Skeel 1

Max Skeel

Lilah Galvin

ENG 111

19 September, 2018

Story Skeletons: An Analysis

On the surface, it seems like one event would be thought of the same way if everyone had

the same facts. However, that is not the case. ​Story Skeletons, ​written by Roger Schank,

published by Atheneum in 1991, dives into responses from world leaders to military actions, as

well as divorces to explore this topic. He comes out with story-skeletons, or different framework

for telling the same stories based on a number of different things​. ​Schank brings these to light

using a strong organizational pattern, real-world anecdotal evidence, and a serious, objective

tone to establish Ethos, Pathos, and Logos, as well as keeping his argument streamlined.

In ​Story Skeletons​, Roger Schank has a strong organizational pattern which adds to his

argument. Schank explains “If we construct our own version of truth by reliance upon skeleton

stories, two people can know exactly the same facts but construct a story that relays those facts in

very different ways” (Schank, 129). Without this opening sentence, the evidence Schank presents

next would be lost on the reader. He quotes world leaders about an attack on an Iranian airline by

a U.S. Navy Warship. All of the world leaders have different perspectives on the event, ranging

from an understandable tragedy to state terrorism. Halfway through the evidence, Schank starts

to elaborate on how story skeletons are used, and in doing so, establishes Logos. He reasons that

story skeletons are not objective and usually stay consistent. His example of this is the Arab

skeleton of “state terrorism”(Schank, 130). It is referred to quite often by Arab leaders, while in
 Skeel 2

America a more common skeleton used in these types of events is an “understandable tragedy”

(Schank, 129). Through these skeletons, stories are shaped in ways that are convenient for the

storyteller to believe (Schank, 130-131). The use of fact and then reasoning here is a direct

example of Schank using Logos to establish story skeletons. Additionally, in putting this

explanation here, the reader can apply this knowledge to the next pieces of evidence, and Schank

is now able to dive deeper over the next pieces of evidence because the reader now has a basic

understanding of how story skeletons are used.

Following his war example, Schank changes pace and moves to longer anecdotal

evidence to establish Pathos in his argument. The pieces of evidence chosen by Schank are

stories of divorces. Divorce is a relatively common event and because of this, it is easier for a

reader to understand the emotional significance when it is compared to an event like the shooting

down of an airplane by a naval ship. The reader is more likely to be able to sympathize and

possibly even empathize with the examples that Schank uses. As a result of this response, the

reader is able to apply this information to their everyday lives. In addition to establishing Pathos

to his argument, by using divorce stories Schank is able to introduce story skeletons that are

more common and the reader has likely heard of. The skeleton of “state terrorism”(Schank, 130)

is very rare, but how often has the skeleton of “partner in bad relationship finds lover to use as

means to effect final separation from spouse”(Schank, 137)​ ​been used? This is a very common

skeleton for people going through divorces, and although Schank stays objective, the stories

themselves have lots of Pathos attached to them. Shank references this story skeleton in two of

the stories he uses. As this is a common story skeleton, the reader is more likely to know what

types of emotions to feel, which establishes Pathos. Something else achieved by using real world
 Skeel 3

anecdotes is the ability to introduce story-fitting to the reader. Story-fitting is the way in which

people fit their stories into an already established story-skeleton. People like to believe in their

choices, and if a story skeleton is already established for an event, this helps in the belief. Schank

summarizes this by stating “If what we do fits into a well-known, socially acceptable story

skeleton, then we believe we have acted properly” (Schank, 134). Introducing story-fitting also

helps to explain why telling some stories is more difficult than telling others. If no skeleton is

available to fit the storyteller's tale, especially if it is difficult to tell, the teller tends to try to

make it fit into one, even if it means leaving out major details. An example of this used by

Schank is in a divorce story, when a woman leaves out multiple major decisions, including a

decision to move away from her family to take a job she is not excited about (Schank, 135-136).

While situations that do not fit story skeletons that have already been established are not

common, they are much easier to explain when using a common event, such as divorce. In using

an event such as divorce, Schank is able to add Pathos and show how story skeletons and

story-fitting are used by everyday people, instead of just world leaders talking about a singular

event from 1988.

Schank manages to maintain a serious, objective tone which improves his Ethos and

makes his Logos more clear to the reader. These forms of rhetoric help him in building an

effective argument. Throughout the examples and evidence provided by Schank, he never takes a

side on any of the evidence itself. For example, instead of taking a stance on the perspectives of

the world leaders, he simply states that they all have different perspectives and that they are

different because of the story skeletons used in their respective nations (Schank, 130). In doing

this, his argument becomes more streamlined and makes more sense to the reader. His logic and
 Skeel 4

reasoning also are clear because of his tone. Had he taken a stance on any of the issues presented,

the focus of the paper could become unclear and could shift towards who was right and wrong in

the shooting down of the airplane, instead of staying on story skeletons and how they are framed.

Maintaining a serious tone is another important part of being objective. If his tone starts to

waver, the emotional parts of the anecdotes told could become the focus of his piece, instead of

the ways in which the stories are framed. Schanks goal in writing this piece was to challenge the

way the reader thinks about how understandings of events are created by people. He

accomplishes this by maintaining a serious, objective voice, and, in turn, is able to add Ethos and

Logos to his argument.

Story skeletons and story fitting are both parts of everyday life, and Schank effectively

builds an argument using real-world anecdotal evidence, a serious, objective tone, and a strong

organizational pattern. In doing these three things, he establishes Ethos, Pathos, and Logos and is

able to keep his argument streamlined. Everyone uses these story skeletons, whether it be on a

conscious or unconscious level, and understanding them is an important part of life. Rhetoric is

also used in everyday life and after rhetorical strategies are understood, things such as

infomercials and political ads are much easier to see through. Seeing through the strategies used

by these people, the important information can be extracted which leads to becoming a more

informed voter, a better consumer, and an overall more valuable citizen.

 Skeel 5

Works Cited

​ dited
Schank, Roger. “Story Skeletons.” ​Exploring Connections: Learning in the 21st Century, E

by Pearson Education, 2016, pp. 128-140