ABSTRACT
The law often makes very conservative use of stories. Whether they are characterized as master stories or stock stories, well-established narratives may reinforce the status quo and invisibly persuade the listener of fitting endings. Similarly, lawyers use stories to prompt an audience to consider a novel or competing schema. Advocates can adjust the plot in a number of ways to make the resulting story more persuasive. Like recognizable plots, familiar characters can make advocacy stories more persuasive, often unconsciously and automatically. Narrative theorists have identified a range of archetypal characters whose appearance in a story will be subtly persuasive merely because they are identifiable and their actions need not be fully explained. In some contexts, setting can be as important as plot and character. When it comes to storytelling for persuasion, lawyers have a checklist full of choices. When reconfiguration is the goal, advocates can adjust plots by shifting what constitutes the Trouble.
