Quick Tip....

The best cure for Writer's Block is Writer's Cramp.

Is story structure a myth?

A whole flock of Story Gurus (myself included) will tell you that stories have structure. Therefore, if you learn that structure you'll improve your stories. Ostensibly, this will lead to fame, riches, a keen sense of accomplishment, and the unparalleled pleasure of the act of writing itself.

But is that true? Do stories have a structure? And even if they do, is there really any way to figure out what it is? Based solely on the number of competing theories, one might suspect that either stories don't have structures or that even those who spend their entire lives trying to figure it out, can't!

But there's an alternative explanation - actually, a couple of them, and I'd like to share those with you now....

First of all, we have two questions:

1. Do stories have structures?

2. Can we ever really define what they are?

We'll take them in turn.

Stories have structure. There, I said it. But now I have to prove it. And so I'll say something else - not all written works are stories. And many of those other kinds of writing don't have any structure at all. In other words, when people use the term "stories" in a casual way to mean any durn thing an author writes, well, then it is impossible to agree if stories have structure or not, 'cause some of them do and some of them don't.

So the first thing we need to do is divide what we commonly think of as stories into two different camps. One includes all those written works that have structure and the other contains all the written works that don't.

Now its pretty silly to say that that any written work could exist that has absolutely no structure. So I'll go back a bit on what I said. Even a dictionary has structure, sentences have structure, and paragraphs follow the conventions of a particular gramatic form.

Every random collection of words with no intent behind them has structure. Why? As a species we see animals in clouds, mythic figures in glops of stars, and impose images on inkblots. From this we can surmise that the human mind tries to impose structure even on chaos. No matter what written work we might examine, no matter how fluid and free-form, there will be those who see a clear structure in the thing.

Let's no be so picky. If you see structure in everything, then you already don't think structure is a myth so my work is done here. But when most people think of structure in regard to writing, they are not talking about grammar or form. Rather, they have "formula" in mind. In other words, writers tend to equate structure with a rigid formula for telling a story - a list of requirements that must be met or the story will suffer.

So let's go with that and refine our first question to read as follows:

1. Is there a rigid formula that must be followed to write a successful story?

No.

Wait a minute! Didn't I just say "Stories have structure," and now I've turn 'round and proclaimed , "No they don't."

Yes. Yes I did. And here's why.... Stories have structure but that structure isn't a rigid formula; it is a flexible form. That's why its so hard to see - its never quite the same from one story to the next.

Yet, the elements remain the same: There are Characters, Plot and Theme. There are personal problems, and goals, and moralities. There are acts, and scenes and beats. We feel their necessity, we sense their consistency, yet these are just impressions. The actual nature of the structure remains elusive, seen only in glimpses in shadows, never showing itself clearly.

This is not surprising. It is like the old story of three blind men trying to describe an elephant: One feeling the trunk, "It is long and twisty like a snake". Another, examining the leg, "It is tall and round like a tree." The last, exploring the ear, "It is thin and flat like a rug."

Story Gurus are each describing the same elephant in the room. Each is seeing a portion of the truth. While the descriptions seem in conflict or at least disparate, they are really just parts of the same beast.

I'm not here to promote my particular view of the critter. Rather, I figure my "truth" is also just another facet of a greater "Truth". So in regard to the questions I posed, let me answer like this:

Yes, stories have structure. No, we'll never see the whole of it. But the more story gurus you study, the more sides you see of what stories are, what they can be, how they work, and how to build them.

Embrace what works for you, reject what feels wrong, and strive to develop your own take on story structure, always remembering that no matter how clearly it appears to you, its probably just another piece of the puzzle.

The bottom line is apply structure only in ways that enhance your productivity and your enjoyment in pursuing your craft. Anything else has no more place in your writing life than a rigid structure can be applied to every kind of story.

Melanie Anne Phillips

Do You Write Like an Actor or a Director?

by Melanie Anne Phillips
creator StoryWeaver, co-creator Dramatica
Here are two ways to approach the craft of writing. The first is to step into the role of each character and write it very personally, as if you were an actor portraying a part. The second is to consider what each character must do to fulfill its purpose in the story, then orchestrate their interactions as if you were directing a movie or stage play.

Each of these methods has its own advantages and disadvantages.

On the plus side, the Writer-Actor exudes passion. His or her characters are alive with a personal perspective with which the reader or audience can instantly and deeply identify.

Each character is seen through the eyes of all the others, so the reader/audience feels as if they come to know the characters, not just as players in the Big Picture, but as real people who not only love and hate, but are loved and hated as well.

