I’m good with everything so far–looks like you should add OC Concern: Conceiving to that list as well as it sounds like the best choice for the film.
OS CONCERN: Conceiving has been added to the list.
Next question - what is the Overall Story Issue? We have four choices:
- Need
- Expediency
- Permission
- Deficiency
This is tough – please anyone feel free to offer a different suggestion than mine, as I could see arguments for any of them.
That said, I think Permission fits really well as the Overall Story Issue. All the characters are conflicted because of limits they impose on themselves, or limitations imposed on them by others. Think of how Rich really struggles with the limits others place on the job he can get, and then overcomes those limits by giving up his own self-imposed limits, giving up his conscience & following Cromwell.
Then you have More, unable take the oath because of the limits of his conscience.
And at the highest level of what’s driving the Overall Story, King Henry has limits both within and without. He wants to legitimize his new marriage; in that sense the “Bending to the marriage” is actually a type of permission he requires. And Henry would illustrate the counterpoint of Deficiency very nicely, being motivated by what he feels he lacks – a male heir, a happy marriage. (note: if Permission is the OS Issue, Deficiency is the counterpoint)
EDIT: King Henry has self-imposed conscience-based limits as well; at one point More mentions that the King would never perjure himself.
Here is a nice quote summarizing an OS Issue of Permission:
CROMWELL: Unhappily [More’s] innocence is tangled up in this problem
that you can’t change your woman without a divorce
and you can’t get a divorce unless the Pope says so.
So what are the Counterpoints to the other choices?
Need
Expediency
Deficiency
Hi @Prish, I’m pretty sure the Counterpoint is always a dynamic pair with the Issue. So if you look at the quad containing the Issue in the Theme Browser (or Table of Story Elements chart if you don’t have Dramatica software handy), the Counterpoint is diagonally opposite the Issue.
So:
Permission - Deficiency
Need - Expediency
EDIT: I may be over-complicating things by bringing up counterpoint when we should be focusing on Issue!
It sounds like you are using the Counterpoint to support your choice of issue. What about issue of Need, since Henry needs to arrange everything to get what he wants and/or feels is best, so everyone else that works for him needs to do it, also. Getting rid of More could be expediency. Just presenting this as I am mulling things over.
Yeah, I can definitely see the argument for Need (“needing” an heir, “needing” to stay silent and not take the oath). Or for any of the rest of the quad, for that matter! And I tried digging down the next level (Problem level) but that didn’t help me much, as I saw several elements from different quads that seemed to fit the story well:
- Nonacceptance (Henry: “I’ll have no opposition”) is under Permission
- Reevaluation (More: “we must just pray that when your head’s finished turning, your face is to the front again”) is under Deficiency
- Inaction (not taking the oath, remaining silent, hoping that they’ll just leave him alone; though maybe that is MC throughline?) is under Expediency
(Part of the problem is a lot of these elements are new territory for me; it’s hard to grok Production, Induction, Potentiality, etc. the way you can Faith or Help!)
I wonder if we should try another throughline’s Issue? Or wait for others, @Rod @MWollaeger or @jhull to chime in.
But it would be fun! I’ll mull over the dram meanings and the film, later. Practice is always perfect, especially while waiting for the others to chime in.
With need, a MC response of induction makes the IC response nonacceptance. Would More’s looking for some word or phrase that could connect to what the King’s oath wanted and what he saw as the law, his looking for an out that might be somewhere, anywhere, be induction? Induction is to see if it is possible that something is connected to something else, according to the dram dictionary.
Interesting! How do you see Nonacceptance for Norfolk though? I could definitely see it as part of the OS problem quad, and maybe MC problem quad, but not so much for IC Norfolk.
(In case it’s not clear, by “problem quad” I meant one of Problem, Solution, Symptom, Response.)
Now you’re making me jealous … the DSE story engine is so much more powerful and better for this kind of thing. I’ve been mostly using the Theme Browser because the Dram.Pro story engine hides too much stuff!
