A user elsewhere asked:
Andy’s influence in Shawshank comes from Control. While Andy is controlled and takes control, its hard to think of him as a character that embraces control or that Red looks at and is moved to change himself by the control that Andy deals with. It really seems like the audience is supposed to see Red as being moved to change by the way Andy is always finding a way to be free even within prison. It feels like Control is what happens in the story while Uncontrol is what is underlying the throughline.
That said, would there be a way take Andy’s IC throughline and put it word for word into another script and have him represent an IC Problem of Uncontrol? If not, could just a line like “I get into trouble because I want to be free” be enough to make his throughline about Uncontrol?
So, of course, I took as an opportunity to test out the new GPT-5-enabled version of Narrova (coming soon). I knew that answer I would have written but this:
—
Clarify how Influence flows vs. what merely happens on the surface
- Separate “observed behavior” from the IC’s underlying source of conflict
- Show why a single line can’t flip an IC Problem element
- Outline what would need to change to shift Control ↔ Uncontrolled
- Use Andy/Red to illustrate perspective without locking a storyform
Big idea first. In Dramatica, what looks like “control” or “freedom” on the surface doesn’t define the elemental Problem; the Throughline’s perspective does. Meaning arises when an abstract story point is tied to a structural element within a specific Throughline—otherwise “Problem/Solution mean nothing” (they’re just words) . This is why we often see one thing from the outside (e.g., someone Avoiding) while the inside perspective experiences an entirely different pressure (e.g., being Hindered) .
Applied to Shawshank: we feel Andy’s impact on Red from “outside” Andy—Andy functions as the influencer while Red is the POV we live inside . That outside-in vantage point is crucial to diagnosing an IC Problem; it’s about the specific kind of pressure the IC exerts that challenges the MC’s approach, not about whether the IC “believes in control” per se.
Can you transplant Andy’s IC throughline verbatim and make it Uncontrolled with one new line? No. A single line like “I get into trouble because I want to be free” can signal intent, but it won’t rewire the structural source of conflict. A storyform is an interlock of roughly 75 interdependent items; changing the IC Problem ripples through Issue-level arguments, Symptom/Response interplay with the MC, and how Costs/Consequences manifest across the plot .
Practical rewrite rules to shift Control ↔ Uncontrolled:
- Recast the IC’s pressure scenes so conflict reliably stems from tightening/organizing vs. loosening/disorganizing. Don’t just assert it—illustrate it repeatedly across the IC Signposts .
- Adjust the MC’s counter-moves (Symptom/Response) so the IC uniquely pushes the MC to reconsider their approach.
- Realign plot payoffs (Requirements, Costs, Forewarnings) so the story’s objective fabric echoes the same underlying source of conflict the IC embodies .
Short version: behavior isn’t the element. Perspective + patterned conflict is.
—
Is SO MUCH BETTER than what I would have said! 
I can’t even begin to think about what sources were gathered and how it was able to very concretely, and very specifically answer the question–while also staying completely in line with the theory’s concepts.
I mean, I probably would have said yes, and then would have gone off another tangent, but this got right to the point and schooled the user (and me!) at the same time.
Really excited to get this out to everyone sooner than I thought.