This creates a rich emotional fabric to a story. But the benefits of being a Writer-Actor don’t stop there. Indeed, even the narrative itself benefits from this approach. Small experiences and individual observations illuminate the environments through which the characters pass.

A Writer-Actor’s narrative is likely to be filled with sensory descriptions as to the temperature, background sounds, colors, textures, tastes, and smells that are present in each scene. In this way, not only do the characters feel real, but so does the world in which they move.

But what about the downside of such a personal approach? The greatest danger of allowing oneself to actually become a character while writing is that one loses site of the needs and structure of the overall story.

Characters tend to take on a life of their own and almost demand that they move in certain directions, even if those are in conflict with the purposes of the story at large. In addition, the benefits of some unifying overview are often lost in the cacophony of individual voices.

Having briefly explored the pros and cons of the Writer-Actor approach, let’s examine some of the benefits and drawbacks of the Writer-Director’s method.

In the plus column, the Writer-Director produces a vision. The characters take on a grand importance as pawns in a larger scheme, a greater meaning.

Each character is seen as a cog in an elegant machine, inexorably moving forward like clockwork toward a specific purpose which will ultimately be revealed. The natures of their interrelationships are discovered and defined as understandable threads in the tapestry of the tale.

In addition, characters are tied directly to plot, theme, and genre, integrating them into the story as a whole, illustrating their interdependence with the forces that shape their world and, by inference, ours as well.

But in the negative column, a Writer-Director tends to objectify characters, leading them to come across more as puppets than people. All the beats of character growth are precisely hit, yet the overall flow can feel forced and formulaic.

What’s more, the stage on which the characters strut can seem more Machiavellian than organic, and the story plods along in some sort of Calvinistic pre-destination rather than an unknown realm in which anything might happen.

If you have begun to think that perhaps neither of these approaches, by itself, is sufficient to the task of creating a passionate story that leads to a well-defined message, you are correct.

And that is the point of this exercise. By nature each of us tends to be one of these two kinds of writers. As a result, we excel in half of what readers/audiences are craving, yet fall short in the other side of their needs.

The solution, of course, is to learn to employ tools in the areas in which we do not have natural ability or inclination. That is, in fact, the concept behind learning the craft of writing. We study and exercise not to make ourselves more talented, but to supplement our effectiveness in those areas in which we are not as innately gifted.

So, the first step of the task at hand is to identify which kind of writer you are. The second step is to practice writing with the other method as well.

To this end it is pretty easy to determine whether you are a Writer-Actor or a Writer-Director. Just sit down to create a character from scratch. Pick a name, a gender, and age, and a job or vocation. Then try each of the following.

Based only on that limited information about that character try to put yourself in the character’s shoes. Imagine you are them, they are you. Then see if you can come up with a problem in their lives, a description of how it affects them and what they are thinking of doing about it. Who are the other people in their lives, and how are they affected at a personal and/or emotional level by the problem and by the potential solutions?

If you found that exercise easy, perhaps even fun, then you are a Writer-Actor by nature. If you found it tedious, uninspiring, and fruitless, you’re a Writer-Director.

To be sure, try the other method: Start with the same bare-bones information about the character. Ask yourself, who are the other characters with whom this person would be interacting. What kinds of conflicts might occur among them. What kinds of problems would result from this conflict, and what would it lead your character to do?

If this was the easier one, then you are a Writer-Director without doubt. You see, both approaches are trying to get to the same place, but they come to it from a different creative mind set. And in so doing, they miss different things along the way.

The remedy is obvious. To enhance your abilities as a writer, you need to be fluent in both approaches, using them in a complementary fashion to fully ignite the fires of passion within a solid logistic framework. And even if you have a great built-in sense of one or both of these, it can only help to fine tune them so that your story development and storytelling become even more powerful.

Here are two plans to help you find both. Well call this strategy, “Hats and Charts”.

A surprising number of authors actually wear different hats while writing different characters. I’m not speaking metaphorically here, they actually wear physical hats. This helps them imagine themselves as a given character, such as a cop or a chef.

Not surprisingly, the extension of this is to wear costumes – the clothing you expect your character might brandish. It can be as simple as a scarf, the way you comb your hair, your make-up, perfume or cologne, or all the way to a full wardrobe.

It is really not as silly as it sounds. Do you not feel differently depending upon the kind of clothing you wear on a given day? Does not a uniform influence the way a person thinks? It is not any less true that a writer’s work will very depending upon what he or she is wearing while creating.

