Spokane is hot these days! Its balance of structure and freedom make it a solid form to perform and its balance of familiarity and novelty make it a solid form to watch. Its flexibility means structural variety, and its emphasis on discovery and immediately acting on inspiration keeps it exciting end to end. Let’s take a look at the components of Spokane and some approaches that I’ve found effective in coaching and performing it. After that I’ll unpack a real life example by my own team, Neighbors, and we can see how it compares.
First of all, what does a Spokane look like? Here’s a diagram of a hypothetical show I completely made up:
Each straight line represents one scene (this example consists of 11 total). The first and most prominent scene of the show is the Source Scene. From this emerge Spokes which can consist of any number of scenes from which we then return to the Source Scene where we left off. Spokes can extend away from the Source Scene (like Spokes 1 and 2) as well as backtrack to a previously established scene in order to extend in a different direction (Spoke 3). Not all Spokanes will look like this; many will have shorter or longer Spokes, or more or less than three. Some shows will leave the Source Scene and never come back. Structurally speaking, no two shows are alike.
Mechanics
Spokane is not a linear form. The Source Scene moves only forward in time, but the Spokes can be all over the place. We can leave and come back to any scene multiple times. We can follow threads far away from the Source Scene and then work all the way back scene by scene. Because of this immense variability, it’s helpful to define some consistent show mechanics that clarify which part of the show we’re in. Here are mine:
Tags only in Spokes
The majority of edits in Spokane will be Tags. Tags initiate the Spoke itself by pulling a character (Tagging everyone but that character out) or idea (Tagging everyone out) from the Source Scene. Tags expand the Spoke by repeating this process in Spoke scenes. Additional in-Spoke editing can be done with eye contact and gesturing (e.g. looking at teammate and pointing at a chair to indicate you want them to sit). Because Tags are quick and can be done at a distance with a small wave, they allow us to edit without losing momentum which helps us maintain energy.Sweep back to the Source Scene
Sweeps are big slow edits that completely reset the stage, so for this reason I prefer to limit their use in Spokane to bringing us back to the Source Scene. The momentum-ending effects of Sweeps make them a good way to cap off a high energy Spoke.Show the threads
Due to the free and often fast-paced nature of the form, Spokanes risk becoming chaotic and confusing if we lose track of what ties the scenes together. For this reason it’s helpful to maintain some clarity regarding how the scenes relate to each other; it should be obvious what part of the previous scene inspired the next. The audience shouldn’t know exactly where we’re headed and might be impressed by where we take characters and ideas from previous scenes, but they should be able to follow along and see what inspired the tag. Spokane is not a form where A-C moves pay off; show them B. Besides part of the fun of the form is starting from somewhere relatively grounded and working toward something completely crazy in a very logical way.
Source Scene
Perhaps the most important element of the Spokane, the Source Scene is basically a Monoscene with breaks. The Source Scene is important because it has three major functions: A) It’s the launchpad for the Spokes which exist as a direct result of Source Scene content; B) it’s a contextual through line which ties cross-Spoke content together (i.e. it connects the world of the show together), and C) it’s an energy baseline for the entire show (ideally energy heightens in the Spokes and then drops again upon returning to the Source Scene). The biggest risk of Spokane is that a thin, chaotic, and/or confusing Source Scene can more or less tank the whole show.
