What is happening in your story? (Part 1)

Hello and welcome to the StoryGrid podcast. My name is Tim Grall. I'm your host and I am a struggling writer trying to figure out how to tell a story that works. Joining me is Sean Coyne. He's the founder and creator of StoryGrid and the author of the book the Storygrid. Also I have Leslie Watts, she's our editor in chief at Story Grid Publishing. And I have Danielle Kielski, who is our chief academic officer over at Story Grid Universe. This week we're going over the four story analysis questions. Now this one went pretty long, so it's going to end up being a two parter, but it's really important because these four questions really help you nail what's happening in each scene of your story. So Danielle is leading the way this week, so I'm going to kick it over to her to help us get started.

Thanks, Tim. So the reason that I'm leading this week is that we're moving into the green or on the surface band. So as we move through the 6:24, we moved from blue, where we were talking about the five leaf genre clover and the what if that became the proposition of possibility, into the red where we talked about narrative device and point of view. And now we're moving into green. And so this is about how to take the concepts that, that we've talked about in previous weeks and build a bridge from the ideas that we've talked about to the actual page. So we're going to be talking in the green level about the ways to get words on the page and how to actually plan out the, the events of the scene and make sure that the execution aligns with the intent that we formed in the other levels. So that's what we'll be starting with today, with our foreseen event. So synthesis questions. And we're going to move through them one by one. They're going to build on each other and eventually we're going to get to the scene event synthesis, which is going to give us a summary of what we're trying to accomplish in the scene. So to start out, we'll dive into the first question and the first question is what are the avatars literally doing? So in this question we want to talk about what are they doing that we can see play out on the page. So this is, it's literal. We're not reading into their actions, we're just looking at what they're actually doing. And this is the, the green of the green where we're talking about that on the surface component of what we see on the page. So, Tim, what did you have for that answer?

So we're still looking at the Eyewitness, the short story by Ed McBain. And so under what are the avatars literally doing? I put Detective Capelli is interviewing a witness, trying to get his statement on what he saw, and Mr. Struthers is at the police station to give his statement, but refuses to talk to anyone but the lieutenant.

Okay, great, great. So what we saw there is that you're. You're giving the literal action for both of the main avatars. So that's great because we want a comprehensive view of what's going on on the page. And that is the literal action.

Is in. In many ways, it's, you know, what you can see. And so it makes sense that we're. We have a really aligned answer there. I think one thing that we can do is get into the tactics a little bit more. So you had a really nice summary. What kinds of. What kinds of actions is Struthers taking to.

Interact with Capelli?

He is. So what kind of actions is he taking to interact with Capelli?

Well, I feel like he keeps putting him off. So he keeps just saying he wants to talk to the lieutenant, and he keeps saying that.

He won't talk to anybody but the lieutenant.

Okay, great. And let's go to the text for this in the green band. It's often really good to go to the text because it's on the page. So we have evidence here. So I think this makes. What you're saying, the summary that you have makes sense. We had. We were talking about questioning Capelli, and I think that this is. It's a dynamic that's in there because he's posing questions not necessarily in a questioning mode, but by saying things like that he's worried about his family, he's posing implied questions to Capelli about whether he will be safe or not.

I'm.

I struggle. So these are those things where the question seems pretty straightforward, and then I get lost a little bit in the answering, because when I'm looking at what are the avatars literally doing, I think some of the ways we've talked about this before is like, if I had a camera and I was just watching what they were doing, what would I be seeing?

And so we don't want to get into, like, their motivations or anything, but it does change, because if I get too detailed, I'm literally just re. Describing what was already described in the. In the scene, and it changes over the scene. So Mr. Struthers at first is just sitting there and, you know, looks horrible, and then he's saying, you know, he wouldn't talk to the lieutenant, and then he follows him into the office and then he tells the story and then he sees the lieutenant and runs out the door. So I'm always curious, like, how granular are we getting? And.

Yeah, well, the key point here is that we're trying to provide.

A summary with enough granularity that we can understand what is salient about this scene in terms of energy transfer to Sam. So on the surface is all about the transfer of energy generating excitement and anxiety and those kind of concepts. And so we want to break down the events so that we can understand the energy transfer. So when I hear the summary that he's putting off Strothers and. Or not Struthers putting off Capelli and shutting him down.

