Contents

1) FINDING THE SCENES IN A STORY

2) FREE DOWNLOAD: 7 OBSTACLES ORDINARY PEOPLE FACE…

• Download your free, 15-page white paper

1) FINDING THE SCENES IN A STORY

The essence of storytelling is the specific scene, the “power of one-ness”:

At ONE moment,
in ONE place,
ONE character
performed ONE action

Of course, there are parts of stories that are best summarized:

“Over the next couple days, she tried again and again…”

These summaries have the virtue of taking us quickly from one important scene to the next, without bogging us down in the details.

The trick in storytelling is to get the right balance: which parts of your story are important enough to deserve a full scene, and which parts should be summarized as briefly as possible.

In order to get that balance, though, you first need to know what the scenes are!

Needing the Scene

When you are first telling a story, you may need to tell much of it in “full scene” mode – at least until you begin to understand the story’s organizing principle, namely, what is most important about it for you.

At this point, the tendency to summarize can hide the juicy details that will make your story memorable.

Interestingly, the same problem arises during the interviewing process, too. If you are trying to elicit stories from someone else, you may need to probe behind the summaries for the power of scenes.

How to Elicit Scenes – not just summaries

Some interviewees will tell full scenes without any prompting. But most often, interviewees will tend to summarize scenes rather than flesh them out.

For example, I once interviewed a survivor of a drunk-driving incident. Let’s call the woman Kathy (not her real name). My goal was to help Kathy tell her story of how the drunk driver affected her life.

Kathy responded to my initial questions about what happened to her by saying simply, “A drunk driver ran into me. That’s how I ended up in this wheelchair.”

Notice how her answer is narrative in form but lacks specifics about the collision. There is no specific place or time, and the collision itself is summarized by the words “ran into me.”

Prodding for Details

As an elicitor of stories, you may need to prod several times to get the details that will make this scene come alive and be meaningful for listeners.

In Kathy’s case, I asked her, “Say more about what happened.”

She responded, “He rear-ended me. I wasn’t even moving.”

I said, “Wow! Where were you when this happened?”

She said, “I was on the highway by my house. I had just driven 20 miles and was about to turn into the road I lived on then. I was about 3 blocks from home.”

I said, “You were just driving along and he rear-ended you?”

She said, “No, I was sitting at the light. It was dark so I was being very careful. If I had run that red light, I’d still be able to walk.”

The Pay-Off

To get the full details of the scene, I had to ask several more questions. Eventually I learned that she had been sitting in her stopped car, waiting for the light to turn, and that there were two open lanes next to her in which any rational driver could have passed her.

With the full scene revealed, I felt her helplessness and the incident’s unpredictability. To me, those are the qualities that made me remember this scene ever since.

How to elicit scenes

When you hear your interviewee refer to an episode that might fit your goals, encourage him or her to tell the full scene. Don’t worry about the presence of irrelevant details at this point. Instead, focus on getting all the details that might be relevant. Ask questions like “What happened next?”, “What were you doing before that?”, and “Where were you at this point?”

Once you have identified a scene that seems powerful, persist until you feel you can fully imagine it.

There are several other potential obstacles in the process of eliciting powerful stories, and many other useful techniques to aid in the process. But the key issues are identifying powerful scenes and then eliciting the details that make them memorable. If you succeed with those issues, you’ll be well on your way to success.

(The above article is adapted from the white paper, “Seven obstacles that ordinary people face when telling their stories to the world – and how to overcome them.” Read on to learn how to download it free.)

2) FREE DOWNLOAD: 7 OBSTACLES ORDINARY PEOPLE FACE…

After my work with Witness to Innocence (you can read about that at http://www.storydynamics.com/witness) I realized how much I care about helping ordinary people tell their extraordinary experiences to the world.

This process involves three main phases:

1. Eliciting Powerful Stories
2. Shaping And Performing Effective Stories
3. Adapting To Changing Contexts

I have made available a free, 15-page download, “Seven obstacles that ordinary people face when telling their stories to the world – and how to overcome them.”

You can download it free here:

http://helpmypeopletell.com

I look forward to getting to know people who share my interest in this work!

• Download your free, 15-page white paper

Hearing how I had helped Jay overcome some key hurdles, a participant said, “So Doug was one of the parents of the story, huh?”

No! Jay and I were emphatic. I surprised myself with how emphatic I was.

I said, “Jay was the story’s only parent. I was a midwife, helping the story be born.”

To be sure, in my style of coaching, it would be a betrayal of Jay for me to be a co-parent, to supply creative material for his story. Rather, I see myself as a helper who assists Jay in uncovering his own creativity.

