NaNoWriMo book

[marguerite]

Through the great gods of Amazon.com, I got hold of Victoria Lynn Schmidt, Book in a Month: The Foolproof System for Writing a Novel in 30 Days (Cincinnati: Writers Digest Books, 2008). It's a spiral-bound book with various structural worksheets and a lot of pop psychology (the author is a psychologist) on factors that interfere with one's writing as well as a fair amount of practical advice. The cover price is around $22, but Amazon is currently selling it for less than $16.

 

The author would undoubtedly scrag me for mentioning this (the glories of Internet anonymity!), because her plan is that prospective authors should buy a new copy of the book for every project, but I am finding Storyist an excellent place to keep all the answers to Dr. Schmidt's questions (well, not the psych questions). I map out the character questions in the character sheets and the props and settings in their appropriate locations (that's how I came up with the Props template, available through Sharing), and eventually I will map out the plot points under Acts I, II, and III. At the moment, I'm stashing everything else in the Notebook. But since I also have my Storyboard with my teeny JPEGs of characters and settings, I can keep them in sight as I type, which I couldn't do if I were marking up the workbook.

 

So far, with a little help from Dramatica, I've mapped out a rough story outline and back story for the major characters of my next project. I switch back and forth: answering Dramatica questions and printing plot progressions (to the best of my ability--Dramatica's bizarre vocabulary still leaves me wondering if I've answered the questions properly half the time), transferring themes and character descriptions to Storyist and writing down any scenes that come to mind in the Manuscript window or noting what I need to research or figure out in the Notes, and then plugging the answers into the next set of worksheets and seeing where it takes me.

 

I'm not actually trying to write a book in a month, so I can't swear that the "system" really works for that, but for brainstorming it seems quite productive. And if you do find yourself in the midst of writers' block, maybe it will help with that, too!

Best,

Marguerite

[Steve E]

Hi M.

Thanks for the reference. But when you come right down to it, the only way to write a book in a month is to average 2000+ words a day. You can do that as a Plotter or you can do that as a Pantser. The Dramatica program and "form books" are strictly for Plotters - the theory being that knowing who all your characters are and everything they're going to be doing in advance prevents writer's block and keeps everything going. And this is great for very short stories. Unfortunately, many of us will change our minds in mid-sentence. Stories often seem (to me at least) to be trying to write themselves despite what we've committed to on a form. That's why I gave up on Dramatica long ago. Dramatica is definitely for Plotters, as opposed to Pantsers. But I agree with your brainstorming observation.

 

For anyone just interested in Dramatica, the program and lots of commentary is available at Dramatica.com. If you're just interested in the Dramatica Theory, the 10th Anniversary Edition is available from Amazon. The 10th Anniversary Edition cleans up a lot (but not all) of their nutty jargon and substitutes more jargon-free language. The biggest complaint I've heard about the Theory is that it bogs you down in often pointless minutia when all you want to do is start writing. The best thing I've heard about it is that it introduces aspects of story writing that would never occur to most people (and for good reason).

 

I think you (M) make a good point in that form books can be a good complement for Storyist. Were I in a masochistic mood, and had a lot more time, I'd make a Dramatica template for Storyist (my head hurts even contemplating a list of the 64 fixed attitude elements).

 

Not gonna repeat my thoughts on a prop template,

-Thoth

[marguerite]

Hi M.

Thanks for the reference. But when you come right down to it, the only way to write a book in a month is to average 2000+ words a day. You can do that as a Plotter or you can do that as a Pantser. The Dramatica program and "form books" are strictly for Plotters - the theory being that knowing who all your characters are and everything they're going to be doing in advance prevents writer's block and keeps everything going. And this is great for very short stories. Unfortunately, many of us will change our minds in mid-sentence. Stories often seem (to me at least) to be trying to write themselves despite what we've committed to on a form. That's why I gave up on Dramatica long ago. Dramatica is definitely for Plotters, as opposed to Pantsers. But I agree with your brainstorming observation.

 

For anyone just interested in Dramatica, the program and lots of commentary is available at Dramatica.com. If you're just interested in the Dramatica Theory, the 10th Anniversary Edition is available from Amazon. The 10th Anniversary Edition cleans up a lot (but not all) of their nutty jargon and substitutes more jargon-free language. The biggest complaint I've heard about the Theory is that it bogs you down in often pointless minutia when all you want to do is start writing. The best thing I've heard about it is that it introduces aspects of story writing that would never occur to most people (and for good reason).

 

I think you (M) make a good point in that form books can be a good complement for Storyist. Were I in a masochistic mood, and had a lot more time, I'd make a Dramatica template for Storyist (my head hurts even contemplating a list of the 64 fixed attitude elements).

 

Not gonna repeat my thoughts on a prop template,

-Thoth

You were in a cranky mood last night, weren't you? Yes, I agree that the only way to complete a novel is to sit down and write it, also that stories take on their own form. The most detailed outline is just that, not a padlock on creativity. But sometimes the exercises—even Dramatica exercises—help a person focus her thoughts and get started, as well as suggesting new and interesting possibilities. If a budding author stops and asks why (or whether) his protagonist would act in a certain way, thus avoiding a massive rewrite later, that's a good thing, right? And if using Storyist keeps him from shelling out $15-20 multiple times for duplicate copies of a workbook, that's also good, IMHO.

