I’m tapping out a blog article on the structure inherent in Act I. Sifting through the different terminology that exists in the world of writing, I’ve found myself growing frustrated with different terms: hook, inciting incident, call to adventure, key event, etc. I’m ready to burn it all down and start anew.
I’m near certain that embracing Inequity as the noumenal term is the proper place to begin, and I can build from there. Luckily, during my forum meanderings, I stumbled across this discussion:
Happiness/Contentment/Equity/Zen: a state with desires fulfilled.
I originally wrote, “a state without desire or a state with desire fulfilled.” But it is a useless definition in terms of Story because all stories have desires. If they don’t, then the Story is just beginning or ending.
I appreciated your example @jhull. I wonder if I might translate what you have written into “me speak,” and if you might certify it as a workable understanding?
I’m stealing by using the idea of Platonic Forms as a base for my translation. Forms exist in Mind and Objects or Actions That Are Seen exist in Universe. In other words, Forms are abstract ideas, and Objects or Actions That Are Seen (OATAS) are concrete manifestations of those ideas.
Below I use some of the terms from the original discussion. I’ve nixed desire because it is a constant. Desire is Story. And need/desire/want are synonymous. More or less. You can’t remove it except at the very beginning and very end of your story.
You can refocus it.
In the example of the car, @jhull said desire must be “locked away” (accepted as unalterable) before a problem is created. Alternatively, that statement suggests that the car could be “locked away” and another type of problem is created. I’m not in love with locked away terminology, but I get the gist.
But you are still just replacing one desire for another. You are still just replacing one problem for another. I want a car. I don’t have one. No, problem, I’ll get rid of my desire. Now, I desire to not desire something. You still have a problem. I imagine this relates directly to choosing a Class for your Throughline. Further, you still must have an externalized Goal.
Because the above two Forms exist in Mind and as OATAS in Universe, they exist without conflict (with equity or in balance).
Because the above four Forms exist in Mind and as OATAS in Universe, they exist without conflict (with equity or in balance).
The Complex Forms:
Because the above two COMPLEX FORMS exist in Mind and as OATAS in Universe, they exist without conflict (with equity or in balance).
The Complex Form:
- I HAVE RED CAR
Because the above Complex Form exists in Mind but not as OATAS in Universe, they exist with conflict (with inequity or imbalance).
Bear in mind, I’m talking about:
Mind as a conceptual world without desire or with desire fulfilled (our concept of happiness, contentment, equity, zen)
Universe as objective reality.
That might be a pretty roundabout and clumsy way to arrive at this statement, but that’s how I got here: if the concept of desired reality does not match objective reality, there is an inequity. The moment a goal is established based on desire the Story begins. I suppose we can keep refocusing our desire, but in the end – that’s just procrastination in the world of noveling.