Five Commandments of Storytelling - Part 2

Hello and welcome to the Storygrid podcast. My name is Tim Grall and I am a struggling writer trying to figure out how to tell a story that works. Joining me shortly is Sean Coyne. He's the creator and founder of StoryGrid. Along with him we have Leslie Watts, Storygrid Publishing's Editor in chief, and we have Danielle Kielski, the Chief Academic Officer at Storygrid University. This is the second in a three part series where we're looking at the five commandments of storytelling. We're looking at it specifically through the lens of the Ed McBain short story Eyewitness. We've been doing the full 624 analysis for the past several weeks, and we're in the second week of looking at it through the five Commandments. So let's go ahead and jump in and get started.

Yeah, that's excellent. And I think that that's a really great bridge to go into the crisis too, because the crisis.

And as Tim alluded to before, the crisis matrix is going to be an illumination of the exploration of the problem that Sam faces up until the point where the protagonist, who Sam has identified with, will need to make a decision based on the dilemma laid out in the crisis matrix. So the third commandment is the crisis. And coming out of the turning point, in the wake of the destruction of the initial strategy that the protagonist is using to deal with the inciting incident, the choice of what to do it collapses down into a binary set of options. So the protagonist faces.

A choice between two options, and that's the crisis. So the crisis matrix that you were talking about, Tim, is looking at the two options and breaking down the stakes that the protagonist faces in each option along the Trinity planes of perception. So what are the on the surface stakes, what are the above the surface stakes, and what are the beyond the surface stakes? And looking at it in this way gives us a clear.

Idea of the comprehensive view of the two options available to our protagonist at this point in time. It also echoes back up to Sam's problem, so that it gives us a clear view of how the author is drawing these parallels between what Sam needs to figure out and what our protagonist needs to figure out. And it ties the Trinity planes together, so it ensures that you're scene or whatever unit of story you're evaluating with the five commandments that it's operating on all of these three levels. Because before we get to the crisis, the author needs to have made clear the stakes at all of these three levels. And that can only happen if the scene is Firing on all of those cylinders.

So to fill this out, the first thing to do is to determine what are the two choices that face our protagonist. So what are the two options that Struthers has in the wake of the lieutenant's entry into the room?

To stay or to leave?

Yes. And so.

What we can do, too, so stay and go is a really clear archetypical crisis.

Binary. That's something that. That we've talked about in the Heroic Journey as well. Stay versus go. Right. We can also look at what that means in terms of the pursuit of justice. So the way that we talked about that is if he goes, he keeps silent.

And if he stays, he exposes the Lieutenant.

Because he can't stay and not talk. Like the stay and go as they're expressed in this story. It's really the choice between speaking up or keeping silent. Does that make sense?

Yeah. And again, I'm going to ask the same question, which is who. Who are we looking at this through? Because in previous weeks when we talked about this, I kept having struggle wrapping my head around, like, the controlling idea. Because in the manner that he leaves, he. Sir, he does serve justice. Right. While make. While keeping information that he want. He wants to keep. So again, are we looking at this from Struthers? Is this up to. Is this like, okay, this is how Struthers is doing it? Is this Capelli, the author? Is this the Sam. Because from.

From any view outside of Struthers, at the point that he. At this point, it almost doesn't matter what he does, they're probably going to move closer to justice. Because unless he's just like.

I don't think in the. I don't think with the crisis of. Because. Because of the way he freaks out and leaves. It shows everybody in the room, including the person, Sam, reading this report, that.

It'S the lieutenant. So we move closer to justice. Right. We've dealt with that in previous weeks.

Yeah, he hasn't done that yet, though.

I know. I'm just thinking in terms of, like.

When you're. When you start talking about, are we moving closer? What are. By looking at the crisis through the lens of justice or injustice? I'm like, well.

You see what I'm saying? Like, I don't know. Is it what Capelli thinks? Is it what Is it the author? Is it this? I mean, it seems to be our three choices are author, same, or protagonist.

Okay, so we're not getting to the value change yet. So what I meant there is just that instead of like a generic stay or Go. We can look at these choices in terms of how they are. Like, how can we express them verbally? What words can we choose to talk about? These choices that are very specific to the situation.

And that is tied up in genre.

