Why is that symptom-response associated with that problem?

writing
#1

It’s not self-evident to me that a problem of X must lead to (or even must coexist non-causally with) a symptom of Y. I see how it could, but I don’t see how it necessarily must in a given storyform.

I often understand the disease/symptom theory in an analysis of a finished story, but it’s a whole other challenge to apply this prospectively when I develop a small story idea.

As a result, I’m nervous that my character’s symptom will come across to the viewer as contrived because it will lack a causal relationship to the viewer (since it doesn’t have a clear casual relationship to me, the writer). Just trust it?

I’m not asking for how to generate suitable storytelling examples of a connection between the problem and symptom in a given storyform. I’m asking for a greater (any?) understanding of how a symptom-response pair is necessarily connected to a problem-solution pair for a given storyform. If the answer ends up being it’s the “secret formula of Coca Cola” and no else beyond the formula maker knows, then I can certainly understand and I’ll stop trying to know the unknowable–and find another way to procrastinate actually writing. Thank you.

#2

Here’s kind of my take on it. Let’s look at one really clear pair in Activities: Proven-Unproven and Theory-Hunch. To me, Proven and Theory are really similar. So in a Stop story, the characters are confused. They have a problem with Proven, but they’re mistaking it for Theory. Do you see how, when the Issue is Wisdom, these two are really easy to mix up? (Start Growth stories are similar, just reversed. We’re expecting a Response of Proven, but we get Theory instead.)

Now, notice what happens when we move to Situation. Now Proven-Unproven is paired up with Accurate-Inaccurate. And again, you can kinda see how these are easy to confuse! I don’t know how Chris and Melanie decided which one got which, but if you squint, you can kinda feel how Proven-Unproven, Accurate-Inaccurate fits within Situation and Fact, rather than Activity and Wisdom. Under Psychology, Proven-Unproven is paired with Result-Process, which… might require some more squinting. And under Mind, Proven-Unproven is paired with Effect-Cause, which… hmm. But Theory-Hunch is paired with Trust-Test, and I bet you can see the relationship between those two under Confidence! :sweat_smile:

So let’s imagine a story where the Problem is Proven, and the Growth is Stop.

  • (Situation) The characters are engineers on a sinking ship. Rather than determining the actual state of the ship, they’re fussing over whether the specs they’ve been given are accurate or not. They need to stop bickering about the maps and actually find an escape method, even if it means doing some kludging. (A Situation that has been Proven to be true gets confounded with the Accuracy of the truth of the Situation.)
  • (Activity) The characters are members of a rescue team. They’re having trouble because the normal route up the mountain has broken off, and they’re having to improvise. The characters can see that their collective Wisdom won’t work on the new route, so they’re trying to modify their broken Theories into Hunches that might work. But the true path to success is to abandon all of their Proven techniques and try something that’s never been done before. (An Activity that has been Proven to work gets confounded with Theories about successful Activities.)
  • (Mind) The characters are police officers in a city that despises them. They’re trying to restore the Value of the police in people’s minds, but previous actions by cops leave a bitter taste in everyone’s mouths. They’re still reeling from the Effects of those previous actions, and the cops try to root out the Causes of those actions and bring peace that way. But the only way to restore sanity is to escape the Proven stereotype and create a new image for cops in the city. (Proven Mentalities get confused with the Effects of those Mentalities.)
  • (Psychology) The characters are employees in a failing business. Each of the characters has been assigned a role in the company, and all they Know is to perform that role again and again. They see that the Results of their actions aren’t effective, so they try and redirect the Process, but because they’re stuck in bad roles, there’s no progress. It’s only when they realize that they have to abandon the roles they’ve Proven they can fill and adventure into Unproven territory will they find success. (Proven Psychologies get confused with the Results those Psychologies achieve.)
7 Likes
#3

My understanding is that the problem level quads are all based on KTAD, but look different based on the lenses used to look at them (the domain, concern, and issue lenses) and that what makes two pair match up are the ways the elements are complementary or tangential to one another. If you look up Dramatica quad relationships you’ll see the companion and dependent pairs explained this way. Everything I looked at described the relationships as they related to character rather than problem/symptom, but I think it still applies.

