Understanding the Two Sequence Perspectives
Posted: Aug 22, 2012 4:08 pm
Hi,
I can't say I read through everything Dramatica related in search for clarification on this, but it was quite a read.
What I want to know is how Dramatica merges the thematic argument setup with the thematic structure setup.
As I understand it, there's an experiential 3 Act thematic argument of Issue compared with Counterpoint (i.e. that dynamic pair within one quad). You get six possible comparisons from these four. Two comparisons go into each Act, making three Acts. Preferably, the comparisons containing the Issue itself appear second, fourth, and sixth. This remains the constant argument for that entire throughline. Ultimately, this gives 24 parts over four Acts.
There's also a thematic statement which is more structural. You use the Plot Sequence Report to identify the four variations for each of four Acts. Each Act's Type is explored more independently (top-down) using those four variations. The type itself would be the signpost. There are four signposts/acts. The journey between each signpost is a separate part? This entire effort is repeated for each of the throughlines.
So how best to merge the two results: thematic argument with thematic statement? This is probably up to the author, but I wanted to be sure my impression of this was correct. Dramatic Theory gave a nice example with a doctor and patient scene. It had the argument, I think, be in the background and the structural part be emphasized in f.g.
I can't say I read through everything Dramatica related in search for clarification on this, but it was quite a read.
What I want to know is how Dramatica merges the thematic argument setup with the thematic structure setup.
As I understand it, there's an experiential 3 Act thematic argument of Issue compared with Counterpoint (i.e. that dynamic pair within one quad). You get six possible comparisons from these four. Two comparisons go into each Act, making three Acts. Preferably, the comparisons containing the Issue itself appear second, fourth, and sixth. This remains the constant argument for that entire throughline. Ultimately, this gives 24 parts over four Acts.
There's also a thematic statement which is more structural. You use the Plot Sequence Report to identify the four variations for each of four Acts. Each Act's Type is explored more independently (top-down) using those four variations. The type itself would be the signpost. There are four signposts/acts. The journey between each signpost is a separate part? This entire effort is repeated for each of the throughlines.
So how best to merge the two results: thematic argument with thematic statement? This is probably up to the author, but I wanted to be sure my impression of this was correct. Dramatic Theory gave a nice example with a doctor and patient scene. It had the argument, I think, be in the background and the structural part be emphasized in f.g.