Working at the Issue level without going down to Problem level, I really liked the storyforms that include:
- MC Issue of Doubt: When you think about the MC Throughline itself, what really strikes me is the impact on his poor family, his wife Alice and daughter Meg. And what seems to cause More the most grief is when they doubt his choices. Also, More keeps allowing himself to fall into further trouble because of his doubts about how bad things will get: “Set your mind at rest. This is not the stuff of which martyrs are made.” And: “When they find I’m silent… they’ll want nothing better than to leave me silent.”
- Alternately, MC Issue of Reappraisal (which you have above) can work too – his lack of Reappraisal as things worsen is what gets him into trouble (same quotes as above). And maybe the conflict of his family doubting him could be seen as influencing him to Reappraise his determination.
- MC Critical Flaw of Expediency: Because of the internal moral pressure he puts on himself, he cannot bend even the smallest bit. And conversely, he won’t give in to the external social/peer pressure to bend. Thus in the end, the “bending to the marriage” fails because of this one man. (This really seems to fit perfectly!)
I’m just playing around with this, but Norfolk doesn’t accept More’s stance nor does he accept what he would have to do to keep More’s friendship. Of course that might not be the dram term’ s meaning. I’m always tripping over that. Norfolk is all about maintaining the landowner’ s prosperity and privilege, while More is about maintaining the law of the land. It could be interpreted many ways, and I’m willing to go along with the majority here. There was a Richard that we could call at screenplay.com anytime we wanted to talk over the Dramatica theory in the V.1.6 days. He told me that if a work had not been written from Dramatica Theory then any point that gave some evidence from the script could be used. There just had to be something in the script to support it.
I read about Expediency, and the storyform has it as a possible critical flaw AND overall issue, at the same time. That might be the key to the story and film being so tight, unassuming and restrained, yet with a powerful punch. I think you are right about the disapproval and threat to social standing and peer pressure and avoiding future punishments or disappointments, which is expediency dram wise. The “avoiding future punishments” part of expediency would fit into everyone overall issue in the story’s focus, considering the dire consequences of Henry’s backlash and fear for his country’s future. (the ax). I think it is more fitting than the more mild permission for overall issue and overall course of considering consequences. An overall issue of expediency gives a unique ability of doubt which you like.
Yes totally agreed, great comments Prish. I was also thinking along the same lines, that Expediency fits OS Issue more than Permission, as it seems to be more of a source of conflict.
I am almost persuaded by your discussion toward Expediency as well – it’s less that everyone needs Henry to have an heir and more that they want to avoid the fallout should he not have an heir:
WOLSEY: Let the dynasty die with Henry Vlll, and we’ll have dynastic wars again. Blood-witted barons ramping the country from end to end!
Buuuuut - I’m not as satisfied with the options for OS Problem underneath it, nor the accompanying MC Problem that goes with any of them.
But then again, the ‘methodologies’ corner is an area I’m weak in, so I might just be missing how Reduction, Production, etc. could apply.
There is a choice of Inaction, Production, Protection or Reduction for Overall Story Problem. Thinking back on the film, Inaction might be a fit for the problem. There are no story examples in the software…drat. This story is unique in that no one does anything until forced to, except Riche, who might be the contagonist. I wonder if the contagonist gets a free pass from some encoding since it is doing its own agenda. I am just too tired to think this through, right now. More tomorrow…but this choice does give a complete storyform, so if we look at what we end up with (if inaction choice) there might be some perfect or unsuitable ones that automatically filled the story engine to give more clues if inaction is a good fit. I am going to bed…more tomorrow.
“Inaction • intentionally taking no action • Inaction does not mean simply sitting still. An Inactive character might choose to allow a course of action by not interfering. Or it might refuse to move out of harm’s way, thereby forming a resistance to the progress that drives the harm. Both of these are efficient tools for altering the course of an interaction. However, the Inactive characteristic may also drag its feet in all areas and form a resistance to both good and bad things so that its influence simply hinders everything but changes nothing.
