As I described in my previous post, I'm currently reading a lot about story stucture, which means I'm thinking about it a lot and applying it to the stories I read and watch. On twitter, someone asked why the video Ukrainian leader, Volodymyr Zelensky, was so powerful, and I think the fact that Zelensky worked as an actor and understands the power of stories is a factor. To be clear, most stories are fictional, but calling something a 'story' doesn't mean saying it is fiction. I'm saying Zelensky is telling us facts, but he's telling them to us in a way that uses the principles of story structure to produce a powerful emotional experience.
The video is embedded in this article.
We already know the inciting incident - Russia has invaded Ukraine - so Zelensky doesn't need to tell us. He can just say "good evening", because we already know why he's recording.
By the way, I do not hold this against the majority of the Russian people. We know you didn't want Putin in power and many of you do not support the war.
After "good evening", Zelensky immediately starts describing the escalations of the story. Firstly, he introduces us to the men standing around him. "The leader of the party", "the head of the presidential administration", and so on. That's the first point. Each of these individual people are here. Zelensky tells us their titles because we all have an idea of what a 'leader' or 'the head' of something is, so that's the minimum amount of explanation we need to follow what he's saying.
After describing individuals, Zelensky gets to his second escalation. "Our soldiers are here." Then the third, "Our citizens are here." He uses repetition. Firstly, "we are all here" to summarise that 'we', the leaders, are all here. Then "we are all here" to summarise that 'we', the Ukrainian people, are 'all here'.
Now that "we are all here", we've reached the crisis point. What are "we all" going to do? The fact Zelensky repeated the word "here" gives us a hint, so we know before he says it, but we're not 100% sure because it's such a risky decision. Zelensky tells us that "we" are protecting our independence and we are going to stay here. That decision is the turning point. The obvious value that is at stake is life; Zelensky is telling us about his decision to risk that, to remain in danger. Note that this decision already happened, so he has been in the same amount of danger the whole time he's been speaking, but we experience the shift and the emotions of it when we hear it confirmed.
I'd say another value at stake is 'love.' All of Zelensky's escalations were about "we", being together. He has chosen to put his life at risk because of love. Love for his country, his people, and his family. He doesn't need to explain that to us because we already understand it, both from the external context, from our love for our own homes and families, and because he told us this was about "we." Love is now stronger; life is more threatened.
Zelensky telling us about that decision is the emotional climax of the 30 second video. He ends with "glory to the defenders of Ukraine" and "glory to Ukraine", which is the resolution. The story isn't over, we don't know what is going to happen to Ukraine, but the scene is over. The decision is made, and that reassurance is a 'full stop.'
Again, I'm not saying any of this is false. I'm saying Zelensky knew how to deliver this factual information to us in the most emotionally powerful way, probably because of his previous work in storytelling as an actor and comedian.
This clip also illustrates the question of who the storytelling escalations happen to. From whose point of view is it an escalation? Zelensky knew he was speaking for the entire country before he started recording, so, in this case, the escalation is from the audience's point of view. Escalations are whatever make the decision you have to make harder or more complicated, but your main character doesn't have to learn about them in that scene. They might already know. When faced with the situation, the character thinks about a relevant experience they've had before or information they already have and either tells someone or thinks about it so the reader can see it. Alternatively, they might not know, but the audience learns it from another character, creating a situation of dramatic irony where the main character doesn't fully understand the decision they're making and make mistakes.
The other thing about stories is, stories tell us what to do in new situations. When we look at it that way, Zelensky's story isn't original. I don't know about you, but for my entire life, every story in which the Russians are on one side has had them as the bad guys. There are other stories from before I was born, like Russia defeating the Nazis or repelling Napoleon, in which the Russians are the good guys, but, for my entire life, every story has clearly told me that if Russia is on one side, that side is the wrong side. I think that's a factor in why what's happening in the Ukraine is resonating with so many people. We know what to do when Russia invades, and it's not to support Russia.
Another factor is race because, if it wasn't, we'd have heard this outcry over Chechnya, or Syria, or Iran, or any of the other countries that have been invaded by anyone over the last few decades. We really need to work on spreading our empathy out to people who aren't white. And don't give me that bullshit about "this is the first time we've seen war in a civilised nation", Daniel Hannon of The Telegraph. You clearly mean 'white.' Honestly, I'm beginning to doubt that anyone from the Telegraph understands that non-white people can (A) be British, and (B) can read. We are and we can and your racism is showing.
The other story we all know is the one about the underdog who stands up to a bully and says "I'm not going to take it." We know that, in real life, the underdog doesn't win. Usually, quite a few of them lose, to establish the bully's power before the hero comes along and rallies everyone against him. But, we've all heard stories about how a smaller, weaker force can win because they have right or justice or truth on their side. War and Peace is that sort of story. Pierre wins, against all odds, like Russia beat the French. Oh, there's another dichotomy I didn't pick up on before. The war story is between Russia and France, and the peace story is about the French-raised Pierre and the Russian Natasha.
In short, decades and decades of stories have told us that, when Russia invades, and when the underdog stands up to the bully, the right side is that of the invaded and the underdog. I think that's what a lot of people are experiencing. Going back to War and Peace, Tolstoy theorised that Russia won because every Russian soul was united. I don't think that is the case, or, at least, not for Russia. In this case, Russia is France, the invader, and it is every Ukrainian soul that is united.
I think Putin's affected by stories too. In his case, the stories are from his childhood, about the might of the Soviet Union. He was raised in it, he has golden memories of it, he wants to get back to it, or, at least, that's the least cynical interpretation I have. Similarly, anyone born after 1999 in Chechnya has been raised only knowing Chechnya under Russian control. That will affect how they identify and how they see the world. It's not surprising that most of the young Chechen men fighting for Russia were born after that year.
Honestly, I love Russia. That's why I committed to reading War and Peace. I love the accent, the history, the literature, the language...Russia is so much, all by itself. Why isn't that enough for Putin? Let it go. The Soviet Union is over. You don't need to get back to that to be worth something. You're enough. You have so much culture and history just as Russia. You're complete without the rest of the Soviet Union. Leave them alone. Be Russian. Let Chechnya be Chechen, let Ukraine be Ukrainian. You don't need them for you to be Russian.