So that's why I'm just trying to translate from Stay or Go to Keep Silent or Expose the Lieutenant, because that's a more specific action that is relevant to the global genre. But we're not trying to make choices yet about whether those progress more toward justice or not. That's a job for later, like the resolution. That's where we're going to find that out. So this is about the choice, the two choices, the two options that our protagonist has. So it's looking at Struthers and what he can do coming out of that turning point. Progressive complication. And then we're going to illuminate the stakes that face him at each of these trinity planes of perception. And what that's going to do is that it's going to.

Do the things that I talked about before, about tying the scene together. But what it also does is it sets up the climax, which is going to be our next commandment, so that we understand what we're learning about Struthers from which one he picks. So we need to know what he knows and what he perceives as the stakes so that we can understand his character. And this is why we say Avatar, because character is a very particular thing. Character is what's revealed when we figure out what the Avatar values, how they prioritize things. It's their inner character, and that's what gets revealed when they make the decision between one of the two options in the crisis. So we're focusing in on Struthers and his perceptions and his information in the crisis matrix.

Okay.

It occurs to me that we might want to adjust those titles.

Or the name of the second choice, because it's Keep Silent is our first choice. And then choice two is Expose the Lieutenant. But.

Because, you know, spoiler alert, he does that even though he keeps silent. And so choice two should probably be to, like, speak up or something like that.

Should it just be stay and speak up or leave and stay silent?

Yeah, that makes sense.

Yeah, that's good.

And maybe I'm jumping ahead here, but isn't that. How is that different from what's going to go in the. On the surface boxes?

Great question.

Survive, thrive, derive.

Yeah, so the way that it's different is that we're talking about.

This is a really common thing that happens when people are filling out the crisis matrix. So I think it's really important to go into and really clarify when we name the choices, those are looking at the action that the protagonist would take in choosing that option. So keep silent, leave and keep silent, stay and speak up. Those are, as you said, on the surface actions. When we start filling in the boxes, this isn't about a restatement of the. Of the choice on that plane. Instead, it's about the consequences or the stakes or the potential costs like. Or the potential benefits at that plane of perception.

So how does.

In an on the surface way. Right. So looking at the situation on the surface.

What are the consequences.

Of leaving and keeping silent?

Leaving and keeping silent. The consequences are he stays safe.

From. Him and his family stay safe from ramifications of speaking up.

Yeah. Yeah, that's great. So then if he stays and speaks up.

It'S the inverse of that. Right, right. So he has vulnerability. Yeah. And his family is in danger. So that is one aspect of on the surface, what happens. So, so he comes in with the goal of exposing the criminal. Right. And so that's a want that he has is to illuminate this, the identity of the criminal, what happens in terms of that want with each of those options from Struthers. Struthers informational situation at the point of a crisis.

So then if he leaves, he doesn't get what he wants, and if he stays, he does get what he wants.

Right. So the criminal remains concealed if he leaves, and if he stays, the criminal is exposed. Great. So those are the changes that we have for the on the surface situation. So those are the on the surface stakes at play in this crisis matrix. And then we'll do the same thing with above the surface. So above the surface is about the ramifications for the power that the protagonist has, the agency that the protagonist has, as well as their information processing system, and how it impacts the way that they are thinking about the world and the way that their agency is interacting in the world. So it's power, agency, informational processing. So how would you. Just taking this kind of one at a time.

How does Struthers power his ability to thrive? How is that impacted if he chooses to leave and keep silent?

I feel like he retains power.

Because he has information that he can. He continues to have agency over the information.

Yeah, exactly. Exactly. And yeah, and we. We called that retaining leverage just because it. It's information that he can use in a particular way to keep himself safe. So. Which is exactly what you're describing there. And then if he chooses to stay and speak up. Then what happens in terms of his agency and power?

Well, he. He gives that up so he no longer has that leverage that he can pull. He's already done it.

Right? Yeah. And I think that one is a little bit. It's worth looking at a little bit more closely, because I think that's one where it could be easy to look at that and say, well, he's claiming power by speaking up, but as you pointed out, he's passing that responsibility to the next person to decide what to do with it. So he gives up his agency over that by speaking up. So even though he's enacting his agency, he doesn't have control over that information anymore. The person hearing it does. So I think that's what you said is absolutely right. And I just want to zoom in on that a little bit to make it clear.

For anyone following along at home.