Still, the participant could hardly be blamed for not knowing Jay’s and my deeply held belief about coaching, especially since other coaches base their work on different beliefs. My strong reaction was an indicator of a problem: how can we describe different coaching philosophies succinctly?

Are Interviewing Styles Similar?

This issue came back to my mind recently while reading books about interviewing. Many of the books treat interviewing as a one-way act of collection, as the interviewer “getting” information from someone. In this model, the creativity comes from the “data miner” not from the “data holder.”

This style of interviewing may make sense for a census taker or hospital intake interviewer. But it doesn’t work well at all when you are interviewing for the purpose of eliciting personal-experience stories.

In this latter case, both parties are seeking something that doesn’t yet exist: a particular version of the story of the person’s experience. To be sure, the experience already exists. But the interviewer and the person are about to create, together, a new STORY about that experience.

Again, the question popped up: How can we describe the various possible styles?

The Four Roles

All this put me to thinking: what are the actual similarities and differences between different approaches to coaching and interviewing? How can we explain them clearly, to ensure good matches between a style and a situation?

In response, I came up with four pairs of roles that coaches, directors, and interviewers (and others who work with storytellers of all kinds) can assign either to themselves and to those they work with:

1. Beneficiary or Helper;
2. Creative Director or Creative Assistant;
3. Evaluator or Contributor;
4. Elicitor or Story Source.

Each style of coaching (or of interviewing or directing) assigns the coach, etc., one role from each of these four pairs, and assigns the teller (or interviewee or actor) the other role. In some cases, a role can be shared. But how a coach assigns these four roles gives a clear, general description of the coach’s style.

Which of these roles do you want when you coach (or direct or interview) someone else? Which role do you want when you are being coached, directed, or interviewed?

Role #1: Beneficiary. Who is the event for?

In most professional interactions, one person has the role of Helper, while the other has the role of Beneficiary. For example, in a paid performance, the teller is the Helper, whereas the listeners are the Beneficiaries. In other words, the event is held for the sake of the audience, not for the primary benefit of the teller. That’s why the audience pays.

In coaching, on the other hand, the teller is usually the Beneficiary and the coach is the Helper.

Role #2: Creative Director. Whose creativity is given priority?

In my approach to coaching, the teller (not the coach) is the Creative Director. That is, as coach I apply my creativity to assisting the creativity of the teller, not directly to creating or adding to the teller’s story.

In many theatrical productions, on the other hand, the stage director is the Creative Director. The actor/storyteller is an instrument of the director, whose creativity is primary to the production. Some storytelling coaches see themselves as Creative Directors.

Role #3: Evaluator. Who evaluates the results?

In a story slam where the audience rates the tellers, the audience is the Evaluator. But if a teller hires a coach or other expert to evaluate the teller’s stories, then the coach serves as the Evaluator.

Role #4: Elicitor. Who draws out stories from the other?

In my role as coach, I often take the role of Elicitor. I question the teller, helping her or him find new stories or parts of stories that will meet the teller’s goals. Other coaches, on the other hand, expect the teller to do that work on her/his own.

Interviewers, of course, are almost always the Elicitors. Interestingly, some theatrical directors expect to pull stories out of actors and therefore take on the Elicitor role; whereas others leave the work of Elicitor to the playwright.

Coaching Styles Defined?

With these four role-pairs in mind, we can describe the basic philosophy of different coaches.

For example, in my model of coaching, I expect the roles to break down this way:

Beneficiary: the teller;
Creative Director: the teller;
Evaluator: the teller;
Elicitor: the coach.

That is to say, I coach for the sake of the teller and see myself as an assistant to the teller’s creativity, not as a substitute for it. The teller is in charge of deciding what suggestions of mine are worth acting on. And, whenever achieving the teller’s goals calls for it, I am happy to elicit additional scenes or stories from the teller.

In another of the many possible coaching models, however, the coach might have these expectations:

Beneficiary: the teller;
Creative Director: the coach;
Evaluator: the coach;
Elicitor: the teller. (The teller is expected to dig for stories outside the coaching session.)

These simple descriptions show important differences in coaching philosophy. I believe there is a place for many styles of coaching. At the same time, it is vital that the coach and teller match each other’s expectations.

Directing Styles?

Similarly, a very traditional theater director might expect:

Beneficiary: the director;
Creative Director: the director;
Evaluator: the director;
Elicitor: the playwright.

That kind of traditional director expects to be the creative “dictator” of a production that interprets a playwright’s work. But a different kind of director, one who expects a collaboration with actors (or storytellers) in creating new material based on the actor’s creativity, might expect this:

Beneficiary: the actor;
Creative Director: the actor;
Evaluator: the actor;
Elicitor: the director.

