“Problem” seems to conflict with “Crucial Element”

[RavinDave]

I have a CHANGE MC caught up in an untenable SITUATION; coerced into participating in an OBTAINING story.

The Story Goal is objectively reprehensible and she will ultimately sabotage the effort to secure it, providing a FAIL/GOOD story. The OS Problem is UNCONTROLLED. Applying CONTROL would evidently lead to SUCCESS, so she must avoid employing it in the OS.

In her personal story, there is (of course) also a Problem/Solution of UNCONTROLLED/CONTROL. To resolve her own troubles caused by UNCONTROLLED, she must also employ CONTROL, right?

Okay…

But CONTROL is also her MC Crucial Element. And as a CHANGE character, she needs to exchange CONTROL for the IC Crucial Element UNCONTROLLED at the Story Climax.

So, it would seem she has to embrace both CONTROL (for her own issues) and also embrace its Dynamic Pair UNCONTROLLED in order to (1.) thwart the OS Goal, and (2.) be a CHANGE character.

I know I’m missing something basic. I have no idea what.

[nb: To fill out the full story form, add: PS-Style: LOGICAL, Driver; DECISION, and Limit: OPTONLOCK.]

[Lakis]

This is a great question, variations of which I’ve asked and had answered, only to realize I’m confused again.

However, I think this article answers your question:

The Crucial Element of Screenwriting in Action

That said, are you sure you have the Story Goal and Outcome right? What you’ve described makes the MC the structural antagonist. Would it be easier to redefine the Goal to somehow be stopping the Obtaining and making it a Success? The might or might not be the story you want tell, just asking.

[glennbecker]

I agree with @lakis here, in that you might want to reconsider your storyform if this all feels wrong.

The important thing to remember about Crucial Elements is they’re all about the OS.

OS: Control -> Uncontrolled
Mary, who has been trying to bring the rebels to justice, realizes the system is unjust and let’s them escape.

MC: Uncontrolled -> Control
Mary, who’s children are running wild and becoming criminals because she’s not around, buckles down and becomes a strict disciplinarian.

[jhull]

In a Changed/Failure/Linear story, the MC sits on the Solution Element.

They’re “giving up” the Solution is what creates the Failure.

[Lakis]

@jhull

They’re “giving up” the Solution is what creates the Failure.

But are they adopting the Solution in the MC throughline?

[mlucas]

In this type of story I thought it was more that they’re “using up” the Solution for themselves, so it’s no longer available to solve the problems in the OS?

[jhull]

Well yeah. That’s what I said! When you give it up you’re no longer using it.

[RavinDave]

I knew Jim would have a spot-on article addressing this somewhere, I couldn’t find it. Thanks for the link; I’m digesting it now.

As for the rest – you’re very perceptive. I did indeed map it out so that the MC was the Antag in the OS Story. I didn’t mention it in my original post, cuz I thought it complicated things unduly.

For the Storyform itself – like most of us, it is around version 50 and I quite like the appreciations it provides and the SIgn Posts for all the domains are pretty much line up exactly as I had imagined the story would unfold.

The tone of the story is realistic comedy with a streak of broad farce I try to make seem realistic. It’s upbeat and light-hearted.

I have a female MC whose backstory has her on a lucrative career path in the financial sector. She discovers she was a trophy-hire recruited for her PR value. With no real control, she’s manipulated by the “ol’ boy” network at work, sexually harassed, and ultimately kicked to the curb when she lashes out. At the start of the story proper – she is struggling to get back on her feet, maintain her independence, vowing to never be under that sort of domination again, starting to get finally somewhere … and is waylaid by an unscrupulous businessman and recruited to affect a scheme of his. The techniques he uses to dominate and exploit her mirror her earlier experiences.

I had toyed with other problems. UNENDING/ENDING seemed natural. She feels caught in a loop; repeating the same basic situation with different players. What Freud called “Repetition-Compulsion”. But none of the appreciations were even close to what I was angling for.

Then I though maybe INEQUITY/EQUITY. This got me much closer. But the problems she causes for herself are not simply due to generic “unfairness”. The problems were her reaction to the unfairness. Lashing out impotently instead of focusing on a more productive response, perhaps.

So I settled on UNCONTROLLED/CONTROL.

[RavinDave]

“‘giving up’ the Solution is what creates the Failure.”

I’m gonna have T-Shirts printed with that. Thanx, Jim!

[mlucas]

@jhull

Well yeah. That’s what I said! When you give it up you’re no longer using it.

Sorry Jim I think I’m suffering from a disconnect here (and I believe @Lakis too, based on his use of the word adopting).

When you say “giving up” it sounds like the MC is giving up / not using the Solution element in their own personal throughline either. But here’s how you described it (amazingly well) in that article, where Perception was the example Solution & Crucial Element:

But see, by “taking” this element out of play of the Overall Story and using it for his own personal problems, the Main Character removes the opportunity for that Perception to have a positive impact on everyone.

Taking something out of play for everyone, and using it for yourself, does not sound like giving that something up to me. What am I missing?

[jhull]

Nothing - we’re saying the same thing, just different perspectives.

A story is an intersection of objective and subjective - Overall and Main Character - so the giving up is the Storymind giving up that Element as a point of contention.