So then for the informational processing. So what we can look at here is that the protagonist comes in with the.

With an idea of their own identity, with an. A stable.

Internal concept of what. Who they are, what they're here to do. And that's also tied up with a goal state, with their pursuit of a goal state. So all of these concepts work together to form this internal landscape that.

We can look at it as a frame, as a worldview. These are the way that the protagonist sees the world and wants to keep stable. So it's very threatening for us as humans when we come into contact with things or when we do things that threaten the stability of how we see the world and how we see ourselves. It's very painful. So this is another level of stakes where we can look at which option preserves stability and which one threatens stability, creates instability and insecurity. So do you have an idea of which option would do which of those things? For Strothers.

I feel like leaving would retain his stability.

That would get him closer to.

Living in a world where he knows what's going to happen next. Well.

So what's his. What's his goal?

Like, what does he think that he should do?

Well.

Are we talking about his want of exposing a criminal, or are we talking about his want of protecting himself and his family?

Right, so. So both of those are in play. But he has assumed the identity of a witness.

So his goal is to.

So his goal is to expose the criminal?

Yeah, yeah. So the idea is, if he leaves, will he have internal conflict?

Yes.

Because he didn't reach the goal that he set out to reach.

Right, right. And so that's what we're getting at with that stability versus instability is, is that his stability is compromised if he leaves because he has this. It's a, we call it cognitive dissonance that he's acting in a way that is inconsistent with his view of himself in the world and his identity as witness that he's adopted. So you know, he may have gone through like we know that he comes in knowing that the police department is corrupt. So he's probably gone through some steps of turmoil and cognitive dissonance to get to the point where he even comes in. But he has adopted that identity. So now that's what's in play is it's the most relevant thing in play at the time is this identity that he has going as witness. And then on the other side we have cognitive consonants that he maintains his internal stability and his identity as witness. He keeps going with the, the.

The decision that he's made to be a witness. If he stays and speaks up.

Can I just jump in here about this? Might be a helpful little trick. The above, the surface is about truth, right? So if, if Struthers.

Places truth as his highest, you know, like I always tell the truth, then what will he do? He'll reveal that the lieutenant is the killer because he'll say, I'm that kind of person who always tells the truth. But then if he does that, his well being and his family's well being will be in jeopardy. So he has to make a choice. Is the truth more important than well being in this circumstance?

So if I don't tell the truth, I'm sacrificing truth for well being.

So he has to make a.

Determination here which is more important in this context, well being or truth. So that's the stake at a sort of like a meta level.

So if we're looking at, on the surface, and we had to sum it up in one word, it would be safety. And if we had to sum above the surface, it would be truth.

Would you agree with that or no?

Yes. Well, I wouldn't say safety on the surface. I would say well being or the good. The good for me, my family, the world. So is it better for the world? You're making a, like a quantitative calculation how, how many people will be victimized. If I can reduce the number of victims, then that's better than increasing the number of victims. So well being is. Is on the surface truth? Is am I re. Is truth being served or not served? Are truths being expanded or are lies being expanded? And the trick here is that you can't say that there's a single answer for what well being is or what truth is, because it's dependent upon the circumstances.

That you're under. So you can't say that there's a single solution for well being, a single solution for truth, or a single solution for that third thing we're about to talk about, which is beauty.

I think just looking at that a little bit more, we have.

Different ways of calculating and then different ways of prioritizing so we can calculate differently within these virtues of, like.

This is the trolley problem of should I switch the trolley and run over one person instead of five people?

In practice, when asked that question, people tend to answer that, yes, you should flip the switch and hit the one person. But then you can make that calculation more complicated calculation in terms of figuring out the best way to fulfill that one virtue. So you're looking at well being, you're looking at life. Do you. What happens when it is your family member? What happens when it is someone who is, you know, highly valuable to society. Like if it's, if it's a doctor. So you can make all of these modifications to the trolley problem and then it gets a lot harder. And then you start seeing differences in the way that people think about the value of lives. And when you're looking at different entries within these levels, within the planes, you're looking at differences in how we would think about.

The manifestations of that virtue and how, how we would place different value on them. And then you can also look at differences between the planes as differences between the virtues. And that's more of a prioritization problem than an optimization problem. So this tells you, in this circumstance, does my protagonist value truth above well being or well being above truth or beauty? You know, all of these things?

