Solution vs Story Goal

theory
#1

Hey all, long time no see!

I have a (hopefully) quick question about how the solution elements in my storyform link up with the overall story goal.

So to start with, I’m telling a change/start/failure/good story. The central inequity of my story is between Perception and Actuality in three of the four storylines (OS, MC, and SS). In all three, Actuality is the problem element while Perception is the solution element.

Most of my characters are working towards achieving an impossible and harmful overall story goal. It’s a good and necessary thing that they fail. Moreover, as far as I can tell the story goal MUST end in failure in order for the primary inequities of the SS, MC and IC storylines to be resolved. The MC must change to adopt her IC’s POV if she wishes to be happy, which means abandoning her pursuit of the Story Goal. So when my storyform identifies Perception as the solution element in the OS, the MC, and the SS throughlines, does this mean that employing this element would enable the characters to achieve the overall story goal (which they fail to do b/c Perception was NOT swapped out for the problem element of Actuality), OR does the problem/solution pairing operate independently of the achievement of the overall story goal?

If the second is true, then the solution element of Perception could be employed successfully in any of the throughlines in spite of (or perhaps resulting in) the failure to achieve the story goal, which would be a GOOD thing (story judgement) because it would resolve the inequity in those throughlines.

If the first is correct, then that would mean that employing the solution element of Perception in any of the throughlines might enable the characters to achieve the story goal, but that this would be a BAD thing, because when dealing w/ this problem, sticking with Actuality over Perception is better even if it results in failure.

Are my inferences here correct, and can anyone tell me which of the above options is the right interpretation of the theory?

#2

The threads all operate independently. The problems in the OS are distinct from the problems in the other throughlines.

1 Like
#3

As an example, take “How to Train Your Dragon.” Stoick (the IC perspective) implements his solution of Acceptance and the RS throughline is resolved through the solution of Acceptance, while the OS ends in failure (the goal of Training the Next Generation of Dragon Slayers) and the “problem” of Non-acceptance remains.

Sources: https://narrativefirst.com/articles/what-it-means-to-fail
https://narrativefirst.com/articles/when-failure-becomes-a-good-thing

#4

Also, it’s possible to have the solution (Perception) come about in the OS but still have the Outcome be Failure. Maybe the solution was there but in the wrong place, or came about too late, or whatever. So don’t feel bad if you notice Perception cropping up in the OS too – it doesn’t mean you have the wrong storyform. The Outcome is only about whether the Story Goal was achieved.

And just to kind of echo what @MWollaeger said – the Solution in each throughline is a separate thing. An MC resolving his personal problems by camouflaging the symptoms of his illness (Perception) doesn’t necessarily affect the Actuality-based problems in the OS.

In some stories the MC and OS solution seems wrapped up in the same moment, like in Star Wars when Luke decides to trust in the Force and switches off his targeting computer. But that’s really two separate things woven together (storyweaving).

1 Like
#5

Hmm. Well I’ll certainly buy that the OS operates independently of the RS, aren’t the OS and the MC problems or solutions linked via the crucial element?

#6

The MC and OS are linked through the MC Unique Ability and Critical Flaw, in that the MC UA is something that only the MC can bring to the table, and is necessary to bring about the OS Solution. (And the Critical Flaw undermines this.)

Each throughline has a unique Problem, in that each could be given its own gist if you desired. On occasion, I’m sure the differences between them might feel slight.

Also, the Crucial Element isn’t the OS Problem, if that’s what you were thinking.

#7

Well, but the MC crucial element in a change/success story would be their problem element, which they would necessarily share with the overall story. That’s why this character is worthy of being the main character at all; they contain either the solution/problem/symptom/response element of the overall story.

http://dramatica.com/questions/concept/crucial-element/all

Plus in Jim’s article here, he describes the interaction between the MC and OS storyline solutions in a change/failure/good story with an MC crucial element of Perception (in this case, the MC Solution AND the OS solution) as follows:

“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.”

So here the solution elements for the MC and OS throughlines don’t seem independent at all. But maybe I’m missing something?

#8

I think we are saying different things here, so I just want to clarify.

Let’s take a Change character. The MC Problem and the OS Problem are going to share the same element. They will both be Induction or Pursue or something.

But, they will not be the same illustration of that element.

