Paper deep dive

FocalLens: Visualizing Narratives through Focalization

S M Raihanul Alam, Md Dilshadur Rahman, Md Naimul Hoque

Year: 2026Venue: arXiv preprintArea: cs.HCType: PreprintEmbeddings: 68

Intelligence

Status: succeeded | Model: google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview | Prompt: intel-v1 | Confidence: 98%

Last extracted: 4/18/2026, 1:35:20 AM

Summary

FocalLens is a novel narrative visualization tool designed to help writers and literary scholars analyze complex narrative components, specifically focalization (who perceives events). By mapping focalization types (internal/external) and facets (perceptual, psychological, ideological) alongside point of view, the tool provides an analytical lens for identifying narrative patterns, biases, and stylistic choices that are often implicit in text.

Entities (5)

Focalization · literary-concept · 100%FocalLens · software-tool · 100%Gérard Genette · researcher · 100%Rimmon-Kenan · researcher · 100%S M Raihanul Alam · author · 100%

Relation Signals (3)

S M Raihanul Alam → authored → FocalLens

confidence 100% · FocalLens: Visualizing Narratives through Focalization S M Raihanul Alam...

Gérard Genette → introduced → Focalization

confidence 100% · Gérard Genette [10] introduced the concept of focalization

FocalLens → visualizes → Focalization

confidence 100% · FocalLens, that visualizes a narrative through focalization.

Cypher Suggestions (0)

No Cypher suggestions yet.

Abstract

Abstract:Visualizing narratives is useful to writers to reflect on unfinished drafts and identify unintentional biases and inconsistencies. Literary scholars can use the visualizations to identify nuanced patterns and literary styles from written text. Current narrative visualization is limited to representing character and location co-occurrences in a timeline, omitting important and complex narrative components such as focalization, causality, and speech. This paper aims to capture and visualize underexplored, complex narrative components as a basis for narrative visualization. As a starting point, we propose a new narrative visualization, named FocalLens, that uses focalization, the component that establishes who sees or perceives the events in a narrative, for representing the narrative. We provide the theoretical foundation of focalization and describe various types and facets of focalization. The details are incorporated in the novel visualization that captures how different characters perceive an event, who directly participate in an event, who indirectly observe the event, and who narrate the event. We also developed a tool that provides fluid interaction between the text and the proposed visualization. The tool was evaluated with four writers and scholars in a qualitative study, where writers analyzed their draft stories and scholars analyzed well-known stories. The findings suggest the tool added a new dimension to the workflow for writers and scholars, an analytical lens that is not available otherwise. We conclude by identifying design implications and future directions.

PDF

Open source PDF →Open local PDF →

Trouble viewing inline? Open PDF directly →

Full Text

67,348 characters extracted from source content.