So what makes for an effective Source Scene? Here are some goals I aim for at the beginning of the show that I’ve found to be helpful in creating stability:
3-4 People
Source Scenes are long. Assuming a 20-25 minute show, they’ll generally make up around 30-40% (6-10 min). Yes they’re broken up, but since they largely don’t evolve much for some of the reasons below, it can be difficult to sustain them for that length with only two characters and one dynamic between them (A-B). Having 3-4 people in the Source Scene allows us to explore up to six unique dynamics (A-B, A-C, A-D, B-C, B-D, C-D) which gives us much more to work with and allows us to change focus if the dynamic currently being explored feels played out or stale.Pick a station
Because we’ll likely be leaving and coming back to the Source Scene several times over the course of the show, it’s helpful to have easy ways for those initiating the return to indicate that we’re back. As mentioned above, one way to do this is a full Sweep. However, if I want to initiate return but I’m in the Source Scene, a Sweep often isn’t particularly efficient because I have to cross the full length of the current scene before I can initiate. If instead I have a particular spot onstage where I “live” in the Source Scene, I can simply cut through the current scene and head straight for that spot. This is particularly effective if I have some sort of recognizable stance or am doing a clear activity, as it quickly indicates to both my teammates and the audience who and where I am. By picking a station at the beginning of the Source Scene and limiting movement throughout, we can minimize confusion and shorten transition time.Limited children
For reasons I’ll get into further below, most tags that take us away from the Source Scene will jump back in time. Children, having experienced less of it, have shorter timelines to work with, and their minimal societal agency means we have fewer options for the types of scenes they can be in. It’s not that kids don’t work in Source Scenes, it’s just that having them means our choices are narrow. This suggestion would also apply to any short-lived being like a fresh clone or a brand new Frankenstein.Limited Strangers
Source Scenes with strangers can be tough because it limits our ability to endow to surface level things like appearance and immediate behavior. Again, since we’ll mostly be Tagging back in time, it puts all the responsibility of setting up character history for that character on themselves, whereas characters who know each other well can spread that responsibility around. Additionally, interactions between strangers can often be transactional and/or brief, which means we might have to work harder to find reasons for them to stick around. Since the Source Scene will likely be the longest scene in the show, often by a lot, having a lot of strangers might make it difficult to sustain.Get everyone established (and named) before the first Tag
One of the major culprits of a flimsy Spokane is not creating a sturdy enough foundation before heading out into the Spokes. The Source Scene functions as the the show’s home base, which means it should feel like the most familiar and comfortable part. The first step toward creating that familiarity is all the Base Reality building we should be doing in any scene (where we are and who everyone is to each other), and since we’ll be coming back to this scene several times I find it helpful to make sure everyone has a name and gets a chance to get some information out about their character. If the first tag happens before everyone gets established, it leaves some questions unanswered and some blanks that we still have to fill when we come back to the Source Scene, which can hurt momentum. This also helps individual performers give themselves something to build on for their character when they return. A related suggestion…Pass on early Tag opportunities
It can be tempting to jump on any interesting ideas that come up in the first couple minutes of the show, but generally that comes at the expense of some of the foundational stuff mentioned above. Let any early ideas inform the source scene internally rather than expanding on them externally in the Spokes. There will be plenty of stuff to work with later, I promise. Plus, if something that comes up early is really really compelling, Source Scene characters can always bring it up again. Patience early in the set ends up paying off down the line. I tend to like a Source Scene that runs 3-4 minutes before the first tag.Set a recurring theme
This one isn’t technically necessary, but I like it for a few reasons. One, it’s a way to focus what could be (with 3-4 people) a more complex scene. Two, it functions as a nice recurring springboard from the Source Scene to the Spokes that makes the show feel more cohesive as a whole. Lastly, it gives characters an easy thing to return to when coming back to the Source Scene. This is particularly helpful after longer and busier Spokes where we may have forgotten exactly what was happening in the Source Scene the last time we were there. The theme could be pretty much anything that every character in it can latch onto - a topic of discussion that everyone has an opinion on, a shared experience, etc. I introduce this concept to new Spokane teams by having someone name it outright by saying “Let’s all talk about [theme].” For example, “Let’s all talk about our favorite family vacations” or “Let’s all talk about our most embarrassing moments.” The important thing is the theme should be broad enough that it can be both applied to every character in the Source Scene and repeated by any of them if necessary. For example “Let’s all talk about that time I tried to run a 5k” is too narrow because it’s specific to one character and one moment in time. A more effective theme is something like “Let’s all talk about times we tried to be athletic” in which the 5k example could then initiate the first Spoke. The “let’s all talk about” tool can be clunky and obvious, but I find it to be a useful technique to practice getting everyone in the Source Scene on the same page. With practice, you can accomplish the same goal with more natural and subtle language.Return to where we left off