Because in this particular case, if we're looking at the, on the surface, it's not like he's letting a murderer go that would like continuing, continue murdering people every weekend. Right? So it's, it's much more about the well, so the wife's already dead. So on the, on the surface, he's choosing between the very real possibility that his family's well being will be put, will be put at stake and potentially nobody else's.

Where then once we get to the, on the surface and we're talking about truth.

And power and information processing, now he's thinking of it in terms of what is right. Right. So would that be another way of saying this of like, well, I, my character as an avatar, my character shows through based on the decisions that I make. And so I'm now choosing between the truth of the fact that this is the person that did the murder and he needs to be held account for that. It's almost. So is he basically feeling the tension between the, on the surface and, and above the surface? Right. Because if you say, if you just ask me a question and say forget what the answer, forget what the choice is. Choice A, your family's, your family's fine and nobody else gets hurt.

Choice B, nobody else gets hurt. Like, you know, like that's what I feel like he's asking on the, on the surface is like if you do choice A, you're guaranteed your family could get hurt and nobody else will get hurt. If you do choice B, your family could get hurt and nobody else will get hurt. Well, okay, I'm always going to do A, if you're only looking on the surface. But what adds the tension is this above the surface level where now he's having to choose between.

Do you see what I'm saying? Like that's the tension is one choice gives him what he wants on the surface, but not what he wants above the surface. And then vice versa. Is that what is creating this tension?

Right. So there, there are a couple of things in play. One is that there are, there is some on the surface tension because we don't know that this, that the lieutenant won't hurt anyone in the future. I mean, Capelli, sorry, Struthers, feels that he might get hurt. So at the point that the lieutenant has the capacity for violence.

By allowing him to remain on the street, he is putting some amount of risk onto the community at large. It's not like as large as if Hannibal Lecter is out there and he shows that he kills at random, but it is a measure of risk. And so when we looked at on the surface, we had two levels going on. So we have safety versus vulnerability and danger to his family, one level. And then we have criminal remains concealed versus criminals exposed. And that's another level of well being. So that would encapsulate the danger to the society as a whole that's out there. So this is what I mean. Like this is a trolley problem of which of these dangers do I place more value on? So that's a level of tension within the, on the surface. But then when we go down to above the surface, then we are getting those prioritization tensions added in as well. And so we're not looking at them when we're doing the above the surface. Like when we're filling in that level of the crisis matrix, but in making the decision going forward into the climax, that's what our protagonist will be weighing is both the optimization within the level and then the prioritization of comparing the levels.

But when we're filling in the above the surface and the beyond the surface, we want to stay purely within those planes.

So we talked a little bit about.

About above the surface already. So retaining leverage versus being disempowered, having internal stability compromised versus maintaining internal stability. That's cognitive dissonance versus cognitive consonance. And then we have one more concept to talk about in above the surface, which is the idea of responsibility, which is.

A similar concept to power and agency, but it's different. It's kind of the flip side of it. So.

What does Struthers have responsibility for?

By virtue of his. Of the inciting incident?

He has responsibility for knowing.

Well, I feel like the responsibility is the knowing who committed the murder.

That he carries, like, the burden of that information, and he has responsibility for.

Helping it come to light.

Well, I think he has the responsibility. The burden is choosing.

If, how, and when to bring it to light.

Okay, sure. Yeah. I'm thinking of the burden as, like, the weight of carrying it around. Like, he's the. He's the keeper of the truth, we could say. Right?

Yeah, well, that's what I'm thinking. He is. He. It's like, you know, it's like. Like reading somebody's diary. You now have knowledge that you have to choose to act on that you're not. It's now a burden to know this, right?

Yeah, yeah, absolutely. So how does that responsibility. How does that change with each of the two options that we've looked at? Or not change? What's the state of the responsibility after each of these two choices?

If he leaves, he keeps the response. That burden of responsibility goes with him. If he stays until then, he relieves himself of that burden.

Great. And so that wraps up our above the surface plane.

Okay.

So we can move into beyond the surface. And here we're going to talk about more universal patterns. We're going to talk about connection versus isolation. And we're going to talk about the values at play here. We're going to talk about.

Generally just these bigger concepts. And the first thing that we'll talk about and beyond the surface is collective cultural grammar. And so these are the patterns that play in the society. These are norms, laws, and codes that.