 

Perhaps the reference doesn't fit your style: fine. I posted it for people--plotters and pantsers--who might find it useful.

 

Since I have the 4th edition of Dramatica Pro, I didn't have to encounter the even more confusing terminology of the early versions. The Dramatica: A New Theory of Story book helps a little, but the big problem I have with the program (besides the minutiae, which I just ignore if they get in my way) is that it assigns its own specific meanings to generally accepted terms. It took me quite a while to figure out that a Dramatica Protagonist or Antagonist is not the same beast as anyone else's protagonist or antagonist, and it's a nightmare to choose among 64 terms that seem to have the same names. What distinguishes "potentiality" from "possibility," for example? Plus the program is expensive, even with an academic discount. So I'm definitely not suggesting that anyone invest in it. Storyist offers a much better deal.

 

What I do find fascinating is the basic idea of Dramatica: that any given story encompasses all the different approaches that one mind takes to solving a problem; otherwise the reader experiences the story as incomplete. Stripped of the algorithms and the vocabulary, I do think Melanie Phillips is onto something there. Do you need all 64 approaches in every story? I doubt it. But the theory does prompt the author not to forget the characters and their relationships with one another, and that can't hurt.

M

[Steve E]

You were in a cranky mood last night, weren't you?

Mmm...yep. Better now. Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

What I do find fascinating is the basic idea of Dramatica: that any given story encompasses all the different approaches that one mind takes to solving a problem; otherwise the reader experiences the story as incomplete. Stripped of the algorithms and the vocabulary, I do think Melanie Phillips is onto something there.

On to something? I think so too, but:

1) I have had very satisfying reading experiences that don't even begin to touch on "all the different approaches";

2) I have read more than a few attempts at completeness that left me wondering, "why bother?" Make your case and move on before you bore the reader;

3) I think Melanie Phillips may be fixated on the powers of 2, especially 2 to the 6th power. A Kabbalah thing, perhaps. The idea that you can come up with a grid of every possible argument and transition is pure hubris. I see the appeal of a mathematically pristine approach to writing, but this is art, not science; literature, not boolean algebra.

 

Okay, I admit it. I have a peeve. I had wasted so much time with Dramatica that I feel people need to be warned before they invest in the theory. Unlike you, M, I wasn't smart enough to just take what I wanted from it and leave the rest. But they seemed so darn sure of themselves, describing major book in Dramatica terms. Then someone pointed out to me that this is just post-hoc analysis: you can always reinterpret a sufficiently complex experiment to fit a sufficiently complex model--technically it does nothing to prove the validity of the model.

 

Guilty of overstating my case,

-Thoth.

[marguerite]

On to something? I think so too, but:

1) I have had very satisfying reading experiences that don't even begin to touch on "all the different approaches";

2) I have read more than a few attempts at completeness that left me wondering, "why bother?" Make your case and move on before you bore the reader;

3) I think Melanie Phillips may be fixated on the powers of 2, especially 2 to the 6th power. A Kabbalah thing, perhaps. The idea that you can come up with a grid of every possible argument and transition is pure hubris. I see the appeal of a mathematically pristine approach to writing, but this is art, not science; literature, not boolean algebra.

 

Okay, I admit it. I have a peeve. I had wasted so much time with Dramatica that I feel people need to be warned before they invest in the theory. Unlike you, M, I wasn't smart enough to just take what I wanted from it and leave the rest. But they seemed so darn sure of themselves, describing major book in Dramatica terms. Then someone pointed out to me that this is just post-hoc analysis: you can always reinterpret a sufficiently complex experiment to fit a sufficiently complex model--technically it does nothing to prove the validity of the model.

 

Guilty of overstating my case,

-Thoth.

No argument here. And I can see the danger of getting so caught up in separating your OS Benchmark from your MC Symptom that you never sit down and write at all.

 

To be honest, if I hadn't already spent money on Dramatica, I wouldn't have given it a second shot. But since I wanted to justify the purchase to myself and I was having trouble with my current project--three stabs at my usual "write it down and see where it goes" had eaten up a lot of paper without producing much more than the odd idea with potential--I figured it was worth a try. Plus I wanted to avoid a repetition of Pimpernel Plan, where I wrote the first 3/4 in a blaze of inspiration (55,000 words in 2 weeks, without benefit of plotting, workbook, or sleep), only to tear the remaining 1/4 out serif by agonizing serif. But the whole plotting phenomenon is so alien to my intrinsic style that I know I can keep it up only long enough to get the story and character outlines clear in my head; then I'll head right back to the keyboard and type, probably trashing the outline in the process.

 

And yes, if you look at the examples Dramatica itself gives, it's clear that you should take their categories with a large pinch of salt. If, say, your Overall Story Issue is "Avoidance," people can be avoiding something or not avoiding something or thinking that perhaps they should avoid something or mad because someone's avoiding them. I could go on, but the big point is that you can twist a given category to cover just about anything you want.

 

Glad we got that prop sheet thing worked out.

M