. I came across it in Christopher Booker's tome The Seven Basic Plots, where he cites several literary theorists from the 60s and 70s who based their works on first Freud and Jung and later Lacan, coming to the same conclusion. If anyone really cares, I'll dig for their names. But this idea is not something unique nor original to the Dramatica development team.

But it could fairly be said to be the first attempt I know of to USE this insight as a structuralist theory.

OK - so I tried it. I took a project I've been stuck on - a project I truly care about getting right yet know has serious problems - and I explored the use of Dramatica Theory as a means to seek solutions. And I think it helped. That is, those issues I had with the work before - contradictory underlying character motivations, a quirky timeline presentation I originally thought would be nifty (it wasn't), and serious pacing trouble, well... the work is clearly BETTER because of having applied this analytic technique.

The use of four throughlines was new to me. Making them explicit did help. Specifying Concerns and thematic Issues for each of the throughlines helped. Going all the way down their chair detail to character level problems I found tedious and of less help. But I did it just the same. Then I wrote it out using the reports Jim Hull showed from their software package as a template and charted a new plotline on my corkboard. And the story is better for it.

I don't think it's the best it could be. I sure as won't throw away my (heavily annotated) copy of McKee's Story just because Dramatica helped this project. But I also don't think Dramatica is garbage either.

It's just another tool. Not something to get ideological over. If it helps, great! If not, try something else.

Posts: 12 | Registered: Feb 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kathleen Dalton Woodbury
Administrator
Member # 59

 - posted      Profile for Kathleen Dalton Woodbury   Email Kathleen Dalton Woodbury         Edit/Delete Post 
Thank you for providing insight on this, James Maynard Gelinas.
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
extrinsic
Member
Member # 8019

 - posted      Profile for extrinsic   Email extrinsic         Edit/Delete Post 
None of the prior Dramatic supporters passed muster or even engaged members' constructively because prior Dramatica proponents flouted Hatrack rules of conduct -- done before their assertions even saw daylight:

No introduction thread post posted before weighing in with inflammatory statements, likely didn't read Hatrack rules as posted in the first place and couldn't be bothered to or bothered to heed, direct personal attacks on a member or members, registration solely to promote Dramatica -- self-admitted in this latest case -- and disparage members who find the theory derivative and plagued by idea plagiarism, dismissive of others' at least equally valid if competing opinions, dictated imperialist mandates, trolled for private intellectual property to take off site without consent and for personal gains and agendas, to further disparage members, and disrespect for member opinions that are opinions and not subject to argument.

Opinions are like minds and excretory output outlets: they are impossible to argue for or argue against; they can only change if they want to; and everyone has at least one.

Rudeness is not an effectual method to persuade change or even consideration in any case, immediate alienation instead. The method ruins the message.

Recess playgrounds, jails and prisons, corporate lifeways, battlefields, any masculine contention venue, a basic tactic is to take on the biggest, most powerful, or whatever of most-est an individual and dismiss the individual soundly, in part by personal attack and by denying anything of worth for the individual.

Although I do not consider myself most-est anything -- except most-est least-est of more than I care to be -- I'm oddly flattered that a first-time possible Hatrack dabbler dilettante would consider me worth singling out as a ripe target from which to make hay and brownie points at my personal expense.

Not a very effectual management or self-promotion practice anyway, a zero-sum scenario, in that one entity gains at the proportionate expense of another entity's loss and no net real gain or real winner. Such tactics invariably arouse strong negative passions that come back to roost upon their makers. Thrive by the undercut; perish by the undercut.

So far, this all above is Dramatica proponents. Makes me wonder if the theory contains a subliminal cult coercion. Nope, not persuasively enough to make me into a Dramatica cult follower.

Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
James Maynard Gelinas
Member
Member # 10484

 - posted      Profile for James Maynard Gelinas           Edit/Delete Post 
extrinsic, I'm not public relations. Presumptuous much?

I don't have a dog in this fight beyond my interest in the success of a personal project. Take of that what you will. Or don't (I expect you won't).

Good luck with your work. May you have much success.

Posts: 12 | Registered: Feb 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
extrinsic
Member
Member # 8019

 - posted      Profile for extrinsic   Email extrinsic         Edit/Delete Post 
I see. What I suspected. A personal project for which Hatrack is a mine to extract resources from with less effort than doing the research and composition hard work, a hidden use of Hatrack members to that end, and a dress rehearsal of essay skills for publication purposes.

Which are reasons I won't refute the baseless assertions given above or engage in discussion of Dramatica's strengths and shortfalls beyond what I already have above: derivative and idea plagiarism.

Openness is more productive and respectful, like stated intent as part of an introduction on the Introductions forum. Also, then posting essay fragments for commentary -- like that a vituperation part of a product review essay is a detraction from the form. The rhetorical exercise vituperation has its own form, functions, and customs apart from review forms.

Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
James Maynard Gelinas
Member
Member # 10484

 - posted      Profile for James Maynard Gelinas           Edit/Delete Post 
"A personal project for which Hatrack is a mine to extract resources from with..."

You're not only presumptuous but also very rude. And wrong.

Do you honestly think this sanctimonious behavior benefits the forum? That this drive for ideological conformity and purity through personal abuse of newcomers builds and sustains community?

This is my real name. You attack behind the cowardice of anonymity. And claim my intentions with use of the forum is suspect.

I don't care who you are. How long you have been a member. Or even if you're Orson Scott Card himself through a pseudonym. I'm not impressed. And I'm certainly not going to change my position based on your personal insults.

You derail the topic. But you don't offer insight.

Posts: 12 | Registered: Feb 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
extrinsic
Member
Member # 8019

 - posted      Profile for extrinsic   Email extrinsic         Edit/Delete Post 
Insight: "Please Read Here First" forum, "Next, Please Introduce Yourself" forum.

Maybe then a rational discussion could begin.

First and most pertinent, Hatrack is a writing workshop. A fundamental workshop principle is address the writing, not the writer, expressed in others words in the "Please Read Here First" forum.

Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
James Maynard Gelinas
Member
Member # 10484

 - posted      Profile for James Maynard Gelinas           Edit/Delete Post 
"A fundamental workshop principle is address the writing, not the writer..."

Exactly.

Posts: 12 | Registered: Feb 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kathleen Dalton Woodbury
Administrator
Member # 59

 - posted      Profile for Kathleen Dalton Woodbury   Email Kathleen Dalton Woodbury         Edit/Delete Post 
<Sigh!>

extrinsic, comments are allowed without introductions. Introductions are intended to help those who give feedback to understand how far along in the learning process those who offer work for feedback are.

You were not "singled out" as far as I can see. Your writing in this topic was responded to.

And an alternative response to the above negative comments in general about Dramatica was offered from personal experience with the theory.

I see nothing wrong with any of that.

Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grumpy old guy
Member
Member # 9922

 - posted      Profile for Grumpy old guy   Email Grumpy old guy         Edit/Delete Post 
If I close my eyes, put my right thumb in my mouth, and blow really hard will this all go away?

[Smile]

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
James Maynard Gelinas
Member
Member # 10484

 - posted      Profile for James Maynard Gelinas           Edit/Delete Post 
Thank you Kathleen.

extrinsic, bygones?

Posts: 12 | Registered: Feb 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
James Maynard Gelinas
Member
Member # 10484

 - posted      Profile for James Maynard Gelinas           Edit/Delete Post 
Following up. The more I dig the more inconsistencies I find embedded within the theory. Aspects of it are recursive. Yet they on traversing a the full set of recursive paths, it becomes clear the set doesn't code for any consistent meaning.

Someone else noticed this too. On the creator's forum, someone named "goose" posted a rather devastating long-winded critique that attacks its lack of rigor in detail. Really, the best formal critique I've seen.

http://forums.screenplay.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=4465

quote:

So I recently discovered Dramatica and have been completely consumed by it for the past week. But I have some serious issues with it. Hopefully, someone can help me with them. Warning: this post is VERY long.

The next two paragraphs are my overall feelings on Dramatica and why am posting here. My actual questions (8 total) start after them, though they require some of my background thought process first. Also, at the end are my concluding thoughts about Dramatica, at least currently.

First of all, I believe Dramatica is very beneficial for writing, is exploring avenues of story never considered before, and works well. I think the creators are simply pioneers. However, just because something works most of the time does not



[ March 03, 2016, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: Kathleen Dalton Woodbury ]

Posts: 12 | Registered: Feb 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kathleen Dalton Woodbury
Administrator
Member # 59

 - posted      Profile for Kathleen Dalton Woodbury   Email Kathleen Dalton Woodbury         Edit/Delete Post 
James Maynard Gelinas, the link plus a 13-line quote is sufficient.

It is contrary to forum rules to quote more than 13 lines of someone else's work.

Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
James Maynard Gelinas
Member
Member # 10484

 - posted      Profile for James Maynard Gelinas           Edit/Delete Post 
Kathleen, OK.
Posts: 12 | Registered: Feb 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kathleen Dalton Woodbury
Administrator
Member # 59

 - posted      Profile for Kathleen Dalton Woodbury   Email Kathleen Dalton Woodbury         Edit/Delete Post 
Clarification on my last post:

When someone has posted a comment here on the forum, and someone else wishes to respond to that comment, it's all right to quote more than 13 lines in order to indicate which parts of the original comment are being responded to, since the original post is visible in its completeness further up the screen.

Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2