Also, the Crucial Element will not be this illustration. The Crucial Element will be an abstraction of the story as a whole. (As will the IC’s Crucial Element… together, they are an abstraction of the argument.)

So, you aren’t at all wrong that all of these things are the same-ish, but they are not the same, which is what I think you currently think.

4 Likes
#9

Hey @Audz, you’re so close that I’m not even sure how much of this is just being lost in the normal “internet forum communication” issues. (Hey, does that fit a Problem of Perception? :stuck_out_tongue: )

Okay, I see I’m cross-posting with Mike now. I was going to make similar points with less eloquence, so I’ll just add an example of “same vs. same-ish” for clarity.

Imagine a story where the OS and MC Problems are both Help (obviously, a Change story). You might illustrate it thus:

  • OS Problem Help: answering a distress call overzealously
  • OS Solution Hinder: impeding the oncoming fleet
  • MC Problem Help: doing whatever it takes to aid her dying mother
  • MC Solution Hinder: sacrificing self to hamper the enemy agents

Whether or not that MC Solution has anything at all to do with the OS Solution is a matter of storyweaving. In many stories they are woven together (so maybe “hampering the agents” is a step in “impeding the fleet”), but don’t have to be.

2 Likes
#10

Thanks for being patient, I appreciate the careful explanation! I think I’m starting to understand a bit more clearly!

And I do get that they are different things, to some degree. The problem in each throughline will have its own illustration, even if it is the same element. And I KIND of get how all of these throughlines can be resolved independently.

I guess I’m just trying to reconcile that idea with the notion that a story is just an analogy to a single human mind trying to resolve an inequity, and that therefore all the different problem elements in the throughlines are just different views of the same inequity.

If that’s true, then the resolution of the problems in the four different throughlines can’t ever be TRULY independent, even if the way those throughlines are illustrated makes them appear entirely unrelated, right? The truth is (I think) that no matter how unrelated these throughlines may APPEAR to be, they are in fact inextricably linked.

And it seems to me (now) like the crucial element is the representation of this abstract linked-ness between the OS and other throughlines that transcends the surface level differences in the way they’ve been illustrated by the author.

All of this is to ask: I’ve got a story with a change MC with an outcome of failure and a judgement of good. How best to think about the different problems and solutions of the different throughlines, and how their resolutions fit together?

My storyform identifies actuality/perception as the problem/solution element pair in three out of four of my throughlines. So each of these instances of the pair is different, and should be illustrated differently. Ok, got it.

Where I’m getting a bit tripped up is in considering that the MC possesses the crucial element of Perception. That element is also the solution to her throughline, to the OS throughline, and to the RS throughline. That solution doesn’t get found in the OS throughline, and so the goal ends in failure and the problem of Actuality persists in that throughline. But as to the other two throughlines wherein perception is the solution, I think it gets found in the RS, but not the MC.

My understanding had been that what happened here is that the MC kind of “took” the element of perception, which could have resolved the OS, and instead plugged it into the RS, so that the RS throughline could resolve successfully, the way Jim described in his article. But that this necessarily caused the OS to fail, because that element (which the MC alone possesses in the OS) was no longer available.

I’m just concerned that this understanding I have may be critically flawed/leading me astray.

Sorry for the chunk of text, and thanks, once again, for your patience!

#11

It might be useful to analyze change/failure/good stories with a non-MC protagonist in order to see how they are separate throughlines.

To Kill a Mockingbird: MC Scout applies equity to her MC personal life with Calpurnia and in the RS with Scout. Equity doesn’t overcome inequity enough in the OS for success.
The Cooler: MC Bernie applies/gets help in his MC personal life and in the RS. Help doesn’t arrive & thus protag Shelly doesn’t overcome hinder in the OS.
Michael Clayton: MC Michael applies accurate in his personal life (i.e. he sees his career & brother as “good enough”). Karen’s caper does not end within tolerances.
Sideways: MC Miles applies MC sol of ending by ending his stasis. Protag Jack doesn’t end his shenanigans in the OS.

On the other hand, If MC = protag, then the change MC applies the MC sol in their personal life, but the OS solution either isn’t applied in the OS or isn’t sufficient for OS success. Just because the OS is failure doesn’t necessarily mean the OS solution is absent.

