Frindle, by Andrew Clements

I just finished reading this children’s book, Frindle, to my daughter and thought I would take a crack at storyforming it as I thought I could see some of the story points while reading it. (Didn’t realize until including the wikipedia link that it won so many awards!)

Boy am I glad I did – I think maybe a short children’s novel / “chapter-book” may be easier to storyform than other mediums because, if it has a solid storyform, there’s not a lot of room for other fluff. This book had very strong and obvious 4 throughlines.

I’m extremely happy with how well all the story points seem to match up – i.e. all the Dramatica “predicted” stuff, even the signposts. Although I did set one signpost to determine the MC Problem-Solving Style, since he seemed holistic with a lot of the crazy stuff he tried in his throughline, (“I think I will help the failing businesses in town by getting all the kids to start bringing their lunch to school”), but I never really trust myself on seeing Holistic properly.

STORY ENGINE SETTINGS:  "Frindle"

CHARACTER DYNAMICS:
MC RESOLVE:  Steadfast
MC GROWTH:   Stop
MC APPROACH:  Do-er
MC PROBLEM-SOLVING STYLE:  Intuitive
IC RESOLVE:  Change

PLOT DYNAMICS:
DRIVER:  Action
LIMIT:  Optionlock
OUTCOME:  Success
JUDGMENT:  Good

OVERALL STORY
(A town affected by a 5th grader's new word)
THROUGHLINE:  Situation
CONCERN:  How Things are Changing
ISSUE:  Fact vs. Fantasy
PROBLEM:  Non-Accurate
SOLUTION:  Accurate
SYMPTOM:  Unproven
RESPONSE:  Proven
CATALYST:  Threat
INHIBITOR:  Enlightenment
BENCHMARK:  The Future
SIGNPOST 1:  The Present
SIGNPOST 2:  The Past
SIGNPOST 3:  How Things are Changing
SIGNPOST 4:  The Future

IMPACT CHARACTER
(Mrs. Granger, infamous 5th grade teacher)
THROUGHLINE:  Manipulation
CONCERN:  Playing a Role
ISSUE:  Knowledge vs. Thought
PROBLEM:  Non-Accurate
SOLUTION:  Accurate
SYMPTOM:  Cause
RESPONSE:  Effect
UNIQUE ABILITY:  Desire
CRITICAL FLAW:  Worth
BENCHMARK:  Changing One's Nature
SIGNPOST 1:  Developing a Plan
SIGNPOST 2:  Playing a Role
SIGNPOST 3:  Changing One's Nature
SIGNPOST 4:  Conceiving an Idea

MAIN CHARACTER
(Nick Allen)
THROUGHLINE:  Activity
CONCERN:  Doing
ISSUE:  Wisdom vs. Enlightenment
PROBLEM:  Hunch
SOLUTION:  Theory
SYMPTOM:  Unproven
RESPONSE:  Proven
UNIQUE ABILITY:  Experience
CRITICAL FLAW:  Fantasy
BENCHMARK:  Obtaining
SIGNPOST 1:  Understanding
SIGNPOST 2:  Gathering Information
SIGNPOST 3:  Doing
SIGNPOST 4:  Obtaining

MAIN VS. IMPACT STORY
(Clashing attitudes about the value of the dictionary)
THROUGHLINE:  Fixed Attitude
CONCERN:  Impulsive Responses
ISSUE:  Value vs. Worth
PROBLEM:  Cause
SOLUTION:  Effect
SYMPTOM:  Unproven
RESPONSE:  Proven
CATALYST:  Worry
INHIBITOR:  Thought
BENCHMARK:  Innermost Desires
SIGNPOST 1:  Contemplation
SIGNPOST 2:  Memories
SIGNPOST 3:  Impulsive Responses
SIGNPOST 4:  Innermost Desires

ADDITIONAL STORY POINTS

GOAL:  How Things are Changing
CONSEQUENCE:  Impulsive Responses
COST:  Playing a Role
DIVIDEND:  Doing

REQUIREMENT:  The Future
PREREQUISITE:  Innermost Desires
PRECONDITION:  Changing One's Nature
FOREWARNINGS:  Obtaining

my kids brought home a copy so I took a look. Mrs. Granger’s letter at the end is a great example of her manipulation of Nick. Or of what Nick is trying to do. The problem is, it also seems to undercut the Fixed Attitudes she and Nick clash over by admitting that she didn’t really hold those attitudes but was expressing them as the Villain in Nick’s tale. However, I wasn’t clear if she held them initially or never held them at all.

Hmm. Thanks for taking a look. You’re right, but isn’t it possible there were still issues of attitude in the relationship? What someone does in the RS throughline can contradict what they do in the IC throughline…

I was wondering about that. Can problems in a relationship arise due to fixed attitudes if they both agree and one is only pretending to have an opposing viewpoint? i think it still works, but it also starts to feel like a manipulation rather than fixed attitude. Perhaps another part of Mrs. Granger’s manipulation. Manipulating Nick into seeing the problems in their relationship as one of Fixed Attitudes in order to help advance Nick’s word.

I didn’t get the sense from the book that Mrs. Granger had completely and irrevocably changed her opinion at the point that she wrote the letter. It seemed more like she was considering both sides, and wrote the letter to explain that she could see that side too. But she was still annoyed by all the trouble it was causing, etc. (IC Symptom: Cause). I think that fits with her Playing a Role Concern, like she felt it was important for her to play the role of "defender of the current dictionary’, even though she knew there was another side to it.

As far as the relationship goes, I may have been a been hasty with the summary. Really the conflict should stem from the attitudes they have about the relationship itself, or put another way, the relationship’s own attitudes. “Clashing over the value of the dictionary” might be what we see at face value in the story, but what’s underlying that is they are struggling with the fixed attitudes they have about their student & teacher relationship. How does the relationship respond when the student challenges the authority of the teacher, how do they value the relationship, that sort of thing.

I started to try to storyform it myself without looking at yours to see how close we came, but I just can’t break the habit of overthinking everything until none of it makes any sense (or maybe all of it does, I can’t really tell, haha). So I didn’t try. Was just curious how it might have affected the Grand Argument if one of them was being manipulative about their Fixed Attitudes. Anyway, it was a neat story. Didn’t go anywhere close to where I thought it would when I started it. At the time it was published, it was probably a fairly novel concept to kids, but today people make up words all the time that take on a life of their own. Not sure if that would make this book resonate with it’s intended audience more or less.

I haven’t read the book, but wouldn’t there be a natural understanding of “another side” since an adult would remember one’s own childhood (at some point) and how the world appears to a child?