The Source Scene should operate as functionally close to a Monoscene as possible, meaning it moves mostly in real time with minimal gaps. Short time gaps may or may not be useful on the return depending on how we left the Source Scene at the beginning of the Spoke. The general rule is that we don’t want to repeat something we’ve already seen, so if a Spoke is initiated with a Character-based Tag that showcases a story that a Source Scene character is telling, when we return to the Source Scene we’ll want to skip to the end of the story; the time gap being only as long as it took to tell it. A Spoke initiated with a Premise-based Tag based on a reference or off-hand comment will likely be able to return without a gap, since these sorts of Spokes operate more independently; i.e. there isn’t the assumption that Source Scene characters are ‘witnessing’ all or some of the Spoke along with the audience (more on Tag types below). In my experience the most common cause of Source Scene time gaps is performer inattentiveness, usually that they either don’t recognize the return to the Source Scene or forget they were in it, which means they then have to enter as a walk-on. This requires a justification (“sorry I was in the bathroom”, etc) that naturally creates a time gap that was necessary only to cover performer error. For maximum Source Scene stability, Source Scene performers should be particularly vigilant about edits. It’s perfectly fine for Source Scene characters to enter and exit as they please (as they could in any Monoscene), as long as we see it happen.Acknowledge and incorporate what we learn in Spokes
Depending on the types of Tags that occur in a Spoke, the content in the scenes leading up to a return to the Source Scene might be wildly unrelated to what’s happening there. However, we’ll still want to maintain what I believe is one of the more satisfying elements of the Spokane which is that the content of every scene is clearly and directly inspired by the previous. Source Scenes, being a return to home base, won’t be inspired by Spokes in the same way, but can reference them in a way that creates a satisfying bookend that closes the loop on the Spoke and acts as a tension release that smooths the transition from a high energy Spoke scene to the more relaxed Source Scene. For example, a Spoke that was initiated with a character telling a story (“Summer camp that year was crazy”…TAG) can summarize what we saw in the Spoke when we come back (SWEEP…”so that’s how I got this scar”). Spokes that are initiated with Premise-based Tags (“you’re more awkward than a spider on a unicycle”…TAG) will be a little trickier to bookend since they aren’t directly connected to a Source Scene character, but can be done by referencing a Spoke specific (SWEEP…”not as awkward as a worm on a trampoline though”). These sorts of acknowledgements are a nice way to wrap up Spokes and connect them to the Source Scene on both ends. Beyond transition moments, it’s important to let Spokes inform the Source Scene wherever is applicable. Mainly this will come from Spoke scenes revealing new information about Source Scene characters and their world that changes them in some way (e.g. behaviors, rules of the world). Source Scene performers should recognize and embrace these changes and apply them as the Source Scene continues. For example a Spoke scene that reveals that there had recently been a zombie outbreak retroactively places the Source Scene in the midst of a zombie apocalypse. This changes the circumstances of the Source Scene, and thus should be at least acknowledged by Source Scene characters if not actively explored moving forward. The same thing goes for character traits, beliefs, and behaviors. If we learn in a Spoke that a Source Scene character is obsessed with kites, they should apply that obsession in future Source Scene segments. In other words, Spoke scenes can and often will affect elements within and even the entire trajectory of the Source Scene.
Spokes
Your window to Tag is very small
Since we want to show the threads of the form and how each scene leads to the next, any Tags should happen as soon as inspiration strikes. Scenes can move and change focus quickly, meaning we really only have a few seconds to pounce on ideas before the scene moves on. At best, a Tag that comes too late feels stale and out of place, hurting momentum. At worst, it creates the potential for paradox, particularly if we learn something in the Spoke that changes something in the Source Scene that would have been applied on the return, but wasn’t because the scene had moved on (e.g. character finishes a can of beer and puts it in recycling…late unrelated TAG…we learn that character always smashes their beer cans on their forehead once they’re empty). Spokane rewards acting quickly; it is not the form to be pocketing ideas for later.
