Well, like I noted in the comment I left, once we start getting into how the changes occur, we’re no longer talking broadly about the stories themselves, but about specific devices within stories, in particular MacGuffins, which I’ve covered on tumblr before. That said, you could certainly add a third axis to my schema–but here’s why I’m reluctant to do so.
First, I don’t think adding more axes actually helps clarify the system–if anything, it starts obfuscating and complicating the very thing I’m trying to explain and systematize. I’d rather have a simpler system that can’t account for everything all at once than a complex system which might account for more phenomena but is so confusing we can no longer learn anything from it.
Second, adding a distinction between intentional and accidental changes in this discussion doesn’t do much to develop the other dimensions at all. The reason I chose to contrast the two axes I did (constructive–destructive and self–other) is because the relationship those two pose say something meaningful about each other and the genre. While adding another axis would account for extra kinds of stories, it doesn’t really draw out the argument I was trying to make, regarding why some people like particular forms of stories than others. The accidental–intentional distinction speaks more to how writer’s form plot, and how they plan character change, than it does about particular reader preferences. Of course, this isn’t true for everyone–the original commenter in particular who took issue with the system I was laying out for example–but overall I’d stand by the claim.
None of this is to say that the incidental–accidental distinction can’t be important–it definitely is. However, that discussion wasn’t the right place for it in my mind, and leaving a simpler system and a more cohesive argument is more important to me than constructing the most accurate system I possibly can. Hope that makes a lick of sense somewhere in there.
Bracken's Corner 