Within that category, I could imagine a scene like this because that's a true summary. Or I could imagine a scene where Struthers is shutting him down to the extent that he doesn't have any openings to prove himself. But Struthers isn't completely shutting down. He's not putting up walls and not talking at all. He's engaging to the point where Capelli has the opportunity to break through and he does in the scene. So I think that if you can think about what's the energy transfer of the scene and try to generate counterfactuals that fit within the summary that you already have, if there's something that's really different, then that's an indicator that maybe you haven't gone far enough in describing what's going on in the scene, if they have really different dynamics that would both fit within the same summary.

What do you mean by counterfactuals?

Like other scenes that would fit into your description? So the counterfactual. There would be another scene in which Struthers would be shutting down Capelli would be one in which he would absolutely not talk to Capelli, regardless of the situation.

Oh, I see. Because I just have refuses to talk to anyone but the Lieutenant. Yeah, yeah, okay.

And so. And that wouldn't be as interesting as seen because if it would have to be shorter, like, there wouldn't be as. As much room for the interaction back and forth between them if he doesn't have any cracks that Capelli could find his way into. So I would say that's. That's the test for granularity is just. Does it. Does it narrow your focus down to the key interaction dynamics that are happening between the avatars. And so that's why we have that questioning in there, because it does allow for that sense of openness.

I see. You're saying Mr. Strothers is at the police station to give his statement and is questioning. And is questioning Detective Capelli about whether he should talk to him or talk to the lieutenant.

Yeah. Yeah.

Okay.

Yes. And we have that summarized as trustworthiness, which is a concept we can talk about later. But he's trying to figure out whether he can trust him or not.

And then Capelli.

You have that he's interviewing him and taking down his statement, and. That's. Right. What kind of dynamics do you think are going on there? Thinking in the same vein.

So I had Detective Capelli's interviewing a witness, trying to get his statement on what he saw.

He's trying to keep Mr. Struthers engaged in the conversation so that he doesn't get him shut down. So I feel like he's.

I feel like what he did was basically pull out every tool he could to keep Mr. Struthers talking to him, knowing eventually if he kept talking, he'd tell him the whole story.

So he's using some interviewing techniques to draw him into the conversation, maybe make him. Make him comfortable. Does. Does Capelli know that Struthers is telling the truth?

No.

Okay, so does he know that by the end?

Yes.

Okay, so how does he get to that point?

How does he get to the point that he knows he's telling the truth? Yeah, there's a moment I'm trying.

Doesn't he say something that they hadn't released publicly.

Or maybe not. I'm trying to remember now.

I think it's where he says that he sees fear in his eyes instead of stubbornness.

That would. That would turn somebody into thinking he's telling the truth.

I think that's his first indication there.

Okay.

Because.

It'S his indication that he's not just trying to get to the lieutenant because the lieutenant is high ranking, but because he's actually afraid for his life. So he understands at that point that Struthers is feeling the pressure of real stakes there.

Okay.

Then. And then when he gets the details, I mean, all of the details play into this.

So.

What I'm getting at there is that we summarize that as that he's looking for tells of his truthfulness. So that could be his expression. It could be the details that he's giving.

It could be in other stories. This happens a lot in crime stories where it's something that hasn't been released to the public. And so these are all tells that the. The witness is someone who can be believed. And so.

With a detective especially, this is something where.

The detectives function is this, this filtering function that they're taking in statements and they're filtering out what. What's true and what's not, based on their training and their experience.

And that's going to take him from. From disbelief to. To belief.

So I think as we're talking through it, that's something that comes up as a. As a filter for that granularity that you're talking about. What kinds of behaviors are fueling the changes that we see in the scene?

Okay.

But I think that you. You have really good summaries going on there. Another thing that we like to talk about.

In the literal action is what kind of scene is it? So do you have an idea of what kind of scene type?

You'd summarize this as an interrogation scene.

Okay, that's where we started also, and.

We'Ve had a good discussion about this as we went through our analysis, because.

It struck us that interrogation has connotations of an adversarial dynamic where one person is trying to entrap the other. But do you think that there might be, or how would you describe the dynamic between these two avatars?

I don't know. It's not trusting. It's probably suspicious. They're both suspicious of the other one.

Mm, yeah. So they aren't necessarily opposed, but they aren't necessarily allied.