Expand or collapse full text

This is the author’s version of the article FocalLens: Visualizing Narratives through Focalization S M Raihanul Alam, Md Dilshadur Rahman, and Md Naimul Hoque Fig. 1: Persuasion (1818) by Jane Austen visualized in FocalLens. A) Visual encoding of the glyph used in FocalLens. The glyph consists of three concentric rings. The central ring represents point of view whereas the second ring represents focalization types. The outer ring represents three different focalization facets through three different equal arcs. B) The main visualization, a timeline consisting of different cards. Each card represents a scene whereas the rows and columns within a card represents participating characters and events within the scene. The cards flow vertically and extend based on the number of scenes. C) Users can interact with the glyphs to see corresponding text (D) in a reading interface which highlights corresponding text with a yellow background and keywords in a bold font. Prototype website link: https://focal-lens.github.io Abstract—Visualizing narratives is useful to writers to reflect on unfinished drafts and identify unintentional biases and inconsistencies. Literary scholars can use the visualizations to identify nuanced patterns and literary styles from written text. Current narrative visualization is limited to representing character and location co-occurrences in a timeline, omitting important and complex narrative components such as focalization, causality, and speech. This paper aims to capture and visualize underexplored, complex narrative components as a basis for narrative visualization. As a starting point, we propose a new narrative visualization, named FocalLens, that uses focalization, the component that establishes who sees or perceives the events in a narrative, for representing the narrative. We provide the theoretical foundation of focalization and describe various types and facets of focalization. The details are incorporated in the novel visualization that captures how different characters perceive an event, who directly participate in an event, who indirectly observe the event, and who narrate the event. We also developed a tool that provides fluid interaction between the text and the proposed visualization. The tool was evaluated with four writers and scholars in a qualitative study, where writers analyzed their draft stories and scholars analyzed well-known stories. The findings suggest the tool added a new dimension to the workflow for writers and scholars, an analytical lens that is not available otherwise. We conclude by identifying design implications and future directions. Index Terms—Narrative components, Point of view, NLP, Visualization 1 INTRODUCTION A story is a sequence of events, while a narrative is the way the story is told or presented to the audience [33]. There is a linear order be- tween the events in a story, but the narrative can break that order and reorganize the events to improve the engagement of the story. One way to understand a narrative is to decompose it into constituent com- • S M Raihanul Alam is with University of Iowa. E-mail: smraalam@uiowa.edu • Md Dilshadur Rahman is with University of Utah. E-mail: dilshadur@sci.utah.edu. • Md Naimul Hoque is with University of Iowa. E-mail: nhoque@uiowa.edu. ponents such as time, characters, locations, events, emotion, point of view, focalization, and causality [33]. It is the interplay among these components that brings stories to life and engages audiences. Story and narrative visualizations have received significant attention in the visualization community. Most notable representation in this area is the Storyline visualization [11, 39, 43], which represents a narrative as a set of lines that move horizontally across time, where each line corresponds to a character. When characters interact in a scene, their lines converge and run close together. When they are not interacting, their lines separate. There exist several extensions to the Storyline visualization. For example, Story Curve [19] visualizes both story and narrative order in the representation. StoryPrint [41] and Portrayal [14] use co-occurrence matrices for characters to represent the narrative. While these representations have been shown to be effective to under- 1 arXiv:2604.14456v1 [cs.HC] 15 Apr 2026 stand narratives, they do not capture nuanced signals (e.g., focalization) from the text that could expose the intricacy of the narrative. Visual representation of the components can reveal hidden patterns, nuanced narrative and linguistic styles, and interactions among components that may otherwise remain implicit. Writers can use these representations to reflect on drafts, identify narrative inconsistencies, and examine stylistic choices. Literary scholars, on the other hand, can use them to support critical analysis, to more effectively communicate the results, and to teach narrative styles to students. This paper explores the potential benefits of capturing and visual- izing nuanced narrative components. As a starting point, we focus on focalization, the component that establishes who sees or perceives the events in a story [10]. We provide a theoretical foundation of focal- ization, identifying different types and facets of focalization. We also provide a conceptual model to identify how other components (e.g., point of view, time, events) are connected to focalization. This knowl- edge is then transferred into a visual representation, FocalLens, that visualizes a narrative through focalization. The representation captures whose perspectives are directly or indirectly available to the readers. We further implement an interactive tool as a design probe to vali- date FocalLens. The tool connects story texts with the representation, ensuring a fluid exploration of the actual text and the representation. We evaluated the tool with 4 experts, including 3 participants who were creative writers, 1 participant who was a scholar, and 2 participants who were both. During the study, participants analyzed one critically acclaimed story and a short story written by them. One participant who was not a creative writer analyzed two critically acclaimed stories. Writers found FocalLens to be a useful tool to reflect on perspective design in a story. This is a difficult task in long stories with many char- acters. Feedback from scholars suggests that FocalLens exposes how perspectives change for the characters, a task that even expert scholars struggle to identify from plain text. Finally, participants found Focal- Lens to be a useful tool for educating English majors and early writers in writing workshops. Overall, this work presents a novel visualization and its application in creative writing and literary analysis. 2 BACKGROUND: FOCALIZATION Point of view (POV) is the term most readers and writers use for the perspective from which a passage is presented. At a basic level, POV is about “who is telling the story” at a given moment. The agent or character who tells the story is often labeled as the Narrator. However, POV is limiting in the sense that it does not help us understand whose perception, knowledge, or emotion a reader can access at a given moment. For example, consider the following passage: “Samantha was walking in the empty room. She looked at the broken vase and felt a sudden wave of guilt.” A third-person narrator is speaking in this event. Thus, the story is not told from the POV of Samantha. However, we can still access Samantha’s feelings (a sudden wave of guilt) through the perspective of the third-person narrator. Even though the story is not told from Saman- tha’s POV, she is still focalized here, albeit through the perspective of the third-person narrator. Gérard Genette [10] introduced the concept of focalization to make this distinction precise. Thus, focalization is a framework that enables us to analyze “who sees, feels, or thinks” at a given moment in a narrative. Rimmon-Kenan [33] discussed different types and facets of focalization, which we discuss next. Note that the same character can be both the narrator and focalizer, but they need not be. A third-person narrator, for example, may report a child’s fear, a soldier’s confusion, or a dying man’s final wish without being any of those characters. For example, when Melville opens Moby-Dick; Or, The Whale [28], the narrator and focalizer coincide: “Call me Ishmael. Some years ago—never mind how long precisely—having little or no money in my purse, and noth- ing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world.” Every detail in this passage is filtered through Ishmael’s memory and access. Here, voice and perception are aligned in the same character. 