The principle of equivalency is that each of the three core story elements (hero, goal, and obstacle) implies the other two.
In a well-constructed story, the hero’s goal is inherent to the hero’s identity. The obstacle to that goal is also central to who the hero is as a person.
The hero, therefore, embodies this goal-obstacle pairing.
This is where storytelling takes on the mathematical flavor of the transitive property, as in, if A = B and B = C, A = C, or rather:
- If the hero = the goal,
- and the hero = the obstacle to that goal,
- the goal = the obstacle,
- and hero = goal = obstacle.
Obviously, this isn’t a numerical or measureable equivalency. It’s more of an intuitive mathematics. When you empathize with the perspective of the hero, there’s clear emotional logic between what’s wanted and what’s in the way.
Suppose a hero wants to play professional baseball. The obstacle could be breaking the color barrier (Jackie Robinson), being too old (The Rookie), being too young (Rookie of the Year), etc.
It’s not going to be having an extreme allergy to root vegetables. Sure, a carrot allergy would be a problem. Good luck eating a salad. No french fries would be the real problem…. The point is that this obstacle lacks equivalency to wanting to play pro baseball.
The principle of equivalency is how we use storytelling as an analytical tool in a business context. We make certain assumptions about whom we are trying to persuade, what they want, and what they perceive to be in the way of that. If we have really good evidence that they have a particular goal, we can reverse engineer a reasonable conception of the obstacle.
The key to playing with the logic of equivalency is the principle of priority. As you consider different goal-obstacle pairings, check in with your gut. What version of the story really hits you emotionally?