Satirist & Screenwriter Thinking Frameworks
Political writing and satire frameworks from screenwriters who turned institutions and power into structure on the page, packaged as .md skill files for AI.
Political writing survives contact with an audience only when its structure holds up under real institutional pressure, and the writers in this collection have spent careers describing exactly how they build that structure. Armando Iannucci has given detailed interviews about the language of evasion that makes political satire land as recognition rather than caricature. Aaron Sorkin has taught the intention and obstacle mechanics behind his dialogue in extensive public interviews and teaching, including a published MasterClass; the framework here distills his documented public statements about structure, not any script. Trey Parker and Matt Stone have explained South Park's but-therefore method for keeping a script from reading as a list of events. Norman Lear, Paddy Chayefsky, and Antony Jay each left behind decades of commentary on writing institutions and power for a mass audience. This collection captures those documented working methods as .md skill files for Claude, ChatGPT, and any LLM. Use them when writing dialogue that has to carry an argument, satirizing an institution without lapsing into caricature, or structuring a scene around real narrative pressure.
How satirist & screenwriters think
- But/therefore structure: scenes connect by consequence, not by "and then"; a scene that only adds without complicating gets cut
- The language of evasion: powerful people rarely lie outright, they deflect; satire that reproduces that evasive language precisely reads as truer, and funnier, than satire where characters state their own corruption plainly
- Intention and obstacle: every character wants something specific in the scene and something is blocking it; dialogue exists to negotiate that gap, not to convey information
- Institutional realism: satire lands harder when the target's actual bureaucratic texture, the memos, the meetings, the euphemisms, is rendered accurately rather than exaggerated
- Speed as discipline: writing fast against a real deadline forces instinct over second-guessing, and the resulting draft is often sharper than the polished one
Frameworks in this category
Armando Iannucci
Satire, Power & the Language of Evasion
Aaron Sorkin
Intention, Obstacle & the Sound of Argument
Trey Parker
But/Therefore Storytelling & Speed as Discipline
Norman Lear
Political Comedy in the Living Room
Matt Stone
Provocation With a Point
Tina Fey
The Writers' Room & Political Impression
Jon Stewart
Media Critique & the Satirist's Responsibility
Paddy Chayefsky
Prophetic Satire & the Network Warning
Jesse Armstrong
Power, Family & the Comedy of Cruelty
Antony Jay
Yes Minister & the Machinery of Government
David Simon
Systems, Institutions & the Journalist's Eye
Seth MacFarlane
Broadcast Satire at Industrial Scale
When to use these frameworks
- Writing dialogue that has to carry an argument or a negotiation, not just convey information
- Satirizing an institution, company, or public figure without the result reading as simple caricature
- Structuring a script, scene, or presentation around genuine escalating pressure rather than a list of events
- Diagnosing why a piece of comic or political writing feels flat despite a strong premise
- Writing under a tight deadline where speed itself has to become part of the method
Start here
Armando Iannucci
Satire, Power & the Language of Evasion
Adjacent thinking
Frequently asked questions
Will this teach me to write Veep, The Thick of It, or South Park?
No. These frameworks distill how these writers think about satire and structure, drawn from their documented interviews, talks, and public commentary on craft. They do not reproduce or imitate any show's scripts, characters, or content. The shows are owned IP; the writers' documented thinking about how they built them is not.
Will this make my writing partisan?
No. These are craft frameworks, structure, evasion language, institutional critique, not political positions. The writers span the political spectrum, and the underlying methods (how a scene escalates, how evasive language works, how to render an institution accurately) are position-agnostic. Apply them to any target.
Is this useful outside scriptwriting?
Yes. Iannucci's evasion-language lens applies directly to reading corporate or political communications for what they're actually avoiding saying. Sorkin's intention-and-obstacle model applies to any persuasive writing, not just dialogue. Parker's but/therefore structure applies to any narrative, including a presentation or a pitch deck that currently reads as a list of slides rather than an argument.
Is the Aaron Sorkin framework the same as his MasterClass?
No, and it isn't affiliated with it. This framework is built from Sorkin's own public interviews, talks, and writing about craft, distilled into a downloadable model of his documented thinking. It is not licensed content from any course, and it doesn't reproduce his teaching materials or his scripts.
Can these replace a screenwriting program or a writers' room apprenticeship?
No. Screenwriting is learned by writing pages, getting them read aloud or produced, and watching what fails in front of an audience or a room of other writers. These frameworks describe what working screenwriters have said about their own methods; they're useful scaffolding for your own drafts, not a substitute for that feedback loop.
Save when you build a bundle.
Mix and match across categories. 4 for $14.99 (save 25%) or 10 for $29.99 (save 40%).
Browse all 548 frameworks →