Justification practice

[jassnip]

@Flight

but I have no idea what it meant or why would Knowledge move to Can instead of to Ability moving to Can and Desire moving to Should instead of to Want?

Well, if you think about it, choosing that word can help you clarify the framework of the justification.

in the can refuse to understand their limitations
what is it they are rejecting/out of balance with…they don’t want to know; they don’t want what they do know to hold them back, they get to ignore what “society, or someone else” thinks/knows.

In the need/ability one
They are out of balance with their ability to love. They have the ability, but they think doing it will hurt. If they misconstrue people’s interest, they don’t have to deal with their ability to love.

I’m pretty sure these aren’t hard and fast, just guidelines
A character can refuse to understand their limitations (knowing/not knowing)
A character wants to refuse to understand their limitations (thinks/not thinking)
A character needs to refuse to understand the limitations (do/not do )
A character should refuse to understand their limitations (Desire/not desire)

@MWollaeger

So, this is the same character? Or these are the two characters in the scene?

I suppose that would be up to the storyteller. Could be either.

In a single character. It would be one in conflict with the way they live every other aspect of their life except love. That would be an interesting character

Or it could be two friends that try and help the other out of their shell.

Or it could be love interests.

[Jeremy]

@MWollaeger

So, this is the same character? Or these are the two characters in the scene?

Wouldn’t experience (interaction) be what creates these two conflictual concepts? Doesn’t the nature of the statements imply two characters? At least initially? Doesn’t this explain how the influence character is the instrument of creating new layers of justification (or strengthening or destroying an existing one)?

Then, when it is justified (or it is rejected) for one character, that character is at peace with themselves again? You can either reconcile the apparent contradiction with another layer of justification or discard one of them.

@Flight

but I have no idea what it meant or why would Knowledge move to Can instead of to Ability moving to Can and Desire moving to Should instead of to Want?

At first glance, I had the same question. I wonder if a shift to a different perspective allows the distance that is necessary for justification?

If you tried to stay within the same context you’d be trying to define something by itself – kind of like saying “sweets are sweet.” That might not be very helpful even if it were true. Especially if you didn’t know what sweets were. It kind of reminds me of Greimas (Seminotic) squares. Viewing something in other terms (perspectives) can give a clearer view of it.

I don’t know if that last part about sweets is relevent. It just popped in my head. But, isn’t the nature of justification a stepping away from objective truth (Zen?), and wouldn’t a shift in terminology or perspective create the necessary distance to do that?

Really interesting conversation.

[Greg]

@Jeremy

isn’t the nature of justification a stepping away from objective truth

As I understand it, justification is the support one builds up for choosing a particular method for solving a problem. I desire a car that I am not able to afford and this leaves me feeling trapped in my apartment. How do I address feeling trapped? I can change my desire or I can change my ability. I just don’t know which to choose because i haven’t built up a support for either.

Although, there are lots of things I want. Wanting those other things doesnt make me feel trapped, so I don’t think there’s anything with desiring something. But if I had the ability to pay for a car, not only could I get out of the apartment, but I could maybe get some of those other things too.

And there I’ve built up a justification for addressing feeling stuck by changing my ability.

Although, buying a car would mean buying gas, paying sales tax, taking it to the mechanic. Then I’d just feel like I was trapped by the car. But if I give up my desire for the car, it won’t trap me at all. If I don’t want the car, I won’t feel like I’m trapped because I don’t have one. I’ll be content to walk or ride my bike like always.

And there I’ve built up a justification for addressing feeling stuck by changing my desire.

But if solving the inequity is as simple as addressing the inequity by justifying it in the manner I just did, then why would Desire be a problem as it seems to be whenever I engage in the process of Desire-ing?

Because I keep finding that I can give up my desire for a new car in order to avoid feeling trapped in my apartment, UNLESS I need to want what’s best for my family (here meaning a car that can carry a weeks worth of groceries, two kids, a dog, and a wife) in order to keep my wife feeling like I’m plugged in to the family.

But why would it be a problem to find that when I engage in Desire-ing? Because if I keep wanting the car, I will keep feeling trapped. If I stop wanting the car, my wife feels like I’m not trying to be part of the family.

