Why do all four Domains have to be explored?
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.
