It’s maybe a silly question, and maybe I’m just overcomplicating things, but I’m still wondering: does the Justification vs Justification process work the same way when it comes to the encoding of the Static Plot Points (examples: Requirements, Consequences, Issue, Counterpoint etc.)? I see how it can work with story points like the Story Goal, Requirements or Theme, but the same process feels strange when I try to encode something like the Consequences or Forewarnings.
To be clear, the “justification vs justification” process is inaccurate, i.e. using the wrong terms to describe the concept (and yes, I take full responsibility ).
As covered in this week’s Writers Room on Conflict, Context, and Justification, a more accurate way to describe the approach of illustrating an inequity is truism in context vs. an alternate context.
Once in place, the differential between the two motivates the process of justification, which then forms the basis for a story.
While the “People need __ in order to ___” describes a sequence of this justification process (1st level to 2nd level), it is not a justification in and of itself.
Knowing that may make it easier for you to illustrate the Story Consequence and Story Forewarnings as inequities. While you could conceivably write a Consequence as a single state, it’s been my experience that the more inequitable the Storypoint the greater potential for engaging storytelling down the road.
Writing the subtext of a story the way you do when working with Dramatica is not writing your story—it’s priming the pump and generating the motivation to get those scenes down on the page.
And motivation arises from inequity.
Static illustrations of Storypoints don’t create the same effect in writers that illustrations of inequity do, so whenever you can—push yourself to define each as a dissonance between contexts.