Please forgive me, I have just realised that I have not used quotation marks around Jim's original wording - I am sorry. Other than "MITCH" "SADIE TEAK" and "no longer need to be around SADIE TEAK", all the wording is jhull's)
I have used Jhull's excellent 'template' to begin pinning-down the INEQUITY in my story. I hope by using Jim's framework i have not broken any Community code of conduct. Thanx. Emm.
Mitch's DESIRE to no longer have the need to be around SADIE TEAK and Sadie Teak
SADIE TEAK is not a problem.
The DESIRE to no longer have the need to be around SADIE TEAK is not a problem.
What does create the potential for a problem is the space between the two: (could this be their age difference? lack of mutual attraction? Imcompatabi!ity?)
...the human mind sees this space as an inequity.
When faced with an inequity you have two choices:
...resolve the inequity
...justify it away.
(The Inequity Between Things -- Resolving the Inequity)
You can resolve the inequity in different ways:
..MITCH to lose his DESIRE to no longer have the need to be around SADIE TEAK
Get rid of the DESIRE no more separation between things, no more INEQUITY - everything returns to Zen.
MITCH can continue having the need to be around SADIE TEAK.
Continue having the need to be around SADIE TEAK, HE no longer has a DESIRE for it, no more space in-between, no more inequity - everything returns to normal.
But what if MITCH has difficulties not being around SADIE TEAK, and HE can’t get rid of the DESIRE to be around SADIE TEAK?
That’s when you start the justification process.
(Justifying the Inequity)
When deciding the alternate path of justification, MITCH'S mind first looks to see where it is going to focus its attention.
Let’s say MItch focuses on 'being around SADIE TEAK'.
MITCH has "locked' the DESIRE to no longer have the need to be around SADIE TEAK away — MITCH is no longer going to consider losing that desire as an option.
HIS attention is focused on 'no longer having the need to be around SADIE TEAK.
With the DESIRE locked away, the desire to 'no longer have the need to be around SADIE TEAK' itself now becomes a PROBLEM.
MITCH cannot end his need to no longer be around SADIE TEAK, and it's giving him grief.
The need to no longer be around SADIE TEAK is now a PROBLEM because MITCH'S mind determined it wasn't going to re-consider the DESIRE.
"This is where the JUSTIFICATION process begins and where DRAMATICA fits in".
The Dramatica model isn’t showing you the inequity, the model is showing you the mind’s problem-solving process.
With 'no longer needing to be around SADIE TEAK' as a problem, MITCH automatically creates a solution: Mitch abstains from entering the bookstore.
Now Mitch has a Problem (not wanting to be around Sadie Teak, anymore) and a Solution (abstaining from entering the bookstore, anymore).
But what if MITCH wants - or has to go the bookstore, but doesn't want to be around SadieTeak, anymore?
Well then, Mitch makes abstaining from entering the bookstore anymore a Problem by hiding that First Problem of not wanting to be around SADIE TEAK anymore.
Mitch has justified or hidden away that Problem and created a new Problem.
Now Mitch is looking for a Solution for a Solution.
This repeats until eventually Mitch gets to the 4th level of Justification (fully justified) where Mitch is looking for a Solution for a Solution for a Solution; this is where most stories begin and where Mitch can find himself lost as to why He does the things he does.
Mitch is lost because he has TOTALLY forgotten his original motivation for why he behaves the way he does.
Sounds like a justified Main Character, right?
This story process (or storyform) depicts the process of tearing those justifications down, at least in a story that features a Main Character with a Changed Resolve.
The next step in the cycle is where you’ll find Steadfast Main Characters; their stories tell the process of building justifications up.
The storyform isn’t about an inequity, but rather the mind’s process of problem-solving or justifying a problem that came from an inequity between things.
Greg, should I continue or am I going wrong? Emm.