Right. So they're suspicious of each other, and they're trying to figure out what.

They'Re trying to figure out without allowing too much vulnerability.

What they should think. So we called this, which side are you on? Seen for exactly that reason that they're trying to figure out.

Whether the other can be trusted or not.

Okay.

And interrogation would be a subset of. Of these kind of scenes where.

One side is trying to get a confession or. Or get the other one to admit guilt. And in this one, it's about. It's about figuring out the truth, figuring out which side the witness is going to come down on, whether they're witnessing accurately and faithfully, or whether they're witnessing for personal gain. These are the kind of questions that Capelli's trying to answer. And then Struthers is trying to answer whether Capelli is trustworthy or not in his professional capacity.

And so just to recap on the scene type, it's important to figure out the scene type because what that allows us to do is look at similar scenes that fall into the same category and other works, and we can start to compare the execution of these scenes and see what the most important features are. So this is like looking at genre at the global level. We can find stories that fit into the same category and start to figure out what the essential features of the genre are. And we can do that with scenes at the scene level. So we can look at which site are you on scenes and figure out which are the essential features that we'll need to have in our scene and which are unique to this individual execution. But by creating that category, it allows us to do that comparison and contrast.

So how do you go about.

Figuring out.

Like, I don't think I would have ever. You had given me a. If you'd given me a really long time to sit with this and think about it, I would have landed on, oh, this is a. Whose side of you are on scene? And then these are the things that make it a Whose side of you on scene? And then I can now go find other scenes like that. Like how. What are you looking for when you're trying to find. Because when you say, you know, figuring out what the scene type is, it's like.

Yeah, I don't know how to do that. How would I figure out what a scene type is?

Yeah, this is really similar to the granularity question that we talked about earlier. I would say, because it's about how to. It's about what's useful.

So if you said, this is an interrogation scene and you went out and looked for other interrogation scenes, that would be useful to you. So I don't think that that's a bad thing, a bad place to start.

Okay.

What you would do then is you would get a lot of interrogation scenes, and then you would start to look at them and you would start to say.

Do these all have the same salient features? And I think that.

As you get more examples and more familiarity with the context, you'll start to see important distinctions arise where you say, okay, this bucket of them where the detective is interacting with a witness, they have really different dynamics and different progressions than these where the detective is interacting with a suspect. And so I think that even if you started out at a place, at a. At a simpler place, that you would, through study and accumulation of examples, start to see the same nuances that we're getting at, where we're trying to really differentiate the types of scenes that have different functions within the narrative. That's what we're getting at. And so just with more familiarity, you'll start to pick those apart.

And so once we land. So I could see that of like, oh, it's an interrogation scene. And then as I start thinking through or looking at other interrogation scenes, seeing like, well, ones where we have, you know, somebody talking to a witness versus suspect. Those are different because of these. And then when I'm trying to fill out the literal action on the page for this particular scene, I want to pull out the things that make this a unique type of whose side are you on interrogation scene. Is that what you're saying?

Yeah, I think that's a great summary.

So in this particular case, that's when I start looking at it and saying, well, you know, what's unique about this is that the witness wants to tell the story but refuses to tell the story at the same time. So if he just refused, he wouldn't have even shown up. So he showed up because he wants to tell the story, but he won't tell the story. So what's unique about that is he's actually. Oh, that's where we start landing on things like, well, he's questioning whether or not he should tell his story to this particular detective. And on the detective side, he's interacting with this witness probably at first the way he would any witness, which is, all right, tell me what's going on? Why won't you tell me? And then once he realizes this guy's really afraid, that turns him on to the fact that, like, okay, I need to actually do everything I can to get this guy's story.

Yeah. And we see in the story they've got a line of people out the door who want to tell them what they saw in this particular crime because it's high profile. Right. So why is this witness different? And it's because he's. He's afraid.

Okay.

Yeah. Sean and Leslie, do you have anything to. To talk about with literal action?

Yeah, I just like to pile on to the which side are you on? Category of seeing, and sort of frame it a little bit about the functionality of what that category means. So.