People in the society subscribe to. But we're looking at.

The primary ones that are at Play these primary patterns of expected behavior that are at play in the story.

So what's the expectation of someone who is in Struther's position, someone who has witnessed a crime, what does the society expect him to do?

Report the crime? To tell what he knows.

Exactly. And so. Right, so that's perfect. So we've identified the collective cultural grammar in play is that if you witness a crime, you reveal the truth. And we can look at beyond the surface stakes in terms of when does he differentiate from that collective cultural grammar and when does he conform to it? So how would you.

Classify that?

Well, if he leaves, he differentiates, and if he stays, he conforms.

Yeah, absolutely.

And we're talking. We're talking about the collective cultural grammar inside of this particular story. Correct. So some other story might have a different collective cultural grammar around these types of things.

Exactly.

Right. So. Well, so like in a. And, you know, if we use, like a cliche in jail, stitches get snitches. So if you see something, you keep your mouth shut. Right. So that would be a different collective culture or grammar.

Right, exactly. Okay, right. And so it's the collective cultural grammar that informs the. The primary connections that play in the story. So here we're exploring the interaction between Struthers and Capelli, and that relationship is founded on this collective cultural grammar of telling the truth when you witness something. Whereas, like in the prison scenario, the. The collective cultural grammar between the prisoners is that you don't say anything.

But I'm thinking about. You could have something taking place in a prison where the primary relationship is between, say, a prisoner and a warden, where you're still operating under this collective cultural grammar of revelation. Like, I'm thinking of Brooklyn9.9 when he goes into the prison and he's, like, working out a deal with the warden. And so then the collective cultural grammar in play, because that's the primary connection, is one of revelation.

So we can then. But. But yeah, we have. We have the same differentiation and conformity for that collective cultural grammar based on those options.

And another level to look at beyond the surface is in terms of that core relationship. So we have the relationship with Capelli as the core one at play in this story. Which option would break down his relationship with Capelli and which one would build it up?

If he leaves, it'll break it down. If he stays, it'll build it up.

Exactly. So this is playing on the universal patterns of connection and isolation that we want to build up connections and create an enabling fabric of relationships between different nodes. And so that's why this is important beyond the surface is that we strive for that connection and try to avoid isolation.

And then the final one that we have is playing back to.

The controlling idea. How we talked about this in the scene event synthesis episode.

Is that.

Let me just read this out. What we have is that there's a greater probability of justice when discretion is the better part of valor. And so when we have discretion is the better part of valor, we want to talk about that idea of valor and talk about what the trade off is there between valor as discretion and valor as something else. So when we were evaluating that, what we're looking at are, like, different ways to.

Differentiate and shine through valor. So he picks this valor through silence option. And then what happens in terms of valor and in terms of his own recognition if he stays and speaks up?

Well, again, I feel like when I'm looking at that controlling idea, we're looking at it from a different vantage where if we go all the way back to the pop or the. What we were calling at the time, the what if scenario, it's like, okay, we have this wisened old detective who pulls out this report.

And gives it. And what he's trying to. What he's trying to teach Sam is that valor can show up in lots of different ways. And in this particular way, valor shows up as discretion.

But I don't think that's the same thing happening for Struthers. That's a different thing happening for Struthers. Struthers is not leaving and keeping discretion for this greater good of valor. He's doing it for the opposite reason of valor. But I think of valor as, like, bravery and courage. Like, when I hear valor. So maybe I don't have a good definition of that word in my head, but to me, he's giving up valor to leave. And if he stayed, he would side on this, the side of valor. Because we seem to be looking at it only through Struthers.

Yeah, I'm thinking of it in terms of.

Like, when. When you talked about what's right. I. I see. This is where what's right comes out. So. So he's operating under this concept of. Of valor, like sticking up for his family through being silent. That. Like.

That. This is. This is what he. He's operating under this. Under this expression of. Of what is most valuable.

Can I jump in about courage here? All right, so is it more courageous to tell the truth and relieve your responsibility.

If there are collateral. If there's collateral damage and your family could get hurt? Or is it More courageous to have cognitive dissonance and withhold the information and protect your family. So you're going to feel terrible because you're carrying a burden, but you're going to safeguard other people. So you're sacrificing your internal.

