Justification practice

[Jeremy]

I guess I should ask, does order imply the outcome? Is this statement the marquee for the upcoming clash or a roadmap to an already decided conclusion?

And, at the risk of complicating things, could there be a three part justification Battle Royale?

For example:

A character won’t Forget the long family history of military service in order to maintain a family tradition UNLESS a character should defile someone’s memory in order to protect their family AND a character needs to shed light on past wrongs in order to heal familial wounds.

I have no idea if my addition follows the right guidelines, but the question is: would three characters create another layer of justification? Like a trilemma? Maybe a trilemma requires two UNLESS clauses? Maybe what I did was just stacking the deck a little?

Thanks.

[whitepaws]

Hi Diane,

I just watched last week’s Subtext class on the justification v justification and it is fascinating! So, thanks for this little workshop here.

[whitepaws]

I just read your scene, Diane, and it definitely kept me hooked. Also, it had an underlying tension (subtext!) that deepened the entire scene. Wonderful demonstration!

I wish I could’ve joined tonight’s class but I was running late after rearranging some things in my living room. I tried to join late, but the meeting was in full swing and for some reason I couldn’t enter. Perhaps next week

[jassnip]

So @Jeremy,

I think you’re going to be shocked. I made a mistake above. And I profusely apologize for it, to everyone. Although, in the scheme of things it doesn’t really change anything…

But I didn’t write this in the order of TRUTH, EVIDENCE, SUSPICION, FALSEHOOD.

I wrote it in the REVERSE order FALSEHOOD, SUSPICION, EVIDENCE, TRUTH. Just in between writing it and posting it I forgot what I did.

But more or less it comes out to be 7 steps

1. What are you doing here? (suspicion 1)
2. How do I convince him G-Pop lied, (falsehood 1)
3. You’re lying to me (falsehood 2)
4. Medals (Evidence 1)
5. Anything Gramms says is suspect (suspicion 2)
6. discharge papers (Evidence 2)
7. considering the truth (Truth)

All bundled together with a healthy dose of memories affecting the perspectives.

I’m pretty sure if I switched the order to T, E, S, F that it would come out as a different kind of scene.

@whitepaws

I just read your scene, Diane, and it definitely kept me hooked. Also, it had an underlying tension (subtext!) that deepened the entire scene. Wonderful demonstration!

Thank you.

[whitepaws]

@mlucas

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.

Are you respectively mapping desire, ability, thought, knowledge to (layman’s words) want/won’t, can/can’t, need/needn’t, should/shouldn’t?

Then from there, are you using the layman’s words to get a feel?

Then, once you get the feel for the right word, are you mapping the laymen’s word back to its appropriate KTAD?

Then, that gives you the root motivation, thus the accurate justification phrase?

(I have to say, this feels like slowing down the lightening fast processes of the brain in order to explain the way it works things out.)

Ultimately, it leads to a justification phrase that contains the entire KTAD within it.

Did I get that right?

[whitepaws]

Oh wait a second…in the article: Constructing Sources of Conflict for Your Story

@jhull writes:

We justify the zero level with its corresponding Method in the first level. Can justifies Knowledge, Want justifies Thought, Need justifies Ability, and Should justifies Desire.

So, I mapped the layman’s words to the wrong Zero Level Zen word up above, but the rest of my post still stands.

OKAY! I think I’ll go for a walk now

[Greg]

@Jeremy

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.

Different order = different context = different meaning.

[whitepaws]

One las thing!

The holistic justification process doesn’t seem to follow the justification pattern discussed in this thread. Can’t wait to sink my teeth into that one.

Words that might be used for the holistic justification process?

Here’s a thread discussing holistic word choices:

Holistic Problem-Solving: Can't See the Trees for the Forest

I feel as though this might be Holistic. Holistic Problem-Solving Style: looks at motivations Linear Problem-Solving Style: looks at purposes The boy looks at why the line of vehicles are motivated to follow the speed limit. The guy in the sports car looks to speed up. Holistic Problem-Solving Style: tries to see connections Linear Problem-Solving Style: tries to gather evidence The boy sees the connection between the police officer and a douchey fellow in a sports car. They are lik…

Not sure how to put them into phrases just yet…

[whitepaws]

Ooh - I found some lovely words for the Holistic justification process a la @jassnip and the Writer’s Room Class Season 2 Episode 18 | Nov 9th, 2019 Signposts and Story Drivers in a Holistic Story

Linear:: Holistic:
P = Exposure/Interruption
R = Immersion
C = Backfire/Explosion/Tipping Point
O = Incorporation/Fusion/Reshuffling

[Greg]

@whitepaws

The holistic justification process

I’m just throwing out a guess, but since holistic “problem solving“ is more about balance, I’m thinking something like “one should balance Ability with Desire in order to continue a process unless one needs to balance Ability with Desire in order to change directions.”

[MaddyV]

Hello all! Awesome stuff here. Just wanted to say how amazing this technique is, and how it truly is the subtext of your story, the underlying pieces that you add texture and flavor to in storytelling. As I come up with JvsJ for each part of a scene I can literally feel the justifications being “stripped away” and growing towards the premise of my story. Has anyone else noticed that?

