The Inequity of a story

[keypayton]

Adding to Mike’s edit:

It’s important to note that when you have a Change MC, their Problem (personal inequity) will be the same Dramatica Problem as that of the Overall Story.

For example in The Terminator, the OS Problem is Pursuit, and so is Sarah Connor’s.

But when you have a Steadfast MC, their Problem will be different from the OS’s; it will actually be a Drive that the MC holds to in order to resist the Overall Story’s Problem/inequity.

For example, in The Bourne Identity, the OS Problem is Actuality, and Jason Bourne’s Problem/Drive is Ability – and in fact it is Bourne’s ability (especially his Unique Ability of Truth) that ultimately enables him to overcome the inequities caused by his CIA pursuers.

[jassnip]

Thank you both.

[jhull]

The inequity is not reflected as the Problem in the individual throughlines. Inequities are not problems. Inequities represent a difference, a separateness between things. Problems only exist once we begin to justify (hide away) an inequity – then and only then does an inequity become a problem (and only then inside of our heads).

So the answer to your original question is that storyforms are not based on an inequity. They represent a single human mind trying to solve a “problem”.

[keypayton]

Jim, I am sure you are correct. But I would benefit from you applying your somewhat-abstract clarification to a specific story or two (since I know you have nothing else to do but instruct us!).

I know the Dramatica co-creators talk about “inequity between characters and their environment,” Does your clarification connect with that?

[jassnip]

I second Key. Can you please elaborate and maybe share an example or two of what you mean, Sensei @jhull ?

[jhull]

A frequently used example to describe what an inequity is similar to “an inequity between characters and their environment” – the desire for a new car and a car. I use it during my Weekend Workshops and when I used to teach story at CalArts.

In short – the desire for a new car is not a problem. A car is not a problem. The space between the two is not a problem. It is seen by a human mind as an inequity. When you have an inequity you have two choices: resolve the inequity or justify it away.

You can resolve the inequity in different ways – one, you could lose your desire for the new car. Get rid of the desire, no more separateness between things, no more inequity. Everything returns to Zen. OR you can get the car. Get the car, you no longer have a desire for it, no inequity, everything returns to normal.

But what if you don’t have the means for a car AND you can’t get rid of the desire? That’s when you start the justification process.

So what you first do is look to where you’re going to focus your attention. Let’s say you focus on the car. If you do that, then you “lock” the desire for the car away - you’re no longer going to consider losing that desire as an option. You’re attention is focused on the car.

With the desire locked away the car itself now becomes a PROBLEM. You don’t have a car. That problem was completely created in your head. This is where the Justification process begins and where Dramatica fits in.

The model isn’t showing you the inequity, the model is showing you the mind’s problem-solving process. With the car as a problem, you automatically create a solution – more Cash. Now you have a Problem (the car) and a Solution (more cash). But what if you don’t have that much cash? Well then, you make not having Cash a Problem by hiding the original problem of not having a car. You’ve justified or hidden away that Problem and created a new one. Now you’re looking for a Solution for a Solution.

Eventually you’ll get to the 4th level of Justification (fully justified) where you are looking for a Solution for a Solution for a Solution and this is where most stories begin. You’ve TOTALLY forgotten your original motivation for why you’re even doing the things you do. Sounds like a justified Main Character, right?

The story process (or storyform) depicts the process of tearing those justifications down (Changed Resolve). I’m pretty sure Steadfast characters depict the process of building justifications up.

So 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.

[keypayton]

Thanks, Jim! That’s a bulletin-board-worthy response that I shall post in front of my computer to keep my thinking straight.

(Of course, perhaps your response, in and of itself, won’t keep “my thinking straight” — perhaps my desire for understanding is creating a potential inequity by expecting too much of your answer! But it is definitely, in my justification, a better answer than I wrote earlier, so thanks much for clarifying.)

[jassnip]

I’m still struggling with this.