Integrity for the good of others. Is that courageous? Or is it more courageous to free yourself of your internal disintegration, but it makes more people more vulnerable to being hurt. That's how I would define courage is having personal sacrifices for the greater good.

Well, see, this is where. This is where I feel like. I start to feel like. I'm sure I'm just not understanding it, but I feel like we're shooting at a moving target. Because a couple questions ago, you're like, well, in this scene, the goal was to show up to give his testimony. So if he doesn't give his testimony, he's going to leave with this cognitive dissonance. But now we're looking at it through the. And. And that was a correction on me saying, yeah, but it puts his family at risk. You're like, yeah, but in this scene, his goal when he showed up was to give his testimony. So that's what we're looking at. But now what you're saying is we're now looking at it through the lens of protecting his family, not this other goal. So I think this is where I start to just spin out in my head is it's like, well, I understand what makes this such a good scene is there are competing goals. He can't get everything that he wants at the same time. But I feel like, well, if we're looking at valor through the standpoint of the goal of whether or not he tells what happened, then he went down on the valor thing when he left. But maybe he went up from the standpoint of his family, or maybe not. Maybe his. His. His family would stand with him and say, hey, we'll take the hit. You know, you do what's right. You know, go come home on your shield. Holding your shield or on it. Okay, but you see. I mean, I. I don't know.

See, you're. All right, hold on, hold on, hold on. I get it. I get it. But what you're doing is you're doing a reductionist argument. And what that means is that you're saying, this is different than this, and this is different than this, and they never link. And there's no connection between, well, being truth and beauty. And what I'm saying to you is complexity means that they have links. And so you can look at each level. And you can think about each level, but you need to think of those levels in terms of the other two at the same time. And then what you do is you say, you add up well, being increased if leave, courage increased if leave. And then you see how many pluses are in each column and how many negatives are in each column. And instead of saying, well, we're just flip flopping and flip flopping. Well, courage requires a consideration of the well being, of the increase of life, which, yeah, that, that, that does go to the. And it circles. Right. It's not, it's not a fractured. Here's my answer here, here's my answer here and here's my answer here. And I put them all together and I'm done. No, they, they're, they're tightly bound together. So you can, you, you have to be very careful and very disciplined in the way that you look at each of these levels because they are tightly interconnected. But you still can say there's an emphasis for each of them. And then you can do. This is what makes a complex story because we need to balance our understanding of well being, truth and beauty in very difficult circumstances that there's no single answer. I can't tell you whether or not it's a good idea to rat somebody out or to keep the information to yourself because it's what, it's dependent upon the context. So what we're doing in stories and when we're looking and analyzing stories is we're really trying to be very careful and to clearly delineate each of these levels. But we also have to be cognizant that they are tightly connected too.

Because is it courageous to lie? Not really. But in this case.

See that this blue band is what links the green and the red together. So that's why it gets a little bit tricky. Because will you withstand, is it better to withstand the disintegration of your agency and your mind if you can trade that for well, being of other people? Well, what will we, what word would we call that? That would be courageous because you're carrying a burden so that other people don't have to.

So I understand the frustration and it's probably because we've been doing this for quite some time. And when you're really putting a lot of directed attention at this very specific, these specific questions, it can get.

Mind trippy. But I don't believe that you can just say we can't consider well being and truth when we're talking about beauty.

And beauty is one of its manifestations is a courageous act that increases the, the cultivation of life and truth and beauty itself. So.

So would you say so, so here's what I'm hearing is, okay, we're going to look at on the surface and that's the well being and then we're going to look at the, the truth level. And then the blue is this kind of standing back and looking at all of everything at one time. And so that's why you're, that's why you're telling me. Well, it's. Yeah, now we're looking at all of it.

Yes, we're trying to put the pieces together into some greater than, than their parts. And that's what Strothers does. And that's why the controlling idea of this story is discretion is the part of better part of valor sometimes, you know, because that, that, that means he's more courageous by keeping his mouth shut. Because what he's doing is he's sacrificing his internal integrity for, for a larger good. And he's sacrificing, he's telling. He's not telling a lie, but he's not revealing the truth. So he has to manage which is more important.

My reputation as a truth teller and a proper member of society.

So is it okay if my friends call me a jerk for not ratting out? Can I handle that pressure? Have I made the right decision? Weighing all the factors and I believe he came down on the right side of that equation and so does Capelli.