As this question comes up every now and then …
but ist not easy to answer with a few words, I just found a good explanation:
Then I shook it all up – complicated, simplified – until I found the film. These films were neither documentaries nor fictions; they were strange hybrids that felt like the best and the simplest way I could express a complicated truth. How I got away with it is a mystery.
Inequity = the simplest way to express a complicated truth
Inequities are the differences between Mind and universe. Want a jacket (mind) but don’t have enough money (Universe). See article below.
Mind and Universe
At the most basic level, all problems are the result of inequities between Mind (ourselves) and Universe (the environment). When Mind and Universe are in balance, they are in Equity and there is neither a problem nor a story. When the Mind and Universe are out of balance, and Inequity exists between them, there is a problem and a story to be told about solving that problem.
Example: Jane wants a new leather jacket that costs $300.00. She does not have $300.00 to buy the jacket. We can see the Inequity by comparing the state of Jane’s Mind (her desire for the new jacket) to the state of the Universe (not having the jacket).
Note that the problem is not caused solely by Jane’s desire for a jacket, nor by the physical situation of not having one, but only because Mind and Universe are unbalanced. In truth, the problem is not with one or the other, but between the two.
There are two ways to remove the Inequity and resolve the problem. If we change Jane’s Mind and remove her desire for the new jacket — no more problem. If we change the Universe and supply Jane with the new jacket by either giving her the jacket or the money to buy it — no more problem. Both solutions balance the Inequity.
An inequity is the imbalance which occurs when both your internal and external worlds are not in sync. It is a bond that’s shared between the two active ingredients of a narrative. Birthed the very instant both elements collide ( insert storytelling here ) or are in close proximity to each other. Think , covalent bonds.
Naturally this can be extended to all levels of conflict within the theory. I’ll break it down the way I understand it.
The source of this imbalance can be from an internal perspective (MIND or PSYCHOLOGY) or an external perspective (UNIVERSE or PHYSICS). The source of the imbalance can be exclusive to either perspective (unidirectional ) or can be from a potent combination of both perspectives ( multi-directional ).
In the latter case, the internal perspective wants something from the external perspective( or participant of the narrative) that it cannot have or solve right now, and the external one wants the same from the internal perspective.
A great example is the story of the Car and the Window shopper.
A Car , just sitting in the showroom is in the external world. No inequity or imbalance.
The window shopper on his own strolling by might have nothing in mind. He is otherwise sound and without a burning desire.
Then the moment happens ( The usual inciting incident ). He see’s the car and is filled with a deep longing or desire for it.
That Spark, that deep sense of longing, THE CONNECTION between Desire and Ability is the INEQUITY.
Notice that prior to that moment, it didn’t exist. But the instant the two elements of that narrative collided, a bond was formed. That bond is the inequity. And it is the stuff of story when one or both of these parties wants that bond destroyed or gone at least.
This is a unidirectional type of inequity; since the guy is the one bearing the burden of the inequity alone. The car is unchanged. No desire or anything , except it’s a transformer. LOL
Now in order to solve the imbalance, the MC of the story has to either grind through and try to change the opposite perspective. So say, she’s in one of the INTERNAL DOMAINS (Mind or Psychology), she can attempt to change the external domain that she is experiencing the inequity with. In that case, she’ll be a DO-ER.
If the case was reversed, she’ll attempt to change the internal perspective (the self) and that’ll make her a BE-ER.
By way of problem solving, the MC will have to solve the issue directly ( an external approach ) or will justify it away (an internal approach)
One of the two perspectives will have to change (bend) to compensate for the demands of the other. The one that bends is a CHANGED perspective by the end of the story. The one that gets it’s way is the STEADFAST perspective.
An inequity is simply this imbalance. Look to problem solving between the two perspectives to re-balance things.
Now the judgement of what is good or what is bad is up to the Author and the audience’s reception of that truth with regards to the exposition of presentation of the Storyform.
That Spark, that deep sense of longing, THE CONNECTION between Desire and Ability is the INEQUITY.
That’s a very good example, you have a desire, but you can’t get it (no money, no talent, not strong or corrupt enough, …)
This are two different truths, you have the desire but you don’t have the ability. It’s totally up to the author, either the MC gets ride of the the desire or something is changed to enable the MC to get it. But it’s up to the reader to judge what is the better approach.
I tend to sympathize with this sentiment. But I don’t reckon Dramatica does. One of the great benefits of Dramatica is that it helps ensure the author conveys his or her intended meaning. The author has already judged the approach; it’s why we choose Success or Failure, Good or Bad, Changed or Steadfast, and all the rest. Those first eight questions are called “audience appreciations,” after all, because they’re meant to narrow the gap between author intention and audience interpretation.
From the reader’s (audience’s) perspective, perhaps. From the author’s (creator’s) perspective, maybe not so much.
If the reader wants to know what the author’s perspective is, then the story must effectively convey the author’s intent, which often has mixed results, which presupposes that the author has a (conscious) intent.