2.1 Types of Focalization Rimmon-Kenan distinguishes focalization by the position of the char- acter relative to the story world [33]. The two types are as follows: Internal focalization: With internal focalization, a reader has access to the direct and inner perceptions, knowledge, and emotions of a character. The narrative is anchored in a character inside the story world. George R.R. Martin opens the first chapter of A Game of Thrones [25] from the viewpoint of Bran Stark, a seven-year-old boy. Everything in the chapter is reported as Bran can observe it: “Bran rode among them, nervous with excitement. [. . . ] He had taken off Father’s face, Bran thought, and donned the face of Lord Stark of Winterfell.” Thus, Bran is internally focalized here since we have direct access to his perceptions, knowledge, and emotions. Bran Stark’s expression is not presented from an external vantage point; it is interpreted through Bran’s own understanding. The reader’s access to the scene is bounded by what Bran can observe and understand. External focalization: With external focalization, the perspective is only available through indirect and outward behavior of a character. The text reports outward behavior without entering a character’s mind [33]. Stephen Crane introduces the cook in The Open Boat [5] through observable actions: “The cook squatted in the bottom and looked with both eyes at the six inches of gunwale which separated him from the ocean.” The sentence reports only posture and directed gaze of the cook. It does not tell us what the cook actually thinks or feels. The reader receives the same information that a detached observer could perceive. Thus, the cook is externally focalized here. Genette added one more type: zero focalization for passages that are not restricted by any focal character’s access [10]. In this paper, however, we focus on internal and external focalization, because they map directly onto the character-centered perspective patterns our visu- alization represents. 2.2 Facets of Focalization The types above explain where the focalizer is positioned. They do not explain what aspect of experience the passage foregrounds. Rimmon- Kenan addresses this through three facets of focalization: perceptual, psychological, and ideological [33]. These facets help distinguish whether a passage mainly limits what can be sensed, reveals what a character knows or feels, or presents the norms and judgments through which events are understood. A passage may show more than one facet at once, but one is often more prominent than the others. Perceptual facet (space and time): The perceptual facet concerns what is available to the senses from the focalizing position: what can be seen, heard, or otherwise registered from where and when the focalizer stands [33]. This facet is about sensory access. It asks what information is available from that position, and what remains outside it. Stephen Crane opens The Open Boat [5] by making this limit explicit: “None of them knew the color of the sky. Their eyes glanced level, and were fastened upon the waves that swept toward them.” The passage begins by stating what the men cannot see. It then explains why: the danger in front of them keeps their eyes fixed at water level. The point is not simply that they are looking at the waves. The point is that their position prevents a wider view. This is the perceptual facet because the passage foregrounds the limit of what can be perceived from a particular place and moment. Psychological facet (cognitive and emotive): The psychological facet concerns what the focalizer knows, infers, remembers, or feels, and how that inner state shapes the presentation of events [33]. Rimmon- Kenan describes this facet through two closely related dimensions: a cognitive dimension, which concerns thought and understanding, and 2 This is the author’s version of the article an emotive dimension, which concerns feeling. J.K. Rowling renders both dimensions in Chapter 12 of Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone [35], when Harry encounters the Mirror of Erised: “‘Mum?’ he whispered. ‘Dad?’ They just looked at him, smiling. [. . . ] Harry was looking at his family, for the first time in his life. [. . . ] He had a powerful kind of ache inside him, half joy, half terrible sadness.” This passage does two things at once. First, Harry recognizes who he is seeing. That is the cognitive dimension. Second, the recognition is immediately shaped by feeling: joy, grief, and longing. That is the emotive dimension. Neither process is directly available to an outside observer. The reader understands the scene through Harry’s inner experience; thus, this passage exemplifies the psychological facet. Ideological facet (norms and evaluation): The ideological facet concerns the evaluative frame through which the text presents events: the norms it assumes, the judgments it treats as shared, and the values it leaves unquestioned [33]. This facet is not mainly about what a character sees or feels. It is about the larger assumptions that shape how a situation is understood. Jane Austen opens Pride and Prejudice [1] by presenting such an assumption as if it were already accepted: “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife. [. . . ] this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered as the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters.” The phrase “universally acknowledged” presents the claim as a shared social truth rather than as one person’s opinion. The second sentence shows how that social frame works: the man’s own views matter less than the assumptions imposed on him by others. This is the ideological facet because the passage foregrounds a system of social judgment and treats it as already in place. 3 RELATED WORK Our research sits at the intersection of narrative visualization, creativity support tools for writers, and tools for literary analysis. We provide a review of these topics below. 3.1 Visualizing Narrative Structure The word narrative is used for different purposes in data visualization. It frequently appears in data storytelling to denote the delivery and or- ganization of a data-based story [36]. However, our focus on “narrative” is purely from a literary perspective. Another common confusion is the interchangeable use of the words “story” and “narrative”. However, they are very different concepts in literary theories. A story contains the chronological order of events, while the narrative reorganizes these events for presentation to the audience. We visualize the events as they appear in the narrative text. Thus, narrative visualization is an appropriate term for our work. However, story visualization is also appropriate since a narrative is ultimately a way to tell the story. Regardless of the terminology, visualizing the internal mechanics of narratives is a well-established subfield within visualization. Start- ing from generic text visualizations such as Word Clouds [7, 12], TextFlow [6], and ThemeDelta [9], researchers have proposed sev- eral visualizations for representing character and scene dynamics in a narrative. For example, the StoryLine visualization [11, 24, 39] maps character co-occurrences and relationship dynamics over temporal axes. The visualization does not represent the chronological order of events in a story, but rather how the events from the story are actually told in the text or movie (i.e., narrative). The Story Curve [19] visualization represents both story and narrative timelines. StoryPrint [41] utilizes circular timelines to concurrently map scene progression and charac- ter sentiment. Portrayal [15] visualizes different character indicators (e.g., sentiment, actions, adverbs, etc.) in heatmaps and wordclouds. Most recently, Story Ribbons [43] extended Story Line visualization and leveraged LLMs to automatically extract and visualize character, location, and thematic trajectories from unstructured literary text. However, none of the existing works visualize focalization, an im- portant narrative component in literary theories [34]. We have noticed a lack of research for visualizing complex narrative components (e.g., speech, cause and effect relations, narration, character outlooks). Two exceptions are Poemage [27] and Portrayal [15], the first focusing on sonic properties in poems and the second on characterization. We believe capturing and visualizing complex narrative components can create a new generation of writing support and literary tools that possess nuanced knowledge about narratives and go beyond text generation and the visualization of character presence in different scenes. This direction also has the potential to innovate new stories and narrative visualizations. This paper takes a first step towards that goal. 3.2 Writing Support Tools and Visualization One of our target users is writers, even though FocalLens is not an active writing tool. Prior research has shown that such analytical tools are useful to writers for reflecting on their drafts, identifying unintentional biases, and learning literary styles by analyzing works from other writers [13, 15]. Thus, writing support tools are relevant to this work. Modern writing support tools typically assist authors through grammar support, auto-completions, or written summaries [21]. When visualizations are introduced into writing environments, they are frequently implemented as direct manipulation editing interfaces. For example, TaleBrush [4] allows users to sketch a character’s fortune line on a canvas to procedurally generate story text. Systems like VISAR [20] or XCreation [42] treat visual nodes as bi-directional editing mediums, conceptually similar to visual programming or code projections [8, 29]. HallMark [16] tracks the use of LLMs in a writing environment and visualizes the human-LLM interactions in a timeline. The visualization helps writers maintain their agency and transparency to readers. Finally, Visual Story Writing [26] allows users to manipulate visual objects such as characters, locations, and timelines to generate stories using LLMs. We believe FocalLens can augment this thread of research in the future. The visual representation in FocalLens can be used to control and refine point of view and how different characters perceive and express various situations. 