Only when I start writing it out, and put into permanent form my thoughts, do I finally begin to realize just what is really going on in a story. Because the Dramatica storyform is so precise, one slight change in context can make all the difference. Writing this blog, especially on a day-to-day basis, has shown to me the importance of thinking through my take on a story’s structure. That is, until I took the time to sit down to write about it, and really had to think about the story.

I listened patiently to his argument, but still wasn’t convinced. He disagreed and thought that Bond was a Changed character. I told Chris Huntley, one of the originators of the Dramatica theory of story, of my plans. I was going to show how he was broken down over time, until he got to the point where he wasn’t really sure which direction he was going to take. Without thinking too much about it, I gave him that distinction and was even planning a post about how he was a Steadfast Main Character. Bond always remained Steadfast while his Obstacle Character-usually some girl he was into-would Change. It seemed an easy call to make-99% of all his previous films had the same sort of storyform. In my initial analysis of Casino Royale, I had mistakingly identified Bond as a Steadfast character. Leaving it in would be a problem…as it was in the latest Bond film.

Even if you have a great bit of storytelling-if it confuses the Main Character’s growth, you’ve got to throw it out. The rest of the story must support this growth. It is the similarity or difference between the two that defines the Main Character’s growth. Where your Main Character starts in a story and where he ends up are crucial for an audience to understand the meaning of your story. Casino Royale: Rewinding Your Main CharacterĬompare the end with the beginning to determine Resolve.

Plot diagram for casino royale book