So here’s my question, then. How does the solution work?

Presumably I can remain Steadfast with my changed Desire until my wife gets over it and balance returns between Desire and Ability, or I can change from Desire to Ability. And in that case, I assume that Ability-ing will get rid of at least one of the Desire justifications. But does it get rid of both?

I would think that working toward being able to buy a new car would keep the wife happy, so I get to hang on to that justification. Assuming that working toward buying a new car would ease the feeling of being trapped, then I can get rid of that justification. That leaves me with a solution of Ability balanced out by a happy wife and thus no more inequity between Desire and Ability.

Sounds good enough to me, but I’m not sure if that’s really accurate, though.

[Jeremy]

@Greg

As I understand it, justification is the support one builds up for choosing a particular method for solving a problem.

I see. I guess I was looking at it as rebalancing rather than eliminating a problem.

It’s interesting that a change character might have a greater number of justifications eliminated than created. Wouldn’t they? And if this is true, they would be grinding down the total number of justifications between their personal Zen and true Zen in order to rebalance.

After all, a story is often about a character failing multiple times before finally succeeding. The Storymind gives one correct answer, and explores a number of incorrect alternatives. Doesn’t it?

A lot of what you said seems like motivation/stakes to me. And the more specific stakes are… the more they are likely to resonate. Right?

[Greg]

@Jeremy

I see. I guess I was looking at it as rebalancing rather than eliminating a problem

Who’s to say it’s not? For a more holistic minded person, that may be a more accurate description. I was just ‘thinking out loud’ there and as I wrote it, it definitely occurred to me that maybe I was just describing the linear view of justification. I just decided not to mention that.

I’ll have to find the articles on it again, but a linear minded person will see rebalancing as justification where a holistic minded person will see ‘problem solving’ as justification. My understanding, however linearly described, applies to both versions. I think.

@Jeremy

It’s interesting that a change character might have a greater number of justifications eliminated than created

This is what I was interested in. Does the solution get rid of the need for any justifications of the problem? Or does it get rid of one leaving you with one justification on each side?

For instance, (inhales deeply) if there is an inequity between Pursuit and Avoidance, and we justify Pursuit as a means to address the issue and Pursuit becomes a problem because we need to pursue in order to x unless we need not to pursue in order to x, and then over the course of the story we tear down one of those justifications as we build up a justification for switching to Avoidance, then we can keep the ‘unless’ justification in place because it was never a factor in the initial decision to address the inequity through Pursuit but only came into play once we began Pursuit, which leaves us with the ‘unless’ justification still in place and a newly formed Avoidance justification now in place rather than a newly formed Avoidance justification and no Pursuit justification as it would be if our justifications were simply between Pursuit and Avoidance as opposed to being between first Pursuit and Avoidance and then Pursuit and Pursuit…right? (gasps for breath while stubbornly refusing to retype question in smaller easier to read chunks)

[Jeremy]

@Flight

but I have no idea what it meant or why would Knowledge move to Can instead of to Ability moving to Can and Desire moving to Should instead of to Want?

Maybe I was injecting my own confusion into what you were asking? I thought that you were commenting on the fact that:

• CAN seems to pair with ABILITY better than CAN pairs with KNOWLEDGE.

• WANTS seems to pair with DESIRE better than SHOULD with DESIRE.

As for THOUGHT and ABILITY and SHOULD and NEED – those seem a little less on the nose.

I was trying to say:

• The very fact that CAN is so closely related to ABILITY makes it a less optimal pairing.

• A certain amount of space between the the Zen terms (abstract nouns) and the first level Justifications (auxillary verbs) allows for an expansion of meaning.

Doesn’t the whole Dramatica model shift and that is evidenced by the odd quad out? Isn’t that a necessary shift because you’d just be saying the same thing over and over if it didn’t? And you’d be limiting your context by not embracing a shift.

Dramatica is pretty wild and when I think about it – it sometimes gets me tied in a knot, intellectually.

@jassnip

“He didn’t serve. He [TK-military term for] flunked out.

By the way, it probably would be “washed out.” Was that the reason that you had your bracketed note? Were you looking for the right terminology? If not, ignore me.

