# Three act structure.



## Miskatonic (Nov 5, 2015)

I see the three act structure touted by so many writers, whether they are novelists, screenwriters, etc. I'm starting to wonder if it's just an outdated approach that is merely there to give the writer a false sense of security because the structure has succeeded more than failed in the publishing world (making it appear more lucrative to just follow blindly). 

All these rules and templates seem to be there only to dictate the confines in which we are allowed to express ourselves. I know they aren't rules written in stone, but still, they all assume you have one MC that does the same old "quest", in whatever form it takes, and at certain parts of the book you have to have a conflict of some type, then some type of resolution at a specific point as well. 

It's like we are writing to an audience that never takes it's literary training wheels off and actually evolves to reading stories with a little more complexity. These don't have to be huge leaps, just a slowly moving progression. 

And last of all, if you are writing a multi-book "series", trying to plan out a three act structure within that looks to be a major pain in the ass, especially if you aren't doing a trilogy.

Any thoughts?


----------



## Feo Takahari (Nov 5, 2015)

Three years ago, I linked a video about the three-act structure, and why so many video games use amnesia as an excuse to cut out act one and just have two acts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIQ6yWptvfA At the time, I took it at face value, but now I have to wonder why you need a three-act structure at all if you have to go to so much trouble to keep it from being boring. A lot of action-heavy works do just fine with little to no infodumpy act one, establishing the characters through how they behave in a crisis. And more experimental works may not have distinct acts at all!


----------



## Miskatonic (Nov 5, 2015)

Three act seems to work well for movies as you have a set viewing time so you have to pace it effectively. And those are a much larger investment, so it makes sense to keep basic narratives in line with that structure. 

But with books, some people might read a chapter and come back two days later and start again. As long as they are interested in what happens next, some dictated structure is secondary. Maybe it helps undisciplined writers that are starting out to understand how to structure a story; but if you know what you are doing it seems pointless.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Nov 5, 2015)

There are many different types of story structure. The 3 Act structure is the most common, & some say that's because readers inherently understand and desire the concept of a beginning, middle, & end.

That doesn't mean a 3 Act story can't be complex, or that it must be limited to a stand alone story or a single main character. Far from it.

You can have a multi-POV book where each character's individual viewpoint follows its own beginning, middle, end within the larger whole. Often they all meet somewhere in the end, which can make the story far more complex in terms of weaving all those plot lines together. 

You can also write a long series in this structure. It's been a long time since I've read Jordan's Wheel of Time books, so forgive me if my memory lacks, but I believe each of those books has a story within the whole that progresses along a 3 Act structure. 

Three act is my default choice as I believe in the reader's preference toward this structure. However, in the future I'd certainly entertain experimenting with other forms. For now though, I'd rather stick with what I know until I've gained a measure of success. 

Many in my writing group use the scene-sequel approach, which sees a lot of use and has great lessons for any writer to consider. Then there's a the 5 Act structure, the 7 Act structure, 9 Act, etc.

There's plenty to choose from so figure out what you think your story needs and try it out. But, don't discount the 3 Act structure because it's common. There's more complexity and flexibility there than one might imagine.


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 5, 2015)

I like it as an outline to keep my ideas focused and to make sure I have decent checkpoints thought the story. It prevents me from wandering too much. For my novel I have done as t Allan noted, though and it has become fairly complicated. I have charted a 3AS for the main plot, another one for the romance sub plot, and at least 3 others for my key characters have have very developed character arcs. I treat outer conflict ( the plot) and inner conflict ( the character arc) as the same weight, so each needs to have their own structure. Then I weave it all together. It just helps to keep things organized, and I find much deeper, clear, concise, and action packed then when I don't use structure.

I was skeptical too, when I first moved from just 'writing' to trying to use structure and scene/sequence and MRU's among other things, but I have found that since using all forms of structure my stories have vastly improved. 

Once criticism I have read from literary agents/publishers is that the books that end up in their slush pile very rarely have enough conflict. You can never have too much conflict (both inner and outer) and often times the writer just doesn't take the story far enough. Deep enough. I have found that by really utilizing 3AS (or 5AS or 7AS or heros journey etc) as well as scene/sequence, as well as MRU's that I have developed a much stronger grasp on conflict and creating conflict where I probably wouldn't have before.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 5, 2015)

> All these rules and templates seem to be there only to dictate the confines in which we are allowed to express ourselves.



You and I see rules and templates very, very differently.

The rules and templates are there to tell you what has worked for others.  You are under no obligation to follow them.  My experience, however, is that writing fiction is hard.  The more I try to go off on my own, the more I tend to screw up.