What you're talking about when. When you're having interactions between two people or a person and an environment is it's sort of a measurement system. So when you go into a unique novel environment, you want to measure the environment to see if you fit in that environment or not or what you have to do to adapt to that environment. So similarly, when we're. When we're with a person that we've never met before, the first thing we do is sort of test them and question them to test whether or not this is a person who's like me, who, who will. Who will play games with me that are good for both of us, right? So that's testing their trustworthiness. And, and in a crime story, you have that. That sensibility, and it's very clean because you understand that there's. There's a powerful figure and then there's the other person that they're trying to, you know, get information from or get a confession, right? So the which side are you on? Is a. Is a global interaction behavioral pattern that we all do. So if you were to see somebody across the street, you would. You would wonder, hey, I wonder if they're like me. So what would you do? You would kind of wave and go, hey, how you doing? And if they wave back, you go, oh, okay. They're okay. So that's, that's a. Which side are you are on interaction? Because if you wave and they give you the stink eye, then you're like, oh, that's not someone who's like me. They've got a problem with me. Therefore, the next, you know, sort of interaction I have them is going to be. Be different. So it's this measurement that we do all the time that we don't really think about that. When you're. When you're writing a story or you're analyzing a story, you need to start thinking about what are the. What's the interaction here? What's going on? Are they trying. What are they trying to get from one another? And so the. Which side are you on scene? In this context, there's three possible, you know, things, right? It could be a suspect. So the detective could be trying to get a confession. It could be a witness. And so that would be kind of like an examination or a probing of the witness to see if they're truthful, to see how good their information is. And the last one would be kind of like an informant, right? And an informant on the street is someone who's selling. They're selling information. So, so the detective has to trust whether or not, A, the information is valuable, and B, how flighty, you know, the informant is. So those are sort of three global subsets of the which side are you on scene for a crime story that has a detective? So I just wanted to blow that out a little bit to get people a sense of. In crime stories, these. Which side are you on? Scenes are really important because you do a lot of interviewing in crime stories. So you have to mix and match and do all kinds of fun stuff that are different and unique.

So one of the ways that I think about this is we're looking at the literal action in terms of we're analyzing a story. If we're looking at.

Because we want to plan a story or we want to analyze a draft that we have written, we. We look at this a little bit differently. And I do think that.

The level of granularity will vary by writer because we all have different needs.

In this regard. But.

The advice I often give is to get as specific as you can. Just keep going until it feels like it's a little bit broken, and then back off where it's like where it's not to where it's useful again.

And so when I'm looking at these, I'm thinking about.

What, you know, what is the context? What kinds of behaviors typically happen in this context? What, you know, what are the things within it that people can be playing around with?

Right.

There's not a lot. They don't do a lot in this particular scene, but we would want to think about that, for example, more in a fight scene. And then.

And then I'm thinking about, you know, what are the avatars doing before the turning point, and then what are they doing, you know, after the turning point? And these are all kind of just. That's the starting point that I use for. For beginning to think, to condense what's. What the avatars are literally doing, and then thinking about a scene type. So when I'm thinking about the scene type, I take the literal action that we have going on, and then I start stripping out details until there's something that is. That could happen in any scene. So the. Which side are you on, of course, is happening before, you know which side they're on. If you're, you know, if you're in an interrogation situation where you have an actual suspect, that's definitely going to be a different situation because, you know, you're on different sides. And so the. What that means is that what you literally do will be a little bit different.

So those are just some extra considerations.

That I think about when I'm thinking about this question.

Yeah, I think that's fantastic. And one of the concepts that you're getting out there is portability. That's something that we discuss a lot. So about abstracting to the point where it could happen anywhere. So an interrogation scene.

Is a little crime biased because of the. The connotations of the word interrogation. And so that is one of the. One of the considerations is stripping away the. The Genre context to get to something that is more applicable broadly. And. And the reason for that, going back to the reason why we have seen types to begin with so that we can identify essential features. If you can look across genres and get examples, it's going to be.

It's going to supercharge your ability to understand these scenes, because if you look within one genre, you might get some false signals about what kinds of things are essential, because you might be getting some of the genre trappings constraining. If you can look outside and get. Get very different examples, you'll start to see very clearly the commonalities between the types of scenes within that type of scene, across genres. And also what it allows you to do is to take something from a completely different context and learn from it and integrate it into your work. And the cool thing there is that this is how we can innovate.

And so innovation often comes from combining two different things that exist in different contexts. All right, so I think unless anyone has any other thoughts before we move on, we can go to question two.

