He can explain the Three Act Model and the sequence of rise, climax and denouement, and how conflict is required to build this sequence of dramatic tension and release. Of course, like any parent, I wonder if he really understands it, or just recites what he's been told.

His new gifted class teacher is well-connected to other such teachers in our district, and some of them got together and had their students read the same book, Chasing Vermeer, a mystery. They then started an inter-school discussion of sorts on a blog set up for the purpose. The first blog post to which they were to respond asked, "What makes a great mystery?"

Many of the responses were the kind of thing you expect from the upper grade school levels: "One that I can't put down," "One with a great cover," "One that keeps me guessing." A few were moderately insightful, but few really grabbed hold of something that explains how to write a good mystery. But here's that proud parent moment, over which you may roll your eyes if you wish… my son's response:

I think what makes a good mystery is:

1. a key item or number
2. characters who normally don't like each other work together
3. no one except main characters know about crime/theif

Chasing Vermeer involved numerical clues, so he focused on "number" there, but #1 hit up on the essential MacGuffin. But #2 is the big one for me… right there, he defines part of a good mystery as creating conflict. Not just the primary conflict of solving the mystery, but secondary conflict between two main characters who don't get along. Sure, he was prompted by the content of the book, but he identified this aspect as being important. I haven't read the book, but I'm guessing that #3 is a source of tension and possibly direct conflict. The big difference between his response and most of the other responses is that his response addresses concrete elements of story and while the others are much more general.

So I have some confidence… he is actually understanding something of the theory he's been taught. Now, I'll grant you, he's been taught a lot more than the usual fourth grader. They did study rise and climax in class, but he and I have looked at some of his favorite movies and books to identify and understand the story elements at work.

On the other hand, he needs to work on that i-before-e thing.

When I started looking for a plot idea that would lend itself to 150 pages and just 30 days for a rough draft, I wanted something simple, but every idea I looked at, I couldn't come up with an ending. Just recently I realized that I was looking for endings without knowing what the central conflict of the story was supposed to be. I was, quite literally, trying to solve the "problem" of the story before I'd determined what that problem was.

And I find myself wondering… has years of playing roleplaying games, both in the player's and gamemaster's seats, crippled my ability to tell a story on my own? As a player, I've learned to create "starters"… ideas for characters and starting situations, without any strong pre-conceived notion of how the story should progress, let alone end. As a gamemaster, I've learned to set up situations and antagonists, and often have some idea of how things might end, but I've learned to be vague and unattached to any particular story path or outcome.

In short, I've learned to quite deliberately not tell the story on my own. I've learned to create story elements, but then refrain from turning those elements into a story until I sit down to engage with four other people who will bring their own elements, and then together the flesh out the story through our roleplaying interaction.

That's a weird thought that, when I've read so many books on writing fiction and screenplays in an attempt to improve my roleplaying, my roleplaying experience would get in the way of trying to write fiction.