SYNONYMS: passive reaction, inactive response, achieve through not doing”
Hi all,
I had a lot of time to think, without access to my computer, and I was really struck by this one quote in the scene between Sir Thomas and King Henry. It seems like Thomas is specifically talking about the Symptom and Response (I think this is OS material, but as a Steadfast MC, Symtpom/Response are same in MC Throughline anyway).
THOMAS: Alas, as I think of it, I see so clearly that I cannot come with Your Grace,
that my endeavour is… not to think of it at all.
Latching onto that, it looks to me like Sir Thomas is seeing his own Nonacceptance as as the problem, and trying to solve it with Acceptance. And throughout the film, he acts with Acceptance. From the very beginning where everyone is so opposed (Nonaccepting) of Wolsey’s summoning him to Hampton Court at midnight, and he just shrugs and says it’s his duty: “That is why I must go” … to the very end where he accepts his own death. It definitely looks Inaction, but I think it’s really Acceptance.
So throughout the OS you have everyone responding to the King’s Nonacceptance of his current marriage with Acceptance of his remaking of the church. Except Sir Thomas, who does his best to Accept (by remaining silent) but, on the one point of his conscience, is forced to a lack of Acceptance. (and he actually knows that his Nonacceptance is a problem)
Even at the end of the scene with Thomas and King Henry, Henry goes on a tirade about how he will “brook no opposition” and repeats that several times. It’s almost like he’s saying “Nonacceptance is the problem! Nonacceptance is the problem, can’t you see!?” But then what does he do? He suddenly Accepts that Sir Thomas can’t help him, and decides to leave.
Picking Symptom/Response of Nonacceptance/Acceptance gives an OS Problem of Potentiality. Here are a bunch of other points arguing for that storyform:
Potentiality as OS Problem:
- Rich is so concerned with his own potential, potential employment etc.
- fearing potential punishments from the King if he doesn’t get what he wants
- this is what motivates Wolsey to ask Sir Thomas to help apply pressure to the church
- Sir Thomas suggests they can just ask the pope for a new dispensation, but Wolsey is worried about the potential that it won’t work, so he suggests they need to influence the pope’s decision
- Potential is even shown in the people’s reaction to the King stepping in the muck – they fear the POTENTIAL of that moment
- the King sees the potential in Anne Boleyn, the potential for a happy marriage and heir
- the King fears the potential of God’s retribution for his current sinful marriage: “Thomas, you must consider, I stand in peril of my soul.”
- much of Sir Thomas’s problem stems from everyone else seeing so much potential in him. The King wants him by his side because Thomas is “known to be honest”, and wants to raise Thomas to his potential: “If you could come with me, there’s no man I’d sooner raise”.
Certainty as OS Solution:
- if Sir Thomas could have given up his convictions (Certainty), then perhaps the OS Problem could have been solved. (His Critical Flaw of Expediency, the moral pressure he feels, prevents him from doing so)
- alternately, if everyone else could have seen with certainty that Sir Thomas was right, and acquitted him, perhaps the OS Problem could have been solved that way
MC Problem of Induction:
- of all the things that could happen to him, Sir Thomas induces that by remaining silent, he and his family will be safe. He sees a causal relationship between the King’s friendship, his silence, the law, and safety. But his problems arise because that relationship is not as solid as he thought.
- the relationship he sees between taking an oath, his conscience, and his soul is a kind of Induction; and it is this induced connection that drives him to avoid taking the oath of supremacy. He even explains this induction process to Meg, first by telling her that the words of the oath matter, then later explaining the connections as “when a man takes an oath, he’s holding his own self in his own hands, like water”.
- Others induce that Sir Thomas’s silence means opposition, which causes Thomas lots of trouble.
- Sir Thomas fails to determine a possible way that he can both remain true to himself and help the King marry Anne Boleyn. “I couldn’t find the other way,” he says to Alice. (Note Dram definition of Induction: a method of thought that determines possibility.)