All right, so this one is, what are the essential tactics of the avatars? So this is moving into our above the surface zone. So we're talking about information processing. We're talking about objects of desire here. So an essential tactic is what the avatar is doing to get to their object of desire. And so here, to get grammatically specific, we like to use a transitive verb. And that is a verb that takes an object. So what that means is the avatar does a verb to something. So if you say, for example, the avatar tries to get someone on their side, they get is the verb, and then someone on their side is the object of desire. So by the end of the scene, they want to know whether someone is on their side. And that creates a clear test for whether they accomplish their objective desire in the scene or not. Because at the end of the scene, you can test whether they have someone on their side or not. So this is generally how we'll formulate essential tactics, and it gives us a filter through which we can look at avatar actions and ensure that they're always pursuing that objective desire clearly, according to their essential tactics. So, Tim, in this scene, what are the essential tactics that you identified for the avatars?

So for detective Capelli, I say that he is deploying all the tools in his detective toolbox to convince the witness to tell his story without bothering the lieutenant.

I feel like that one's pretty good because it has his object of desire.

Yeah, he's trying to convince the Witness is the core of that. So convince would be your verb, and the witness telling his story would be. Would be your object of desire.

Well, but isn't a part of his objective desire to not bother the lieutenant as well? Right. Because if it was only convincing the witness to his story, if that was his only object of desire, then as soon as Mr. Struthers was like, I'm only talking to the lieutenant, he'd say, okay, and take you to the lieutenant.

Yeah. Yeah. I don't think that you have anything extraneous there. Okay. It's just the grammatical core is that. But I think that you're identifying a really important thing there, which is getting at the double factor ness of the problem that Capelli faces as well. So that's something that we talked about when we talked about Sam's problem in the narrative device episode, that the questions that we face in stories, we always have constraints on them. And so by highlighting the constraints, you're. You're getting at how difficult this problem is for Capelli. And that's not because he's not the protagonist. We're not talking about a parallel to Sam's problem here, but it is important to. Whenever you look at a problem that any avatar is facing, consider all of the constraints on them and all of the factors going into their decision. So, yeah, I think that's a really good summary. What about for Struthers?

So I have Mr. Struthers wants to do the right thing and give his statement, but is scared and trying to make sure he is taken seriously. But given.

Your explanation you just gave of the essential tactics question, I start thinking it needs to be something more of like.

Mr. Struthers wants to give his statement while remaining safe.

Yeah, I think these are all playing in the same field that we have. So for Capelli, we have trying to get Struthers on his side to get him to reveal his information, which is exactly parallel to what you have. And then for Struthers, we have that he's measuring the trustworthiness of the detectives to evaluate the probability of releasing his information with guarantees of safety. So it's just a different way of phrasing what you're talking about and encapsulating that same idea. So we're definitely thinking in the same space, but we have this added component of measuring trustworthiness, and we started talking about that a little bit in the. On the surface, and we are. We're pulling apart this concept. So in the. On the surface, he's questioning the trustworthiness. These are the. The Actual, the actual actions that he's taking involve things like observing signs of trustworthiness and then creating situations where he can get more evidence. But to actually measure the trustworthiness and come up with that measurement, that's an information processing system that Struthers is doing in this scene. So by the end of the scene, he needs to have, he needs to have a good sense of whether Capelli is trustworthy or not.

And so.

Do you see that dynamic playing out in the scene?

He, at the beginning of the scene, he wants to talk to the lieutenant. Is it because he thinks the lieutenant will be more trustworthy than this detective standing in front of him?

Yeah.

Yeah. So then I see where this whole time he's.

He wants, yeah, it feels like he wants to give his statement, but he's just not sure if he can trust Capelli to take his statement.

Right. So I think if we go to the text, the reason that he thinks that the lieutenant is going to be more trustworthy is that he knows it's the lieutenant's wife who was killed. So he thinks that the lieutenant with a personal interest will be less susceptible to the corruption. But he says as soon as he comes in that he's worried that if he talks then he's going to.

That the information will go further and that he'll be in danger.

So. Right. I don't want any slip ups. I don't want him coming after me next. And so this is what he's getting out there is that there's corruption in the police department and if he says anything, then he might be a target. And so the lieutenant, with his personal connection, he thinks that he's trustworthy. So at the point he can't get to the lieutenant, he needs to make a measurement of which, which avenue to the lieutenant is the safest. And so Capelli is this candidate. So we don't see Magruder's.