Try music that a character might play, put on a television show or movie your character might watch. Tack pictures your character might have in their home to a cork board in your line of sight as you write. Perhaps add pictures that seem like the realm in which they move – a desert island, a ship, the dark dungeons below the Vatican.

All of these ideas grow from the “Hats” concept. You can and should give some time to thinking about other similar ways of making yourself feel like your character feels.

To become a better Writer-Director, you need a completely different plan – “Charts”. The idea here is to objectify your characters – to see them as components in the store, elements with which you will build the tale.

You can begin my making a chart of each character and listing as many details about them as you can. For example, where did each character go to school? What hobbies does each have? What are their religious affiliations, if any? To what political party do they belong? How strongly do they subscribe to the philosophies in these groups? What are their physical abilities/disabilities? What are their hair colors, skin texture, skin color, weight?

Create a time-line graph for each characters’ emotional journey through the story. Use different colors for different moods or feelings and plot the intensity of those emotions. By examining these passions analytically, it helps you see patterns and uncover skipped or missed beats in the flow.

Using index cards and colored yarn show all the relationships among your characters including familial, professional, historical, philosophical, and so on.

Try writing a description of each character as if you were a private detective hired to follow them for a day. You have no personal interest in the character, but your job is to document everything they do (and even how they act) in as much detail as possible.

Each of these exercises helps you step out of a character’s shoes and see them in a functional manner, both as themselves and also how they interact with others.

As you have no doubt surmised, the perspectives of the Writer-Actor and Writer-Director are so divergent that it is virtually impossible to do both at the same time. In the writing process, therefore, you should use them in succession.

Begin with the approach to which you are naturally inclined for this will provide you with the greatest raw inspiration. When you have finished a section or your Muse comes up for air, use the opportunity (which would otherwise be wasted down-time) to apply the exercises from your secondary approach to the material you have just written.

By revisiting the material while it is still fresh in your creative spirit, but from an alternate point of view, you can reprocess the material and fill in the gaps left by your initial creative burst.

Once you have finished the complete story, go back and run it through both approaches again to ensure that not only do the individual scenes sing like a Spring bird, but that the entire work unfolds smoothly, like the passage of a fine season.

In the end, if you take the time to learn, practice and employ both methods of developing characters, your stories will be far more well rounded and well received.

Story Title Idea

Every once in a while I publish some of my own creative work and notions. This is an idea for a story title I added today to my writer's notebook:

Title for a detective story or a mystery:

"The Quality of the Crime"

Alternative:

"A Crime of Quality"

A Talk on Dramatica

Here's the transcript of a talk on Dramatica I gave in 1997 - another archival discovery on some old back-ups of a long-ago computer that no longer exists...

LAAC Conference Room Transcript

A Meeting with Melanie Anne Phillips

February 23, 1997

Moderator

Today's meeting is a moderated interview with Melanie Anne Phillips. This is a private conference open only to members of Word Spinners' Ink and the Internet Chapter of Sisters in Crime.

Please join me in welcoming Melanie Anne Phillips. Melanie is co-developer of Dramatica, both an extensive theory of story structure and a popular line of software products that use those theories for story creation and development.

In addition to co-developing Dramatica, Melanie is the former Director of Research and Development at Screenplay Systems, Inc. Prior to her association with Screenplay Systems, she amassed some 200 credits in non-union film production, including the directing of two independent features, editing of features and larger budget industrials, and writing work for various productions ranging from features to television commercials.

Melanie, do you have any opening comments you would like to make before we start accepting questions?

Melanie

Well, greetings to everyone, and thank you all for driving so far to be at this conference! I hope you find it useful and interesting, and feel free to ask me anything (within reason!)

If you like, I can just jump in and talk about the theory and software...

Moderator

Melanie, we have two Dramatica owners in the Room. For those who aren't, can you summarize how Dramatica, the software, is intended to function as a story aid?

Melanie

Sure, Mr. Moderator...

Most tools for creating stories mix up the story structure and the story telling. They are blended together, making for a good description of the finished story, but hard to use for creating one. So, the first thing the Dramatica software does is separate the two into completely different stages of story construction.

Now, this is not how authors normally operate. We come up with a bit of dialog, a setting, a piece of action or a favorite concept, and off we go without even considering if it is structure or
storytelling technique.