[Flight]

@Greg

Presumably I can remain Steadfast with my changed Desire until my wife gets over it and balance returns between Desire and Ability, or I can change from Desire to Ability. And in that case, I assume that Ability-ing will get rid of at least one of the Desire justifications. But does it get rid of both?

I think if you’ve truly “gotten rid of both” then you’ve achieved the Zen state, the inequity is resolved. You’re content to have no car, or content to have a car, or content to be working towards having a car and so is your wife. There’s no problem.

If you haven’t truly gotten rid of both, then you’re justifying. You’re rationalizing sour grapes to yourself, or maybe you’re saying it is what it is but are holding on to the injustice of it all because really you still want the car but are hiding it from yourself or feeling inadequite over your inability to get that car… or you’re saving towards it for all the good family reasons but pushing yourself to a breakdown because you have to take on a second job to cover all the costs you already mentioned plus the vacation trip you’ll take when you get the car…

Melanie describes it great here in this 7 min clip: at the fourth level of justification (which is along the lines of the spiral of justifications you’ve demonstrated above), you haven’t resolved the inequity, you’ve balanced it. You’ve accepted the problem as a feature of your world, something you can’t do anything about, it is what it is - and you go on with life believing your new truth, whaddya gonna do?

Melanie’s “Levels of Justification” Sound Clip

[Flight]

@Jeremy

Doesn’t the whole Dramatica model shift and that is evidenced by the odd quad out? Isn’t that a necessary shift because you’d just be saying the same thing over and over if it didn’t? And you’d be limiting your context by not embracing a shift.

Yes, at least I think so, but the nature of those shifts as the model twists through the quads is way beyond my comprehension. I think you’re right that the language shift - Ability shifting from Can which seems to be “in phase”, to Need somehow being now linked with Ability - is related to the phase shift of the justification process. But how???

That said, I’m also happy to accept the mystery of it as a given for now as the model @jassnip is demonstrating as she’s learned it from @jhull is so darn strong! (and that would be me justifying it for now )

[jhull]

It’s been my experience that you really don’t need to know whether or not Ability leads to justifications of Can or Cannot or Need or Needn’t in order to write a powerful justification for your story. You can mix them up while writing your story - the important thing is that you find an inequity that connects with your own understanding of the world–so that what you write will be honest and true to yourself.

That said, the growth you’re looking for is:

• Can is based on Ability and motivates Commitments that accept Circumstances
• Want stems from Desire and drives Rationalizations that allow for Situations
• Should builds out from Thought and generates Obligations that surface one’s State of Being
• Need finds its core in Knowledge and determines Responsibility that manifests a Sense of Self

Also, thinking more about it this week, I mis-labeled the “Zen” level as the Being quad…

A state of Zen is really prior to Knowledge, Thought, Ability, and Desire.

Observation in the Preconscious senses an inequity, then labels that differential as a “problem” existing in Knowledge, Thought, Ability, or Desire - that’s the 1st level of Justification.

Being known as a great leader is a justification itself (the sense of separateness, or individuality being identified as a problem of Knowledge in the mind).

Moving up to Can, Want, Need, Should is the 2nd level of justification.

Responsibility, Obligation, Rationalization, and Commitment is the 3rd.

State of Being, Sense of Self, Situation and Circumstances are the 4th level of justification.

This doesn’t effect the approach discussed in last week’s article, or the follow-up this week, or the classes - it’s really just a matter of semantics (what is labeled as 1st or “zen”). But I thought it was important to get out there for clarification and accuracy’s sake.

[Jeremy]

@jassnip

I feel as though if could be useful, but I’m not sure why that might be so.

Could you dive into why having a scene framed in terms of a compound sentence justification is more useful than having a scene framed in terms of goals, stakes, and conflict, etc? Is it still useful to think in those more traditional terms?

Also, is there synergy with PRCO? This feels like breaking down PRCO to a sub-level and framing it in terms of conflict. Is that an accurate statement?

Is that why this is useful? Because it reminds you to focus on conflict? Are there any other reasons you can verbalize how you find this to be effective?

Thanks for your thoughts in advance.

[Lakis]

@Jeremy

Could you dive into why having a scene framed in terms of a compound sentence justification is more useful than having a scene framed in terms of goals, stakes, and conflict, etc?

