Two Characters Can Want Different Things

Watch the briefing

Watch the full video on YouTube

Briefing

“The proposal is due today,” June says. “The budget has an estimate,” Sam replies. They have exchanged facts, but neither response gives us much reason to lean in. These are fictional collaborators, not a real project. To revise their conversation, ask one useful question: what does each person want the other to do? June wants a commitment to send. Sam wants time to verify the budget.

Try this revision. June says, “Can I tell them we’re sending it today?” Sam turns the budget sheet toward her. “Have you checked the equipment estimate?” June replies, “I asked about sending it.” Sam says, “And I need to know what we’re promising.” The exchange is short. Nobody explains their entire history. Yet each answer changes the pressure because the speakers are responding to what the other is trying to get.

Their larger goal can still be the same: submit a useful proposal. The obstacle is the next action, not a requirement that they dislike each other. June wants a commitment now; Sam wants the budget checked first. We have heard those intentions shape their replies without making the room louder.

Look at the first two moves. June’s question asks for permission to announce a commitment. Sam does not answer yes or no; the budget question redirects her toward a condition. That is deflection with a purpose. It is not random evasiveness. In this scene, answering the budget question could change whether June gets the commitment she wants. The words are ordinary, but their relationship gives them tension.

June’s next line refuses that redirection. She narrows the question back to sending. Sam’s reply makes the consequence explicit: a proposal can commit them to an unchecked cost. We have moved from two facts sitting beside each other to a sequence of attempts and responses. The ending stays unresolved. A scene does not have to end with agreement to make progress; here, the obstacle has become clear enough to shape their next choice.

In her dialogue workshop, editor Adina Edelman recommends considering what each character wants in the scene. We are applying that craft approach to our own example. It is not a command to put an argument into every conversation. Reassurance, affection, shared curiosity, or an attempt to understand can also give a line purpose. The important test is whether the reply fits these people and what is happening between them.

Take one quiet exchange from your draft. First, write each person’s immediate aim in a few words. Second, mark what each line attempts: a request, a delay, a reassurance, a refusal, or something else. Third, revise a line that changes nothing. You may need a different reply, an action, or a silence rather than more explanation. Let the characters’ intentions guide that choice. A later briefing can examine what they leave unsaid.