Source Scene characters can only go to the past
This is another paradox avoidance tactic and a way to ensure that the Source Scene doesn’t become locked to a specific trajectory. An extreme example of this is that if I Tag a Source Scene character to the future, I know they’re still living, which means they can’t die in the Source Scene. Less extreme examples include still having certain objects, attitudes, or life circumstances like a specific job or a relationship. Avoiding Tags to the future is a way to make sure we don’t limit Source Scene choices. Additionally, Tags to the future negate those scenes’ ability to inform the present Source Scene (characters can’t know about what hasn’t happened yet), which means that content tends to feel disconnected and out of place. This is why Source Scenes should generally have limited children; they don’t have as much past to work with. The one exception to only taking Source Scene characters to the past is if we Tag them forward and never come back. I’ve seen this work effectively at the very end of shows where a forward time jump allows for some sort of conclusion to a character or story arc and we never return to the Source Scene.Tag Options
There are a few different types of Tags that can be used both to move from the Source Scene to a Spoke and to extend Spokes. Some are more common than others, but all are valid at any time and most shows will and should have a mix of each.Character Tags
Character Tags are your classic improv Tags: one or more characters in the current scene are tagged out, and the remaining character(s) remain for the next scene. Character Tags of Source Scene characters are commonly the first Tag that initiates a Spoke, although this is not a requirement. As we know, any Character Tags from the Source Scene should be to the past, however once in the Spoke we can follow Source Scene characters forward in time as long as everything we see takes place prior to the Source Scene. Character Tags can also allow us to follow characters that appear in Spokes, and since Spoke characters generally won’t be appearing in the Source Scene at any point, their timelines are more flexible. Character Tags can be used to explore both character behavior/game and follow character narratives.World Tags
World Tags allow us to explore the world of the current scene without taking any of the characters in it with us. Usually the opportunities for World Tags will appear when someone mentions an event or location that we can showcase without bringing any of the current characters along, or an offstage character. A less common more indirect type of World Tag can be made when something happens in the scene that affects the world outside of the scene. For example if kids playing baseball hit a ball over the fence, we might Tag to see that the ball has gone through a neighbor’s window and broken their TV. These effects could be long term as well, such as if the mayor of a town passes a law banning all ice cream, we might Tag to see that later on an elaborate black market for ice cream has developed. The benefit of these types of World Tags is they don’t have to be prompted through dialogue, meaning performers offstage can look for them without needing to be explicitly set up by those in the scene. World Tags follow the same timeline rules as Source Scene characters - if it’s the same world of the Source Scene everything we see should occur prior to the Source Scene in time. The Tag itself is executed by Tagging everyone in the current scene out and initiating the new scene on a cleared stage.Premise Tags
Premise Tags allow us to explore ideas that appear in scenes that aren’t directly connected to the characters or their world. This often includes concepts that are worth exploring aren’t necessarily “real” in the world of the show such as a fantasy, fictional story, or dream, although it’s entirely possible depending on the circumstances to wrap Premise Tag content into the existing world if it makes sense. Premise Tags can also initiate alternate realities that can be explored through Character and World Tags in their own right but don’t overlap with the reality of the Source Scene. The “spider on a unicycle” example from above might lead us to explore a bug circus which could be made real in the world of the Source Scene, or could simply be something those characters were imagining. In that sense, ideas explored in Premise Tags are not automatically assumed to exist in the Source Scene reality. A Source Scene character saying “life would be so much cooler if we had flying cars” could prompt a Premise Tag where we explored how the world would be different if that were true, but none of the content of those scenes would effect the world of the Source Scene. In this way, it is entirely possible for a Spokane to explore multiple disconnected realities over the course of a show. Premise Tags are generally executed in the same way as World Tags (Tag everyone out, initiate on a cleared stage), unless the Premise is something like a fantasy (“if I won the lottery…”) that includes an alternate reality version of an existing character. The risk with things like that, however, is accidentally letting the alternate reality version of that character inform the “real” one. As long as we’re consistently clear that it’s a fantasy, these sorts of scenes can be a fun way to explore more unusual worlds and play with the way a character might see themselves and others in their mind without changing anything in the “real world”.