#12

Hmm.

For what it’s worth, my MC is not the protagonist of my story. She’s basically the contagonist.

And okay, the OS solution doesn’t need to be absent per se, but it does need to be insufficiently realized in order for failure to occur. I mean, you cannot have a story where the OS goal is achieved but the OS solution element is not found/utilized, right?

#13

Actually, though it’s probably rare, you can have such a story. See this: What does Outcome tell you about OS Throughline & OS Solution?
That said, I agree with your previous sentence – in a Failure story, the Solution is either absent, or it is there but not applied properly or in the right place or there’s not enough of it, etc. So “insufficiently realized” is a great way to put it.

Regarding your story and your other post, this section concerned me a bit:

Since you have a Change MC, that means she definitely does embrace the MC Solution of Perception. So when you say that perception as a solution is not “found” in the MC throughline, that doesn’t seem right to me. Maybe that’s part of what’s tripping you up?

My experience with crucial elements is that it’s best to work a lot of other stuff out in your story first (not just storyform and structure, but to get a really strong feeling for everything that’s going on and your own personal take on it). Then suddenly you’ll find how they’re working in an unexpected way.

#14

Well but she’s a change/failure MC, so she started out with the solution element and abandoned it for the problem element, aligning her with the IC (who is the antagonist in the OS). And while the story judgement is Good, that has more to do with my opinion as the author of the appropriateness of the outcome than it does the opinions of the MC, right? If the goal and solution are actually independent, then I don’t see why the story judgement and solution of the MC problem wouldn’t also be independent.

So I’m encoding this positive judgement I have of the story outcome in the fact that the RS DOES resolve successfully by employing the solution element of Perception.

For the record, I think part of the problem I’m having here may just be that I am an UBER-holistic thinker, and so my inclination is always to see everything as being interconnected, including the story goal, the solution elements across various throughlines, the throughlines themselves, etc, all of these things impacting each other, well, holistically. I have trouble treating what appear to me to be different instances of the same overall problem as separate threads onto themselves. My brain keeps trying to combine them into some kind of superstructure so as to create a pleasing balance between them all at once.

But maybe this is an instance where it’s best to just treat each of these throughlines in a linear fashion, one by one, and let the connections between them fall where they may.

But that’s hard for me to do, since it runs so counter to my natural method of problem-solving.

1 Like
#15

The Story is one thing, and in that way, yes everything is inextricably linked. (Dramatica, for being so boxy and linear, is actually incredibly holistic.) I just want to make sure you don’t mistake the linkages with the story points being identical.

And, while everything can be resolved independently, you have to bear in mind that the MC and the IC can’t both change, so there is one specific non-independence right there. You can think about them independently, but you can’t treat them as independent things. (Do you have children? Or babysit? Try spoiling one child to get them to stop crying, and see if the other kids don’t show up and ask about why they aren’t getting a bowl of ice cream.)

Also, I want to steer you clear of something I feel creeping in: the OS is not the Story. Here you write:

The crucial element is not a link between the OS and everything else. The crucial element is an abstract representation of the Story, not the “They Throughline”. The MC and IC and RS throughlines are not subordinate to the OS.

As for the crucial element… to be honest, I don’t think about it very much. ET is very generally about “getting home” (Pursuit) and “keeping people here” (Avoid). And you can see Elliot say, “No, you’re good. Go home, and I’m going to learn from you and stay home.” I think that’s a handy thing to hold on to when you are writing a story, because it gives you a target and a feel, but I think it can be like sand: the more you try to hold it, the more it slips between your fingers. And he’s not actively moving any elements, there’s no intention to fix an inequity in Elliot: it’s the author who uses Elliot as a tool to make it happen. Elliot just has his heart healed.

My advice: if you can say to yourself “This story is about how some people see interpret things and other people choose to see things the way they are” then you can stop worrying about the crucial element.

2 Likes
#16

I ham-fistedly refer to these outcomes as “deus ex machina” though it’s probably not 100% accurate.

And you can easily see these things: if I am plotting to manipulate things so I don’t have to take a final exam at school and it’s not going well, but then the teacher dies in a car accident… Goal Achieved, but no solution element is to be found.

