"super-dynamic pairs"

theory
#1

Just wondering if anyone has ever coined a term for what I call (to myself) “super-dynamic pairs”?

These are the Variations or Types that are diagonally opposite each other “all the way across the chart”. It’s hard to describe in words but examples will make sense: Openness and Closure, Knowledge and Wisdom, Thought and Enlightenment. Or for Types: The Past and Memories, Becoming and Obtaining, Conceiving and Learning, etc. Just pull out your theme browser and you’ll see the correlation.

Super-dynamic-pair is probably a poor term, since it’s a very different concept than an actual dynamic pair. But I do think the concept is valuable because it comes up several times in a storyform:

  • The MC Issue is a super-dynamic-pair with the IC Issue
  • The OS Issue is a super-dynamic-pair with the RS Issue
  • The MC Unique Ability is a super-dynamic-pair with IC Unique Ability (at least in all the storyforms I’ve seen)
  • etc. with Catalysts, Inhibitors, Critical Flaws
  • And at the Types level, the same thing goes obviously with MC-IC and OS-RS Concerns and Benchmarks

I think it’s a great concept because, when I first noticed it at the Variation level, I began to really see how the model works at a deeper level. For example, you can really see how someone with an Issue of Wisdom (understanding how to apply knowledge) might challenge someone with an Issue of Knowledge itself. Other examples may be harder to grasp but if you watch a movie with them (say Collateral for Closure and Openness), you can definitely get a good sense.

Anyway, I’d love to hear suggestions for a different term… :grin:

#2

I might suggest Binary Dynamic Pairs or Double Dyanmic Pairs after the star systems with two orbiting stars–Since their relationship seems almost gravitational.

I agree that it is helpful to know things like this for checking one’s work.

1 Like
#3

I too am leery of using ‘dynamic’ to describe any of these connections.

When it comes to the plot concerns that always align in any storyform (i.e Past-Memory-Understanding-Conceptualizing, or Future-Subconscious-Obtaining-Becoming), I just think of them as Corollary Types. They aren’t really pairs, they’re just the same thing through different perspectives.

And in the case of items that are diagonally opposite across the entire chart, we should be careful we aren’t missing more pertinent pairings that already fit the jargon. For example, the MC and IC Unique Abilities may be “super-dynamic” as you say, but I think it’s more interesting that the MC Unique Ability and the IC Critical Flaw are already standard dynamic pairs (the inverse is true as well).

1 Like
#4

(Aha! I was waiting for someone to say that!)

Actually, that’s only when the Main Character has a Change Resolve. If the Main Character has a Steadfast Resolve, the MC Unique Ability is Companion to the Inhibitor of the Throughline Companion to the MC Throughline, and vice versa. So if the MC Unique Ability is Work and the OS is in Activity, then the OS Inhibitor is Attraction; the OS Catalyst will be Prerequisites, and the MC Critical Flaw will be Strategy. If the Relationship Throughline is in Activity, it’ll be the same thing for the RS Catalyst and Inhibitor. Try it and see!

1 Like
#5

Ah, my mistake! Goes to show I’ve worked the most with MC Change storyforms.

#6

Oooh, Corollary Types, I like that. I like the idea of extending it to “Corollary Variations” too.