The Inner-Monologue Dramaturg
Your dialogue is saying what it means. Good dialogue does something else.
Characters who state their feelings out loud are the most common note in every manuscript critique, and the hardest to self-diagnose — you know what the line is for, so you cannot hear how flat it lands.
This tool reads a scene the way an acting coach reads a script. For every line: what the character wants, what is stopping them, and what they are actually thinking while they say something else. Each beat gets an on-the-nose score, so the flattest lines in the scene are the ones you see first.
What it gives you back
A scene of four lines where nobody says what they mean. This is the tool's actual output on it — not an illustration of what it might one day produce.
| The line | What they want | What they're thinking | On the nose |
|---|---|---|---|
| He You didn't have to wait up. | downplay concern | "I hope she wasn't waiting." | 0.8 |
| She I was reading. | deflect his concern | "I don't want him to know I waited." | 0.7 |
| — She closed the book without marking the page. | hide her true actions | "He can't know I was waiting." | 0.6 |
| He Right. Well. I'm going to bed. | end the conversation | "This feels tense." | 0.7 |
| She Okay. | avoid prolonging it | "I wish he'd stay." | 0.9 |
The last line scores highest. "Okay." is doing nothing while she is thinking "I wish he'd stay" — that gap is the scene, and it is the thing you rewrite toward.
Why we lead with one tool instead of eight
This page used to list eight methodologies. Most of what was promised under those names is something a well-prompted general model already does adequately, and saying otherwise would be marketing rather than a claim.
The inner-monologue analysis is the exception. It is drawn from Ivana Chubbuck's technique for actors — the discipline of finding the objective and the obstacle inside every single line — and applied to fiction. We have not found another writing tool doing it. So it is the one we put our name on.
The other tools still exist and still work. They are just not the reason to come here.
See the rest of the toolkitWhat we are not claiming
It doesn't write for you
It analyses a scene you wrote and shows you what is under it. Generating prose in your voice is a different problem, and we are testing whether it is even solvable over here.
It's a reading, not a verdict
The on-the-nose score is one model's judgement, useful for ranking the lines in your own scene against each other. A 0.9 is a prompt to look again, not proof the line is broken.
No endorsement
We are not affiliated with Ivana Chubbuck and have no relationship with her or her studio. We applied a published technique to a different medium; any clumsiness in that is ours.
Want it when it opens?
The analysis engine runs today. Accounts and pricing are being reworked, so there is nothing to buy yet and we would rather say that than sell you a trial that does not exist.
Writers With AI is not affiliated with or endorsed by John Truby, Linda Seger, Ivana Chubbuck, Dramatica, or any other named methodology. All references are to public domain or widely acknowledged aspects of these approaches, with original enhancements by our engineering team.