So, in that respect, Dramatica takes a bit of getting used to, but when you consider that West Side Story and Romeo and Juliet have almost the same structure but completely different storytelling, then you can see the advantage in the writing stage to separate them.

Now, if you are looking just at structure alone, it is a very bare-bones affair There is none of the flavor of the story, but just a raw skeleton. For example, we might say that structurally, the goal of a story is "Obtaining" something. But Obtaining WHAT? The WHAT would be the storytelling. It might be to Obtain a diploma, someone's love, the stolen treasure, etc. But in each case, the structure is about Obtaining.

It is this underlying deep structure that determines the "mind set" of a story. For example, a story with a goal of "Obtaining" would be structurally different from a story with a goal of "Becoming" something. But either of these could be expressed in an infinite number of ways through storytelling.

Now, the Dramatica software says, instead of looking at a story as a series of events that leads from one point to another, look at stories more like a sphere made up of interconnected storypoints. In fact, to make sense, story must be three dimensional, rather than simply linear. In this way, you can wrap around an idea and explore it fully.

If you take the linear approach, you have a "tale" rather than a story, which is not bad, but just more simple. A tale says that this event led to the next and the next and ended here. It
works as long as the chain is unbroken in both logic and feeling.

A Tale is just a "statement". But a Story is an "argument". A story must show context, and examine the issue from all sides, rather than just one. If a point of view is left out, it becomes a plot hole, an inconsistent character, or a warped theme.

The Dramatica software has in its memory, a model of the storypoints that make up the sphere of an argument, as if it were one of Bucky Fuller's geodesic domes. This model is much like a Rubik's cube... It has specific pieces that must show up in every story, but they can be arranged in a myriad of ways and still remain a viable cube or a viable story argument.

By making choice about how dramatic items should come into conjunction to create
potential, an author uses Dramatica to arrange the story's structure while
always maintaining a valid story argument.

Moderator

Thanks, Melanie. THAT gets off and running.

Nancy

Melanie, can you explain the differences between Archetypal and complex characters for us?

Melanie

Sure. In a nut shell, all characters, be they Archetypal or Complex represent different elements of the drama that must appear in all stories. In a sense, these Elements can be arranged in something of a Periodic Table of Story Elements. When you put all of the elements that fall in the same family into a single character, you have created an Archetype. When you distribute elements from the same family in different characters, they become Complex.

In either case, the same dramatic functions must be performed, but it is just a question of who is going to do it. The advantage to archetypal characters is that the audience will assume
archetypal unless told otherwise by the author.

So, rather than having to illustrate each element separately, you can illustrate only the family the archetype belongs to, and the audience will assume the rest, giving you more media real estate for other things, like special effects or theme. The disadvantage is that the archetypes are so evenly constructed internally, there are no surprises there..

Nancy

You wouldn't want conflicting elements in the same character, would you? I mean, would you want a skeptic or also sometimes functioned as a sidekick? Wouldn't those be mutually exclusive, or would they?

Melanie

Well, there are some elements that mix to create sparks, and others that work more like oil and water. In Dramatica, we have charted out the Periodic Table of Story Elements to help us determine which characteristics will successfully go together and which won't.

In Dramatica, families of elements fall into "Quads", such as "Pro-action, Re-action, Inaction, and Protection". The point of the whole quad is to illustrate how, in this particular story, these different approaches fare against the story's problem. A rule of thumb it, that no single character should contain more than one element from the same quad.

It is important to note that this does not prevent internal conflict. Dramatica separates characters into two types: Objective and Subjective. Objective characters are like - suppose a general is watching a battle from a hill and sees the soldiers down below. He can't tell who is who as individuals because he is so removed from the situation. But he can identify them by function. He'll see the horse soldier and the cook and the guy leading the charge. To fulfill their "story function" each character has a job, or jobs. The jobs need to be consistent with one another to make any kind of sense.

But, if the audience swoops down and occupies the shoes of one of the soldiers on the field, we get a second kind of character - the Subjective character, who represents a point of view, rather than a function. Note that a single "player" on the field can function as an Objective character and also represent a point of view.

The Subjective aspect is where you see the pathos of inner conflict and changing attitudes. The Objective aspect is where the structural integrity of the argument is maintained in a logistic sense.

So, in this manner, a "Hero" is a Protagonist (objectively) who is also the Main Character (subjectively), but there is no reason why the audience cannot be positioned elsewhere. We may want our audience to see things from the water boy's position rather than from the quarterback's.

rick

Hi, Melanie . . . we also have a couple Collaborator owners on board here today, and the debate has been mildly ranging for a couple months now about the pros and cons of both. Your opinions, if you're familiar with Collaborator?

