The storyform I came up with seems too narrow, too limiting. What room is there for experimentation while still retaining the meaning of the story I wish to tell?

When illustrating Dramatica story elements (e.g. Obtaining, Self Interest, Faith, etc.), try shading them with different modifiers. For example, one can have too much Faith or not enough Faith (which is different from Disbelief); Faith can be an attribute of characters or attributed to them; Faith can be shown positively or negatively; etc. By flavoring your usage of the terms, you can add vitality to dry, ordinary concepts.

I've gone through the entire process for one story and am ready to write it. But I want to write the novel in a first-person point-of-view (from the Main Character/Protagonist's POV). With this POV, I don't see how I can present the Influence Character's throughline. It is how the audience would view the Influence Character; yet, the storytelling is colored always by the Main Character's POV. The Main Character's story line and the Relationship Story throughline are easy. The Objective Story throughline is working (although somewhat colored by the MC's POV, too.)

Concerning your question about the Influence Character POV in a predominantly Main Character (first person) story, there are several points to consider. The first and foremost is the relationship between the MC and the IC (the Relationship Story Throughline). The MC has a perspective (world view) that comes into conflict with the world around him/her. The IC is defined by his or her alternative perspective (or world view), and by how that alternative impacts the MC. One of the two perspectives, the MC's or the IC's, will make better sense and have a better feel than the other. Ultimately, one perspective will give way to the other (for better or worse).

It is easy to illustrate the alternate world view, even from the first person narrative form. For example, Jay Gatsby in The Great Gatsby is the Influence Character to the MC and narrator, Nick Carraway. Nick Carraway was raised to be tolerant of other's moral shortcomings. By his presence, Jay Gatsby forces Nick to reconsider this long held belief. Ultimately, to quote our story analysis, "The events that occurred in the summer of '22, however, gave him an aversion to the ways of the corrupt and dissolute, and his essential nature changed."

The Narrator

The narrator's "voice"--no matter which character "vocalizes" it--is that of the author. This means that a narrator, by definition, is not part of the story while they are narrating. So, if the narrator says, "A long time ago in a land far away..." it is not the Character speaking, but the author talking ABOUT the story, not speaking from within the story. (By Story, I mean a Grand Argument Story, not the type of "work" in which it is expressed, such as novel, screenplay, ballad, etc.)

Voice vs. Perspective

So now let's talk about the writer's use of voice (first person, second person, etc.) versus the four perspectives in a grand argument story.

An author can choose to tell a grand argument story using only one writer's voice, or several.

Let's use the fairy tale of Little Red Riding Hood (LRRH) as an example. Specifically, let's examine the event where LRRH first meets the wolf.

What are the four throughlines?

• Main Character: Little Red Riding Hood
• Influence Character: Wolf
• Overall Story: LRRH is taking goodies to her ailing Grandmother when she is waylayed by a wolf.
• Relationship Story Throughline: Predator/Prey

Now let's describe all four throughlines using the First Person writer's voice:

MC: "I was skipping along through the forest when a big, black wolf jumped out from behind a tree and blocked my path. I was so startled, I almost dropped my basket of goodies! Boy, was he a good-looking wolf."

IC: "I could see that you liked me by your staring glaze and crooked smile. You wanted more from me than what was in my basket. My mother had warned me about wolves like you."

OS: "What I didn't see was that there was a hunter with a big ax that was searching the forest for the wolf. It seems that the wolf had killed several of his sheep the night before. The wolf knew the hunter was nearby and that made him very nervous."

MC/IC: "The more I thought about it, the more it seemed that the wolf and I had a lot in common. We were both alone together on a desolate forest path, looking for companionship. Sure, he might see me as a tasty morsel, but who says he so safe from he? You know, I think we might make quite a pair...given the right circumstances."

So, for the little examples above, you can see that the four throughlines can be expressed from the first person perspective. In the MC example, the narrator expresses personal (I) observations and feelings. In the IC example, the narrator expresses what the Wolf thinks and feels, and more particularly how the Wolf impacts the MC. In the OS example, the narrator describes events that she could not possible see as LRRH. That's what is meant by the "big picture." In the Relationship Story example, the narrator describes the relationship between LRRH and the Wolf.

