So, I was looking through the Theme Map and I discovered that
OS Concern == Goal
M/I Concern == Consequence
MC Concern == Dividends
IC Concern == Cost
I’m trying to learn why. Can one of you kind and patient souls point me to an essay on Narrative First explaining it or explain it yourself?
I think the better way to look at this is:
OS Concern == X
OS Goal == X
*RS Concern == Y
OS Consequence == Y
…and so on.
The fact that different story points share a common element or type does not force you to equate them in your narrative – the audience ‘storymind’ will do that on its own. Besides, any element, such as “Becoming,” will look different through the lens of an OS Static Appreciation (like Consequence) from how it looks through the lens of a RS Dynamic Appreciation (like Concern).
*RS is short for Relationship Story, a better label for M/I
I actually don’t think it’s ever been talked about or explained.
The logic comes from the model which helps you to structure your story based on a mind (in psychological sense) trying to solve a problem.
It goes like: If They (OS) want to achieve A We (RS) have to consider B. To achieve it You (IC) need to be ready for C and and you need to say and willing: I (MC) give up D.
Here are a few examples where you can replace the concerns as you like.
If They (OS) want to obtain something (Goal)
We (RS) have to talke about becoming stronger/moderater/nicer (Consequence).
If I (MC) want to get there in the future (Dividend) and enjoy parts of it already along the way - You (IC) need to do something you don’t like overcoming your fears (Cost)
If They (OS) want to be an artist (Goal)
We (RS) have to work hard with the tools (Consequence).
If I (MC) want to progress quickly and enjoy life as an artist along the way (Dividend) - You (IC) need to do hold your tendency to procrastinate in check (Cost)
If They (OS) want to learn Tagalog an Austronesian language (Goal)
We (RS) need to spend some time together before it makes click (Conceiving).
If I (MC) might Doubt to invest all my time away from Dramatica (Dividend) - but You (IC) you should Work through at least for 6 month (Cost)
Sorry, I didn’t make my question clear. I know what Consequences, Goals, Dividends, and Costs are. I’m asking why they are equal to M/I Concerns, OS Concerns, MC Concerns, and IC Concerns.
Actually, I believe I now have a pretty good speculation as to why OS Concern == Goal, but the other three are still unclear.
One thing I notice is that Consequence and Cost are both undesirable and M/I and IC Throughlines are both sets which don’t include the MC (the Overall group does include the MC, so it is a set which does include the MC)*. So, that might play a part in it.
*Note that I said “contains the MC” and did not say “contains the MC Throughline.” I’m just making that clear.
My apologies, give me another try: If the OS folks want to obtain something, according to Dramatica Theory it is necessary to open-up (Future) as MC or learn how to deal with your Basic drives as MC.
Its not Dramatica only it’s also makes sense from a human psychological perspective:
If you want a bigger house (obtain), you might (MC) move into a different neighborhood where you need to be open in the future to commute to work 2 hours, but your spouse (IC) either wants (subconscious basic drives) to stay where you are or move already yesterday.
Is it something different your want your MC to be concerned of, your goal might be not obtaining, it’s something else. This happens very offen in my case, I am totally convinced my goal is something like obtaining until I realize - being in the story forming process - ha, it’s something else.
This is at least the Dramatica model. If you want the OS folks obtain something but the MC/IC should neither concerned with the future or with subconscious - it would be possible, but not with Dramatica.
Consequences and Cost are not always negative, depends on the outcome and your judgement and who your Antagonist is, it can be also very satisfying to get through - at least near the end - even tough it might be not easy to manage
I believe you’re answering the wrong question. The question isn’t why all the concerns are in the same type-level corner relative to their throughlines. I feel that that’s the question you’re answering, but that’s not what I asked. I know why all the concerns are in the same type-level corner relative to their throughlines. It is to make sure the conflict is maximized by making sure all battles take place on the same battlefield whether that is action, fixed thought, manipulation, or situation. But, again, that’s not the question I asked.
I was trying to explain how the model works, but if you are interested to understand why and how it all works under the surface there is an article and many articles from Melanie and Chris.
A New Theory of Story
An unpublished article from 1993 by Melanie Anne Phillips and Chris Huntley. Originally intended as a submission for Scientific Magazine, the article was never submitted, though some of the materials were incorporated into the original Dramatica theory book.
http://dramatica.com/resources/assets/a-new-theory-of-story.pdf
First I want to say that I don’t have a clue. This is all speculation.
I’m guessing it has to do with those elements being at the Plot level. The Concern level is also the Plot level, or the type of events you see in the story. It would make sense to speak of a goal in terms of events rather than genre (Domain), value judgments (Issue), or character (Problem).
I’m guessing they come from all four throughlines because a. Just like Concerns, they need to be of the same type, not four different types like you would have if you pulled them all from one throughline, and b. Because they aren’t meant to be about one throughline, but a more holistic look at the problem at the heart of the story. As to why one would match the MC, IC, or M/I Concern specifically, I have no clue. But the Goal is automatically placed in the OS by the software. I believe the theory says you can actually write as though your goal is in any of the four throughlines.
At least it’s not Projection. Or Induction. 