I've also learned that it's difficult for me to judge my own work.  Just because I read something I wrote and think, "Wow, that's the awesome!" does not mean anyone else on the planet will feel that way. From conversations, it seems like most writers eventually come to feel the same way.  I'm not sure how a writer, then, goes about developing an entirely new structure that readers will react positively to.


----------



## Penpilot (Nov 5, 2015)

Funny thing. I wrote an article regarding this for mythic scribes last quarter. Check it out. Do Writers Really Need to Know Theory?


----------



## Miskatonic (Nov 5, 2015)

BWFoster78 said:


> You and I see rules and templates very, very differently.
> 
> The rules and templates are there to tell you what has worked for others.  You are under no obligation to follow them.  My experience, however, is that writing fiction is hard.  The more I try to go off on my own, the more I tend to screw up.
> 
> I've also learned that it's difficult for me to judge my own work.  Just because I read something I wrote and think, "Wow, that's the awesome!" does not mean anyone else on the planet will feel that way. From conversations, it seems like most writers eventually come to feel the same way.  I'm not sure how a writer, then, goes about developing an entirely new structure that readers will react positively to.



What I meant was if you take the three act structure to be gospel, then by following it you may end up having to make sacrifices where your story is concerned, under the assumption that this is the only way to go about writing a novel. Nobody is obligated to follow it, as you said. However, the noobs that are curious about writing may get boxed in if all they hear is three act structure from published authors.

The attitude I get from a lot of these articles is "Want to get published? This is how you need to structure your story." 

If you try to develop your own structure it isn't much different than using the orthodox method right? You write and then get critique/feedback from others, and then you adjust accordingly. 

I'm not saying the three act structure is detrimental by default to anyone's writing by any means.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 5, 2015)

> The attitude I get from a lot of these articles is "Want to get published? This is how you need to structure your story."



If the person reading the article is such a newbie that they don't understand that they have options, they'd probably be better off just sticking with the 3 act structure.


----------



## FifthView (Nov 5, 2015)

Many of these threads end up feeling/sounding the same.  ON the one hand, a "rule" is presented–most likely, as a step for dismissing it.  But even if the topic is presented for clarification, everyone coming to it may still be looking for a "template," or a guide of some sort.  This is true even if the template being sought is an alternative template.  Or alternative templates, plural.

And there is both, danger and usefulness in templates.  Or guides.  I'm reminded a _little_ of the adage, "You can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make him drink."  Some will say it's inhumane to force the horse to drink the water.  If you apply too much force, you might drown him!  And yet, water is a good resource.


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 5, 2015)

Or, you can warm yourself by the fire, but don't get too close?


----------



## kennyc (Nov 6, 2015)

Penpilot said:


> Funny thing. I wrote an article regarding this for mythic scribes last quarter. Check it out. Do Writers Really Need to Know Theory?



Great post/article there Penpilot.

"...I started to notice the commonalities between some theories and realized each was just a view of story taken from a different vantage point, like viewing a car from front, back, top, bottom, driver side, or passenger side. Each vantage point revealed features that couldn’t be seen from the others...."


----------



## kennyc (Nov 6, 2015)

FifthView said:


> Many of these threads end up feeling/sounding the same.  ON the one hand, a "rule" is presented—most likely, as a step for dismissing it.  But even if the topic is presented for clarification, everyone coming to it may still be looking for a "template," or a guide of some sort.  This is true even if the template being sought is an alternative template.  Or alternative templates, plural.
> 
> And there is both, danger and usefulness in templates.  Or guides.  I'm reminded a _little_ of the adage, *"You can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make him drink." * Some will say it's inhumane to force the horse to drink the water.  If you apply too much force, you might drown him!  And yet, water is a good resource.



....and nothing stinks worse than a wet horse.


----------



## Miskatonic (Nov 6, 2015)

Penpilot said:


> Funny thing. I wrote an article regarding this for mythic scribes last quarter. Check it out. Do Writers Really Need to Know Theory?



There sure seems to be an endless number of "How To" books on the market. Maybe that's where the real money is.


----------



## kennyc (Nov 6, 2015)

Miskatonic said:


> There sure seems to be an endless number of "How To" books on the market. Maybe that's where the real money is.



Oh yeah, there's money in it. I wrote a few 'how to' articles on various types/genres of writing an age or so ago...


----------



## Penpilot (Nov 6, 2015)

Miskatonic said:


> There sure seems to be an endless number of "How To" books on the market. Maybe that's where the real money is.



