If you have a moment, could you please help me understand the best order to write up Throughlines?  I have been starting at the top, Domain on down to Signpost 4. When I get to Problem, I realize I have not yet set up the problem properly.  If we were to number the Story Points from 1-14, what would be the best order to write them?  It seems PROBLEM should be #1, then what….?  I would GREATLY appreciate your help in understanding how to best attack these Story Points, as to the order they should be written (at least in general).

It doesn't quite work that way.  The only story points below that have a specific order are the four signposts.  Each of the other story points should be illustrated at least once within EACH signpost.  This means that by the end of MC Signpost 1 (Act 1), all of the MC story points are illustrated at least once (if not more). 

Which story point to illustrate first?  It depends on how you like to write.  However, here is another way to look at each of these story points:

• DOMAIN:  This is the most genre-like and broadest aspect of the MC's throughline
• CONCERN:  This is more plot-like and may be considered to be identified as the area in which the MC's personal goal exists
• ISSUE & COUNTERPOINT:  These are the most theme-like as they relate to the MC's throughline
• SYMPTOM, RESPONSE, PROBLEM & SOLUTION:  In a character-centric throughline, these are the story points most associated with character development.
• UNIQUE ABILITY & CRITICAL FLAW: These story points tie the MC throughline to the OS throughline, so they seem both thematic and plot-like in nature.
• BENCHMARK:  This story point indicates how progress is measured in the MC's development.

So, depending on your preferences, you may focus on the more genre-like, plot-like, thematic, or character-related story points first and then progress from there.  Or, mix them up in any order you want, so long as they appear within each act/signpost.

Do the signposts and journeys from a given throughline need to correspond time-wise with the same signposts and journeys from the other throughlines? If so, how do you illustrate the Influence Character's impact on the main character at Signpost #1 if the IC isn't introduced until somewhere in MC/OS Journey #1?

In a perfect story world, the signposts happen simultaneously. HOWEVER, in the real world we dole them out in bits and pieces over time, and thus the need for Storyweaving. There are no RULES for storyweaving, only guidelines. For example, it's generally acceptable to finish weaving all four throughline signposts (e.g. Signpost 1) before moving to the next signpost. However, the Journeys, by definition, embody the transition of one signpost to the next. So, though it might be clearer 'logically' if all signposts are completed before you move on to the following journey or signpost, the reality is you can follow your gut and inter-cut and overlap them as you wish.

Why does it seem to shift according to the Perspective (Throughline) chosen?

Context creates meaning. It is the combination of the four perspectives with the four domains that collectively describe and allow us to identify the nature of an inequity. You need look no further than the Dramatica table of Genres to see how combining perspectives with domains creates meaning. For example, combine the situation domain with the "they" OS perspective and you get a situation comedy OS throughline. If you combine the same perspective with the activity domain, you get a physical comedy OS throughline. Yet you need all four perspectives bound to the four domains to have a complete exploration of an inequity, which is one of the foundations of a Grand Argument Story.

Follow-up question:

So the true inequity of a story doesn't necessarily lie in one Domain or the other, but rather between all of them? In that case, an inequity can never truly be defined, correct? You can't say Well, the inequity of this story is injustice...You would need all four Domains to actually surround and approximate that inequity.

You are correct.

According to Dramatica there are four different ways of defining a problem - a Situation, an Activity, a Fixed Attitude or a Way of Thinking. These correspond to the theory's four Domains, respectively Universe, Physics, Mind and Psychology.

In order to create a complete story Dramatica calls for each one of these Domains to be assigned to one of the Four Throughlines: the Overall Story Throughline, the Main Character Throughline, the Impact or Influence Character Throughline and the Relationship Story Throughline. These Four Throughlines correspond to the four different contexts one can take in order to assess meaning: They (Overall), I (Main Character), You (Impact Character), and We (Relationship).

The reason for the Four Throughlines, or Perspectives, seems clear -- an Author would have to explore a problem from all the different perspectives in order to understand what is really going on. But why do the four different Domains have to be explored? Wouldn't it be just as good to look at the same Problematic Activity from the They perspective, the I perspective, the You and We perspectives so that one could understand what is truly wrong with that particular Activity?

An inequity is an imbalance between things, not the things themselves. It does not matter if the "things" are perspectives or domains in which the associated problems manifest because the inequity can be anywhere. The purpose of the problem-solving process is to identify, isolate, and address the inequity as best as possible. The largest areas in which the inequity can be identified are the perspectives and the domains. One way to identify the effects of an inequity is to look for conflict.

