Does this hold true if the storyform is Holistic?
On PRCO
The most recent subtext classes, especially the ones talking about illustrating a quad, have suggested that PRCO is not necessarily linear. In fact, I recall an article written by Melanie that has examples of non-linear PRCO scenes.
On Illustrating Justifications
The question of âhowâ is a creative question, and really depends on the person. Thereâs no one right answer. Hereâs an example from my own work. Itâs the development of a justification for Mind.
First, what are two Mind gists that work for me?
People should have their beliefs in order to ??? UNLESS People need a certain attitude in order to ???
Next, how can I make the first part feel true to me?
People should have their beliefs in order to preserve their cultural heritage UNLESS People need a certain attitude in order to ???
Then, how can I make the second part feel true to me, while it also goes against the first?
People should have their beliefs in order to preserve their cultural heritage UNLESS People need a certain attitude in order to protect their social standing.
Okay, that feels good, but I canât write to it, yet.
People should commit to their beliefs in order to preserve their cultural heritage UNLESS People need to remain politically correct in order to protect their social standing within the group.
Now thatâs the one!
This final form feels like an illustration. I may not know who will be doing what, but I can easily build this overall feeling into the world that I write.
That was at the Class level. I follow a similar process at each level where I feel the need. At the Element level, it might result in the following justfication:
People need to seek out the truth in order to strengthen their own spiritual insight
UNLESS
People should do whatâs always been done in order protect the existing balance in society.
However, that doesnât yet feel like an illustration. So, I ask the more creative questions.
These are questions that Iâve accepted Dramatica wonât answer! (Even if it doesâŠ)
- Whoâs dealing with this?
- Where are they?
- Whatâs going on?
When and Why, on a grand scale, have been answered by the justification. Once I have those answers, I have a general outline of the scene, one I can write to.
3 Likes
Amazing post @Hunter. I think you pointed some aspects of my own process that I didnât realize I was doing! The âmake it feel true for meâ is super important.
Note that true doesnât necessarily mean that YOU would take that justified view. More that you can imagine someone (a character in your story) taking it, under the right circumstances.
Although maybe thatâs the same thing as saying you would adopt that justification given all the right circumstances â i.e. if you were that character. Wow, Justifications also help us get into our charactersâ heads⊠
3 Likes
I donât know why holistic or linear would make a difference in PRCO. I canât think of one.
It should only make a difference on content, prco is underlying structure.
So for example:
Scenario in which characters are lost
P Taking a wrong turn puts characters in unfamiliar part of town
R (Amplify or diminish) someone starts chasing them
C theyâre in the middle of a turf-war
O They find someplace to hole up
To me linear or holistic would happen in between each of those
So for example being in an unfamiliar part of town a linear person would look at a map or for a gas station or known landmarks, or try and back track. Oddly, linear people will almost NEVER straight-up ask for directions.
Whereas a holistic person would notice there were no people out, or go into a diner and order a meal, or look for someone to connect to, or help someone before asking for help for themselves.
Does that make sense?
2 Likes
Shouldnât R be âamplifyâ for making things worse? When would you use âdiminishâ?
How would you take an event like âTaking a wrong turn puts characters in unfamiliar part of townâ and turn it into a justification vs justification?
No. They are sources of conflict. Conflict is incompatibility. To have conflict, you have to have something that is incompatible with something. Two somethings with incompatibility or dissonance between them. These justification exercises are showing how a storypoint creates-or is the source of-that incompatibility.
In the Toby Maguire Spider-Man (the first one?), thereâs a scene where Green Goblin tosses both MJ and a cable car full of innocent bystanders off a bridge. One to each side of the bridge. This is to set up a conflict for Spider-Man. He should save the cable car full of passengers in order to save the greatest number of lives UNLESS he needs to save MJ in order to spend his life with her. So âsaving peopleâ is supposed to have become a source of conflict for Spider-Man. He needs to save two different sets of people in order to bring about two different contexts, and being able to save one person/group is supposed to be incompatible with saving the other person/group.
However, since this is a movie about Spider-Man, he wonât let anyone die and luckily is able to save them both proving it was never really a conflict for him to begin with. But imagine a movie where the superhero is forced to save one or the other.
Luckily, you donât actually have to imagine that. It happens in The Dark Knight. Batman can save either Harvey Dent or Rachel Dawes. He goes for Rachel, but ends up saving Harvey and has to deal with the consequences of that decision. In that movie, that particular conflict lasts for a scene, maybe an act. I donât really know. But hopefully you could see how that same set up could describe an entire movie or even just a single quick event in a scene.
- I wouldâve just started with the Batman example if only I had thought of it before writing about Spider-Man. Haha.
3 Likes
Just to add to your questioning repertoire, I find the most useful questions to be how questions because how gives you actions.[quote=âHunter, post:24, topic:2921â]
People need to seek out the truth in order to strengthen their own spiritual insight
UNLESS
People should do whatâs always been done in order protect the existing balance in society.
[/quote]
How did the need for spiritual insight arise?
How is the group protected or harmed by doing whatâs always been done?
How does someone abandon, transform or continue traditions?
How are characters harmed by falsehoods? How are they protected by falsehoods?
Anyway just my .02
4 Likes
Think about areas in a story where the mood is extremely tense, and people are ready to blow: Thereâs a high potential for conflict, but something happens that relieves the tension without actually removing the source. Later that conflict blows like crazy when other things are added on top.
That reduction of tension would be R that diminishes the conflict. So, in essence, one reason you might use R to diminish the problem is to delay the results.
As it is, you canât. Thereâs absolutely no problem or conflict with âtaking a wrong turn and ending up in an unfamiliar part of town.â E.g. People do this all the time during a Sunday drive, and it doesnât matter in that context. Now, if you also
- need to get to an appointment elsewhere, OR
- wonât ask for directions, OR
- etc,
such that you have reason to be elsewhere, it then becomes a problem.