So the reason you see knowledge and thought paired with ability and desire in Activity is because the elements appear complimetary and tangential when viewed from Physics, Understanding, and Instinct. But in Situation, knowledge and thought are paired with order and chaos, which is what ability and desire appear as when viewed from Universe, Past, and Fate. Why any particular element is seen as what it is through any particular lens, though, is beyond me.

1 Like
#4

I think the whole point of it is that any causal relationship between the Problem and Symptom is not that easy to see, at least not necessarily. The characters can’t see it, and I don’t think the audience needs to be thinking about it consciously.

I mean, to use an example from the other thread, when you first watched The Matrix did you give much thought to Cypher’s treachery being rooted in Disbelief? That causal relationship certainly is there, but it doesn’t have to be so apparent. You want viewers to be thinking “oh that bastard!” more than “oh geez, if only he’d believed they could win, believed Neo was the One”. Appreciation of the storyform is more at a subconscious level, I think.

I’m not sure if this will help, it’s from an old thread:

8 Likes
#5

These are all amazing responses. Thanks everyone! Also, @HaroldLloyd, why not leave the specifics of your Problem and Symptom so we can help you understand the relationship between the two.

1 Like
#6

Thank you all. It helps to understand that the static storyform removes the time variable and that a “root problem” isn’t easy to see until you go through the process of the story unfolding to address justifications, etc. And the fundamental nature of the quad and KTAD illuminate much.

In my OS of mind/memories storyform, why does a problem of inequity lead to a symptom of speculation? Concretely, the root cause of conflict is a past injustice that was committed and covered up based on bias. And most (not all) people want to forget or create a fiction to tell themselves about what happened. I was surprised when my storyform said speculation as what the OS characters would see as the problem. I don’t immediately see how anyone feels bothered by speculation. But they could be, and I don’t know it yet. :slight_smile:

2 Likes
#7

Total shot in the dark here … could it be that some characters want to uncover the truth, while others want to let it be?

  • The truth-seekers see the others’ lack of speculation as a problem. “why don’t you want to look into this?! don’t you care?”
  • The “let it be” characters see the truth-seekers ideas as useless speculation. “stop speculating, just let it lie! you’re just going to cause trouble and for no good reason.”

Oh, I forgot to mention, it can be very helpful to think of the Problem as a “drive”. So, the OS characters are somehow driven by Inequity.

2 Likes
#8

I think I see. I gotta look at the context–particularly the issue, counterpoint, and how they relate to the concern & domain. The key considerations have been staring at me on the dramatica chart all along. :nerd:

#9

Forgive me for putting it this way–and i may be doing this wrong–but it seems to me that you checked your story against Dramatica and found something shown to be in error (Falsehood). Sensing something was wrong, or imbalanced (problem of Inequity) between your view of your story and Dramatica’s, you came here to determine whether your audience would view your story as contrived (Symptom of Speculation).

(and is this…[quote=“mlucas, post:7, topic:1173”]
Total shot in the dark here … could it be that some characters want to uncover the truth, while others want to let it be?
[/quote]

…a response of projection?)

My take on the answer to your question is that when you have a problem of Inequity as seen from Falsehood, Speculation and Projection are maybe about trying to clear up whatever has been shown to be erroneous.

I was wondering if you or others would want to look at this part. Is it meant to be your Falsehood? I’m no expert, but this specific part seems a bit like a process to me. Believing a fiction seems like a Fixed Attitude, but lying to oneself feels maybe more like a Manipulation. Just a thought.

2 Likes
#10

Bless you for an excellent meta “right under my nose” example.

I suspect (but can be convinced otherwise) that the OS will end up in fixed attitude because the manipulation was predominantly in the distant past. That is, the typical believer creates a fiction one time and then gets stuck in that fiction for the long term.

As opposed to that initial process in the past, now the main manifestations are things like righteousness (well-intentioned fixed attitude), dogma (don’t question it, that would just be absurd, I’m not talking to you anymore), and having a dislike against a group with a label (perhaps without realizing it–e.g. don’t tell me he’s a ___ supporter!).

I meant “lying to oneself” in the way that Bob Ewell lied to himself about Tom Robinson and, more generally, about “how things should be” at some point in Bob’s past. In other words, he evaded thinking carefully about what is essential about an individual (character, choices, behavior, etc) vs non-essential (race, parentage, melanin, etc).

3 Likes