Don’t forget Base Reality
A common issue I see with greener Spokane teams is their Spoke scenes tend to stall quickly (20-30 seconds in). Usually this happens because so much of the focus is on the idea that prompted the Tag that they don’t establish the Base Reality elements that are necessary to sustain longer scenes. I’ve seen a ton of Spoke scenes initiated with a Character Tag where we never learn anything about the new character in the scene (the one played by the performer who initiated the Tag). Make sure to take the time to clarify how the characters relate to each other and where they are. Spoke scenes are constructed in the same way as those in Armandos and second and third-beats of Harolds: we initiate with the premise/unusual thing and then back-fill Base Reality. Having this sturdy scene foundation allows us to rest patterns/games by living in the reality and opens up other ways to apply them (it’s easier to look for game moves if we know where we are).You’re not beholden to the initiation
Just because the Tag that brought us into the scene was inspired by a specific idea doesn’t mean that has to be the focus of the entire scene. Spokes can and should pivot at any point in order follow the most compelling ideas that arise. This is another reason why it’s important to establish Base Reality as soon as possible; it opens up opportunities to head in a different direction. A scene that starts with a Character Tag might spend its first few moments continuing to explore that character, but if another character in that scene says or does something worth exploring, we should feel free to shift the scene’s focus to them. I find endowments to be especially useful in Spoke scenes when we’re introduced to new characters because it creates these opportunities to pivot. Actively looking to change direction is also a way we can continue to expand Spokes beyond energy peaks where we might feel inclined to return to the Source Scene, such as after a quick run of similar Tag types with a narrow focus. Tags are a doorway to a new room; don’t get so focused on the doorway that you forget there’s a whole space to explore.We can move back and forth between Spoke scenes
Spokes don’t have to expand linearly - we can Tag back to previous scenes if we’d like (such as in Spoke 3 in the diagram above). This is a way to return to ideas in Spokes that we’ve already moved away from but want to continue to explore. It’s also another way for us to return to the Source Scene: if we are in the 3rd scene in a Spoke, instead of Sweeping to bring us all the way back, we can Tag back to revisit the 2nd and 1st scenes before Sweeping there. In this way, any Spoke scene could functionally be treated as a Source Scene as long as it followed the same Source Scene rules. For example, a Spoke might expand three scenes out and end up in a family reunion where we set a recurring theme of favorite family trips and we begin Tagging out and back to explore each character’s favorite trips. Suddenly we have a Spokane within a Spokane, and depending on when in the show it appears and how compelling it is, we might not feel the need to return to the original Source Scene at all.
Show Structure
While the freedom and expansiveness of Spokane is what makes it fun, it also can make it tough to make the show feel cohesive on the whole. Here are a few structural goals I like to shoot for in order to make the show feel more connected, especially between Spokes:
Start long, get shorter
One of my basic ideals for any improv form is that the rhythm of the show accelerates over time, and it does so as smoothly as possible. What this means for Spokane is that the first Source Scene segment is the longest of the show, and each successive segment is shorter than the last. This tends to happen naturally, as we’ll need more time in that first segment to get everything established anyway, but it can be useful to lean into this pattern intentionally. Spokes can mirror this rhythm as well, with the first Spoke scene being the longest and each consecutive scene getting shorter. At the same time, if the energy within the scenes heightens to match the acceleration of the pace, the show feels like it’s building to a peak, which we can hopefully hit right at the end. The exploratory nature of Spokes should allow us to continually push the energy ceiling, and while we are taking things a step back every time we return to the Source Scene, it’s not a full reset; the floor continually rises. A map of the peak energy levels on a 1-10 scale in each segment (alternating Source Scene and Spokes) might look like 1↑3↓2↑5↓3↑7↓5↑9↓8↑10. However, these sorts of structural models are mostly theoretical and absolutely secondary to content. Don’t commit to rhythm over inspiration.Establish Show Rules
Show Rules are a specific reactions to specific sets of circumstances that are disconnected from context and character. For example, if someone in a scene orders a drink and they order peach iced tea, we could establish that anytime anyone in the show orders a drink they order peach iced tea. These are little moments of satisfying familiarity that can easily connect massively disparate scenes. Establishing Show Rules in early Spokes and applying them in later ones is a nice way to tie different parts of the show together. For more on Show Rules, check out my post on Show Rules, Memes, and Callbacks.Make Mirrors