Also you may want to comment on the differences between Dramatica and Dramatica Writer's Dream Kit, and what you really get for the extra money in the full Dramatica system.

Melanie

Okay, this is a multi-part question. Collaborator, and the two version of Dramatica. Here goes...

I know the Collaborator creators. Sadly, once of them recently passed on. Collaborator bases its approach on Aristotle's "Poetics". It asks a series of questions that are really good ones every author should know about a story. It also provides tools for organizing material in a storytelling sense.

Where it differs from Dramatica, is that although it is a useful organizational tool, it doesn't tell the author anything the author has not told it. In contrast, Dramatica's "Story Engine" is not a data base, but a "live" model of the relationships among dramatic elements. That is the real value of the software and what sets it apart from anything else. As an author answers questions about the story, the story engine begins to "predict" other dramatic items that must also be present as a result of those choices.

In fact, with as few as 12 questions (the 12 essential questions) Dramatica can predict a complete dramatic argument. Now, I know that is a way out statement, but here is why it works...

Some choices about a story have only marginal impact on the structure, others have wide ranging impact. You can approach Dramatica's sphere or Story Engine in any order through the
dramatic items. For authors who like to sculpt their stories, they can choose more nuanced
dramatics to play with, and slowly build up a complete structure.

But for those who know what they want and wish to get right to the point, they can answer the 12 essential questions and have enough broad influence to have predicted all else that must follow.

So, although Collaborator is very good in making sure you cover your bases and in making you think, Dramatica is more like a knowledgeable critic who will make suggestions and notice when you leave something out or put it in the wrong place.

The difference between DreamKit and Pro is simply how many dramatic story points the engine gives you to work with. The both have the same engine, but Pro accesses more story points than DreamKit, making it more complex, and more powerful.

And of course, Pro costs more than twice as much as DreamKit!

rick

That answers a lot . . . I never really thought Dramatica and Collaborator were mutually exclusive, and I've been using Collaborator successfully as a thought organizer. The only other concern/question I have about Dramatica is what appears to be a relatively high learning curve. This learning curve has elicited a somewhat negative response with some reviewers of the software. Would you care to comment?

Melanie

Well, nobody ever said story structure was a simple thing. When you see it as a flexible structure, it becomes both simply yet complex in its variety. Dramatica was not built to make writing easier, but to make it harder, by forcing the author to address ALL the issues that can undermine a solid structure.

Because of its range and depth, to understand all the elements at work requires a LOT of study. But, none of us learned to ride a bike or use a word processor in a snap. Believe me, if we could make it less extensive and still have it be as accurate, we would, but the human mind is not that simple an affair, and stories must fill the human mind.

Leila

I went through several storyforms before I narrowed things down to one that seemed to work. In the final storyform (which I approached through the Story Engine from the middle out), Dramatica automatically assigned a Purpose characteristic to both my Main and Obstacle characters. How common is this, and why didn't it happen with the preceding storyforms I tried?

Also, according to the "Quad" structure, my MC's Purpose fell under Skeptic, and my OC's Purpose fell under Emotion. Does this make sense, and will it work?

Melanie

Well, I'll need a little more information here. Also, the answer may be a little too specific for the general audience, but here is a bit of info that might help...

For those who don't know, Dramatica sees all complete Objective characters as having four aspects: Motivations, Methodologies, Purposes, and Means of Evaluation.

Each of these four aspects will have its own set of elements. But, which elements fall in which set is not always the same, as it depends upon other dramatic choices.

When you are creating a dramatic structure, there are two special characters that rise above simply being functions. One is the Main Character, representing the audience position in the story, and the other is the Obstacle Character, representing an alternative paradigm to the Main Character's belief system.

One of the things that connects the Objective and Subjective stories dramatically, is that the issues over which Main and Obstacle diverge are elements which form the heart of their personal issues and also appear in the Objective story overall.

So, when you create a storyform (structure), it will include in it the Main and Obstacle Character's personal problems. Since those problems show up in the Objective story, the
Main and Obstacle characters must represent those issues in the overall plot as well.

And that is why you will find that certain elements in building your characters are already assigned to your Main and Obstacle. Hope this clarifies
it.

sweeney

Two questions:

1) How does Dramatica compare to StoryLine Pro?

2) A while back you spoke of a three dimensional matrix of plot points that form a sphere. What are these plot points and how does Dramatica help the writer merge them into a story?