MC Response of Acceptance:
- Sir Thomas accepts the need to resign as Chancellor and the reduced income etc. that comes with resigning
- In response to Roper’s lack of tolerance (Nonacceptance) for Rich, “arrest him! he’s getting away”, Sir Thomas accepts the need to let Rich go because he didn’t break the law - even if he were the Devil himself, they need to let him go.
- in the end, as a Steadfast character he embraces his Response: he accepts his death and execution, and forgives the executioner: “I forgive you right readily.”
OS Issue of Permission (see above post #144)
MC Issue of Reappraisal – Thomas More’s lack of Reappraisal definitely causes him trouble – he fails to reappraise his situation in time to see the danger closing in on him. Also, the film also demonstrates More’s own values in regards to constant Reappraisal – “we must just pray that when your head’s finished turning, your face is to the front again”
Hi Prish,
I also gave a lot of consideration to Inaction. For me, it didn’t seem to fit OS Problem because I couldn’t see the conflict as coming from the Inaction. It seemed like a better fit for Response, but I couldn’t really see everyone as responding with Inaction, just Thomas … and since he’s Steadfast if we pick Inaction for his MC Response, it also becomes the OS Response.
What do you think of Acceptance? It seems like that works as a common response for all the characters. And I especially like how Nonacceptance gets thrown into the mix, as opposed to Protection (although one could make an argument for that too). It’s tricky!
I think if you flipped your variables (Non-Acceptance becomes Response, Induction becomes Solution, etc), then it’s a possible fit.
More is a lawyer by trade, and he frequently cites the law to support what can and cannot be. Despite his prowess in legal craft, he is frequently blindsided by possibilities he has prematurely ruled out. If he stopped deducing and started inducing, he could have predicted his martyrdom earlier. (The talk with Margaret about the Oath is, I think, an flirtation with the Solution, but in the end he cannot do it).
As for Certainty as OS Problem? Henry is certain that anyone who hesitates to support his plan is traitorous. And Cromwell is not willing to accept the potential that More is loyal, he must be certain:
DUKE: Crank he may be, traitor he is not.
CROMWELL: Exactly. And with a little pressure…with a little pressure he can be got to say so. That’s all we need: a brief declaration of his loyalty to the present administration.
I think this is a good contender for final storyform. I want to take another stab at the Expediency elements before I’m settled, though.
P.S. Something we need to keep in mind is that the OS Problem element must also fit the IC Problem (due to IC Resolve: Change) and the RS Problem (due to Outcome: Failure). So if Certainty is the final choice, it should also make sense as Norfolk’s problem and the friendship’s problem as well.
Hi Brant, I appreciate your comments. I had been considering that storyform too, especially since the whole concept of Certainty seemed to fit the movie well, with the way More was acting on his convictions. But it seemed to me that, especially for the solely-objective characters like Rich and King Henry, Potential was more of a driving force.
I also initially saw Deduction fitting Sit Thomas More, because of the way he uses the law etc. But after considering the definition of Induction, it seemed to me that his reasoning connecting oath -> conscience -> soul fit that better – it’s not something you can scientifically or logically prove. And that belief in those connections is truly the source of his problems, I think. Also, the Dram definition of Induction includes this, which I think fits this story in more ways than one:
Problems occur when it is assumed that simply because a causal
relationship might exist that it does exist. This leads to blaming and
holding responsible both people and situations that were not actually
the real cause.
More assumes the law will protect him, but it doesn’t. He assumes the King & Cromwell will leave him alone, but they don’t. And everyone else holds More responsible for the difficulty in legitimizing the marriage – yet he was not actually the real cause, since executing him doesn’t solve anything.
That said, I may be overthinking things – perhaps his problem is simply that he tries to employ logical Deduction but it doesn’t work because everyone keeps changing the rules on him, not following the law. I could definitely see Nonacceptance working as the response too (e.g. More’s Steadfast embracing of that in the end could be his speech in the courtroom after being found guilty). I still have trouble with Certainty as the OS Problem though.
Maybe we can use the RS & IC throughlines to see which seems to fit better. Oh, and of course, you might find something else with Expediency elements, or Prish may have some other ideas.