Yeah, I've read my fair share of writing books. To me, the first step to separating the wheat from the chaff is to look at what the book promises. If the book starts off making grand promises of easy solutions and secret secrets to becoming a best seller, I'm very sceptical. 

If memory serves, the best books I've come across don't make such claims. The books can make concepts simpler to grasp, but they never make promises that you don't have to work at your craft.

To me, it's like those adverts to diet pills. Take these pills and lose weight while doing absolutely zero work. Sorry, unless it's the lottery, there's nothing for free in this world.


----------



## Helen (Nov 10, 2015)

Miskatonic said:


> All these rules and templates seem to be there only to dictate the confines in which we are allowed to express ourselves.



I don't think they confine your expression, I think they help release your expression.



Miskatonic said:


> And last of all, if you are writing a multi-book "series", trying to plan out a three act structure within that looks to be a major pain in the ass, especially if you aren't doing a trilogy.



Not really. TV shows do it all the time.


----------



## skip.knox (Nov 10, 2015)

You can lead a horse to water ... but only if you already know where the water is.


----------



## evolution_rex (Nov 11, 2015)

The three act structure is the simplest to write, easiest to read, and easiest to perfect. But some of the best things I've read or watched don't go by that structure and break away from standard narrative forms. To break the three act structure is to take higher risks. It's harder to write and perfect, and it's harder to read. But if you do it well, it will get higher praise than a story that's three act.


----------



## Velka (Nov 12, 2015)

I find the 3AS to be a useful tool in the planning/outlining phase. As someone who is a reformed pantser, it has helped me bring better focus to my WIP and has given me tools tighten up and mesh together the outer and inner conflict using 'plot points' and the 'hero's journey'. That being said, my WIP strays from the traditional 3AS in many ways as well. As with anything, it's a tool - how you use it can differ substantially than how someone else does. 

It has also been a great tool for creating better flow between the multiple books (right now it's a trilogy - because three). Book one has a three-ish act structure, but in the overreaching three books, it acts as the 'beginning'.

Every story, three act or not, does have a beginning, middle and end - some might not be in that order, or some might have a multiple ends or beginnings - but physically they all have those three things.

I think of it this way - why does the standard vehicle have four wheels? Sure, there's cars that turn into boats, and those cute little delivery trucks with three wheels I saw all over Italy, and motorcycles, and tanks, but for the most four wheels works. Now, what is on top of those four wheels differs drastically: put a Jaguar 911 next to a Hummer - totally different vehicles, built on the same idea of four wheels. Same can be said about stories, just because they have a similar underlying structure, it doesn't mean they can be vastly different interpretations.


----------



## kennyc (Nov 12, 2015)

Velka said:


> .... As someone who is a reformed pantser....


----------



## Brian G Turner (Nov 14, 2015)

Miskatonic said:


> I see the three act structure touted by so many writers, whether they are novelists, screenwriters, etc. I'm starting to wonder if it's just an outdated approach that is merely there to give the writer a false sense of security because the structure has succeeded more than failed in the publishing world (making it appear more lucrative to just follow blindly).
> 
> All these rules and templates seem to be there only to dictate the confines in which we are allowed to express ourselves. I know they aren't rules written in stone, but still, they all assume you have one MC that does the same old "quest", in whatever form it takes, and at certain parts of the book you have to have a conflict of some type, then some type of resolution at a specific point as well.
> 
> ...



In 1993 I picked up a book on writing, and ended up throwing it across the room at an early chapter on W diagrams. How dare anyone try to reduce the pure art of storytelling into a formula! I went through a long phase of refusing to accept that there are technically important ways to write better - one I sincerely regret.

Bottom line is that your cynicism is misplaced. Yes, there are probably a lot of crap books on writing out there - so just watch for recommendations. I made a few in this thread, and no doubt others will do so over time, too:
http://mythicscribes.com/forums/writing-resources/14895-best-books-writing-fiction.html


----------



## Miskatonic (Nov 15, 2015)

Brian G Turner said:


> In 1993 I picked up a book on writing, and ended up throwing it across the room at an early chapter on W diagrams. How dare anyone try to reduce the pure art of storytelling into a formula! I went through a long phase of refusing to accept that there are technically important ways to write better - one I sincerely regret.
> 
> Bottom line is that your cynicism is misplaced. Yes, there are probably a lot of crap books on writing out there - so just watch for recommendations. I made a few in this thread, and no doubt others will do so over time, too:
> http://mythicscribes.com/forums/writing-resources/14895-best-books-writing-fiction.html



I shall try to be a bit more open-minded. 

