--- title: "Uploading a Screenplay for Dramatica Analysis in Narrova" summary: "Upload a screenplay PDF, prompt Narrova to evaluate it against a **Dramatica Storyform**, and review the **Four Throughlines** with evidence plus Storyform candidates." category: Draft Analysis difficulty: Intermediate estimated_time: 15-20 minutes start_in_app: Narrova start_url: /narrova best_for: - Writers with a screenplay PDF who want a serious Dramatica read instead of generic notes. - Teams comparing two possible Storyforms and trying to decide which one better matches intent. - Anyone who wants page-level evidence tied to the Four Throughlines before revising. what_you_need: - A clean, selectable-text screenplay PDF. - Consistent character naming so Narrova can track MC, IC, RS, and OS evidence accurately. - A sense of your intended message if you want Narrova to adjudicate between close Storyform candidates. starter_prompt: |- review the uploaded screenplay and evaluate it across a Dramatica Storyform, identify Four Throughlines (if they exist) and potential Storyforms for it steps: - title: Upload the screenplay PDF detail: Give Narrova the draft first so the Storyforming Agent has something concrete to read against the Storymind. - title: Run the initial Storyform analysis detail: Use the starter prompt to get the first pass on summary, Throughlines, and candidate Storyforms. prompt: |- review the uploaded screenplay and evaluate it across a Dramatica Storyform, identify Four Throughlines (if they exist) and potential Storyforms for it - title: Review the evidence, not just the labels detail: Look for page references, quotes, and scene-level support behind each Throughline before trusting the candidate. prompt: |- For each Throughline, list 5–8 page-anchored moments that justify Domain → Concern → Issue → Problem. - title: Lock the candidate that matches intent detail: If Narrova returns more than one viable Storyform, force it to choose in light of the Author's intent. prompt: |- Between the candidates, prefer the one that best serves my intended message and re-justify it with page-level evidence. - title: Turn the analysis into revision guidance detail: Once you know the best candidate, ask Narrova to identify what keeps the draft from fully expressing it and what to fix next. prompt: |- Generate a scene-by-scene checklist to move this draft toward a coherent Storyform without changing the premise. what_you_get: - A one-paragraph summary of the story's structural spine. - The Four Throughlines with evidence and page references. - One or more Storyform candidates plus a revision path toward a cleaner final argument. workflow: Screenplay Analysis output: Storyform candidates additional_prompts: - label: Tighten to a single Dramatica Storyform prompt: |- Assume we want a single, internally consistent Storyform. Identify conflicts between Issue/Counterpoint and Problem/Solution across Throughlines and propose minimal edits to resolve them. - label: Prefer a specific concern pattern prompt: |- Between the candidates, prefer the one where the OS Concern is Obtaining and the RS Concern is Becoming. Re-justify with page-level evidence. - label: Draft Signposts and Journeys prompt: |- If we choose the strongest candidate, draft likely Signposts and Journeys with suggested page ranges based on the current cut. practical_tips: - Use a clean PDF, not a messy scan or OCR export. - Ask for citations whenever Narrova makes a structural claim. - Tell Narrova your intended message early if you already know what the draft is trying to say. related_use_cases: - how-to-turn-a-brainstorm-into-a-storyform-and-treatment - using-existing-storyforms-to-build-a-brand-new-story - starting-a-plot-idea-with-one-question-at-a-time related_links: - label: Narrova overview url: /narrova - label: Dramatica Theory url: /theory date: 2025-09-06 --- *Want Narrova to read your script like a seasoned Dramatica analyst? Here’s a quick, repeatable workflow you can use right now—plus what to expect from the Storyforming Agent once it takes over.* --- ## TL;DR 1. **Upload your PDF** in Narrova. 2. Paste this prompt (or your variation of it): > review the uploaded screenplay and evaluate it across a Dramatica Storyform, identify Four Throughlines (if they exist) and potential Storyforms for it 3. Narrova **hands off to the Storyforming Agent** (fine-tuned for Dramatica analysis). 4. You’ll get: a one-paragraph summary, the **Four Throughlines with evidence**, and—if warranted—**one or more viable Storyform candidates** with tables (Domain → Concern → Issue/Counterpoint → Problem/Solution). 5. If Narrova proposes two close Storyforms, **choose the one that matches your intent** or ask Narrova to help reconcile conflicts into a single, thematically consistent Storyform. --- ## Why this works **Dramatica** models a complete story as a single **Storymind** seen from four distinct perspectives (the **Four Throughlines**): * **Objective Story (OS)** – the objective, everyone-in-the-problem view * **Main Character (MC)** – the “me” point of view * **Influence Character (IC)** – the “you” pressure that challenges the MC * **Relationship Story (RS)** – the “we” between MC and IC Each Throughline sits in a **Domain** (Universe / Physics / Mind / Psychology), drills down to a **Concern**, explores an **Issue/Counterpoint**, and resolves a **Problem/Solution** dynamic. A **Storyform** selects one consistent path through these choices (out of 32K+ possibilities) to **capture the Author’s intent**. Reading a finished script is therefore **both analysis and inference**: we study the *storytelling* on the page to infer the *subtext* underneath—what the Author likely intended to say. --- ## The workflow (with the “Brick” example) ![Screenshot 2025-09-06 at 10.58.47 AM|527x500](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex010/uploads/dramatica/original/2X/e/ee31373585ddeb296d72073e8b2bd7c238302246.jpeg) 1. **Upload** your script PDF. 2. **Paste the prompt** above. 