Solution adoption in failure/change story

[suki]

Hi, I am pretty new to Dramatica and learning a lot from you all. I’ve browsed the forums about this and am still a little confused:

I have a failure/bad/change story so that the MC and OS throughlines have the same problem and solution. My series of confusions are:

1. If the story is to end in failure, then that generally means that the OS solution is not adopted (either at all or properly/in time), correct?

2. If the MC changes, then he must adopt the MC solution, right?

Because of these, I am specifically concerned that if the MC adopts the solution and “fails personally,” but the OS does not adopt the solution until too late and also fails, that there will be no clear message in the story about what the “correct” choice is. Or does it argue that the solution is bad for you personally, yet good for a greater goal? I think that is what I would like the story to say.

[Prish]

Hi, Suki,
I have used Dramatica because it was always fun for me, but no expert. I might have heard that if the MC changed, then that meant adopting the IC solution.
Prish

[suki]

Hi Prish, thanks for your suggestion! I’ll check that out.

[mlucas]

This is a great question. Everything you’ve said in your initial post is valid.

@suki

I am specifically concerned that if the MC adopts the solution and “fails personally,” but the OS does not adopt the solution until too late and also fails, that there will be no clear message in the story about what the “correct” choice is.

That’s correct – the argument only applies to the given story, it doesn’t make concrete assertions about what would have happened in a different story (with a different storyform). You’re free to color things how you want though, at the storytelling level – e.g. most Change/Failure/Bad stories probably contain some implication that if the OS characters had adopted the OS Solution appropriately, things would have turned out better. But that implication is at the storytelling level, not part of the argument.

To put it another way, a Failure/Bad story only argues for what is an “incorrect” choice or approach, it doesn’t specifically lay out the correct one.

@suki

Or does it argue that the solution is bad for you personally, yet good for a greater goal? I think that is what I would like the story to say.

I think a Change/Success/Bad story would argue this.

[mlucas]

@Prish

I might have heard that if the MC changed, then that meant adopting the IC solution.

I don’t think this is right. A Change MC adopts the MC Solution. (In such a storyform, the IC is Steadfast, and the IC Solution represents the thing that temporarily saps their motivation and/or influence on the MC.)

[Prish]

Oh, that makes a lot of sense since the judgement is bad in a change story where the change MC does not accept the steadfast IC solution. It’ll be fun to look for film examples.

[suki]

@mlucas

To put it another way, a Failure/Bad story only argues for what is an “incorrect” choice or approach, it doesn’t specifically lay out the correct one.

Thank you, that made it click.

[suki]

Well, now paging @mlucas so you two can duel.

@Greg

The story is a Failure not because the Solution was adopted improperly or late, but because that Solution does not lead to achieving the goal. That it is called the Solution does not guarantee for the story that it will, if adopted properly, solve the problem.

This is definitely new to me! I’m struggling to visualize this with a failure story, as it seems to me that the OS never adopts the solution. Like in How to Train Your Dragon, the OS seems to continue to be motivated by non-acceptance? I guess you could say they begin accepting a new role for dragons in their society.

It seems intuitive that the problem/solution have a relationship such that the solution will bring everything back into balance. It’s breaking my brain a little bit that the OS problem can coexist with the solution in a linear story.

@Greg

If the OS does not adopt the solution, there can be no clear message because the audience will not have seen the story address the problem.

It’s hard for me to understand why the MC throughline doesn’t have to adopt the solution to fully explore the problem, but the OS does.

Thank you for your input!

[jhull]

@Greg

I would disagree with this. The Dramatica model represents the entirety of a problem-solving process. As such, it necessarily includes the OS adopting the solution element. An OS that does not adopt the solution is essentially a story with a problem it never addresses. Addressing the problem is an essential part of the problem-solving process. Without it, the process-and thus the story-is incomplete.

This is an incorrect understanding of basic Dramatica theory. The reason the story Fails is because the Solution is never fully adopted. This has been covered several times already within these forums and elsewhere.

[suki]

Thank you regardless for your input @Greg and @jhull as well, much appreciated