Conflict is the product of effort to resolve an inequity as it meets resistance. We look for conflict as we attempt to identify an inequity's source(s). If we neglect to look in all the possible places conflict can exist, we open ourselves (and the story) to missing the entirety of the conflict and a true understanding of the inequity, leaving the real likelihood of failing to resolve the inequity thoroughly. So, all four perspectives and all four domains must be explored in order to understand the nature of an inequity and the nature and source(s) of conflict generated by trying to resolve the inequity.

Wouldn't it be just as good to look at the same Problematic Activity from the They perspective, the I perspective, the You and We perspectives so that one could understand what is truly wrong with that particular Activity?

The storyform expresses the effects of an inequity differently in each domain because the context for each domain is different. The Situation domain shows the inequity in the context of an external state. The Activity domain shows the inequity in the context of an external process. The Fixed Attitude domain shows the inequity in the context of and internal state. The Manipulation/Psychology domain show the inequity in the context of an internal process.

Using different perspectives on the same domain shows the effects of the inequity within the different contexts of the perspective. This may give us a greater understanding of the difference in the perspectives, but it would not give us any greater understanding of the inequity as it is expressed in that single domain. Conflict does not exist BETWEEN a domain and a perspective, so shifting perspectives on a domain will not provide more insight into the nature of the inequity.

Dramatica recommends at least five Story Drivers: before (or to start) each Act, and as the closing event. But say a story had six or seven drivers. Would four of them still have to line up as turns into each act, with the fifth as the closing event?

Or could seven drivers be evenly spaced between the four acts, with only the Inciting and Closing events lining up with act breaks?

Short answer: Yes

HOWEVER...

All act turn driver events must occur between the Inciting and Closing events in the Overall Story thoughline, which means the inciting and closing events cannot line up with act breaks because the open and close the story's argument. You can have material before the inciting event (prologue) and material after the closing event (epilogue) if you want.

The driver events in the Overall Story throughline move the throughline forward. While you can have more than the five drivers, they should be in addition to the locations of the five standard drivers (opening event, first, second, and third act turns, and closing event).

CLARIFICATION

Each of the four throughlines has three act breaks, which gives you a total of twelve act breaks. When all four throughlines are synchronized, the story will seem to have only three act breaks. However, one can easily make them asynchronous and have more act transitions (though the drivers only control the Overall Story throughline). This technique is often used in television so that commercial breaks have the feel of act transitions.

Each complete Grand Argument Story will have four throughlines: the Objective Story, the Relationship Story, the Main Character, and the Influence Character. Each of these throughlines represents a different POINT OF VIEW (there's the POVs in Dramatica I think you were asking about). To non-Dramatica eyes, the Objective and Relationship story throughlines appear to be different stories in the same work -- the Rhett and Scarlett love affair set against the Civil War story in Gone With The Wind, Jake Gittes and Evelyn Mulwray's love affair set against the mystery of early Los Angeles politicking in Chinatown, etc. If your story has two strong points of view, those may be the Main and Influence character points of view. Both the MC and the IC should explore ALL of the elements in their Domain (which includes ALL 64 character elements). This is different from the Objective Characters who must divide the set of 64 elements between themselves. That MIGHT account for the difficulty you were experiencing while assigning objective character elements to your MC and IC. The objective character elements should ONLY pertain to the functions that the MC and IC have in the OBJECTIVE STORY. This is distinctly different than their own points of view and participation in the Relationship Story.

There have been a couple of popular films lately that have TWO stories instead of the traditional one story. Both Jerry Maguire and The English Patient combine separate stories into one work. In Jerry Maguire, there is the love story and the sports story. In the sports story, Jerry is the Main Character who remains steadfast and Cuba Gooding Jr.'s character is the Influence Character that changes. In the love story, Jerry is the Influence Character that changes, and his love interest (the woman with the son) is the Main Character that remains steadfast. Each has their own set of Objective Characters (some of which do double duty between the stories). In The English Patient, there is a pre-war love affair story, and the "post" war story involving the patient, the nurse, the Sikh, etc. I believe the book fleshes out the post-war love story to a greater degree than the movie did, but I haven't read it so I can't say for sure.

The point I'm trying to make is that one story has FOUR throughlines. A work with two stories will have EIGHT throughlines, two of each. This should help you determine which best describes your story.

The Grand Argument is missing one segment, but will the story still work with just three? What else should I consider?

You ask what happens when one omits one of the throughlines. Well, imagine what happens when you lose one of your eyes. You can still see, but the added information you have with two eyes allows you to see things (like depth) that a single eye cannot. Now imagine that you have two sets of eyes. These would correspond to the throughlines: Objective and Relationship Story throughlines are one pair, Main Character and Influence Character throughlines are the other. If you lose any one of them entirely, part of the audiences ability to perceive depth will be removed with it. It is far better to lightly sketch a throughline, than it is to take it out completely.