3.3 Computational Support for Literary Analysis Computational tools for literary analysis is not a new topic. The field of “Digital Humanities” has long relied on computational tools to analyze literature and historical documents. Voyant Tools [37], Google Ngram Viewer [22], Hedonometer [32], and Wordle [40] are examples of com- putational tools that are popular among scholars. These tools typically use word counts and other text analytics measures to expose literary styles. There is also some research in NLP for analyzing narrative texts. Kim et al. [18] created a dataset and model to annotate each sentence in a novel with clock time. Pial et al. [30] developed an algorithm to analyze film adaptations from novels by matching their similarities. We believe our work here will motivate NLP researchers to specify tasks relevant to extracting narrative components and benchmarking them against different models. 4 DESIGN OF FOCALLENS This section presents the design of FocalLens, the novel visualization that captures focalization from narrative text. 4.1 Design Goals We identified four design goals based on the review of previous research in Sections 2 and 3. DG1: Visualize focalization facets and types. The primary design goal is to visualize types (external and internal) and facets (perceptual, psychological, and ideological) of focalization. This will require us to encode multiple categories in meaningful marks and channels. Our target audiences are writers and scholars who may not be experts in data visualization. Thus, the marks and channels should aim for easy understanding. DG2: Visualize point of view. Point of view is not part of focal- ization and is almost a complementary theory. However, point of view is arguably the more well-known theory, and people often confuse it 3 with focalization. As stated in Section 2, a character can be focalized even when the story is not told from their perspective. It is important to capture this distinction between focalization and point of view in our visualization, as they are related concepts. DG3: Preserve the natural order of a narrative. A narrative has a natural order of events. It is typical for narrative visualization to capture this order in a timeline [13, 15, 39, 43]. Note that the natural order of events in a story and narrative is different. A story timeline presents the events in chronological order. A narrative timeline can break the chronological order and present the events in different orders. Since our focus is on narrative, and that is the order that is present in the text, we want to visualize the narrative order. DG4: Scalability and readable abstraction of the narrative. The visualization should be able to represent narratives of different lengths: from short stories to full-length novels. One way to achieve this goal is by maintaining readable abstraction levels, such as events, scenes, and chapters, in the visualization [15, 39]. These abstraction levels could also improve the readability of the visualization. 4.2 Data Model We model a narrative textTas a hierarchical collection of scenes and events. Formally, the textTis composed of a set of scenesS = s 1 ,s 2 ,...,s i , where each scenes i contains an ordered sequence of events E i =e i 1 ,e i 2 ,...,e i j . An eventerepresents the smallest unit of narrative progression and is associated with a span of text inT, along with attributes such as participating characters (C) and location (L). We represent point of view as a binary variable.For a spe- cific charactercand evente, point of view is defined asPOV ec ∈ 0, 1, where1means the narrative has been told from the charac- ter’s point of view and0otherwise. Similarly, focalization types are presented asFT ec ∈ internal,externaland facets asFF ec ∈ perceptual, psychological,ideaological. This model captures both the structural organization of the text and the temporal progression of events, enabling analysis across multiple levels of granularity, from scenes to individual events. 4.3 Visual Encoding We developed a glyph-based representation to visualize a narrative. The glyph contains three encircling rings to represent three variables: point of view, focalization types, and focalization facets. Here we describe the visual encoding of the glyph. Center Ring: Point of View (POV): The center ring encodes whether the event is narrated through a character’s point of view or not (DG2). A blue fill marks a POV character; an empty fill marks otherwise. POV status is closely related to focalization analysis—the question of whose perspective frames the reader’s access to events—so it occupies the most visually dominant layer. Fig. 2 shows the design of the ring for a single character (c) and an event (e). (a) No point of view (b) In point of view Fig. 2: Visual Encoding of Point of View (POV). The blue color indicates the character is in POV, whereas the absence of it indicates that the character is not in POV. Second Ring: Focalization Types: The second ring encodes whether the narrative provides access to a character’s internal men- tal states or limits itself to outwardly observable behavior (DG1). The green color indicates internal focalization, whereas orange indicates external focalization. When both types co-occur in an event, the ring is split equally between the green and orange colors (Fig. 3). Outer Ring: Focalization Facets: The outer ring is divided into three equal arcs corresponding to the perceptual, psychological, and ideological facets (DG1). Each arc is filled with gray color when that (a) Point of view and internal focalization (b) Point of view and external focalization (c) Point of view and both internal and external focalization Fig. 3: Visual Encoding of Focalization Types. It needs two colors to represent two types: internal and external. The central blue circle indicates that the character is in POV. facet is foregrounded in the event and white when absent, functioning as three independent binary indicators within a compact space. We wanted to avoid adding new colors to the glyph since we are already using three different colors (blue, green, and orange) to represent point of view and focalization types. The arcs allow us to reduce the complexity of the glyph. (a) Three evenly spaced rings for representing three facets (b) White color represents the absence of a facet Perceptual Psychological PerceptualIdeological Ideological Psychological Fig. 4: Visual Encoding of Focalization Facets. The outer encircling ring is divided into three equal arcs, each indicating a facet. The absence of the color gray from an arc indicates that the corresponding facet is not available in the event. (a) The glyph represents that the character is in POV (blue ring), internally focalized (green ring), and contains all three facets. (b) A similar glyph, with the only exception, is that the perceptual facet is not available for this character and event. 4.4 Character, Event, and Scene Representation We use the glyph as the representational unit to represent characters, events, and scenes (DG4). To represent as i ∈ S, we utilize a card-based UI component. Each column represents an event (e i j ∈ E i ) whereas each row represents a character (c∈ C). The card does not have to strictly represent scenes; it can also represent other hierarchical or abstract levels (e.g., chapters in a book). This will be useful to provide an overview at different levels and scale the technique for large books or novels (DG4). Scene Title Char 3 Char 2 Char 1 E 1E 2 E 3 Scene Title Char 3 Char 2 Char 3 E 1E 2 E 3 Fig. 5: A scene card representation in FocalLens. Each column is an event and each row is a character. 4 This is the author’s version of the article 4.5 Timeline and Layout The final step for designing the visualization is to organize multiple cards in a timeline (DG3). We organize the cards in a cascading fashion. Given a fixed canvas, the cards will naturally flow downward, much like a waterfall (Fig. 6). Note that the scenes and events already have a temporal order. The representation ensures the order is visible by using directed arrows (DG3). Scene Title Char 3 Char 2 Char 1 E 1E 2 E 3 Scene Title Char 4 Char 3 Char 2 E 1 E 2 E 3 Char 1 E 4 Scene TitleScene Title Scene Title Scene Title Scene Title Scene Title Fig. 6: A timeline with multiple scene cards. The scene cards are organized vertically, much like a waterfall. The first and second scene cards are filled. Others are left empty for demonstration purposes. 4.6 Design Rationales and Alternatives We adopt a concentric radial structure for the glyph as it is spatially compact and supports dense vertical stacking within scene cards. The radial layout also establishes a clear inside–outside ordering, placing POV, the most well-known concept, at the center, followed by internal and external focalization, concepts most closely related to POV in the second ring, and finally facets in the outer ring as secondary infor- mation. To ensure perceptual separability across layers, we employ distinct visual channels—color for the inner and middle rings, and arc segmentation for the outer ring—thereby minimizing interference and enabling independent interpretation of each layer. We experimented with different shapes for the glyph. For example, we experimented with a triangle as the outermost layer of the glyph. But it was not aesthetically pleasing and required more space than the concentric rings. Fig. 7: An alternative layout to scene card-based representation in FocalLens. We can place all characters in a static y-axis. However, this makes it difficult to compare characters who appear together in a scene and utilizes large white spaces, reducing the resolution of the glyphs. This is an early implementation using D3, and the color scheme does not match the scheme presented in the paper. We also experimented with different layouts for the visualization. For example, instead of scene cards, we experimented with placing all characters in a single and static y-axis (Fig. 7). However, it was difficult to analyze character dynamics within a scene as the partici- pating characters may appear far away from each other in the y-axis. The representation also included large white spaces, indicating that the glyphs are losing resolution. 