Photo by Kenan Kitchen on Unsplash
In my posts on days 22 and 23,I shared my analysis of a simple short story to help show the way we shift from thinking as readers to thinking as writers. This post offers more thoughts on how to draw insights from the text of a story. (For more information on literal action and essential action, see A Practical Handbook for the Actor by Bruder, Cohn, Olnek, Pollack, Previto, and Zigler.)
As a reminder, literal action is what the characters are doing or what we could be observe them doing and saying. We spot these actions by making note of the external actions (verbs) that happen in a scene or short story.
For example, in the opening paragraphs of The Tale of Peter Rabbit, Mrs. Rabbit speaks (said), took (an umbrella and basket, very sensible), went, and bought.
In response, Flopsy, Mopsy, and Cotton-tail went while Peter ran and squeezed. Once there, he eats a lot.
This can be tedious and fiddly work, but we already can make an interesting comparison between Mrs. Rabbit and the siblings, and Peter. The siblings went, which is just what their mother did. This is not an unintentional echo of went; it emphasizes that Flopsy, Mopsy, and Cotton-tail are good bunnies following directions and the example set by their mother.
Peter, whom we’re told is very naughty, ran and squeezed under the gate. He made a hasty decision and did precisely the opposite of what he’d been told and warned not to do. Notice that Beatrix Potter uses more specific verbs here and that Peter’s actions seem more exciting than that of his siblings.
From these initial actions, we gain useful information. What the characters do in response to what they observe points to what they want and how they pursue that.
Peter’s mother warns the children in response to the death of her husband and the need for food. She is trying to put her children on the right path because she wants them to stay safe.
Flopsy, Mopsy, and Cotton-tail heed their mother’s warning. Their actions aren’t as specific as the other characters (also they act in unison). We can guess that they also want to stay safe, but the emphasis on “good little bunnies” suggests that they are seeking their mother’s approval.
Peter immediately disregards the warning, rushes into the garden without regard for his safety, and begins eating. He’s trying his luck because he doesn’t want to be constrained by his mother’s rules and wants the veggies in the garden.
You can see how this is setting up conflict between Peter and his mother. The main conflict of the story is between Peter and McGregor, however.
McGregor, upon spotting Peter in his garden, jumps up, runs, waves his rake, and calls out, “Stop thief.” He is defending his patch because he wants to keep his vegetables.
They both want the vegetables and can’t both get their way, setting up a scenario in which McGregor uses deadly force.
When we understand what the characters want and how they are pursuing it, we can make character behavior consistent over time and show change in those who transform. And, just as important, we can fill our stories with conflict to keep readers engaged.
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 give me enough space to cover these topics adequately. I aim to keep them brief enough to be read quickly, but they will often be longer than 400 words.