Interrogation of him. So he, so Magruder has already talked to him and he's already made the evaluation that he is untrustworthy. And so then we see the interaction with Capelli and he makes that measurement.

Okay.

And so the concept of trustworthiness here is really, is an interesting one to unpack a little bit. And the idea is that because we're always trying to figure out trustworthiness. So like Sean, what you were talking about with the person on the other side of the street, you put feelers out there and they're not necessarily directly related feelers because those can open you up to vulnerability. So you try to feel your way around the issue and come up with as much evidence as you can for whether the other person is playing in the same. Playing on the same team, in the same ballpark that you are. So there are a couple of different factors there. So it's like, are we playing the same game important and are we aligned in our goal within that game also important? And you can do that through exploring the different cultural grammars that are going on and looking for signals that the other person will be in the same arena. And something that occurs to me is things like codes to get into speakeasies and things like that. That means you know the right people, right? So it doesn't matter that you know the passphrase, but the passphrase is a signaling device that you're not, you know, a police officer who's going to bust up the speakeasy or something like that. So you're looking for signaling devices that signal a cluster of characteristics that taken together mean that the person is trustworthy. And this is a multi sensory experience where it's based on how the person looks, how they smell, how it feels to be around them, how they shake your hand, whether they wave to you, how they sound. So a lot of this is subconscious processing, but there's also this conscious component where we create situations where we can get more evidence if we're unsure. And that's what Struthers is doing in this scene.

Well, I think that trustworthiness, because it's in the red zone right above the surface. Now what do we know about the red zone? It's the information processing system of your mind. So what information processing requires is data, right? So trustworthiness is a probability analysis. So if I spend a lot of time with someone and I learn their habits and I realize that we're sort of on the same team and that they're part of my tribe, or there's somewhere inside of my comfort zone of someone I can be trustful of. The longer I spend with them and the more data points they give me that they're trustworthy, the more I will trust them. But it doesn't mean that there isn't some boundary condition where they will, they will defect from my trust. So we're constantly doing these data compressions with the people that we know to are you playing the same game or not? Are you on the same page or not? And once we start getting signals that they're starting to defect, then we have to alter our interactions with them and our relationships with them. So it's this dance between the interactions of the energies that they're giving us and the energies we're putting back. And we're constantly measuring each other to make sure that we're on the same side and that we're not playing an adversarial win lose game.

And even though we, we do value transfers with people who are in the same sort of tribe as we are, we can do those kind of transactions without it getting too, too messy. And we don't feel that we're being taken or we're being manipulated so that they get a better deal. Right. So this is part of the interactional play between systems of beings with one another.

So trustworthiness again is a functionality of information processing which puts it into the above the surface red realm. And so the way that happens in real life, the behaviors are things like we ask a lot of questions. We, we're constantly doing checks to see that someone's not BSing us.

And so that's the. Remember when we were talking about the green, we said strothers questioning. Right. So that's what we can see on the page. And the questioning then targets us, always checking for trustworthiness, because those are links.

So trustworthiness again is another really fundamental component of interaction. So knowing about how we come to trust someone and when we get betrayed is an important tool for writers and storytellers.

Yeah, and it occurs to me to connect that to the shapeshifter archetype too.

Because that probability function that you're talking about, the avatar is trying to figure it out. But the author needs to know what the boundaries of defection are for all of the avatars. So if you're creating like a fellowship, they might all be going after the same object of desire right now, but that doesn't mean they will be forever. So you need to know what everyone's bounds of defection are so that you can show conflict within the group as you go on in the story, have defectors arise as you go on in the story, and have people shapeshift that aren't having internal transformations. So shape shifters will have on the surface transformations where they act differently in different situations, but they have an internally consistent objective desire and goal state. And we'll just see them shift based on the context in which they find themselves.

So when I'm thinking about essential tactic, I drop down from the what the avatars are literally doing. And so this is just kind of a shortcut way, Right? Like what they're actively doing. Then I think about, well, why are they doing that and what Are the tactics within that.