5 FOCALLENS TOOL We implemented FocalLens in an interactive web interface. The inter- face comprises three coordinated components (Fig. 1): an interactive implementation of FocalLens visualization on the left, a text panel on the right that displays the annotated narrative with synchronized high- lighting, and a legend in the top-left corner that provides a persistent reference to the encoding of the glyph. We discuss different features of the tool below. 5.1 Capturing Focalization and Point of View We developed an LLM-powered pipeline for capturing focalization types, facets, and point of view from a given text. We used GPT-5.4 as it is the most powerful model available now. We have experimented with different prompts and manually checked the accuracy of the model in two different stories (The Yellow Wallpaper by Charlotte Perkins Gilman and Persuasion by Jane Austen). The experimental results are presented in Section 6.2. In the final prompt, we incorporated defini- tions and examples of focalization types, facets, and point of view from Section 2. The final prompt is available in the supplemental materials. We have also prompted GPT-5.4 to explain its predictions. The template for the explanation is available in the supplement. Note that we have manually corrected inaccurate predictions and explanations provided by the LLM before conducting the user study. This was done to remove LLM as a confounding factor in the user study. 5.2 Layout Generation For generating the timeline per Fig. 6, we first determine the number of scenes, then the number of events and active characters within each scene (inactive characters are omitted from the visualization). For a set of scenesS, the dimensions of each scene card are computed as follows: W P = δ E ×(N E − 1) H P = δ C ×(N C − 1) W C = W L +W P + ρ H C = H T +H P + ρ (1) whereN E is the number of events in the scene andN C is the number of active characters in that scene.W P andH P denote the width and height of the main plot area, whileW C andH C denote the width and height of the encapsulating card, inclusive of the label widthW L , title height H T , and paddingρ. The constantsδ E andδ C define the fixed spacing between event columns and character rows, respectively. The resulting card dimensions are subject to a minimum size of 188× 160 pixels. Cards are laid out horizontally in sequence until the container width is reached, at which point subsequent cards wrap onto a new row. The container imposes no maximum height and extends downward dynamically to accommodate additional rows. 5.3 Text Panel The text panel provides direct access to the narrative passages under- lying the timeline encodings. It complements the structural overview by showing how selected focalization patterns are grounded in source text and by keeping scene boundaries aligned with the timeline. In the current implementation, it also allows users to switch among the available narratives without leaving the main workspace. At the top of the panel, a STORY dropdown lets users switch among the available narratives. Changing the selection updates the timeline, scene labels, character lists, glyph encodings, and text content to reflect the chosen narrative. The text is displayed in a scene-based layout, and scene headers match the scene labels used in the timeline. This 5 A B Fig. 8: Interactions in FocalLens. A) Users can click on the persistent legend to receive explanations for the glyph. B) Users can click on any glyphs in the main visualization and receive an LLM-generated (human verified) explanations for the labels in the specific glyph. The relevant text and keywords relevant to the focalization types and facets are highlighted in the text panel. shared structure gives users a stable reference when moving between the visualization and the source text. 5.4 Interaction The tool supports several interactions for facilitating fluid exploration of the story with our visualization. Here, we outline various interactions available in the tool. Glyph Legend and Explanation: Users have persistent access to the glyph encoding and its semantics (Fig. 8A). On clicking on any of the concentric rings in the legend, the tool provides a definition for the variable specific to the ring and how the categories of the variable is presented in the ring. Glyph Interaction: Clicking a glyph scrolls the text panel to the relevant passage, applies stable highlighting to mark the scene con- text, selected event, and related cue words, and opens the Explanation panel with the annotation rationale (Fig. 8B). This supports a more deliberate inspection when users want to examine a local focalization judgment, compare nearby events, or trace a pattern back to its textual evidence. The selection remains active until users choose another glyph or dismiss the panel. Hovering over a glyph provides a lightweight preview. When users move the cursor over a glyph in the timeline, the corresponding passage is temporarily highlighted in the text panel. This allows quick inspection of which part of the narrative produced the selected visual mark without changing the current reading position or opening additional context. The Explanation panel supports comparison across selections. Once opened, it remains visible and can be repositioned, allowing users to retain annotation details for one event while inspecting another. This reduces the need to reconstruct earlier observations from memory and supports comparison across events, characters, and scenes. Overview and Zoom: The main visualization supports three levels of inspection through direct interaction. In the default overview, all scene cards are visible simultaneously, showing all characters across all scenes (Fig. 9A). Users can click a scene title to enter a scene-focused view: the timeline displays only that scene’s characters and events at a larger scale (Fig. 9B). Users can also click a character’s name to enter character-trajectory view: the timeline filters to show only that character’s glyphs across all scenes, with scene cards arranged horizontally and each card containing a single row for the selected character (Fig. 9C). FocalLens is designed to support movement between structural overview and passage-level inspection. The timeline helps users iden- tify focalization patterns across scenes and characters, while the text panel lets them verify how those patterns arise in specific parts of the narrative. To support this workflow, the interface coordinates the two views through interactions that differ in commitment and level of detail. 5.5 Implementation Details On the frontend, we implemented FocalLens as a web-based interactive visualization system using TypeScript, React, and Vite. We used D3 [2] for custom timeline rendering and Bootstrap for responsive layout and interface components. On the backend, the system relies on local JSON files produced through a dedicated preprocessing pipeline. Using LLMs and human annotation, we convert raw text data into a structured JSON format that stores data according to the data model described in Section 4.2. The text panel uses QuillJS [31] for rich text viewing functionality. 6 EVALUATION The evaluation of FocalLens is divided into three parts: 1) case studies on several literary works and movie scripts; 2) a small-scale technical evaluation of LLMs for detecting focalization; and 3) a user study with 4 literary scholars and creative writers. 6.1 Case Study The Yellow Wallpaper (1892) is a short story by Charlotte Perkins Gilman. This is a popular story, often discussed in literary classes. The story chronicles a woman’s descent into madness while undergoing a “rest cure” for “nervous depression” prescribed by her physician husband. The story is told from the woman’s point of view. Thus, there is only one character that is in POV (the woman) for the whole story. However, even though there is only one POV character, other characters are still focalized from the point of view of the female character. This literary style was captured by our tool. Fig. 10 shows a scene from the story. The scene illustrates the deteriorating mental health of the female character (narrator) through her POV. This is evident from the use of text such as “The people are gone and I am tired out.” and “Of course I didn’t do a thing.”. And she is internally focalized in the scene since as readers, we have direct access to her thoughts and feelings. Interestingly, we can also indirectly access other characters’ thoughts and feelings through her POV. For example, consider the line: “John thought it might do me good to see a little company, so we just had mother and Nellie and the children down for a week.” Here, even though we do not know the exact thoughts of 6 This is the author’s version of the article A B C Fig. 9: Overview and zoom interactions in FocalLens. A) The overview of the narrative (Persuasion by Jane Austen). Clicking on any scene card in this view opens an enlarged view (B) of the scene. Users can filter the overview by clicking on a character (C). Fig. 10: Differentiating POV and focalization in FocalLens. This example visualizes a scene from the story The Yellow Wallpaper (1892). The scene is told from the Narrator’s POV (marked by the blue circle in the middle). The text shows the use of first person pronouns such as “I”, “me”, etc for the narrator. However, other characters can still be focalized through the POV of the narrator. For example, we can still infer the thinking and actions of John through the POV of the Narrator. Thus, John is “externally” focalized here (visualized using the orange rings). John, we can still infer them from the Narrator’s POV. Thus, John is externally focalized here, and so are the other characters. The supplemental materials and video demo include several other case studies, demonstrating the utility of FocalLens. 