Both styles (and other variant styles, too) have a place. But if actors and directors expect different styles, trouble can ensue – especially without a shared vocabulary to describe these different expectations.

And Now, Interviewing Styles

With all that in mind, we can look at interviewers. The data-seeking census interviewer, for example, probably expects:

Beneficiary: the interviewer (ultimately, the interviewer’s
boss, the government and the people it represents);
Creative Director: the interviewer (The census taker interprets what the interviewee’s statements mean);
Evaluator: the interviewer (The census taker evaluates whether the required information has been obtained);
Elicitor: the interviewer.

What about the story-seeking interviewer? I can imagine several different, equally valid styles.

Suppose an interviewer wants to discover the stories a teller knows, but doesn’t want to find stories of a particular kind. (This might be true when interviewing a family member in the hopes of finding some family stories of any kind.) In such a case, the interviewer might expect:

Beneficiary: the interviewer;
Creative Director: the interviewee (The one being interviewed decides how to tell the stories);
Evaluator: the interviewer (The interviewer gets to define what a “family story” is);
Elicitor: the interviewer.

Now suppose that an interviewer is helping a family member discover stories, so that the family member can write a book. The expectations might be:

Beneficiary: the interviewee;
Creative Director: the interviewee;
Evaluator: the interviewee (The interviewee decides which stories s/he might want to include);
Elicitor: the interviewer.

Finally, consider the case of someone from a charity, interviewing a person who has benefited from the charity’s programs, so that the charity can use the person’s stories for fund-raising. In the case where the interviewer wants stories that will meet the organization’s purposes but also preserve the intention of the interviewee, the interviewer’s expectations will be:

Beneficiary: the interviewer;
Creative Director: shared between interviewer and interviewee;
Evaluator: the interviewer;
Elicitor: the interviewer.

I have summarized these examples in a chart (and explained them further) at http://www.storydynamics.com/4roles

Which Roles Do You Want?

When you seek a coach, director, or someone to interview you, ask yourself these questions:

Do I expect to be the Beneficiary? Who do I expect to be the Evaluator, the Creative Director, and the Elicitor?

Just as importantly, ask yourself the same questions when you find yourself coaching, directing or interviewing.

In all cases, take the time to compare your expectations with those of the other person involved. You CAN get what you want – but first you may need clear terms in which to describe it.

Are there concise ways to describe various styles of interacting around stories? This article sets out four roles common to coaching, theatrical directing and interviewing that, together, define a particular style of interacting.

The discussion begins by describing the four roles, then goes on to show how the roles are apportioned differently in different styles of coaching, directing, and interviewing.

The Four Roles

Each “role” is really a pair of roles, just like “Storyteller” and “Listener” are a pair of roles; each requires the other. Here are the roles that, together, define a style of coaching, etc.:

Role 1: Beneficiary

The paired role for Beneficiary is Helper. Between them, Helper and Beneficiary describe for whom the interaction is taking place. 

More detailed definition: Both Helper and Beneficiary can, of course, gain benefit from the coaching (interviewing, etc.) interaction. But the Helper agrees that, if there is ever a conflict between the Helper’s benefit and the Beneficiary’s benefit, the Helper will, for the duration of the interaction, give the Beneficiary’s benefit top priority.

In a paid performance, for example, the listener is the Beneficiary and the storyteller is the Helper. In a therapy session in which the client is telling a story, on the other hand, the storyteller is the Beneficiary and the listener is the Helper, as summarized in this table:

Role 2: Creative Director

The paired role is Creative Assistant. Between them, Creative Director and Creative Assistant describe whose creativity is given precedence.

More detailed definition: Both Creative Director and Creative Assistant may contribute to the creative process. But when both desire to contribute creatively, the Creative Assistant must take a back seat.

More particularly, the interaction is meant to explore the creativity of the Creative Director. The Creative Assistant may offer the results of her/his own creativity as stimulus to the creativity of the Creative Director, or may take an active role in helping the Creative Director’s creativity to flow.

In a certain kind of coaching, for example, the teller is the Creative Director and the coach is the Helper. In such a coaching session, the coach would contrive to help the teller find her/his own scenes, character interpretations and images.

In another kind of coaching, however, the teller seeks help not in unblocking her/his own creativity, but in the actual creative work. In this kind of coaching session, the coach would offer his/her own ideas for scenes, character interpretations, etc.

The two kinds of coaching styles are summarized in this table:

Role 3: Evaluator

The paired role is Contributor. Between them, Evaluator and Contributor describe whose judgment is given precedence.