3 Likes
#17

This doesn’t quite make sense:

  1. The Outcome of Failure is only to do with the OS, not the MC Throughline. If it helps, you can include the Judgement when you think of your MC (e.g. Change/Good) – the Judgement applies to more than just the MC, but is usually most strongly felt in the MC. But don’t use the Outcome to describe the MC.

  2. How does an MC start with the MC Solution element? They have to Change to embrace the MC Solution. (Perhaps you’re thinking of the Crucial Element here, but I think that’s confusing you right now. I’d recommend to forget completely about Crucial Elements for now, as Mike suggested.)

I agree you are probably looking at things too holistically. Yes, all the story points are connected by virtue of being part of the same Story (GAS), but there is an objective way of looking at each throughline separately, and you should be able to see that. i.e. see your MC as someone driven by her personal problems related to Actuality, who eventually changes her perspective and embraces Perception*, resolving her personal problems**.

* or its lack; her Solution could have to do with misperceiving or creating false perceptions…
** because of the Judgement of Good, her personal problems must be resolved through this Change.

#18

Hmm.

A. Okay, but take a look here at this section on MC resolve from the DSE User’s Manual: http://support.screenplay.com/help/dramaticastoryexpert5/index.html?resolve_change_or_stead.htm

“Of course, Success is not the only Outcome that can happen to a Main Character. Another way to illustrate that an approach for dealing with a Problem is proper would be to have the Main Character Change his way of going about it and fail. Similarly, a Main Character that remains Steadfast and fails can illustrate the improper way.”

The above seems to imply that failure and success in a story are indeed linked to the MC changing or remaining steadfast, since you can have an MC “Change his way of going about it and fail.”

But fail . . . to do what, exactly? Maybe they are just using success/failure here more generally and not referring to the specific story point of Outcome in a storyform, but you can see how this blending of language gets confusing.

Alternately the above text might be implying that the MC can fail in trying to resolve HIS problem (i.e. the one in his own throughline) and that he can do so as a result of changing. Which I could live with, because I think that’s what happens in my story. I just view my MC’s coming to accept living with her problem unresolved as a better outcome than trying to change it.

B. I always thought the Change in question in a Change MC has to do with them adopting a strategy like that of their IC, regardless of their personal solution/problem elements. It just so happens that in this story, the strategy she comes to adopt involves picking actuality over perception in her throughline, but picking perception over actuality in the RS. So the positive judgement here has to do with the fact that she resolved the tensions in her relationship with her IC, admittedly at the cost of her own personal goals AND the OS goal, but that this was worth it in the end because resolving that RS tension was so beneficial.

With that said, maybe I’m wrong and an MC changing necessarily implies that they employ the Solution element in their throughline successfully. I just hadn’t seen that spelled out anywhere before, and I’m growing cautious of assuming those kinds of links between story points, you know what I mean?

P.S. Or maybe it’s just that the resolve and story judgement are linked? I.E. A change MC in a story with a judgement of Good must necessarily change to adopt the solution element in his throughline, and that THIS is what tells the reader that the judgement is good?

But I’m pretty sure on the latest episode of the podcast on implied Story points Jim was talking about how the story judgement is TYPICALLY encoded in the outcome of the MC throughline , but that it doesn’t HAVE to be. . . .

1 Like
#19

Geez, now you’ve got me thinking! I don’t see it spelled out anywhere either, although certain things like the “Simple Main Character” report for a Change character certainly imply it. It says something like Ultimately, because of the Main Character’s [MC Issue], the Main Character Changes to center on [MC Solution]

I certainly have trouble imagining an MC Changing without adopting their Solution element! (EDIT: except, perhaps, in a story that doesn’t go down to the Problem level at all – e.g. a short story that stops at the Concern or Issue level.)

Regarding the encoding of Judgment, how does everything turn out for all the other characters? Are they left with angst or feeling unsatisfied?
And how is your MC left feeling? Does the resolution of the RS tension help so much that she feels pretty good in the end?

#20

Hmm. To me, accepting something as okay is a way of resolving personal issues… (Like Jim’s example of not having enough artistic ability, and solving that by giving up the desire to animate.) So that fits your Judgment of Good fine. Is it possible this acceptance has something to do with perception, like she perceives her (actual) problems in a different light, allowing her to live with them?