Melanie

Tom, here's the answer to question one...

I also know John Truby (creator of StoryLine Pro), as all us story folk hang out at the same conventions! StoryLine Pro is based on John's classes in story structure. His approach is not so much an overall theory, but a series of really useful tips - templates, if you will, that form the foundations of successful story structures. His templates combine both the story structure and the storytelling to an extent, so that you efficiently create both at the same time. This is much more the manner in which writer's normally work, rather than Dramatica's approach to separate the two.

The advantage to John's system (StoryLine) is that it gives you a solid road map. All you need to do is follow one of the templates and you will arrive at a well structured story. The disadvantage is that if you want to do something even a bit off the path, there is no accommodation for that, and no way to predict what kind of dramatic impact that will have on your overall story.

So, I suggest using StoryLine for telling those specific kinds of stories, and using Dramatica for stories that diverge from the beaten path. Dramatica will be harder to use, but offer more opportunity for doing something different.

Now, for the answer to question 2 - Dramatica story points, what are they and how Dramatica helps writers merge them into stories...

There are over sixty story points in the current Dramatica software. Why this number? It depends on how "refined" you make the framework around your story as to how many "joints" you need where dramatics intersect.

The current version of the software is designed for creating the amount of detail needed in a story of novel or screenplay length. These story points (called "appreciations" in Dramatica) include elements of Theme, Genre, Character, and Plot. To name some, there will the story Goal, Requirements, PreConditions, and PreRequisites. There will be the Main Character Domain (where the point of view resides). There will be dynamic appreciations such as "Does the Main character CHANGE or REMAIN STEADFAST in his or her belief system by the end of the story?"

You will encounter the Thematic RANGE and COUNTERPOINT, a choice of TIMELOCK or OPTIONLOCK to draw the story to a conclusion. There are many more, of course, but you get the idea. Now to merge them into a story, first you take the raw appreciation in your structure, such as the example - a goal of "Obtaining", and flesh it out into a real story item in storytelling.

To assist you in this, Dramatica has given each story point its own window in the software with a series of buttons to help. The buttons bring up examples of short dramatic scenarios using each story point. Another button shows you any well-known stories which have been analyzed and use that same story point the same way.

There is a button for the theory behind why that story point even exists, and another usage button to show how to employ it. Overall, there are literally thousands of examples and help scenarios, for these items. Finally, to merge them into the linear progression of your story, there is the StoryGuide, which will take you through the whole process of turning a holistic structural model of your story into a progressive linear pathway, much like unraveling a ball of twine into a long string. Hope this answers your question.

MaryO

Melanie, this has been terrific. But could you explain more about which elements
are in DreamKit and which are reserved for Pro?

Melanie

Sure! First of all, they both have the same engine running the software. Pro just "taps" it at more points. They also both have the exact same StoryGuide book and path, so new users can
get right into it. Pro has additional appreciations and more examples.

Some of these appreciations unique to Pro are:

The CATALYST that gets each throughline moving when it bogs down. The INHIBITOR
that slows things up. These two work like an accelerator and brake pedal on your
story's plot.

There is the Main Character's UNIQUE ABILITY which makes them uniquely able to
solve the story's problem - if they make the right choice!

Balancing that is the Main Character's CRITICAL FLAW which always screws them
up, just when they almost get things solved.

In addition, DreamKit allows only for character Motivations, and not the other three aspects.

Also, PRO dynamically determines the kinds of relationships which will exist among your characters.

There are a few other bells and whistles to Pro. but I would say that DreamKit
has everything you need for the average novel or screenplay, Pro is more geared
toward heavy character oriented stories or those with complex plots.

Moderator

Melanie, on behalf of everyone, thank you very much for taking time to be with
us today. It was an informative session.

Melanie

And thank you, Ed et al, it has been loads of fun!

Nancy

Melanie, this has been wonderful! I appreciate so much your taking the time to come here. I'd just like to say here that I've learned more about story structure using Dramatica for the last two months than I have in the last 5 or 6 years of reading books about writing, taking writing classes and workshops, and writing.

Let me echo that sentiment. I'm *still* learning. It's tough work, but every time a door opens, it leads not to a room, but to an entirely new corridor. It's really, really, helpful. And bless you for putting up the worksheets. I'd already typed them into Winword, but having them on the website is terrific for those who haven't!

Let me also lead a long, sustained round of applause for the creator of this conference center and our moderator today. Thank you, Ed. We're much richer because you're with us!