In my day 22 post, I shared an analysis of a simple short story to help show the way we begin to shift from reading for enjoyment to reading as writers.
This analysis had three components:
Literal action
Essential action (conflict)
Change
With this information we know what happens (we can “see” the action), why it’s happening (the essence of the conflict between the protagonist and antagonist), and the most important change that happens.
Writers show the conflict and change through what happens, or the literal action. In this story, we can summarize the literal action this way: Peter infiltrates, then escapes from McGregor’s garden. This brief description collapses specific events so we can think about them at a more macro level. Generally speaking, the verbs infiltrate and escape suggest that this is a story about someone who enters a dangerous labyrinth, where a villain runs the show, but manages to get home.
We can add some details to the literal action this way.
Peter ignores his mother’s warning about his father’s death and enters McGregor’s garden. When Peter gets lost and stuck in the gooseberry net, then is nearly caught with a sieve, he runs past McGregor to the gate to escape.
We’re unpacking “infiltrate and escape” with these two sentences and adding some qualifiers. For example, Peter wasn’t only entering the garden, he was ignoring a warning as he did so. We’re also adding specificity to the obstacles Peter faces in getting back home. He gets lost, stuck, and nearly caught.
How can we unpack this even further in a useful way that helps us understand cause and effect from beginning to end?
Peter’s mother reminds her children of an ongoing threat—their father entered McGregor’s garden, was killed, and put into a pie. Peter’s actions in infiltrating the garden show us he doesn’t take it seriously, a clue to his essential action.
Running from McGregor, Peter gets caught in a gooseberry net as the farmer approaches with a sieve. Peter realizes the threat was real, which is vital to his survival, but now he’s stuck in the garden. He can choose to hide or run past McGregor. Either way, he risks his father’s fate.
Peter runs for the gate. (Notice, he is able to ignore the food, what he wants, this time.)
Peter escapes the garden (labyrinth), but he is ill and doesn’t get to have dinner with his family. In other words, he survives, but doesn’t come through it unscathed. He is, however, wiser about the threat McGregor presents.
How can we summarize all of these actions in a brief and meaningful statement?
Peter is safe but ill when, after he is almost caught, he runs right past McGregor to the gate, despite the risk he’ll be grabbed and killed.
This process of breaking down a story helps us understand the decisions the writer made while crafting the story. We use the text and what literally happens to identify the essence of the conflict and the change that occurs.
When we write our own stories, we can work in the other direction. With a clear understanding of the conflict and change we want to show, we can imagine specific literal actions the characters can take to do that. We uncover the conflict and change by building on our story’s essence.
This post is part of a 75-day writing challenge and experiment. From September 9 through November 22, I'll be posting daily thoughts on writing, storytelling, and creativity based on recent readings or reflections. While my intention was to keep them very short—250 to 400 words—I've found that this range doesn't always give me enough space to cover these topics