3. Narrova automatically **routes to the Storyforming Agent**, which outlines a plan: * Pin down page count; sample across four acts. * Write a tight, one-paragraph story summary. * Identify **Four Throughlines** and cite **scenes/lines/page refs** as evidence. 4. **Review the output**: * A **summary** that frames the spine of conflict. * A **bulleted evidence section** for each Throughline (quotes, pages, scene beats). * If signals are mixed, the agent will present **alternate Storyform candidates**. ![Screenshot 2025-09-06 at 10.58.56 AM|527x500](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex010/uploads/dramatica/original/2X/0/0b7053d8286db9f09834a6c13455de224cf8794a.jpeg) What a candidate table looks like (abridged example) **Candidate A** (classic neo-noir read) | Throughline | Domain | Concern | Issue (↔) | Problem | Solution | |----|----|----|----|----|----| | OS | Physics | **Obtaining** | Self-Interest ↔ Morality | Pursuit | Avoid | | MC (Brendan) | Mind | **Subconscious** | Desire ↔ Ability | Control | Uncontrolled | | IC (Laura) | Universe | **Future** | Prediction ↔ Interdiction | Oppose | Support | | RS (Brendan/Laura) | Psychology | **Becoming** | Commitment ↔ Responsibility | Temptation | Conscience | ![Screenshot 2025-09-06 at 10.59.05 AM|527x500](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex010/uploads/dramatica/original/2X/e/e76b70a4064afb2e3a33398e2f2d88356fcbd08c.jpeg) **Candidate B** (more procedural/cognition read) | Throughline | Domain | Concern | Issue (↔) | Problem | Solution | |----|----|----|----|----|----| | OS | Physics | **Doing** | Attitude ↔ Approach | Pursuit | Avoid | | MC (Brendan) | Mind | **Conscious** | Appraisal ↔ Reappraisal | Consider | Reconsider | | IC (Laura) | Universe | **Present** | Security ↔ Threat | Help | Hinder | | RS (Brendan/Laura) | Psychology | **Conceiving** | Expediency ↔ Need | Temptation | Conscience | ![Screenshot 2025-09-06 at 10.59.11 AM|527x500](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex010/uploads/dramatica/original/2X/e/e6b032f5dd67c10c770874e4058ed9fd016241d1.jpeg) > These are illustrative of what Narrova shows—your script will yield its own evidence and candidates. --- ## “It found two Storyforms—now what?” This is common when the text **implies** one pattern while your **intent** leans another. Two possibilities: 1. **Both are close**, but one better expresses what you meant. * Ask: *“Given my intent is X, which candidate aligns better? Show concrete page-referenced support.”* 2. **Signals conflict** (e.g., OS feels like **Obtaining**, but much of the on-page action looks like **Doing**). * Ask: *“List the top 5 inconsistencies preventing a single Storyform and propose targeted scene fixes.”* > **Important:** Sharp-eyed Dramatica users may notice that even “close” candidates can contain **theme-level contradictions** (i.e., not a viable Storyform). Narrova explicitly **balances** what’s on the page with the Author’s aim. If you want to **tighten to a strict Dramatica Storyform**, say so and Narrova will prioritize internal consistency over what’s merely implied. --- ## How to steer the analysis (copy-paste prompts) * **Lock to intent:** *“Between the candidates, prefer the one where the OS Concern is **Obtaining** and the RS Concern is **Becoming**. Re-justify with page-level evidence.”* * **Tighten to Dramatica:** *“Assume we want a single, internally consistent Storyform. Identify conflicts between Issue/Counterpoint and Problem/Solution across Throughlines by checking the Storyforms and propose minimal edits to resolve them.”* * **Evidence sweep:** *“For each Throughline, list 5–8 page-anchored moments that justify Domain → Concern → Issue → Problem.”* * **Revision punch-list:** *“Generate a scene-by-scene checklist to move Candidate B toward a coherent Storyform without changing the premise.”* * **Signposts/Journeys draft:** *“If we choose Candidate A, draft likely Signposts and Journeys with suggested placements (page ranges) based on the current cut.”* --- ## What if my story *intentionally* avoids a full Storyform? That can be a valid choice. Narrova’s default posture is to **err on the side of the Author**. If your artistic aim accepts asymmetry or incompleteness, you can stop there. If you later decide the draft needs firmer thematic coherence, tell Narrova to **optimize for strict Dramatica** and it will help you close the gaps. --- ## Tips for best results * **Use a clean, selectable-text PDF.** Scans/OCR can muddle evidence extraction. * **Name characters consistently.** Reduces false negatives in MC/IC/RS evidence. * **Ask for citations.** “Please include scene headings & page refs with quotes.” * **Decide intention early.** If you already know your message, tell Narrova—your **Author’s intent** is the north star the Storyform should serve. --- ## Wrap-up Uploading a screenplay and running this one prompt hands your draft to a **specialized Storyforming Agent** that reads like a Dramatica pro: it extracts the Four Throughlines, proposes **coherent Storyform candidates**, and—crucially—**shows its work**. From there you can either lean into your intent or tighten to a single, fully consistent Dramatica Storyform. Narrova supports both paths. If you try this on your script, post your candidates and questions below—happy to help adjudicate edge cases and suggest the cleanest path to a rock-solid Storyform.