I’ve previously written about how Limits are useful for keeping scenes manageably contained, and they just as useful at the show level as they are at the scene level. One way to limit content in a Spokane is looking for ways to create mirrored segments that basically repeat elements of the show we’ve already seen through a different lens. Personally I enjoy any opportunity to create a Similar Squad that more or less copies a previously established group of characters with some minor variations, at which point we can either repeat the scene(s) with those characters we saw before or choose to take them in a different direction. For example if in an early Spoke we see four children at a birthday party and they all have a meltdown when someone drops the cake, in a later Spoke maybe we find ourselves as four adults at a wedding and recognize this as an opportunity to mirror the birthday scene. At that point each adult would incorporate the characteristics of a specific child from the prior scene and they’d all have a similar meltdown when someone drops the wedding cake. A similar technique is mirroring worlds or zones, which is especially compelling in any narrative-leaning parts of the show where characters travel to multiple locations (e.g. room where all the furniture is made of chocolate, room where all the furniture is made of paper, room where all the furniture is made of glass, etc). If we change one major element of the space and keep everything else exactly the same (i.e. layout, types of characters there), we can then explore how that one change affects how things play out. We can also use repetition to show the same events from multiple angles. Let’s say the Source Scene establishes a theme of friends recollecting a notable camping trip they all went on, specifically the night Charlie set the tent on fire. We could repeat that scene for every character, showing how each of them saw things play out from their perspective. Despite showcasing the same event, these scenes shouldn’t feel redundant as long as each rendition is different enough.
Let’s Watch
Now that we’ve spent some time on theory, let’s take a look at a real live Spokane by my team Neighbors and see what worked and what didn’t.
Some context: Neighbors was originally established in January 2017 as a Harold team, but transitioned to Spokane in June 2019. Any new form has its learning curves, but luckily we had 2+ years of chemistry to lean on. At the individual level we are also a relatively experienced team for Boston - I believe everyone on the team has been performing regularly for at least six years. This show is from December 4, 2019 at which point we had been doing Spokane for around six months.
This is fine show with plenty of great moments. It succeeds because of our commitment to weird ideas and willingness to make big, often physical choices. However, as a Spokane it does have some inconsistencies and a few technical issues that ended up being big lessons for us.
First of all, here’s what this show looks like diagrammed out - I’ve done my best to keep scene lengths to scale. The angle of each Spoke scene doesn’t mean anything in particular; a change in direction is used only to indicate a Tag. Total show length is right around 27 minutes.
At first glance, the structure of this show indicates a pace that is more or less the reverse of what we’d prefer - the longest Source Scene segment is last, late Spokes are short and not very exploratory, and half of our Spokes happen in the first 10 minutes. The result is a show that, on rate of change alone, starts high energy and gradually fades, which is clearly not ideal. We can see a kind of microcosm of this this play out in the final 4 minutes, where there’s a ton of emotional energy packed into the first minute, but it never quite manages to get back to that peak over the next three. At this point in the show we’re also aware that it’s time to wrap it up, and you can see us trying to create that big moment to end on in the last minute. Overall, the show just doesn’t accelerate in a steady and satisfying way, and doesn’t climax at the ideal moment.
Technically, our issues start with some early missteps that put us in some difficult positions. First, all three characters in the Source Scene are children. This puts a lot of content limits on their characters, which made it difficult to put them in scenarios other than school and home. As a result, we occasionally end up treating them older than they are, such as in the scene with the driving instructor. Additionally, there’s some particularly out of place sexual stuff that doesn’t quite fit the established reality (which I’ll explain below). But we really see the problems with an all-children Source Scene in the second half of the show when the focus of the scene becomes about the future - what high school will be like, if people will think they’re cool, etc. This is probably the biggest reason for the slower pace in the later part of the show. Because the characters in the Source Scene are so forward-focused, there are fewer opportunities for Character-based Tags. This is a place where the more indirect World and Premise Tags could have been particularly useful.
