James Hull at 2010-05-30 12:17:13:

A different perspective from someone who has explored the Dramatica theory for close to fifteen years now. My apologies for splitting it into two separate comments, there was a lot to say!

Dramatica is a comprehensive holistic model of story that covers the structures beneath meaningful narrative fiction regardless of the medium. The concepts within accurately explain the timelessness of great plays like Hamlet and deeply moving novels like To Kill A Mockingbird as well as it does The Godfather or Star Wars. Great story is great story no matter how it is transported to an audience.

There have been many films made that are missing components Dramatica states are necessary for a meaningful story. Taken and Inglorious Basterds from 2009 are just two examples of films that found an audience without meaning. These popular movies relied on the charisma of their actors and the thrills of their set pieces to engage the public. But taken as a whole, both these films leave one feeling strangely empty as the credits roll.

Writers, at least those who wish to be great, aspire for something more with their writing -- a connection that the mundane cannot provide. This is the kind of story Dramatica is trying to help writers write, the kind of story that lives on within the hearts and minds of those who have experienced it. These are the kinds of stories people want to see over and over again. When given an option on a Friday night between Brad Pitt's Nazi scalper or Michael Corleone, most lovers of story would choose the latter. Dramatica explains why.

The only reason anyone has had trouble answering the questions posed by the theory is because there were significant inconsistencies with the story they were trying to tell. If you spend enough time with the theory and make the effort to really understand what it is trying to say, you start to realize that the reason great stories work out so well (Hamlet, Godfather, Chinatown, Shawshank Redemption, Casablanca), is because they had these inconsistencies worked out.

Every writer has his or her own personal blind spots. It is what drives them to write, compelling them with the need to say something worthwhile. Many writers don't like Dramatica because it points out their blind spots. That is the main purpose of the theory. It says to writers, "Look, you're not perfect, you're actually missing an entire side to the argument you are trying to make, and if you leave it out the audience is going to call you out on it (by not going to see your movie). Dramatica won't let you write an incomplete story. It is unbiased and non-formulaic in its presentation of the model of story.

Your 12 questions are valid and covered by the theory. As far as the difference between what the Protagonist wants and what he needs, the theory goes into great depths to explain exactly why this dynamic exists and why a character would be so focused on their wants when focusing on their needs would really satisfy the problems in their lives. In addition, it forces you to decide what kind of ending you want, what you really want to say with your story. These are good things.

James Hull at 2010-05-30 12:21:17:

The reason so many of the terms seem obtuse is because the English language was created predominantly by males. As much as we'd like to pretend that we are the only ones that matter, there is another half of the population that sees the world in a completely different light. Dramatica tries to compensate for this male bias by using words or terms that are the closest approximation to what they really should be in accurately describing what goes on within a story. Again, it is a complete model of the human mind, both male and female. There will be some wonkiness to it as the systems for communication in our culture tend to favor one side over the other.

Dramatica really is the best model of story we have available to us today. It does not dictate style, pacing, or narrative (linear or non-linear). These highly subjective elements of writing are left up to the artist - the way it should be. It is always surprising how so many consider Dramatica formulaic or by-the-book storytelling when it makes great efforts to free writers from the creative shackles imposed by Field, McKee and Snyder. Unlike Snyder who dictates you have to have a Dark Night of the Soul moment or that the Final Image must be directly related to the Opening Image, Dramatica leaves the particulars of how a story should be presented up to the creativity of the author.

Even so, Dramatica accounts for all these previous paradigms and moves on to tell you, "You know what? You want to write something unique, something different, something the world has never seen before, well then here you go. Here's how to make it work, now you go do the actual writing. Just know that if you try and write something meaningless or broken, I'm going to call you out on it."

If anyone is interested, I've written hundreds of articles covering the theory on my site StoryFanatic.com. In addition (and strangely timely), I recently wrote an article about why I think Dramatica is so important in my article, Dramatica: Story Theory for the 21st Century.

Thanks Scott for giving me a chance to elaborate on this fascinating and exciting area of storytelling.