At the point of crisis, your main character has a decision to make. Should he make that final choice based on his feelings, or based on his intellect? As an author, how can you tell which one is the right answer for your story?
While waiting for this blog to transfer over to the new server, a critique of Jurassic Park in the Dramatica theory book caught my attention:
Why would Grant do this? His argument for Order was based on logic. Over the course of the story, he was presented another argument that affected his feelings. So, when the crisis arrives, he must choose between what his head and his heart are telling him.
This reminded me of a discussion I had two summers ago with Chris about how justification starts in the human mind. As far as I can remember (and I’m sure if I’m wrong, he’ll correct me!), the first level of justification is deciding whether the inequity you sense can be solved in your environment or in you. This level is called Problem Solving.
Once that fails to solve the inequity, you then try solving it using the opposite choice. If you first tried to solve the inequity by changing the environment, you then start looking inward for a solution. If you started out solving the inequity internally, but it still exists, you then start looking outward. This is the second level of justification.
Once you’ve looked both outward and inward but still can’t solve the problem, that’s when you let either your feelings win out over your logic, or your logic win out over your feelings. “This problem still exists, but I’ve tried everything, so maybe it just doesn’t make sense right now to try and fix it” or “I’ve tried everything, but it’s just too hard, it’s not worth getting all worked up over this problem.” That’s the 3rd level of justification. Do you decide to solve this inequity based on what makes the most sense, or do you try to balance it based on what would make it feel right?
Problem is, now you’re still gonna feel that inequity. That’s when you come back full circle (well actually a coil) and declare that either you or or environment IS the problem (whichever one you tried to solve at the first level). Now you’re at the 4th level of justification. At this level you say things like “I’m just that way” or “I can’t break in, that’s just the way the film industry is.” Instead of seeing the inequity for what it is - you’ve now placed it in something it is not.
That’s the 4th level of justification and where a change main character starts a story.
In Jurassic Park, Grants begins his justification based on his logic (although the completed film as is fails to do it, for the sake of this argument, Grant is driven by Order). At the moment of crisis (all kinds of large lizards advancing on them) he has a decision to make:
His intellect makes a definitive case that bringing the fences up will reestablish Order.
Order has always worked for him in the past, and he believes it will serve him now. However, the events that transpired over the course of the story now present his feelings with equal weight over his decision making.
But his gut instincts now insist that is the last thing they should do. By letting Chaos reign, says his instinct, somehow things will work out. He doesn’t have any clue HOW they will work out, just a strong feeling that bringing down the fences is what he must do if they are to survive.
My point in going on about this is that maybe it might help to decide where your Main Character begins the justification process - where was his or her first mistake? Did they decide to go with their feelings or did they rely on their intellect?
I’m not sure if there is anything in the theory or storyform that would help you answer this question. The tendency would be to let the heart win out every time - it’s the most romantic notion. But there are situations and inequities that are best resolved with intellect.
My guess is that you could go either way - as long as you let the opposite side win out in the end. Have them base their justification on logic like Grant above, then make sure their heart wins out in the end. Have them base their justifications on their feelings, then make sure their head wins out in the end.
The latter almost sounds like Training Day. Ethan Hawke’s character Hoyt starts out driven by a feeling to serve his fellow man - that’s why he became a police officer. I mean, he doesn’t really know why he wants to be a detective. That’s why he can’t answer the question when Alonzo asks him why he wants it so badly - he’s justifying.
In the end Hoyt’s head wins out. If he had listened to his heart, then Alonzo would’ve deserved the same kind of protection anyone else would - regardless of what crime he had committed. But instead, his intellect wins out - the most logical thing to do is to let the corrupt force that is Alonzo die right then and there in the street.
Interesting notion and something I hadn’t thought of before. It’ll definitely be something to look for in future story analysis.
If you’re interested in learning more about the 4 Levels of Justification, here are two clips from the Dramatica Audio Tape on Plot Development:
Story Driver: What moves the plot forward? (MP3)
The Four Levels of Justification (MP3)
Share This
0 responses so far ↓
There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.
Leave a Comment