I’ve just watched last week’s writer’s room on this but I haven’t yet internalized everything in this thread. That said, my understanding is that the real advantage of this approach is that it automatically creates true dilemmas at every story beat, which in turn generates narrative drive.

[jassnip]

First, what @Lakis says above is true, you could use this technique for any and every story point you wanted to. When I was writing the above scene the the story point couplets just sort of pulled me down the page, they made the writing flow and dovetail, making the writing part easy. Plus, I didn’t worry about if the scene was going to feel/be complete. I just trusted that @jhull said it would be.

The 2nd thing it was useful for was keeping the opposing viewpoints/perspectives of these two characters in front of me. I knew why they weren’t seeing eye to eye, I didn’t have to force anything or figure it out. it was … just there. I didn’t have to focus on what the goal, stakes or conflict was…the conflict was already built into the writing, the scene goal and stakes showed up of their own accord.

The 3rd thing is for me this really suits my writing style. I write really well to prompts and having the subtext underneath let me put anything I wanted to on top of it. Hence the slightly southern feel to the piece. This is fantastic for pansters that don’t want to know the story before they’ve written it. You could literally take it one couplet at a time.

The 4th thing is more of a ‘since I posted the scene’ thing, and probably the most important aspect. I’ve been playing with it, and I’m finding it’s giving me a short cut in to figuring out what it is that I want to say/what argument is it that I really want to make. That’s a really difficult aspect of storytelling for me because I’m really one of those people that sees facets and how more than one viewpoint can be “the right one”. And it does it in a really elegant short-hand that allows me to solidify my intentions before I ever spend anytime on the artistry part.

I’ve also been toying with how I’m developing the couplets. Starting with the format below and developing one piece at a time. THIS first one gives me the flavoring of the couplet. So far it has not worked for me that the justification word was the same in both parts of the couplet.

A character
can/n’t wants/won’t need/n’t should/n’t
UNENDING
in order to
ZEN
UNLESS
A character
can/n’t want/won’t needs/n’t should/n’t
UNENDING
in order to
ZEN

So for example:

A character can’t unending in order to Zen
UNLESS
A character can’t unending in order to Zen

See? That doesn’t feel right.

A character can’t unending in order to Zen
UNLESS
A character should unending in order to Zen

When I finish them completely then I ask myself, do I believe that? Can I defend that? What examples have I got of that. If I cringe and go ew I don’t believe that, then I tweak it. It’s so much better than getting a scene written and know there’s something wrong or missing.

So far it’s been a confidence builder.

[jassnip]

@Jeremy

Also, is there synergy with PRCO? This feels like breaking down PRCO to a sub-level and framing it in terms of conflict. Is that an accurate statement?

I missed answering this one. Yes.

Here is one of my couplets that is P

Potential through Results.
A character should embrace the results of something in order to receive the guidance of others
UNLESS
A character wants to disregard the results of something in order to determine what is right for them.

[Lakis]

Okay, this approach is amazing and this thread is great! (And great example @jassnip). In the interest of clarifying/summing up for myself, here are my notes. @jhull @jassnip please feel free to correct or clarify.

The basic structure for applying conflicting justifications is:

[People/I/You/We] [Can/Want/Need/Should] (illustration a) in order to [Knowledge/Thought/Ability/Desire] UNLESS [People/I/You/We] (illustration b) [Can/Want/Need/Should] in order to [Knowledge/Thought/Ability/Desire]

Where “people” is OS, “I” is MC, “You” is IC and “We” is RS.

Notes:

• “Illustration a” and “illustration b” are both illustrations of the same story point (e.g. two illustrations of Suspicion).

2. This approach can be applied to every story point in the storyform, from Domain to Problem, to PSR Variations to each PRCO Element at the scene level.

3. Don’t worry about “mapping” from one level to another within one justification:

@jhull

you really don’t need to know whether or not Ability leads to justifications of Can or Cannot or Need or Needn’t in order to write a powerful justification for your story. You can mix them up while writing your story - the important thing is that you find an inequity that connects with your own understanding of the world–so that what you write will be honest and true to yourself.

