The Narrative Trap and the Dogma of "Yes! And…"

Spolin's concept of Give and Take and Follow the Follower is a two way system.    Yes! And… is a one way system. 

Respect is inherent in Give and Take even in conflict or disagreement. Follow the Follower erases 'self' consciousness and puts full attention on your fellow player. Yes! And… imposes unquestioned respect for any offer and forces only agreement. 

Another trap of "Yes and…" is that it often adds too much information. Too many offers leads to muddled scenes, as the actors try to parse the information and fold it into the ongoing scene. 

Give and Take uses reciprocal consciousness which contains the elements of follow the follower to allow for exploration of an ongoing event (scene).

Story should be the by-product of good scene work not the goal

I disagree with the idea of coping with narrative and story as a primary focus in improvisation because it puts most players in their head and disconnects them from true relation with fellow players and obscures the more immediate focus of staying involved with their fellow players, trusting the focus and letting the story (interaction) unfold. 

When narrative becomes the focus, what occurs onstage is a story conference, without the benefit of revision or brainstorming. Crafting a good story is an art in itself. There's a Yes, And…. concept developed to create a story. It is called "The Story Spine"  It works in concert with adding information.

1. Once upon a time there was a _____
2. And every day ______
3.  Until one day ______
4. and because of this ______
5. And because of that- this happened
6. And ever since this happened this was the result.
7. Find the moral of the story.
8. and do not have to be foremost in a players mind.

 It is possible that this formula will result in a story if all players adhere to it and play within the framework. My issue with this concept is only that it is limiting. There are many ways to tell a story and the actors need not be involved with story in as much as they are totally involved with one another. This involvement is the key to improv - not story structure. 

The paradigm Spolin saw, was that any true relationship with fellow player and the environment, creates a story. The games produce a connection with the actor to himself, the actor to the other actors, the actors to the environment: A thread that weaves itself into situations and conflicts. When that connection is broken (being in your head) and one or more of the actors withdraw (for whatever reason) from any of the above mentioned elements - that actor is stranded alone on stage. 

Finding yourself disconnected from your fellow players onstage creates urgency in the actor. Many actors try talking their way back into the scene by telling what they see, feel, or want to do. It is a cry for help and the sidecoach or director may call out "Help your fellow player who isn't playing!" Onstage players may recognize the situation too and try reconnecting with that actor by involving him/her in the where, or simply pausing in no-motion to come back into the playing field. (space) This rescue becomes part of the ongoing unfolding of the event the audience will eventually see as "Story'. 

It is possible to house the elements of narrative inside playing. That takes what Spolin called detachment. Artistic detachment is achieved by having so much focus that the problem no longer occupies the whole self and there is room for seeing the larger picture. This is an advanced state for players and comes easily only to the very gifted, but all players are capable of it after having enough time in the space. Then narrative and things like that occur naturally Also Spolin had games that approached long form too. Games like “Hold it”, “Theme Scene”, “Scene on Scene” and “Word Game” all hold an evenings worth of play in them.