I like a good framework. For instance, an equity (a stock) has just two moving parts, earnings and the price paid for those earnings. Earnings, in turn, are spending. A framework puts individual observations, like the price investors are willing to pay to own a company’s earnings, into logical context.
Given my bias, it was only natural that when I wrote my second book I tried to find a framework for story. Season #4 episode #1 (click here) guest John Yorke wrote the best book I’ve read on the topic, Into the Woods. According to John, story has a physics, immutable rules. Understanding his framework can help you understand any story, be it a film, book, origin myth or politician’s speech.
Structure
According to John, every story has three parts: an inciting incident or disruption, a struggle and a resolution. This is as true of Shakespeare as it is Harry Potter. Structures can get more intricate, but even the more intricate ones can be reduced to these three parts.
John’s classic illustration is Jaws. What could be more disruptive than a massive shark devouring, in the opening scene, a fit, young woman? I saw the film when I was 8 and still remember scenes vividly. At the end, of course, the shark dies. In between, there is a life and death struggle, unlikely alliances are formed.
A sales pitch is another version of the same. When I worked at a bank on Wall Street, in retrospect I realized volatility was our shark. If markets were calm, there was less incentive to act and, as a result, less incentive to do a transaction with the bank.
When it comes to politics, John contrasted Hillary Clinton’s storytelling with Trump’s. Her slogan was “better together,” his “drain the swamp.” Like Jaws, “drain the swamp” is visceral. I imagine a toxic brew of malarial mud. “Better together,” as John said, is “art house film.” The simpler the story the broader the reach.
For additional perspective, I asked the people at Rose Technology (to look at the Google trends around the two phrases.
To the degree searches reflect emotional impact, John’s instinct is accurate. Trump had better “shark.” To be sure, it is possible to build compelling narrative out of falsehood. Putin’s shark is NATO. While in reality a defensive force, Putin portrays NATO as an offensive force threatening Russia. Because Russia has been unsuccessfully invaded twice (Hitler and Napoleon) and successfully once (Genghis Kahn), threats of invasion are a compelling shark.
US political extremes have their own sharks. The Left’s shark is “oppression;” the Right’s is “liberty.” Wherever you fall in your political predilections, you are being fed a story, so best understand how they work. After digesting John’s wisdom that I began to look at the news differently.
The Best Stories
While stories can be used to manipulate, the best stories serve a purpose, they illustrate a truth, even if truth is ever shifting. Each generation is tying to share key lessons for the next generation. Love stories are about finding a mate, clearly important for the tribe to continue. As our definition of relationships evolve, stories must too. War stories remind us of how awful our penchant for violence is.
If a story is exceptional and you get lost in its magic and the structure disappears. That there is nonetheless a structure at work was not something I was never taught in school. John suggests there is a resistance to suggesting stories follow a formula, as if it somehow hollows out the art. I don’t see it that way. To the contrary, just like with the framework for a stock, the structure provides coherence.
What’s Going on In Markets
The basic dynamic is simple. The Fed is going to remove liquidity and the West is doing everything it can to dissuade Putin from invading Ukraine. At the same time, the economy is growing quickly.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to A Letter from Paul to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.