Imagine, if you will, that I am just looking at playing with Dramatica and I don’t have a particular story in mind (I don’t). And I spin up a storyform and some gist. Like say these…

Where do I look to start trying to imagine the inequity in this storyform? Do I looking at the OS Problem and Solution? Do I look at the Story Goal or Story Consequences? The OS Domain (the inequity is a manner of thinking)? (Side note: My story ju-ju kicked in here, connecting with an article I read last night on how hunter-gatherers maintain an egalitarian society which requires the heavy use of ridicule and teasing to keep people’s egos in check; and now I am thinking of a character dropped into this society when he’s from ours and was a victim of bullying and he can’t bring himself to mock anyone (Story Goal)). Something I’m not thinking of? None of these (Please, please, please don’t let that be the answer.)?

All thoughts and insight, desperately,appreciated.

CHARACTER DYNAMICS:
MC RESOLVE: Steadfast
MC GROWTH: Start
MC APPROACH: Do-er
MC PROBLEM-SOLVING STYLE: Linear
IC RESOLVE: Change

PLOT DYNAMICS:
DRIVER: Decision
LIMIT: Optionlock
OUTCOME: Success
JUDGMENT: Good

OVERALL STORY
(The Overall Story)
DOMAIN: Being Seditious
CONCERN: Impersonating Something
ISSUE: Losing Something’s Train of Thought vs. Knowledge
PROBLEM: Shutting Down
SOLUTION: Wishing to Live Forever
SYMPTOM: Being Intuitive about Someone
RESPONSE: Creating a Structured Explanation of Something

ADDITIONAL STORY POINTS
GOAL: Mocking Someone
CONSEQUENCE: Playing Volleyball
COST: Reacting Spontaneously to Someone
DIVIDEND: Speeding Something Up
REQUIREMENT: Having a Suggestion for Something
PREREQUISITE: Learning Everything There Is to Know about a Particular Group
PRECONDITION: Considering Something
FOREWARNINGS: Being Focused on a Particular Group’s Immediate Needs

[jhull]

Why do you want to know the meaning of the inequity?

[jassnip]

Blink, Blink Uh, I wasn’t trying to ask about the meaning of the inequity, just how you go about using dramatica to determine what the inequity might be. That’s what a story is, right, an exploration of the inequity? How can you write a story if you don’t know what the inequity is?

[mlucas]

Hi Diane, once you turn all those story point gists into a story (or the outline for a story, I mean breathe life into them and tie them together) wouldn’t it be easier to understand the inequity then?

I’m still not sure that you need to know the inequity to start writing, but maybe that depends on the writer.

EDIT: I think once you have the story points illustrated and tied together, the inequity technically shows up in everything because it’s the reason for having a story, but it’s most obvious in Domain, Concern, Issue, and Problem (of all the throughlines, but most objectively in OS). But to paraphrase Jim, none of those are the inequity, they are the effects of the inequity. There is some good info here if you haven’t seen it: within-the-context-of-story-structure-what-is-an-inequity

(Take my comments with a grain of salt as I’m nowhere near as experienced as Jim, or you!)

[jhull]

You can’t describe the inequity so why would you want to try and imagine it?

If you could describe it there would be no need for a story.

1. You start with oneness.
2. There is separation.
3. We look to one and label it a problem.
4. Now you have the makings of a story.

3 and 4 are all you really need to worry about.

[jassnip]

@jhull This is from your James Bond Article. The first thing you say to do is determine the inequity that starts the story. That’s what I’m talking about. You need to know that.

A Process for DeterminIng Protagonist

The determination of the Protagonist in a story comprises three steps. First, identify the inequity that starts the story. Second, determine the potential solution that will resolve that initial inequity. And lastly, establish the goal of the story.

As mentioned in the series of articles The Story Goal, this established endpoint is universal in that it applies to all the characters involved:

Note that this Goal does not come attached to any one character. No one owns the Goal of a story, rather it attracts and repels everyone within. Some will be for it while others would rather the inequity persist. Some may even be responsible for starting the problem in the first place. Regardless, look not to individual wants and needs for the Goal of a story. Seek the initial inequity and work from there.