Jim, this quote from you here is kind of blowing my mind. [quote=“jhull, post:29, topic:2858”]
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
[/quote]

What does this mean as far as usage goes? It makes sense, but I’m having difficulty seeing that and then understanding how exactly “Can” justifies Knowledge, “Want” for Thought and so on…Do you think you could explain this? Thanks!!!

[whitepaws]

@MaddyV

What does this mean as far as usage goes? It makes sense, but I’m having difficulty seeing that and then understanding how exactly “Can” justifies Knowledge, “Want” for Thought and so on…Do you think you could explain this? Thanks!!!

Hi @MaddyV,

It is quite complex to explain because it all has to do with the Dramatica model and how justifications work in the Dramatica model. But, there are two classes (so far) in the Writer’s Room in Subtext where people are discussing it in depth.

I know the Writer’s Room requires a subscription to access it, but you can always unsubscribe afterwards (btw, I have no financial stake in the subscription or anything like that. I’m just a student user.). I think this week’s Writer’s Room session will also cover the justification process. So, there will be three sessions in a row pretty much addressing this one topic.

Hope that helps.

[MaddyV]

Oh, thank you, but I am already a subscriber and have participated in those classes haha! I just don’t recall anyone really clarifying why Can justifies Knowledge, etc. I recognize the other part of it (Can based on Ability motivating Commitments that accept Circumstances, etc) as part of the Psychology quads, just wanted to know if there is more we can learn from those statements). Because Can being linked to Ability makes a lot more sense to me than Can and Knowledge, but Can is justifying Knowledge. Same for the others, Want stemming from Desire makes sense, so how does Want justify Thought? And so on!

[mlucas]

I think it has to do with how the model twists when justifications are applied. I’m sure others will enjoy explaining that more (@Greg ?).

For me it also helps to recognize that Can, Want, Should, Need are short-forms for Permission, Deficiency, Expediency and Need respectively. So Can is not just ability – it’s one’s ability limited by what is allowed, which has an aspect of knowledge to it (knowing what is allowed). Want is not just desire – it’s motivation based on lack (what one thinks is lacking). Should has to do with repercussions, which only matter when they affect something we truly care about deep down (Desire). Finally, for Need – that which is required – the Dramatica definition states “needs are always based on a purpose.” This ties it into Ability – being able to fulfil that purpose.

[jassnip]

I was afraid of this happening…
what I wrote above in the thread[quote=“jassnip, post:17, topic:2858”]
(Knowledge/Can, Thought/Want, Ability/Need, Desire/Should)
[/quote]

@Jim's Original Article

Can justifies Knowledge, Want justifies Thought, Need justifies Ability, and Should justifies Desire.

What Jim said later[quote=“jhull, post:29, topic:2858”]
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
[/quote]
@jhull Are they both correct? Or only the 2nd one.

[jhull]

They are both correct.

Meaning is context–a quad shifts what it means when the context, or scope changes.

When looking at Can, Want, Need, and Should in isolation - they line up with Knowledge, Thought, Ability, and Desire respectively.

When you pull back and look at the quad as only 1/4 of the larger quad of Psychology the meaning of each shifts in relation to the other 48 Elements.

[bobRaskoph]

I’m having trouble thinking of mutually exclusive illustrations of the same story point that are not just negations of one another, especially when it’s at a more detailed level like problems.
In Jim’s example one illustration is “can’t live forever” and the other is basically “can live forever” in different words.
On the other hand, jassnip’s examples don’t feel all that mutually exclusive to me…

In any case, I made some small tool in order to get some inspiration: https://raskoph.lima-city.de/dramatica/justification

[GetSchwifty]

read Constructing sources of conflict this morning. great articles.

hull constructing conflict.pdf (18.0 KB)

by the way, this is fun:

https://www.amazon.com/Irony-Sarcasm-Press-Essential-Knowledge-ebook/dp/B0848T2DF9/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2M48ZIGBG9YT4&dchild=1&keywords=irony+sarcasm&qid=1590063969&sprefix=irony+sarc%2Caps%2C138&sr=8-1

[GetSchwifty]

I think “is more important than” is a good phrase here. Family is more important than art, art is more important than family. Not negation, a plea for the right proportions at the right time, the right prioritizing. A way of saying “both are important, but neither one is equally important at all times in all cases.” Jim’s thought that this is the wound up position, with the single mind appreciating both justifications and unable to choose between the two until the unwinding process ends up with one position ‘proven’ and the other unproven, and then the writer makes a good/bad judgement on what the process has objectively delivered–the story mind can’t choose between them because in the wound up position, nothing is tested, no proof has been offered–the unwinding is the testing and offering of the proof. “Let’s see what happens, then we’ll decide.”

[bobRaskoph]

So we’re just going back to context. Family and Art are not mutually exclusive in general, but within this context they are.
I suppose I made it harder for myself by not considering a common baseline.

On the other hand, going back to Jim’s article examples…
“honor every living creature as sacred” and “kill another”, “feel safe” and “take risks” sound mutually exclusive on their own without specific context and without being strict negations.