The Godfather of justification

#1

… or more likely the Justification of Godfather.

As an exercise I’ll try to ‘convert’ existing story into justifications in order to… ok, I’ll share the context at climax :wink:
I guess it is first level and I suppose it is separate conflict for every throughline.
Everything starts here:
https://dramatica.com/analysis/the-godfather

OS (Obtaining) - War
We have more light on why Don Corleone started The Business in The Godfather 2 but taking under consideration what kind of business it is, we may assume the bigger eats smaller.
Statement 1 would be: People want to be the biggest Family.
Why?
Context 1 would be: in order to protect the business and get the biggest part of the cake.

According to Tom Hagen’s analysis Corleone Family has the best investments right now: unions and gambling. And according to Don everyone want’s it and is forbidden by the Church only.

UNLESS
The best business s is in drugs.
Statement 2: People should to stay far from drug business
Context 2: in order to protect the Family from negative consequences.

So, for the overall story we get:
People
want (though - makes sense to me)
in order to
be the biggest Family (see more like Doing in there and is not in line with storyform concern, but… I may be wrong)
UNLESS
People
should (Don’s expediency - fine by me)
stay far from drug business (in terms of war it is obtaining)
in order to
protect the Family from negative consequences (not sure what it should be).

MC (Future) - Michael’s Way
Michael want (need?) to stay out of Family (Present, Future?) in order to (?)
UNLESS
he has to be (need/should) part of Family in order to (because there is no other way) protect his family.

I think there is some source on this level to define elements of first act and direction for subsequent acts. I see some blurry picture of direct way from those justifications to finale scene of the first act.
Maybe it is a matter of verbalizing the justifications but still not a direct connection to a storyform.

#2

@Seener I’m not 100% clear from your example if this is what you’re doing, but the most recent thinking on this exercise (I think) is to use Elements from the Psychology quad after the “in order to” statement.

Specifically:

Linear = Conceiving in order to Being, unless Conceiving leads to Conceptualizing
and Holistic = Conceiving in order to Being, unless Conceiving leads to Becoming

For a linear story:

[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/if you wish to [State of Being/Situation/Circumstances/Sense of Self]

So if I were writing this for your Godfather, example, I might say:

People need to get a piece of the drug business in order to be thought of as tough, unless giving up on your ideals threatens your sense of who you are.

#3

@Lakis
Thank you for your replay.
The idea is to find a kind of ‘instant’ connection between JvJ and storyform.
I’m not sure if such connection exist but having good JvJ (in terms of perception) would be good point of start to form a storyform and verify if it works.

At the beginning it was like ‘People can/want/etc… this in order to something UNLESS people can/want/etc… that in order to something else/oposite’.
Now it looks like People can/want/etc… this in order to something UNLESS that leads to something else/oposite’.

Maybe it is because my English, but it does sound similar. Which is considered the right one?
Or both are and I should be more flexible?

#4

I don’t think it matters. Actually, I wouldn’t focus on that so much – and even the other stuff, is a little in the weeds in my opinion, except as an exercise.

I think the main point is to see how conflict arises not from two things that are opposite, but from seeing things in different contexts. So it’s not a question of (for example), “is drug dealing right or wrong”, but “in what context could someone justify drug dealing” vs. “in what context is it unacceptable no matter what”.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that the characters experience an internal dilemma – but the storymind is showing us that there is a conflict between these two approaches that can’t be resolved. The Corleones may be steadfast in their refusal to get into the drug business, but the story sees that this causes conflict because drugs are the wave of the future for organized crime (you can’t be both a mob boss and keep your hands clean).

#5

Thank you. I understand the truths in a story are subjective
Ok, storytelling is not a strict science.
But I feel there may be some shortcut between JvJ and Instant Dramatica. Less like equation, more like creative shortcut.
In Instant Dramatica Plot Synopsis we have:

  1. Driver + Consequences
  2. Goal (OS Concern as well) + Requirements
    All three (consequences, goal, requirements) are on a concern level.

In case of Godfather it is:

  1. Decision + Becoming
  2. Obtaining + Doing

Now on the other hand we can create JvJ for OS. On human being level and not as a Dramatica Engine.

Corleones Family has to made lose/lose decision (not really). Join the drug business and stay on top but loose support and self-respect or stay outside and be involved in possible war. This is the decision (with more or less accurate reasoning) that is to be made. In or out. And I believe those to states should/could be represented by the opposite justifications.

Corelaone’s Famili wants to stay out of drug business in order to have a (self-)respect unless it leads to war.

To be honest I don’t like this statement and others in this thread. It may be good but this way there is no expected shortcut.
First part seems to be related to the situation in the first act before Driver - kind of ‘as is’ situation.
And the second part is kind of ‘special world’ of the second act.

However how to translate it to a specific story points? Not sure if possible.

If so, than having sound and good JvJ statement it would be moderately easy to start with storyforming.
That’s why I spend so much time thinking of.

1 Like