So again, the avatars are doing stuff, and there are tactics within that, and they're doing that because of something that they want. And then I take it a step further and I think about they're doing it because they want something, because of how they see the situation. And so by framing the essential tactics that way, it really, it helps me, because if one of those aspects is easier to think about than the others, so what they're doing, what the tactic is because of what they want, because of how they see the world, if I know one of those things, then I can. I can figure out the other one. So that's really how I. How I collapse this into a process that enables me to both do analysis of a masterwork scene or to analyze a scene from, you know, from a work in progress or even to. If I'm trying to draft it. I know what my avatars want, I know what their goal is. So I can start thinking about tactics that make sense, and then I can go up to what they're literally doing. So you can move in different directions depending on what's easier for you?

Yeah, that's fantastic. I love that focus on process, because it is. We are going through them in order linearly. But you're absolutely right that in practice, outside of a podcast episode recording, it's very much about going to whichever one's helpful and then using the others to. To shore up. And it goes back to, even at the broader level, like what we were talking about at the. At the beginning that you would go through, through your 624, and then you would, you would re.

Recheck it, make sure that everything aligns and. And go through it multiple times. So great. So now let's. Let's look at the third question. What universal human value has changed for one or more avatars in the scene? So in this one, we're connecting the movement in the scene to the values that we have for our content genres. And so each genre has a value spectrum on which it operates. And we try to identify.

Where we're. Where we're at at the beginning and where we're at at the ending on the spectrum of one of these values, the most salient value for each scene. And so when we're doing this as part of a larger work, we're looking at what, how it contributes to the global arc. And then here we're looking at a short story. So we're looking at what's the core movement of the scene that contributes to, or that that relates to its global genre. So, Tim, what do you have for the value change?

I. I really struggle with these value changes. So I have safety to danger because I was thinking about Mr. Struthers as the protagonist, and, you know, that's where we landed in an earlier episode. But then if we're looking specifically at the genre, which is crime, then I would say it's shifting from.

Justice to injustice by the end.

And then, I mean, are there ways to look at this where we're looking at the value changing on the three different levels? The. On the surface, above the surface, and beyond the surface as well?

We don't really do that. We look at the value shift as a unified thing.

That kind of cuts through those Trinity planes to get to the core shift of the scene as it relates to the global genre. So there are going to be multiple changes happening. And so you can pull that out because in a masterwork, you have one global genre emphasized, and then you'll. You'll have the other value spectrums in play, but you really want to focus in on the core value change in the core.

Value spectrum of the. The global genre. So I think something to start with here.

There are levels of refinement to the. To the value shift. So one thing that I like to start with is just what's the valence of the scene? So not thinking about the. Not thinking about the. The value shift at all. Right now, do you think that the scene.

Is more positive at the end or more negative at the end than it is at the beginning?

Negative.

Okay, so. So what that would mean is that it's a cautionary story that. That Sam should not do what Struthers has done? Do you think that Sam. Do you think that. That the author is trying to communicate that Strothers made the right choice or the wrong choice?

I. I think. I think he's trying to communicate that he made the wrong choice to trust the police department.

What do you think is going to happen after the scene?

Well, I think that they will never hear from Mr. Struthers again.

I think that if Capelli trusted the lieutenant at all, he didn't trust him anymore.

I think the lieutenant.

Probably took steps to make sure that.

Mr. Struthers wasn't going to be used as a witness in the future.

Yeah. Is that. Is that what you're asking?

Yeah. Yeah. So. So the key thing there, I think.

Is that you've identified that.

We've seen that trust is a big deal in the scene. You've identified that Capelli doesn't trust the lieutenant. Anymore.

Right.

So.

So neither does Mr. Struthers.

Right, right. Yeah. And so. So Capelli knows that the lieutenant is the perpetrator, right?

Yes.

Okay.

So the way that we're looking at it is that Struthers comes in and he has.

So. So I want to look at this in terms of the global genre. But. But to start out, Strothers has knowledge.

And he. So he knows who the. He doesn't know who the perpetrator is, but he knows information that will help him identify that person. He doesn't know the name.

By the end, that burden is shared. Capelli knows.

Yeah.

So does that increase or decrease the probability that.

The lieutenant will be brought to justice, do you think?

I think it increases the likelihood that the lieutenant would be brought to justice, yeah.

Right. So this is why we have it as a positive increase over the scene.

Because.