I always default to the Storymind because it’s always consistent and accurate across the board.

Most people understand that a Changed Resolve moves from Problem to Solution. What is usually confusing is what that means for the Overall Story Throughline–because most assume they are two different things…instead of two different ways of looking at the same thing.

@RavinDave now understands the dissonance between the Main Character (subjective) and Overall Story (objective) Throughlines as the Main Character “giving up” the Solution.

[Khodu]

Hi Jim.

Correct me if I’m wrong but what I’ve come to understand is that by embracing the solution -given the context of whatever the failure story- it ends in failure. Had the MC remained steadfast (assuming the MC is the Protagonist of the OS), then the OS would’ve been a success.

What I mean is that Success/Failure is an OS appreciation. Whilst the MC’s personal Problem/Solution dynamic affects the Story Judgement , their Unique Ability helps them shift the OS problem to the OS solution, not their Crucial Element.

The crucial element is the seam that binds the MC and OS throughlines together and makes the whole story work as a single unit.

What am I missing ?

[Greg]

@RavinDave

The OS Problem is UNCONTROLLED. Applying CONTROL would evidently lead to SUCCESS, so she must avoid employing it in the OS.

Just to clear things up a bit, you’re saying that the OS problem is Uncontrolled and the reason the attempt at the OS Goal is a Failure is because, though the MC changes from Uncontrolled to Control, the OS does not change from Uncontrolled to Control?

[Lakis]

@Khodu

Correct me if I’m wrong but what I’ve come to understand is that by embracing the solution -given the context of whatever the failure story- it ends in failure. Had the MC remained steadfast (assuming the MC is the Protagonist of the OS), then the OS would’ve been a success.

Seconding this question @jhull. I always thought what @Khodu says above was the way to express it, but every time I think about it again, I get confused.

Maybe it would be helpful to look at actual Change/Failure/Good stories as examples? Taking The Graduate as an example:

The OS of the story is Future – everyone has a plan for Ben’s future.

The OS/MC Problem is Avoid – plenty of examples of that being problematic.

However, the MC Crucial Element is Pursue (Ben).

The IC (Mrs. Robinson) has an Crucial Element of Avoid (Prevent).

@chuntley

If you wish to illustrate a direct conflict between the IC and MC, use the crucial elements. For example, in The Godfather, Michael represents logic, whereas his wife Kaye represents feeling. In The Graduate, Ben represents pursue while Mrs. Robinson represents avoid (prevent – “My daughter is off limits”).

So in this context, It doesn’t seem like choosing to Pursue Elaine leads to the story failure – after all, Ben could have pursued getting in to plastics and that would have made everyone happy.

It feels more accurate to say:

@mlucas

I thought it was more that they’re “using up” the Solution for themselves, so it’s no longer available to solve the problems in the OS?

… so Ben is “using up” Pursue in his own throughline – by pursuing Elaine – while at the same time refusing to Pursue the Future that everyone wants him to.

Am I understanding this correctly? And is this always the way to look at it, or is it story context dependent?

(In case it doesn’t link, here’s the thread I pulled that quote from Chris from):

Does a change main character's "flipped" perspective need to match the influence character's perspective?

Enter the MC and IC crucial elements. While at the macro level the IC represents a huge paradigm shift by comparison to the MC -- an internal approach v. an external approach, or vice versa -- the crucial element provides the specific connective tissue at the element level. The MC Throughline and the IC throughline provide contrasts in perspective ("You and I are just alike," "No, we're nothing alike!"), the crucial elements provide direct, oppositional approaches within the OS. If you …

[jhull]

Unless I’m missing something, I feel like we’re talking around each other. Both @Khodu and @Lakis, both of your replies look accurate to me (Except the idea of Story Judgment tied to MC Problem/Solution).

In sharp contrast to a lot of posts, I believe we’re all in agreement here

[Hunter]

Some precision analysis of this thread may be helpful, then.
Please correct me if I misunderstood the thread or the confusion.

---

A point of semantics seems to have spawned the confusion regarding the following statement:

(1) [The MC] “giving up” the Solution is what creates the Failure.

The above seems to have been interpreted as the MC gives up the Solution across the board.
That interpretation does not match the interpretation of the article, however, which suggests this:

(1) The MC uses the Solution in the MC Throughline.
(2) Using the Solution in the MC Throughline means the MC takes the Solution from the OS Throughline.
(3) Now, since the Solution is no longer in the OS Throughline, the story ends in Failure.

---

Therefore, the confusion and question boils down to requesting more precision in the initial statement.
Could the original statement be re-written as follows, and still be correct, then?

(*) [The MC] “giving up” the Solution [in the OS to use it in the MC Throughline] is what creates the Failure."

---

If I understood everything correctly, then that last statement (the starred one) is what everyone has agreed on.

[mlucas]

Trying to bridge the gap here, recalling that Jim is describing things from the Storymind perspective.

Jim @jhull, are you saying that in this type of story, the Storymind is showing how the Overall perspective “gives up” the solution element to the Main Character / personal perspective? i.e. what looks like embracing from one perspective, is from another perspective giving up?

EDIT: Oops cross-posted with @Hunter …