Originally Posted by JimHull
The Dramatica theory of story is the only "paradigm" that accounts for all these formats without caveats. It is why you'll find that it accurately describes what is going on in "To Kill A Mockingbird" as well as in "Hamlet" as well as in "Casablanca." Story is story regardless of the medium.
This reminds me of literary criticism. People come up with all sorts of grand all-encompassing theories, and in their enthusiasm to prove that they have come up with an artistic version of e=mc2 they are forced into all sort of rhetorical gymnastics. The result is that people end up arguing about terms and definitions rather than focusing on what ought to be the heart of literary criticism--the work itself.
So I guess that's my question: why do you feel a need to try and force "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "Casablanca" into a paradigm? Is it helpful for your own writing? I would think that any theory that leads you so far afield that you're misidentifying protagonists and redefining story goals would be an obstacle to writing a story that resonates outside of a computer program. The Epstein brothers somehow managed to write something great in the era before Dramatica--and they did it by focusing on human relationships. Specifically the relationships between their protagonist (hint, he owned a bar) and the characters around him.