Post History
I think the confusion around this example is because the problem is going to happen no matter what Ralph does, so his actions won't change anything. He will have to face living alone whether he wri...
Answer
#4: Attribution notice removed
by
System
·
2019-12-13T12:00:24Z (over 4 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/12660 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#3: Attribution notice added
by
System
·
2019-12-08T03:41:31Z (over 4 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/12660 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#2: Initial revision
I think the confusion around this example is because the problem is going to happen no matter what Ralph does, so his actions won't change anything. He will have to face living alone whether he writes the will or not. Having not read the book, I can only guess that the author is trying to draw a line between things which can be changed and things which can't. What if instead it read "Ralph's blind wife has fallen in love with another man. The [complication/twist] is that she wants him to write a love letter to her new boyfriend." _The thing being thwarted_ is "Ralph's love for his wife/Ralph's marriage." The _complication_ is "the love letter." What Ralph could do here is write a bad letter, not write the letter, or write it and then try to win his wife back. In the example given, Ralph's wife will die no matter what he does. That's why there's no "point of departure."
#1: Imported from external source
by
System
·
2014-08-19T10:26:39Z (over 9 years ago)
Original score: 4