And, and I, I see where you're coming from that it, it looks negative because he runs out of the police station. He's not in the moment getting justice, but because of the knowledge that Capelli has, by the end.

There'S.

As. As you just identified, the chance that the, that the criminal will be brought to justice is higher.

So that's a positive shift in terms of justice.

How much does it matter then, on these questions, on this particular one, who the protagonist is of the scene or the story?

Extremely.

Because to me, if we're looking at it from.

Mr. Struthers point of view.

I mean, I guess.

If we're looking at it, well, for justice, it is closer because he did tell his story and Cappelli believes him. So on the justice, injustice scale, we move closer to justice.

Yeah, yeah. So, right. So will justice be achieved in the situation and where the protagonist is particularly important in terms of value shift is that the protagonist owns the climax that determines the resolution.

So let's imagine that he took the alternate path and he told. He accused the lieutenant.

What could have happened?

What could have happened? He could have. I mean, the lieutenant could have said, you know, he's wrong, he's lying.

The lieutenant.

It would maybe have muddied the waters more because then the Capelli would be caught between, well, who's telling the truth? The lieutenant or this guy.

Right, right. So. So he could have. Right. As, as you're pointing out, the lieutenant could have discredited him, the. The police force, maybe Magruder is. I mean, we know that Struthers doesn't think he's trustworthy. So they could have closed ranks, and now Capelli could be constrained. He could not have the freedom to take it up the chain. Or as you're pointing out, he could be confused. He could not know who to trust himself. And so there are a lot of negative outcomes in terms of justice that could happen if Struthers makes the opposite choice. So Struthers choice to keep silent is key. Key to.

Having the resolution at the state of justice that it is. And so Struthers as the protagonist, his choice is operative in the value shift of the scene. And so that's why the protagonist is so important when we're considering this.

Is that we're looking at the value of.

The value of the situation overall, as enacted by the protagonist, climax, decision.

And then we can make a determination about that with how it falls out in the resolution.

And so, as we were talking about, we have a shift in probability of justice occurring, so we have it moving from possible justice to probable justice. So it's a subtle distinction there between possible, which is.

There'S a possibility that justice might happen, but it's not necessarily likely. It is just one of many possibilities. And then probable, it's still not certain. We don't know what Capelli is going to be able to affect, but it's at least taken a step in the right direction. And so this is.

To get there, it's important to think about the kind of steps that we've walked through, think about the long game of how this value is going to play out. Because this scene has a seeming setback in the moment.

But it is communicating that Struthers made the right choice.

Well, I just want to circle back to.

Tim's very, very astute.

Problem with value shift. Right. So this is very difficult. And so we actually had a discussion about that between the three of us on this. And the medium of the story itself starts to play, in which values you're going to really stress and emphasize.

So if it's a short story, which this is, there's no. There's nothing more to the story than the words in this. In this short story. So that would mean that you want to. You want to really look at the blue and follow the emphasis of the blue. Global value of the genre of the story itself. And so all that means is that you want to look at where is justice at the beginning of the story and justice at the end of the story. Now, if this was a scene within a larger medium and the emphasis was more on safety, so maybe Struthers is attacked when he walks outside of the. Out of the building, right, Then the emphasis would be more on the Green. And life and death would be on play there. So you would play, you know.

Safe to danger or.

Life to death in some realm. So it is important to put these scenes. What, what their emphasis is, is how you determine which value to. To put in your sort of spec sheet.

So because this is a short story, we want to look in the blue realm. Now, if this was one part of a story and it would. And it had life and death stakes in, in this particular scene, then we would use the life and death value spectrum to do our. Our value shift for that particular scene. Now, life and death comes into justice. So it's not. It's not that we're playing fast and loose with value here, because all values stack, right? So it's tricky and it only comes with a lot of practice to start to understand which is the emphasis of the value in this particular unit of story. Now, because this is a scene that's also a short story, that means the scene is the global story. The genre is crime. Therefore, we need to focus on justice in this scene. And that's why we. We got to the point of possibility of justice to probability of justice as the. As the arc of this particular scene itself. So I hope that helps. It's a. It's tricky. And the better you get at being able to identify value in and of itself, the more you'll see where these values move in the green and the red and the blue. So that might be a little bit abstract, but I think it's worthy of emphasizing.