Justifications are meant to present that extra piece. âTaking a wrong turn and ending up in an unfamiliar part of townâ will be part of a full justification. Otherwise, itâll never be a problem. For example:
I can take a wrong turn and end up in an unfamiliar part of town in order to have a relaxing time UNLESS I should be driving streets I know while running my errands in order to finish my work quickly.
This is excellent insight!!! I default to asking How, so I ended up not putting on the list. 
Thanks!
3 Likes
I left that vague on purpose. If someone chases you and is shooting at you. that makes being lost worse.
If someone is chasing you to tell you to get the hell off the street, being lost is diminished trouble and finding shelter becomes more important.
At least thatâs my understanding. I donât guarantee it.
2 Likes
This reminds me of a real-life â two drove for an hour trying to and not finding a place and finally drove up to three complaining about it. Three asked if she could see the map â blank faces â do you have a map â they reached under a seat and handed it to her, confessing they never thought to look at it. I know three was a holistic!
A variation of that conflict was a great setup for Delâs emotional rejection and distrust of robots in the film I-Robot, when the robot chose to save him and not a young child from drowning as he had wanted. That setup made the whole film work. Quite powerful.
1 Like
I see Potential § as a state of mind and a state of affairs that inspires an ideal outcome.
For me, Resistance Âź is a state of mind and a state of affairs that inspires an ideal outcome (just from a different perspective).
Then I believe, Current © is about the energies being expended towards ideal outcomes. Itâs also about dynamics and relationships. Or, change.
Finally, I think, Outcome (O) is a new state of affairs often with a disaster (call it a reversal, twist or complication â whatever). This results in a new state of mind. This creates a new Potential.
As you can see, I think that P, R, and O are all the same but what makes them different is perspective.
P is about the character that drives that particular scene because it is her state of mind that sees an ideal outcome.
R is about any other role(s), because it is their states of mind that see ideal outcomes that might or might not be compatible with the character driving that scene.
C is about the ebb and flow of energy and this directly relates to how the state of affairs is interpreted by the states of mind within the scenes.
O is either an ending or a new beginning. It can result in a entirely new problem, or a refocusing to an already existing problem.
As for Justifications⊠I wonder if we could replace UNLESS with UNLESSELNU (or just U for simplicity)?
I mean, shouldnât those two different justifications have equal weight not affected by syntax?
Also, could someone define dueling justifications in a very layman like manner?
Such as, a limitation of desire, need, want, etc.? A dilemma?
The two people in the car are husband and wife?
Iâve been married for 37 years, and that was the first thing to pop into my head, while laughing at the words âotherwise itâll never be a problemâ. (just spontaneous automatic non analytical thought. Now, I donât even understand all this much, but the justification v justification seems like a treasure trove possibility to mull over)
Youâre right that they should have equal weight. To me, the word âUNLESSâ works, since it doesnât mean only one thing or the other; it means both, but not at the same time. That said, itâs understandable that one may wish to use a palindromic syntax, especially if it works for you.
Personally, I canât think of a definition that is less technical, yet remains practical. Here are a few definitions that come to mind from other sources of writing advice, though they werenât useful to me:
- The reason(s) your characters disagree
- The reason for the angst in a character
- The point of the story
Justifications expose the depth of arguments. A âdilemmaâ is close, but itâs almost too shallow, in my opinion. The opposition isnât necessarily a limitation, or an abundance. This makes it a concept of greater exploration than that of a single definition. If I were pressed, Iâd probably write:
dueling justifications - two statements that are true on their own but at least one of which is incorrect when considered together
3 Likes
It fits with my original idea. I kind of thought:
Truth with limitations.
But, incorrect and truth worry me.
Could we say:
two justications that are sufficient within their specific contexts but questionable when juxtaposed.
I kept wanting to call justifications something else: instinct, truth, etc. but â in the end â justification seems pretty straight forward.
Could they be called mindsets also?
so only one is do-able, workable, sensible, viable? That would get the story moving.
Maybe I should change it further:
two justifications that are framed within the same context, but seen from different perspectives. Both of which are questionable when juxtaposed.
I think that might be closer, because the same Dramatica language frames both justifications, but the difference in perspective creates the doubt.
2 Likes
For substituting the word true in the above, perhaps either of the words valid or appropriate would work? (When referring to writing, I often use the word true in a more malleable, Zen-like way than that of common parlance.)
Regarding the word incorrect, I didnât want to say false because that isnât the right word. Though, Iâll admit that incorrect is too absolute. It was meant to convey the concepts in the same family as faulty, flawed, unreliable, disagreeable and the like.
As for calling a justification by the name mindset, I think that makes sense. However, I also think the word has a great enough connection to the Dramatica Class of Mind that it could be misleading.
In regard to writing, I think one side will have more weight at the start than the other and that throughout the story the weight of the two will shift. This, of course, demonstrates how each would be more true in certain contexts and less so in others. I also think that the weight of each is on a spectrum from itâs absolutely the only correct choice here all the way to it only just makes more sense here.*
I should note that this isnât a contradiction with my previous assessment that each side should have equal weight. Itâs a different context⊠(Justifications in action. 
) When considered in writing, each side will have different weight, otherwise there would be no story. When considered alone, each side would have the same weight, otherwise they wouldnât be âtrueâ in that epistemological sense given above.
Iâd argue that this variation is getting technical again. I purposely avoided words like perspective and juxtaposed due to the request for a laypersonâs explanation. That said, this definition for dueling justifications is a good one to work from, since it covers their intent.
*Note that here can refer to time or place in these sentences.