In the article The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel: Season One, the relationship story problem is effect.
Based on the throughline configurations the OS, MC, and IC throuhgline, I would have placed the problem in the relationship story throughline as Expectation, Issue, Desire, Concern Being, and Domain as Psychology.
You seem to have placed the problem as effect, solution cause, issue ability, and concern as being.
It seems you placed the issue and problem in the quad diagonal to the issue of desire, and problem of expectation, with the concern of being.
You mentioned in a disuss dramatica post that for the influence character throughline and relationship story throughline, one has the option of choosing to place the issue and problem in the diagonal opposite to the other diagonals when compared to the MC, and OS throughline configurations.
What are the rules of positioning the issues and problems for a throughline. I imagined they would be consistent throughout the entire storyform but that doesnât always seem to be the case.
In some stories the problem is consistently from the same position, in some stories itâs not.
The RS throughline (and often the IC throughline) doesnât always conform to the same âlinearâ rules as the OS/MC. One or the other is always slightly out of sync with the quad placement and elements. For example, you might have an RS Issue of Desire but the Problems and Symptoms will be under the Knowledge issue and in a different corner of the quad compared to the other throughlines.
I donât know why that is, but I donât think Iâll ever really need to know (and I donât think Iâd understand it anyway). If you have the software, it works all that out for you. Otherwise, it doesnât really matter.
I assume youâre asking me, since Iâm the only one who put together a storyform for that great seriesâ first season.
@jhay is right. If you have the Dramatica application it works it all out for you, so that you can just focus on writing the story. But I can understand the desire to want to know what the relationships are and more importantlyâwhat it means.
The easiest way to remember how all the Throughlines are connected:
the Changed Resolve perspective shares the same Problem & Solution as the Overall perspective
the Steadfast Resolve perspective shares the same Focus & Direction as the Overall perspective
the Relationship perspective shares the same Problem & Solution as the Overall perspective in a story with an Outcome of Failure
the Relationship perspective shares the same Focus & Direction as the Overall perspective in a story with an Outcome of Success
Everything else kind of follows those four relationships.
The Model is biased towards the Main Character and Overall Story perspectives such that they are straight drill-downs from top to bottom. The relationships above quite often twist and warp the Influence Character and Relationship Story perspectives such that they seem âoffâ or wrong. This is an example of subjectivity and attribution error, i.e. things donât always look the same from different points-of-view.
Yes, that is correct. And ESSENTIAL for the story to hold together. When you mix and match Concerns from different locations in the Model, the narrative loses all sense of meaning.
The answer to both your questions is yes. But itâs easiest to think of it this way:
The Changed character shares the Problem & Solution with OS.
The Steadfast character shares the Focus & Direction with the OS.
If the MC is Changed, the IC is Steadfast, and vice versa.
They definitely change their Approach (Do-er to Be-er or vice versa) since that is part and parcel of adopting the alternate perspective.
I donât think they change Style (Linear vs. Holistic) since itâs not directly tied to their perspective, at least as I understand it. But Iâve never seen anything discussing that.