6.2 LLM Evaluation FocalLens relies on model-assisted annotation to extract POV, focaliza- tion type, and focalization facets from narrative text. To assess whether this pipeline is accurate enough to support the system, we evaluated three large language models:GPT-5.3,GPT-5.4, andGemini 3.1 Pro against human-annotated ground truth on two stories (The Yel- low Wallpaper by Charlotte Perkins Gilman and Persuasion by Jane Austen). The ground truth annotations were produced collaboratively, through iterative discussion, by two authors rather than crowd-sourcing, ensuring that the reference labels reflect careful judgment. To structure the annotation task, the texts were segmented into discrete scenes and events. For each event, LLMs were prompted to analyze the text and populate the appropriate focalization labels for each character into a structured tabular format. Our evaluation focused on whether the LLMs correctly generated or identified 6 target columns: POV, Internal, Exter- nal, Perceptual, Ideological, and Psychological. Every column contains binary values: 1 denotes presence, and 0 denotes absence. MetricThe Yellow WallpaperPersuasion GPT-5.3 GPT-5.4 GeminiGPT-5.3 GPT-5.4 Gemini Micro F10.800.82 0.820.670.690.57 Macro F1 0.810.830.820.630.680.55 Exact Row Match Accuracy0.480.50 0.560.040.310.14 Table 1: Overall performance comparison of three LLMs for the stories The Yellow Wallpaper and Persuasion. Table 1 shows that GPT-5.4 and Gemini outperform GPT-5.3 on The Yellow Wallpaper. GPT-5.4 achieves the best Micro and Macro F1, while Gemini attains the highest Exact Row Match Accuracy. On Persuasion, which is a full length novel, GPT-5.4 leads on all three overall metrics, indicating stronger agreement with human annotation on the more challenging dataset. AccuracyPrecisionRecallF1 LabelG5.3 G5.4 Gem.G5.3 G5.4 Gem.G5.3 G5.4 Gem.G5.3 G5.4 Gem. POV1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 Internal1.000.94 1.001.000.74 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.000.85 1.00 External0.780.71 0.850.530.45 0.630.83 0.930.900.650.61 0.74 Perceptual0.89 0.920.820.770.85 0.900.950.890.470.85 0.870.62 Ideological0.74 0.930.850.46 0.800.701.000.890.520.63 0.840.60 Psychological0.800.84 0.950.510.57 1.001.000.920.770.680.71 0.87 Table 2: Label-wise performance comparison of three LLMs on detecting POV, focalization types, and focalization facets for THE YELLOW WALL- PAPER. GPT-5.3 and GPT-5.4 are shortened to G5.3 and G5.4. AccuracyPrecisionRecallF1 LabelG5.3 G5.4 Gem.G5.3 G5.4 Gem.G5.3 G5.4 Gem.G5.3 G5.4 Gem. POV0.93 0.960.840.68 0.790.461.000.980.860.81 0.880.60 Internal 0.860.810.810.670.550.550.71 0.720.670.690.620.60 External 0.48 0.510.340.240.230.230.660.57 0.840.350.33 0.36 Perceptual0.740.700.680.610.510.480.40 0.700.420.48 0.590.45 Ideological0.67 0.750.650.850.750.710.32 0.680.370.46 0.710.49 Psychological0.73 0.750.670.940.910.780.47 0.530.430.62 0.670.55 Table 3: Label-wise performance comparison for the story PERSUASION. GPT-5.3 and GPT-5.4 are shortened to G5.3 and G5.4. 7 Table 2 shows strong performance on The Yellow Wallpaper across most labels. All three models classify POV perfectly, while GPT-5.4 and Gemini generally provide a better precision–recall balance than GPT-5.3. Table 3 indicates that Persuasion is a more difficult story to label overall. GPT-5.4 delivers the most consistent results, leading on most labels. However, all models struggle with identifying External focalization, the weakest category in terms of precision and F1. One likely reason for the lower accuracy on Persuasion is that it operates at a much larger narrative scale than The Yellow Wallpaper. The Yellow Wallpaper is a short story with 5 scenes and 20 events, centered on a single sustained POV character. Persuasion, by contrast, contains 24 scenes and 48 events and spreads attention across a wider range of scenes, events, and recurring characters. That broader narrative scope likely made it harder for models to stay consistent while assigning labels to implicit discourse properties. The results also suggest that some labels were easier to detect from surface cues than others. In our materials, POV often had clearer linguistic signals, such as pronouns and other markers of narration, whereas focalization types required a more interpretive judgment about whether the text gave access to a character’s inner state or only to out- wardly observable behavior. This likely helps explain why the models performed much better on POV, reaching near-perfect and, in some cases, perfect accuracy, while remaining weaker on focalization labels. LLMs are also prone to hallucination when evidence is weak or un- derspecified in the context [17], which can lead to overconfident but incorrect label assignments. In addition, long-context performance remains fragile: models often use information near the beginning or end of a context more effectively than information in the middle [23], so longer narratives can make it harder to recover the specific evidence needed for accurate annotation. Narrative understanding is also inher- ently difficult because it depends on tracking perspective, causality, belief states, and subtext across a story rather than identifying isolated surface cues [38, 44]. 6.3 User Study We conducted a qualitative user study to examine how writers and liter- ary scholars use FocalLens to inspect focalization patterns in narrative text. We focused on whether participants could interpret the encodings, connect them to the source text, and assess the system’s value and limitations in relation to their own practices. 6.3.1 Participants and Procedure Participants: We recruited four participants (P1–P4) through profes- sional and institutional networks. Three (P1, P2, P4) are published writers, three (P2, P3, P4) are literary scholars with formal education in English and creative writing, and two (P2, P4) identified as both. Three participants were female and one was male. Participants received $35 USD for their time. Procedure: In pre-study communication, we asked the creative writers (P1, P2, P4) to provide us with short stories (one per partic- ipant) that they had written before. We preprocessed the stories in our tool so that writers can explore them during the session. Each session lasted approximately 90 minutes and was conducted remotely via videoconferencing software (e.g., Zoom). We began with a brief tutorial presentation covering the distinction between point of view and focalization, the types and facets represented in the system, and the visual encodings and interactions. We also provided a demo of the tool using a sample story. After this, we encouraged participants to ask us questions and try out different features of the tool. This stage established a common understanding for the study. Participants then explored two stories using the tool. They chose one of the preprocessed stories (The Yellow Wallpaper, Persuasion, Hills Like White Elephant, Interstellar, etc.) and then the story written by them. P3, who is not a writer, chose two stories from the preprocessed list. The exploration followed a think-aloud protocol, where partici- pants provided their feedback as they used the tool. We did not design a specific task list, as creative works typically do not follow any definitive workflow and depend on the idiosyncrasies of the writers and scholars. However, we guided them with some sample tasks (e.g., could you identify who is focalized internally in scene 1?) whenever they were unsure about the next steps. Each session ended with a semi-structured interview covering interpretability, the relation between the timeline and text panel, relevance to participants’ practices, and possible im- provements. We also showed participants a storyline-style narrative chart (https://xkcd.com/657) as a comparison stimulus, though not as a formal baseline. 6.3.2 Analysis We analyzed the data using thematic analysis [3], drawing on interview transcripts, observation notes, and participants’ interactions with the system. We transcribed all four interviews, reviewed them against the recordings, and lightly edited quotations for readability without changing their meaning. Two authors generated initial inductive codes, grouped them into candidate themes, and refined these through iterative discussion among them and other team members. 