The Protagonist–regardless of personal issues–will push towards that Goal, the Antagonist will oppose it.

[jhull]

Ahh ok. I see what you’re referring to now. That inequity is not something you see in the storyform but rather the thing you’re writing about.

So what is the Decision that screws everything up in your story?

[Gernot]

I don’t know how many times I have searched the forum now for “inequity” trying to get my head around what an inequity is. Your analogy Jim with the car helped a lot … but I quickly forgot how this all linked together.

As I learn better by visualizing things just want to share a little exercise I did today.

Hope you don’t mind Jim, for the sake of clarity I just used parts of your post and added some picture to visualize the process.

Btw, is there any space or place to share this kind of tools? Over the last years I have developed some tools for myself to understand the theory better … might be worth sharing

story minds problem solving process .pdf (3.0 MB)

[jhull]

Hah! This is great!!

Absolutely, feel free to share whatever you want here in this forum. Eventually, I should probably create a catch-all page or series of pages on Dramatica.com so that others can see what you have there.

Chris Huntley has a similar set of graphics for explaining inequity–graphics that I later adopted for my classes at CalArts and my Weekend Workshops (substituting Lightning McQueen for clipart!).

Btw, you forgot how it all works because your mind doesn’t want you to know how it works. The more you do, the less it can trick you into being motivated, and the more apt you are to climb a mountain in the Himalayas and fall into a deep slumber.

An inequity is not real–its something made up in our heads. It begins the moment we sense a separateness between I and They, and continues until we’re done (dead). We label inequity with words like Problem and Solution and Issue and Concern so we can somehow observe some greater meaning out of something we’ve created totally in our heads.

[Dral52]

Hi everyone,

I’m not sure if this is the right interpretation of inequity, but there are two things I have picked up on from this, and other recent threads:

1. an inequity is when two things can’t coexist at the same time (from a characters perspective - its all in their heads)

2. an inequity motivates conflict

So I was wondering if it was possible to embed these two concepts into an encoding of a Dramatica story point, to improve the quality of that encoding. For example:

Initial idea for encoding: Alice is a single mum worried about being a good parent (concern of playing a role)

This encoding is focussed on storytelling not conflict.

Inequity: For Alice these two things can’t coexist: being a good parent + having her son pick his nose. So a personal conflict arises whenever her son picks his nose, and she is invariably motivated to slap him, which makes the son cry and throw a tantrum, and people look at Alice as if she is doing something wrong, which just makes her more anxious about being a good parent.

In other words, whenever you try to encode a storypoint, you write two sentences:

1. For X these two things can’t coexist A +B
2. Whenever B occurs, X is motivated to do something that causes conflict

Where B is the thing that X tries to fix, and A is the thing that is never examined, but it is really the existence of A+B (an inequity) that is motivating the conflict.

Once the inequity has been found (or chosen, you can try different ones and pick the best), the clunky sentences can be dropped, and the encoding simplified thus:

Alice is a single mum concerned about being a good parent, who won’t allow her son to pick his nose in public, even though he throws a tantrum whenever she tries to disciplines him for doing this.

This is just something I am experimenting with in my own writing, which I thought might be worth sharing…

[Dral52]

I forgot to say that when I do this exercise, I imagine the inequity as something that gives the character a dilemma, putting them between a rock and a hard place, and forcing them to do something…

[jhull]

@Dral52

Where B is the thing that X tries to fix, and A is the thing that is never examined, but it is really the existence of A+B (an inequity) that is motivating the conflict.

The only thing I might change is the X — that’s really dependent on the Throughline. So in your example, X could be:

• a single mom (Main Character)
• a strict mother (Influence Character)
• a mother/son relationship (Relationship Story)
• one of several dysfunctional families (Overall Story)

That way you can guarantee the encoding works properly within the function of the Throughline (perspective)

[Dral52]

Oh that’s nice. I’ve only been using it with a main character so far…