Pluie's Death and C.J.'s Political Reframe
Plot Beats
The narrative micro-steps within this event
Tension erupts when the woman reveals Pluie was killed by a rancher, silencing the room.
C.J. dismantles their proposal with a cutting analysis of ranchers' struggles versus wildlife priorities.
The conservationists pivot awkwardly to grizzly bears after C.J. suggests building schools instead, exposing their ideological rigidity.
Who Was There
Characters present in this moment
Controlled and sardonic on the surface; quietly authoritative and slightly impatient beneath, aiming to disarm sentimental rhetoric with real-world stakes.
C.J. listens, teases, then methodically dismantles the romantic conservation pitch with sharp, politically literate questions; she laughs to deflate idealism, presses for cost and voter realities, and delivers the final pragmatic dismissal: 'We're not gonna do it.'
- • Expose the political impracticality of the proposal to protect the Administration from a politically damaging commitment.
- • Reframe the conversation from moral spectacle to budgetary and voter priorities.
- • Test the presenters' credibility and force a defensible cost-benefit answer.
- • Policy must be evaluated through political and budgetary realities, not only moral urgency.
- • Ranchers and voters matter more in practical governance than idealized animal narratives.
- • Large taxpayer expenditures require clear, defensible priorities (e.g., schools vs. spectacle).
Solemn and slightly reproachful — her factual declaration carries grief and a deliberate willingness to confront the room with moral consequences.
Operating the overhead projector and speaking up with blunt clarity, the woman delivers the emotional punch: she discloses that Pluie was shot by a rancher, causing an abrupt hush; she then prompts the awkward shift to alternative imagery (the grizzly).
- • Humanize the cost of policy through the concrete tragedy of Pluie's death.
- • Break through rhetorical politeness to force a moral accounting.
- • Re-center the presentation on real-world consequences rather than abstract engineering.
- • Conservation arguments must include the lived costs of conflict between humans and wildlife.
- • Truthful disclosure (even when politically inconvenient) is necessary for honest deliberation.
- • A clear, emotional fact can shift how decision-makers perceive a proposal.
Unsettled and eager to reorient the pitch; a mix of frustration and pragmatic optimism that the idea can be salvaged if handled properly.
Jerry interjects with tactical remarks — urging seriousness about doing the project 'right' and attempting to shore up the presenters' position — but is mostly sidelined by C.J.'s political demolition and the room's ensuing awkward silence.
- • Encourage the presenters to frame the project in politically viable terms.
- • Advocate for doing the proposal 'right' to avoid cheap optics or mistakes.
- • Maintain momentum for an initiative he believes can be spun positively.
- • Grand gestures can be politically valuable if properly executed.
- • White House support can legitimize and catalyze large-scale projects.
- • Political optics matter more than pure technical merit in persuasion.
Initially confident and performative; after C.J.'s interrogation and the death disclosure he becomes sheepish and deflated, losing rhetorical control.
The male conservation presenter speaks theatrically, selling Pluie's life story and the wolves-only roadway; he jabs at engineered overpasses and grand design, attempting to translate scientific passion into policy appeal before being undercut by C.J.'s questions and the revelation of Pluie's death.
- • Elicit emotional buy-in from White House communicators for the wolves-only roadway.
- • Secure institutional support or visibility for the conservation project.
- • Use Pluie's narrative as moral leverage to overcome political resistance.
- • Powerful imagery and a heroic animal narrative can move policymakers.
- • Scientific rationale combined with spectacle will overcome political obstacles.
- • Funding can be secured through contributions and sponsorship if public sympathy exists.
Earnest but increasingly defensive as policy and political questions crowd out scientific explanation; quietly frustrated by the shift from data to cost politics.
The scientist (second man) supplies technical context — Pluie's migrations, distances, and biological justification for corridors — attempting to anchor the pitch in evidence while C.J. undercuts the feasibility with pragmatic questions.
- • Translate telemetry and scientific findings into policy recommendations.
- • Preserve the integrity of the scientific argument amid political interrogation.
- • Convince staff that landscape-scale corridors are necessary for genetic viability.
- • Empirical evidence should drive conservation decision-making.
- • Cross-border telemetry demonstrates the need for large-scale connected habitat.
- • Policymakers can be persuaded by clear, quantified scientific cases.
Objects Involved
Significant items in this scene
The white projection screen receives the projected photographs of Pluie and later the grizzly, dominating the room's visual field and forcing C.J. and attendees to confront the images as persuasive evidence.
The overhead projector is actively operated by the woman to cast high-contrast images of Pluie and later a grizzly onto the white screen; it serves as the literal machine of persuasion, converting slides into emotional evidence for the pitch.
An oversized projected rendering of highway overpasses represents the wolves-only roadway concept; used to dramatize infrastructure scale and provoke C.J.'s incredulous questions about feasibility and animal behavior.
A photo I.D. is invoked as a rhetorical joke (C.J.'s quip about border crossing requiring ID), serving to undercut the presentation's rhetorical seriousness and introduce levity that distances policymakers from the advocates.
A projected cost estimate (the $900 million number) is introduced verbally as the fiscal anchor of the proposal, transforming idealistic talk into a concrete budgetary proposition that C.J. seizes on to reframe the matter politically.
Location Details
Places and their significance in this event
The Roosevelt Room functions as the institutional stage where advocacy meets politics: a conference setting that privileges both formal presentation rituals and hard-nosed political interrogation, compressing moral appeals into a policy forum.
Narrative Connections
How this event relates to others in the story
"Pluie’s death and C.J.’s emotional connection to it later influence her defense of wildlife."
"Pluie’s death and C.J.’s emotional connection to it later influence her defense of wildlife."
Key Dialogue
"C.J.: "First of all, ranchers don't want wolves returned to the West.""
"Woman: "Pluie was shot and killed by a rancher in British Columbia last month.""
"C.J.: "How about we build the nine best schools in the world?""