6.3.3 Results After the tutorial, all four participants could identify POV assignments, distinguish internal from external focalization, and recognize fore- grounded facets. For instance, P1 identified the POV character from the blue center ring, named the focalization type, and read the facet arcs correctly. P4 correctly identified John in the The Yellow Wallpaper as a non-POV character (no blue center) with external focalization (orange ring) and the ideological facet from the outer arc. These observations confirm that the encodings were interpretable and that participants could ground their readings in the visualization. We identified four themes across the four sessions. Overall, partic- ipants treated FocalLens as an analytic view of narrative perspective rather than as a summary of the story. T1: Making perspective structure inspectable (P1, P2, P3, P4). Participants described FocalLens as making focalization patterns easier to examine than reading alone. P2 connected the system to writing- workshop practice, noting that it surfaces work writers typically do by hand over several hours. P3 made a similar point from a scholarly perspective: locating focalization shifts in a novel is “painstakingly slow work” when done manually, and the visualization makes those shifts visible alongside their textual cues. P4 described the tool as a way to “catalog the characters as they move through a story,” showing the narrative role each character plays. P2 captured this most directly: “I’m in the Writers Workshop [. . . ] and a lot of that is us trying to do manually what this does. [We can do this] very quickly [with this tool] [. . . ] so that’s quite impressive.” T2: Diagnosing perspective balance in existing texts (P1, P2, P3, P4). Participants positioned FocalLens as most valuable when a text already exists and the user wants to step back and assess whether its perspective structure serves the intended goals. P1 drew a temporal distinction: a storyline chart could guide a writer during drafting, but FocalLens was better suited to reviewing a completed draft, telling the writer whether they are “going the right way, or maybe you need more of this, or less of that.” This assessment typically took the form of reasoning about how narrative attention was distributed across charac- ters and focalization types. P4, examining Persuasion, immediately identified which characters were psychologically important based on the density of internal focalization, and asked whether less-focalized characters would seem peripheral to a reader. P1 noticed that non- narrator characters in The Yellow Wallpaper shifted from ideological to perceptual framing across scenes, while only the narrator carried the psychological facet throughout. P3 noted that the visualization could reveal whether a writer was “giving short shrift” to a character and help them rebalance. For writers, these observations led directly to editorial judgments. P4, viewing his own story, asked whether a secondary character had “too much point of view” or needed further development. P2 described how pattern recognition moved to revision decisions in her own work: “One of the critiques I got [. . . ] is that there are too many characters. So with this visualization, I can see whether 8 This is the author’s version of the article it’s worth keeping them all in [. . . ] should I include this character, do they need to speak more?” T3: Keeping analysis anchored in the source text (P1, P2, P3, P4). Participants emphasized that the visualization’s value depended on its connection to the underlying text. P4 used the text panel to confirm event boundaries and check whether highlighted keywords matched his reading. P1 used the linked text to verify the tool’s output against her own story. P2 described the coordinated view as reducing the friction of relocating passages, particularly when working on a novel. P3 framed the requirement most directly, arguing that focalization judgments are inherently debatable and must always be checkable against the prose: “You always want the visualization to be anchored to the text so that you can verify in the text [. . . ]” T4: Supporting instruction on perspective and narrative roles (P1, P2, P3, P4). All four participants identified instructional value. P1 saw the tool as suited to creative writing students, who could use it to check whether their stories matched their intentions. P3 described wanting to use it in classes on variable focalization. P4 noted it could support teaching preparation, since his own notes on a story “are usually not comprehensive” and the tool is “looking for everything simultane- ously.” P2, who also teaches literature, described the specific difficulty the tool could address: “I think it’s very hard to teach literature [. . . ] this would be useful to help them understand the different parts of the story [. . . ] because they often struggle to determine, like, who’s narrator? Who’s this person?” Comparison with an alternative representation. When shown a storyline-style static narrative chart (https://xkcd.com/657) for comparison, participants treated the two representations as complemen- tary. P1 described the storyline chart as a “map of the story” showing where characters converge and split, but noted it contains “no point of view, no perspective, no emotional or psychological information.” P4 similarly observed that it conveys simultaneous action but “doesn’t give you the perspective.” Without that information, he found him- self “left asking, [. . . ], what exactly am I supposed to do with this.” Participants positioned FocalLens as more informative for perspective- centered analysis, while the storyline chart remained useful for plot and character tracking. Suggested extensions. Participants suggested complementary views rather than replacements. P2 requested a view of larger-scale narrative structure (e.g., story buildup, climax, resolution). P1 suggested em- bedding focalization glyphs into a storyline-style layout. P4 asked for event labels within scene cards to better situate the focalization data within the story’s progression. These comments point to a scope gap rather than a usability problem: participants wanted a macro-level view of plot progression alongside the current perspective-centered analysis. 7 DISCUSSION We discuss design implications learned from this work and future directions below. 7.1 Visualizing Multiple Narrative Components FocalLens essentially visualizes one narrative component: focalization, although we implicitly visualize other features of a narrative (point of view, characters, time). We had to develop a composite glyph for representing different features of focalization. The study with scholars and writers indicates that there is a small learning curve to using the tool. Adding more narrative components will likely add complexity to the visualization. This leads to a challenge: how to visualize multiple components together and support their composite analysis? One possible approach is to incorporate the components as sepa- rate modules into a single tool. Portrayal [14] successfully used this approach to visualize different character traits. However, it remains unknown how tools such as Portrayal and FocalLens can be combined together and what impact they might have on users. We aim to conduct user studies with writers and scholars to investigate this integration. Another possible solution is to identify an optimal method for visu- alizing a narrative. Future research can compare different narrative and story visualizations to assess their effectiveness and limitations. Such a study could enlighten us about the importance of different narrative components and rank them based on user preferences. 7.2 Recalibrating GenAI as an Analytical Partner Generative AI (GenAI) has reshaped writing support and literary anal- ysis tools. However, there are genuine concerns among writers that these techniques are harmful to them and to readers, and above all to good literary work. Writers in Hollywood were recently on strike, demanding clauses in their contracts that they will not be replaced by AI. The main reasons behind these concerns are the human-like text generation capabilities of LLMs. However, we believe this is not the only application of LLMs in literary work. Rather than positioning LLMs as co-authors, this project investigates their role as analytical in- struments for uncovering narrative structures. Thus, this project departs from existing research on writing and creativity support tools. This deliberate recalibration had a positive impact on our study participants and improved the acceptability of LLMs among them. We hope that our work will motivate future research to explore the analytical role of LLMs in supporting creative writing and literary analysis. 7.3 Benchmarking AI Models for Narrative Components There are currently no benchmarks for identifying focalization from narrative texts. Our small-scale experiment suggests that LLMs are potentially very accurate in identifying focalization in short stories, but suffers in long stories. Participants in the user study also identified a few cases where they did not agree with the LLM prediction. They also identified a few explanations as misleading or incorrect. This points to the need for a thorough investigation of the model performance and error analysis. A critical next step is to formalize the NLP task, create datasets, and benchmark different models for the task. This line of research could be extended to other narrative components as well. 8 CONCLUSION We presented FocalLens, a visual representation of narratives that leverages the concept of focalization to support editing and analysis by formalizing perspective as a structured filter within a narrative. This work demonstrates how visually mapping focalization can directly enhance a writer’s ability to review and iterate on narrative perspective. We frame the visualization of focalization as foundational work to explore narrative components. While our prototype is only a design probe, it serves as a critical first step. REFERENCES [1]J. Austen. Pride and prejudice. Project Gutenberg eBook #1342, June 1998. Release date: June 1, 1998. Originally published 1813. 