"is" the problem vs. "source of" the problem?
Posted: Mar 16, 2010 10:26 am
I am struggling with the way in which problems (or symptoms) are defined. Looking at the Four Throughlines Themes Report for my story, I see this:
... some see Inequity as causing the problem and Equity as the means to resolve it. Others are convinced that Projection is at the heart of the problem and Speculation will best solve it. (The Projection/Speculation pair belong to the Impact character's symptom/response.)
The problem I'm struggling with here is this: the main character absolutely sees that Inequity IS the problem. And while my impact character certainly does Project a great deal, he doesn't think that Projection IS the problem -- rather, his Projections are the source of what he believes his problems are. And this "source of" definition complies with the example the software gives from To Kill a Mockingbird.
So, expressed as pseudo-dialog:
both pairs defined AS the problem:
"We have inequity here, and need equity to correct it."
"I project too much, and need to speculate more."
First pair AS the problem, second pair as SOURCE OF the problem:
"We have inequity here, and need equity to correct it."
"I foresee abc happening in the future based on what I know of the past. It's possible that xyz could also happen."
The second set of pairs feels utterly like oil and water to me and do not seem to bear any dramatic connection to each other.
Any thoughts? I hope I've been clear...
Thanks,
Jeff
... some see Inequity as causing the problem and Equity as the means to resolve it. Others are convinced that Projection is at the heart of the problem and Speculation will best solve it. (The Projection/Speculation pair belong to the Impact character's symptom/response.)
The problem I'm struggling with here is this: the main character absolutely sees that Inequity IS the problem. And while my impact character certainly does Project a great deal, he doesn't think that Projection IS the problem -- rather, his Projections are the source of what he believes his problems are. And this "source of" definition complies with the example the software gives from To Kill a Mockingbird.
So, expressed as pseudo-dialog:
both pairs defined AS the problem:
"We have inequity here, and need equity to correct it."
"I project too much, and need to speculate more."
First pair AS the problem, second pair as SOURCE OF the problem:
"We have inequity here, and need equity to correct it."
"I foresee abc happening in the future based on what I know of the past. It's possible that xyz could also happen."
The second set of pairs feels utterly like oil and water to me and do not seem to bear any dramatic connection to each other.
Any thoughts? I hope I've been clear...
Thanks,
Jeff