• However, when contrasting justifications, it can be helpful use different first-level words:

@jassnip

So for example:

A character can’t unending in order to Zen
UNLESS
A character can’t unending in order to Zen

See? That doesn’t feel right.

A character can’t unending in order to Zen
UNLESS
A character should unending in order to Zen

Does that all sound right?

[jhull]

Everything up until the last bit:

You can’t live forever if you wish to share the same experience of life with others UNLESS you can’t be a perpetual student of life without escaping death in order to know the all the secrets of life.

While wordy, both speak of justifying Unending through Can’t. I could imagine a character watching his friends and family pass away in front of him and wishing he could be with them—while simultaneously looking the other way in order to unlock the mysteries.

[mlucas]

@jhull

You can’t live forever if you wish to share the same experience of life with others UNLESS you can’t be a perpetual student of life without escaping death in order to know the all the secrets of life.

Hey Jim, does this retain the same meaning? (I found the negatives in the second part confusing)

You can’t live forever if you wish to share the same experience of life with others UNLESS you can perpetually escape death in order to know all the secrets of life.

[jassnip]

@jhull

You can’t live forever if you wish to share the same experience of life with others UNLESS you can’t be a perpetual student of life without escaping death in order to know the all the secrets of life.

I would take @jhull 's word for it. However, just because I adore being a PITA. I would say that it becomes more elegant and clear if you change the second part to want.

A character can’t live forever if they wish to share the same experience of life with others UNLESS A character wants to escape death and be a perpetual student in order to know all the secrets of life

But I think that’s why Jim said[quote=“jhull, post:29, topic:2858”]
It’s been my experience that you really don’t need to know whether or not Ability leads to justifications of Can or Cannot or Need or Needn’t in order to write a powerful justification for your story. You can mix them up while writing your story - the important thing is that you find an inequity that connects with your own understanding of the world–so that what you write will be honest and true to yourself.
[/quote]

It’s whatever phrasing works for you.

[jhull]

Much better - I kept it awkward so others could see the lineage (the unending part, the knowledge part etc.) But yes, the point is to write something that actually makes sense to YOU.

[mlucas]

Thanks Jim and Diane.

I’ve been playing around with these and found something really interesting which relates to that concept – having it make sense and work for YOU.

Often, the phrasing of the Zen part of the formula seems to work better with something other than the usual mapping (should -> desire, need -> ability, etc.). But the more I look at this, the more it seems to be a “feature rather that a bug” – pointing me to the “root motivation” underlying the phrase I choose.

For example, a dilemma of a character faced with the need to erase someone’s memories using a drug that she’s not supposed to have and doesn’t know the proper dose for. In my scene this came out as Non-Accurate – which way to err, too high of a dose or too low?

You should err on the side of caution in order to protect the patient UNLESS you need to do something intolerable in order to keep something secret.

So, I don’t know about others, but for me the first-level (can, want, need, should) is easier to get a feeling for – the should and need both feel right. And from that, it guides me to realize that “protect the patient” is really an expression of Desire, even though the words don’t say that. Same with “keep something secret” – it sounds like Knowledge, and yet when I think about the character and the scene and what I’m trying to say, it’s Ability that feels right.

From there I can use that as guidance to rephrase (this step may not always be necessary):

You should err on the side of caution in order to protect someone you care about (desire) UNLESS you need to do something intolerable in order to keep flying* (ability).

* see, the character didn’t really care about the secrets getting out; for her it was more about will she get in trouble and have her pilot’s wings revoked. Very interesting how justification technique pointed to that, via Need being the verb that felt more like what I was trying to say. This is definitely more at the root level of the character’s motivations, and the selfishness has way more dramatic potential.

[Jeremy]

@jassnip

I really wonder what the scene would look like if you flipped the order of justifications.

Does the order correlate directly to success or failure? Judgement? I’m not certain the scene, as it is, goes so far as to make a judgement, but the actions feel justified.

If you reversed the order of the justifications, but you framed the outcome as bad, would that essentially be saying the same thing as the original order being framed as good.

Are those reasonable questions?

Also, was the choice of justifications more of a prompt for you? Or more of a guide for a direction that you had already chosen?

Thanks.