More detailed definition: Both Evaluator and Contributor may exercise judgment about the results of their interaction, such as whether a particular story is acceptable, worth pursuing, etc. But whenever there is a conflict between their judgments, the judgment of the Evaluator must take precedence. Further, the judgment of the Contributor should usually be offered only when requested.

In a job-performance-evaluation interview, for example, the interviewer is the Evaluator and the interviewee is the Contributor. In such a coaching session, the coach would contrive to help the teller find her/his own scenes, character interpretations and images.

In another kind of coaching, however, the teller seeks help not in unblocking her/his own creativity, but in the actual creative work. In this kind of coaching session, the coach would offer his/her own ideas for scenes, character interpretations, etc.

The two kinds of coaching styles are summarized in this table:

Role 4: Elicitor

The paired role is Story Source. Between them, Elicitor and Story Source describe who is to try to draw out stories in a given interaction.

More detailed definition: Both Elicitor and Story Source may contribute stories. But the Elicitor’s stories are told only for purposes of stimulating the flow of stories from the Story Source. If the Elicitor is telling a story when the Story Source begins a different story, the Elicitor must immediately cease telling and begin listening encouragingly.

In interviewing sessions, for example, the interviewee is commonly the Story Source and the interviewer is the Elicitor.

Some improvisational theater directors expect to elicit stories from actors (or storytellers). Others, however, expect all the stories to be provided by the playwright.

These examples are summarized in this table:

Examples of Varied Styles

With these four role-pairs in mind, we can describe the basic philosophy of different coaches, directors, and interviewers.

Coaching Styles

For example, in my model of coaching, I expect the roles to break down one way, since I coach for the sake of the teller and see myself as an assistant to the teller’s creativity, not as a substitute for it. In my model, the teller is in charge of deciding what suggestions of mine are worth acting on. And, whenever achieving the teller’s goals calls for it, I am happy to elicit additional scenes or stories from the teller.

This can be summarized in the table below as “Doug’s coaching.”

In another coaching style, though, the coach expects to be Creative Director and expects the teller to look for new stories and scenes outside of the coaching session. This style appears as  “Coaching style #2” in the table below.

This simple table shows important differences in coaching philosophy. I believe there is a place for many styles of coaching. At the same time, it is vital that the coach and teller match each other’s expectations.

Directing Styles

Similarly, a very traditional theater director might expect to be the creative "dictator" of a production that interprets a playwright’s work. (See “Traditional Director” in the table below.)

But a different kind of director expects collaboration with actors (or storytellers) in creating new material based on the actor’s creativity. This style is “Directing style #2” in the table:

Both styles (and other variant styles, too) have a place. But if actors and directors expect different styles, trouble can ensue – especially without a shared vocabulary to describe these different expectations.

Interviewing Styles

With all that in mind, we can look at interviewers. The data-seeking census interviewer, for example, probably expects to be the Beneficiary (or at least to be a stand-in for the Beneficiary, who may be the interviewer’s boss: the government or the people it represents).

What about the story-seeking interviewer? I can imagine several different, equally valid styles.

The Seeker of Family Stories

Suppose an interviewer wants to discover the stories a teller knows, but doesn’t want to find stories of a particular kind. (This might be true when interviewing a family member in the hopes of finding some stories of any kind from your family.) In such a case, the interviewer might expect to be the Beneficiary, the Elicitor and the Evaluator. (The interviewer gets to define what a "story" is.) Since the interviewee decides how to tell the stories, this interviewee is the Creative Director.

Helper for a Family Member

Now suppose that an interviewer is helping a family member discover stories, so that the family member can write a book. The expectations might be that the interviewee is the Beneficiary—and also the Evaluator, since the interviewee decides which stories s/he might want to include.

Charity Fundraiser

Finally, consider the case of someone from a charity interviewing a person who has benefited from the charity’s programs, so that the charity can use the person’s stories for fund-raising. In the case where the interviewer wants stories that will meet the organization’s purposes but also preserve the intention of the interviewee, the interviewer will expect to be both the Beneficiary and the Evaluator.

All these story-interviewing styles are summarized in this table:

Which Roles Do You Want?

When you seek a coach, director, or someone to interview you, ask yourself these questions:

• Do I expect to be the Beneficiary?
• Who do I expect to be the Evaluator
• Who do I expect to be the Creative Director?
• Who do I expect to be the Elicitor?

Equally importantly, ask yourself the same questions when you find yourself coaching, directing or interviewing.

In all cases, take the time to compare your expectations with those of the other person involved. You can get what you want—but first you may need clear language in which to describe it.

]]>