Speaking of Tags, the first one comes before the 2-minute mark, jumping on the first reference to an outside character. This Tag also happens before any of the three Source Scene characters are named, and while they do all get named eventually, it means we’re still not quite on completely solid footing until Terence is named in the 3rd Source Scene segment around minute 8. We never really define a clear theme for our Spoke-initiating Tags, although they are nicely balanced in that each Source Scene character gets two (although Spoke 4’s is retroactive - more on that in a moment). We do tie a few Spokes together when Spoke 6 initiates with a Tag that completes a pattern of weird puberty-induced actions that started in Spoke 1 with Jermy climbing the sexy tree and continued in Spoke 3 with Terence humping side-to-side, but it probably would have been more useful to clearly establish it earlier so we could attack it with more intention. If it had been defined after Spoke 1 (Jermy), maybe Spokes 3 (Terence) and 6 (Sue) happen next, and then we can repeat the pattern of initiating a Spoke by exploring how each of these kids are struggling with puberty by starting again with Jermy followed by Terence and Sue. This is now a pattern we can repeat as much as necessary to get out of the Source Scene into a Spoke, which would expand from there.
Limited Spoke exploration is definitely a problem in this show. Of 20 total scenes, 13 contain Source Scene characters. Of the 7 that don’t, 5 are in Spoke 4. Spoke 3 is entirely Terence and Spokes 2 and 6 are entirely Sue. It’s interesting that Spoke 4 is the most exploratory of the show because it starts with an editing error. I initiate the Spoke after Terence says Jermy weighs nine pounds as Jermy climbs on his back (13:40 in the video). At 13:52 I run on (kind of late, but there hasn’t been any additional dialogue) to Tag out Sue and Terence. My intention is to initiate a scene as Jermy’s doctor, concerned that he only weighs nine pounds. However Matt Pina (Terence), thinking it’s Matt McMahan (Jermy) that’s tapping him and doesn’t realize I’m trying to Tag him out. Now I have to re-calibrate, which apparently required touching all the chairs, at which point Pina initiates with a kama sutra accident, making it a Premise Tag based on their physicality. Normally because it’s a Tag we’d assume these are the same characters, but because the content of the scene (a couple doing advanced sexual stuff) seems to conflict with what we know of these two characters (children just hitting puberty), my assumption in the moment wass that these were new characters. Eventually we learn that these are in fact Terence and Jermy, making it a retroactive Character Tag, but it definitely still feels out of place. In any case, this miscommunication prompts a Spoke that gets us further away from the Source Scene than we ever get and we do some solid exploration (Churro man, affair hat) in the longest Spoke of the show. Spokes 1 and 5 are the only other Spokes that take us away from Source Scene characters, but only for one scene each.
There are definitely opportunities to do a bit more exploration; in Spoke 1 Jermy’s dad is an interestingly awful character whose life might be fun to see, and in Spoke 5 the chair room character has some potential depth as well (artist? serial killer?). Another big reason for lack of exploration is that all the Tags in this show are Character-based except for the Top Chef Sleepover scene in Spoke 2 which is kind of a Character/Premise hybrid. World Tag opportunities I see are in the rope climbing scene in Spoke 3 (what other things can you do to earn the Presidential Medal? why does the President want kids climbing ropes?) and the Unicorn scene in Spoke 6 (what do other stuffed animals think of Sue grinding on her unicorn?). I also see some Premise Tag opportunities in Top Chef Sleepover from Spoke 2 (what other shows might kids have a sleepover for? what if Top Chef had an episode where the secret ingredient was someone’s period?). The options to expand these short Spokes are there; the hard part is seeing them in the moment and jumping on them instead of Sweeping back to the Source Scene.
Overall, the result is a show that stays too close to Source Scene characters with limiting circumstances and suffers pacing issues because of it. Our takeaways were to avoid children in the Source Scene, be more patient at the beginning of the show, and prioritizing expanding Spokes, all things that have helped our shows improve since then. In practice this meant running Monoscenes to get more comfortable with longer, slower scenes, and focusing on adding new information in Spoke scenes to create opportunities for exploration. I also like La Rondes to practice Spoke expansion as it forces us to follow the new character in a scene, although this is explicitly a tool to work on Character Tags. For World and Premise Tags, I find it useful to simply pick one and run a series of scenes where those are the only types of edits we can use.