3 [2]M. Bostock, V. Ogievetsky, and J. Heer. D 3 data-driven documents. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 17(12):2301–2309, 2011. 6 [3]V. Braun and V. Clarke. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2):77–101, 2006. 8 [4]J. J. Y. Chung, W. Kim, K. M. Yoo, H. Lee, E. Adar, and M. Chang. TaleBrush: Sketching stories with generative pretrained language models. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, p. 209:1–209:19. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2022. doi: 10. 1145/3491102.3501819 3 [5]S. Crane. The open boat and other stories. Project Gutenberg eBook #45524, Apr. 2014. Release date: April 28, 2014. 2 [6]W. Cui, S. Liu, L. Tan, C. Shi, Y. Song, Z. Gao, H. Qu, and X. Tong. TextFlow: Towards better understanding of evolving topics in text. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 17(12):2412–2421, 2011. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2011.239 3 [7] W. Cui, Y. Wu, S. Liu, F. Wei, M. X. Zhou, and H. Qu. Context-preserving, dynamic word cloud visualization. IEEE Computer Graphics & Applica- tions, 30(6):42–53, 2010. doi: 10.1109/MCG.2010.102 3 [8]J. Edwards. Coherent reaction. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIG- PLAN conference companion on Object oriented programming systems languages and applications, p. 925–932, 2009. 3 9 [9]S. Gad, W. Javed, S. Ghani, N. Elmqvist, E. T. Ewing, K. N. Hampton, and N. Ramakrishnan. ThemeDelta: Dynamic segmentations over temporal topic models. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 21(5):672–685, 2015. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2014.2388208 3 [10]G. Genette. Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, 1980. Foreword by Jonathan Culler. Translation of “Discours du récit” (1972). ISBN 0-8014-1099-1 (cloth), 0-8014-9259-9 (pbk). 2 [11] M. Gronemann, M. Jünger, F. Liers, and F. Mambelli. Crossing mini- mization in storyline visualization. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Graph Drawing and Network Visualization, vol. 9801 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, p. 367–381. Springer, New York, NY, USA, 2016. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-50106-2_29 1, 3 [12] M. A. Hearst, E. Pedersen, L. Patil, E. Lee, P. Laskowski, and S. Fran- coneri. An evaluation of semantically grouped word cloud designs. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 26(9):2748–2761, 2019. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2019.2904683 3 [13]M. N. Hoque, B. Ghai, and N. Elmqvist. Dramatvis personae: Visual text analytics for identifying social biases in creative writing. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, p. 1260–1276. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2022. doi: 10.1145/3532106.3533526 3, 4 [14] M. N. Hoque, B. Ghai, K. Kraus, and N. Elmqvist. Portrayal: Leveraging NLP and visualization for analyzing fictional characters. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, p. 74–94. ACM, 2023. doi: 10.1145/3563657.3596000 1, 9 [15]M. N. Hoque, B. Ghai, K. Kraus, and N. Elmqvist. Portrayal: Leveraging nlp and visualization for analyzing fictional characters. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference, p. 74–94, 2023. 3, 4 [16]N. Hoque, T. Mashiat, B. Ghai, C. D. Shelton, F. Chevalier, K. Kraus, and N. Elmqvist. The hallmark effect: Supporting provenance and transparent use of large language models in writing with interactive visualization. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sys- tems, p. 1045:1–1045:15. ACM, 2024. doi: 10.1145/3613904.3641895 3 [17] L. Huang, W. Yu, W. Ma, W. Zhong, Z. Feng, H. Wang, et al. A survey on hallucination in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.05232, 2023. 8 [18]A. Kim, C. Pethe, and S. Skiena. What time is it? temporal analysis of novels. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, p. 9076–9086. Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 2020. doi: 10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp -main.730 3 [19]N. W. Kim, B. Bach, H. Im, S. Schriber, M. H. Gross, and H. Pfister. Visualizing nonlinear narratives with story curves. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 24(1):595–604, 2018. doi: 10. 1109/TVCG.2017.2744118 1, 3 [20] T. Kim, B. Saket, A. Endert, and B. MacIntyre. Visar: Bringing interactiv- ity to static data visualizations through augmented reality. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.01377, 2017. 3 [21]M. Lee, K. I. Gero, J. J. Y. Chung, S. B. Shum, V. Raheja, H. Shen, S. Venu- gopalan, T. Wambsganss, D. Zhou, E. A. Alghamdi, T. August, A. Bhat, M. Z. Choksi, S. Dutta, J. L. C. Guo, M. N. Hoque, Y. Kim, S. Knight, S. P. Neshaei, A. Shibani, D. Shrivastava, L. Shroff, A. Sergeyuk, J. Stark, S. Sterman, S. Wang, A. Bosselut, D. Buschek, J. C. Chang, S. Chen, M. Kreminski, J. Park, R. Pea, E. H. R. Rho, Z. Shen, and P. Siangliulue. A design space for intelligent and interactive writing assistants. In Proceed- ings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, p. 1054:1–1054:35. ACM, 2024. doi: 10.1145/3613904.3642697 3 [22]E. Lieberman, J.-B. Michel, J. Jackson, T. Tang, and M. A. Nowak. Quanti- fying the evolutionary dynamics of language. Nature, 449(7163):713–716, 2007. doi: 10.1038/nature06137 3 [23]N. F. Liu, K. Lin, J. Hewitt, A. Paranjape, M. Bevilacqua, F. Petroni, and P. Liang. Lost in the middle: How language models use long contexts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.03172, 2023. 8 [24]S. Liu, Y. Wu, E. Wei, M. Liu, and Y. Liu. StoryFlow: Tracking the evolution of stories. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 19(12):2436–2445, 2013. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2013.196 3 [25] G. R. Martin. A Game of Thrones. A Song of Ice and Fire. Bantam Books, New York, 1996. 2 [26]D. Masson, Z. Zhao, and F. Chevalier. Visual story-writing: Writing by manipulating visual representations of stories. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, UIST 2025, Busan, Korea, 28 September 2025 - 1 October 2025, p. 70:1–70:15. ACM, 2025. doi: 10.1145/3746059.3747758 3 [27]N. McCurdy, J. Lein, K. Coles, and M. D. Meyer. Poemage: Visualizing the sonic topology of a poem. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 22(1):439–448, 2016. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2015. 2467811 3 [28]H. Melville. Moby dick; or, the whale. Project Gutenberg eBook #2701, July 2001. Release date: July 1, 2001. Originally published 1851. 2 [29] B. A. Myers. Visual programming, programming by example, and program visualization: a taxonomy. ACM sigchi bulletin, 17(4):59–66, 1986. 3 [30] T. Pial, S. S. Aunti, C. Pethe, A. Kim, and S. Skiena. Analyzing film adaptation through narrative alignment. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP, p. 15560–15579. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2023. doi: 10. 18653/V1/2023.EMNLP-MAIN.962 3 [31] QuillJS. Quilljs: a rich text editor, 2021. Accessed: 2022-02-04. 6 [32] A. J. Reagan, L. Mitchell, D. Kiley, C. M. Danforth, and P. S. Dodds. The emotional arcs of stories are dominated by six basic shapes. EPJ Data Science, 5:31:1–31:12, 2016. doi: 10.1140/epjds/s13688-016-0093-1 3 [33]S. Rimmon-Kenan. Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics. Routledge, 2 ed., 2002. 1, 2, 3 [34] S. Rimmon-Kenan. Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics. Routledge, London, UK, 2002. 3 [35] J. Rowling. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. Bloomsbury, London, 1997. 3 [36]E. Segel and J. Heer. Narrative visualization: Telling stories with data. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 16(6):1139– 1148, 2010. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2010.179 3 [37]S. Sinclair and G. Rockwell. Voyant tools, 2012. Accessed: 2022-02-04. 3 [38] M. Subbiah, M. Shen, S. Eger, et al. Reading subtext: Evaluating large language models on short story summarization. Transactions of the Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics, 2024. 8 [39]Y. Tanahashi and K. Ma. Design considerations for optimizing storyline vi- sualizations. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 18(12):2679–2688, 2012. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2012.212 1, 3, 4 [40]F. B. Viégas, M. Wattenberg, and J. Feinberg. Participatory visualization with wordle. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 15(6):1137–1144, 2009. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2009.171 3 [41]K. Watson, S. S. Sohn, S. Schriber, M. Gross, C. M. Muñiz, and M. Kapa- dia. StoryPrint: An interactive visualization of stories. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, p. 303–311. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2019. doi: 10.1145/3301275.3302302 1, 3 [42]Z. Yan, C. Yang, Q. Liang, and X. Chen. Xcreation: A graph-based crossmodal generative creativity support tool. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, p. 1–15, 2023. 3 [43] C. Yeh, T. Menon, R. S. Arya, H. He, M. Weigel, F. Viégas, and M. Wat- tenberg. Story ribbons: Reimagining storyline visualizations with large language models. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 2025. 1, 3, 4 [44]L. Zhu, R. Zhao, L. Gui, and Y. He. Are nlp models good at trac- ing thoughts: An overview of narrative understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.18783, 2023. 8 10

Instant research discovery