You could choose to express the throughlines exclusively in the first person voice, such as the examples above, or you may choose to express them using different voices. Using multiple voices is much trickier because it can be jarring to the reading experience for the audience, but it is a completely viable alternate to the more common "one work--one writer's voice" practice. You may also use the second person voice and third person voice (more traditional) to tell your story.

Theme encoding involves three acts; in each the main thesis vs. antithesis is presented within a sub-thesis/antithesis. The sub-thesis/antithesis can be argued six different ways--that's eighteen arguments. Multiply that by the four through lines for an astounding 72 arguments. I'm overwhelmed!

Am I missing something here?

What Dramatica theory is doing then is forcing me as an author to develop extensive arguments for and against the main thesis/antithesis, with three main sub-thesis/antithesis areas to explore in four different contexts. Do I have this right?

I wasn't thinking of writing a 400 page novel here! Is there any way to simplify at all? Do ALL of the 72 arguments need to be there? (Again, what if I leave out one throughline?)

Your question concerns the quantity of information that can be necessary to completely explore the thematic arguments in a story. You ask, do all 72 arguments (interactions) need to be there? The answer is, yes and no. To completely argue the thematic issue, all of its relevant positions need to be made. HOWEVER, the depth to which this is done is COMPLETELY at your discretion. For example, you can illustrate Self Interest v. Morality in a single sentence or observation: "I slave day in and day out for our family, never taking any time for myself, and all you think about is getting more money so that you have a nose job!" That simple example (I have no idea where it came from) could easily act as the exploration of one of the 72 thematic issues. If you're an adept and clever writer, you can be far more original and succinct in your own examples.

Whatever you do, at least address the thematic conflicts in each of the four throughlines. Otherwise an entire aspect of your story will be noticeably absent.

I have just recently purchased Dramatica Story Expert and have a question I hope you can answer...Can you define your use of the word ILLUSTRATE in the various stages of story encoding?

"Illustrate" means to come up a real world event or scenario that fulfills a dramatic function in your story.

The encoding stage of story creation has nothing to do with the actual writing that will become a part of a screenplay, novel, or whatever. It has everything to do with conceptualizing the specific implementation of an aspect of your story's deep dramatic structure by fleshing out the raw idea into a tangible manifestation.

For example, if the goal of your story were to OBTAIN something, that describes the generic nature of the goal from a deep structure standpoint. This kind of information can help make other structural choices for our story, such as the kinds of requirements which might be needed to achieve a goal of OBTAINING, or perhaps help us choose the kind of character who might get caught up in such a goal.

Still, we can't simply write a story in which we say, "The goal is to OBTAIN." We must turn that raw structural concept into a real world item. For example, a goal of OBTAINING might be encoded or ILLUSTRATED as finding a treasure, obtaining someone's love, obtaining a diploma - anything at all that is "obtaining" rather than, say, "becoming". In this manner, the deep structure becomes the heart and soul of the symbols through which you tell your story. In other words, illustrating story points based on deep structure ensures that the audience will feel an overall sense and logic to what they are seeing. Simply, the story will hang together.

If we look at a storyform as a skeleton, encoding puts flesh and blood on it by ILLUSTRATING each bone and joint. The flesh is the nature of the structural appreciations, the blood is the nature of the dynamic appreciations, such as acts or scenes.

Still, this story/body is not in motion until we incorporate Storyweaving. Storyweaving is a lot like the meaning of exposition. It is the process of doling out your encoded deep structure to the audience. Here, the word "illustrate" takes on a different meaning. Now, instead of illustrating the structure, we have to illustrate the encoding!

For example, suppose the raw structural goal in your story is to Obtain. Further suppose that the goal to Obtain is encoded as Obtaining a treasure. Okay, now how do you tell that to your audience? Do you come right out and say it in the first scene? Do you trick the audience into thinking the goal is something else and then let them in on the secret? Do you illustrate the goal by bringing it up in several different scenes in a story, of is it more like Hitchcock's McGuffin, getting the chase started and then never being heard of again until the end of the story? Making these choices is the process of storyweaving, and the choices you make are another form of "illustration".