Justification practice

[Lakis]

Okay, this approach is amazing and this thread is great! (And great example @jassnip). In the interest of clarifying/summing up for myself, here are my notes. @jhull @jassnip please feel free to correct or clarify.

The basic structure for applying conflicting justifications is:

[People/I/You/We] [Can/Want/Need/Should] (illustration a) in order to [Knowledge/Thought/Ability/Desire] UNLESS [People/I/You/We] (illustration b) [Can/Want/Need/Should] in order to [Knowledge/Thought/Ability/Desire]

Where “people” is OS, “I” is MC, “You” is IC and “We” is RS.

Notes:

• “Illustration a” and “illustration b” are both illustrations of the same story point (e.g. two illustrations of Suspicion).

2. This approach can be applied to every story point in the storyform, from Domain to Problem, to PSR Variations to each PRCO Element at the scene level.

3. Don’t worry about “mapping” from one level to another within one justification:

@jhull

you really don’t need to know whether or not Ability leads to justifications of Can or Cannot or Need or Needn’t in order to write a powerful justification for your story. You can mix them up while writing your story - the important thing is that you find an inequity that connects with your own understanding of the world–so that what you write will be honest and true to yourself.

• However, when contrasting justifications, it can be helpful use different first-level words:

@jassnip

So for example:

A character can’t unending in order to Zen
UNLESS
A character can’t unending in order to Zen

See? That doesn’t feel right.

A character can’t unending in order to Zen
UNLESS
A character should unending in order to Zen

Does that all sound right?