I guess I find it frustrating when I read so many "Don't do this with your novel" type articles. I can't tell if they are dealing with what won't make your book commercially viable, or if they really know that most readers actually don't like that.

Ask 10 readers what they like and don't like and they probably won't all agree on the same things. 

It just causes confusion and confusion for me leads to inaction.


----------



## Penpilot (Nov 15, 2015)

Miskatonic said:


> I shall try to be a bit more open-minded.
> 
> I guess I find it frustrating when I read so many "Don't do this with your novel" type articles. I can't tell if they are dealing with what won't make your book commercially viable, or if they really know that most readers actually don't like that.
> 
> ...




Here's the thing, when you read things, you have to take several things into account. First, is what they're saying and how they're saying it. The second, what's the source of this information?

I'd suggest finding good sources for your information. Articles on the internet can be helpful, but for me, I treat them as supplements.

I found good sources to be from books that have been around for a while, and from podcasts by respected professionals. Personally, I've found that the good sources don't tell you that you must do X. They tell you here's how X works and how it can help. It lets you decide if this is something you want to use.

If something confuses you into inaction, first try to make sense of it. Give it a good think. If you still don't understand, set it aside and ignore it for the time being. Sometimes it takes time for things to sink in.

But while that's happening keep writing.

In addition, break out the critical thinking skills and try to figure out if something is BS or not. BS usually makes less and less sense the more you read up on it and the more you think about it.


There are no guarantees in terms of making your story commercially viable, but I think there's one thing that will help your chances. Write a gosh darn good story.

How do you do that? A significant part of it is learning the craft. For me, it's about reading good books about craft, and then doing the most important thing of all, writing. 

And remember, you're trying to be a professional, don't expect immediate or easy results. Nobody looks at a professional baseball player throwing 100mph fastballs and thinks, I can read a few dos and don'ts, a learn few techniques, and in a few weeks, I can be throwing comets too. 

Don't make the mistake of looking at professional writing the same way. Just like it takes pro athletes year and years of practice to do their thing, it's the same with pro writers. I've heard writers use the phrase, "It took me ten years to be an overnight success."


----------



## Miskatonic (Nov 15, 2015)

All great points. I start to wonder if some of these articles try to pigeon hole readers in order to reinforce their point of view on what works. 

I guess if I have multiple story arcs over multiple novels I can just treat each arc as a three act story.

Can you recommend a good podcast?


----------



## Penpilot (Nov 15, 2015)

The best one out there IMHO is writing excuses. Each episode is around 15 minutes long but packs in quite a lot. I sometimes listen to episodes multiple times. The hosts are Brandon Sanderson, Dan Wells , Mary Robinette Kowal, and Howard Taylor, all pretty successful writers in their genres.


----------



## Mark (Nov 15, 2015)

I use the three act dramatic structure and feel it gives me a lot of freedom to be creative. But if you want to read up on this you need to choose the books you read carefully, some express it dogmatically and too simplistically.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Nov 16, 2015)

Miskatonic said:


> I guess I find it frustrating when I read so many "Don't do this with your novel" type articles.



There are a lot of online articles written by aspiring writers, but the trouble is that it's the blind leading the blind. There are no absolutes in writing - genre writing is a different animal to literary writing, and there's room for cross over inbetween.

Books on writing I've read basically talk about features - tools - that have a long tradition in good genre writing. I don't think any say "don't do this" as much as "try this and see if it makes your writing stronger". Unless, of course, you're literary agent Donald Maas in which case his message is "conflict, conflict, conflict!"

Another good resource on the technicalities of writing are a series of writing lectures by Brandon Sanderson that were put on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/user/WriteAboutDragons

You don't have to agree with his creative decisions, but it's hard to disagree that the guy has good experience - and success - within the industry. Watch some of those, and they may point out areas you want to research further.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 16, 2015)

> I guess I find it frustrating when I read so many "Don't do this with your novel" type articles. I can't tell if they are dealing with what won't make your book commercially viable, or if they really know that most readers actually don't like that.



I have an alternate approach for your consideration:

Find a book that you really like, one that exemplifies to the greatest degree possible what you want to achieve as a writer

Read that book analytically.  For every scene, try to determine the techniques used.

If you're unable to see past the writing to the techniques, read more about writing craft until you can recognize techniques.

Experiment with those techniques in your own writing.


----------



## FifthView (Nov 16, 2015)

BWFoster78 said:


> I have an alternate approach for your consideration:
> 
> Find a book that you really like, one that exemplifies to the greatest degree possible what you want to achieve as a writer
> 
> ...



The folks at _Writing Excuses_ suggest taking a novel that you like and writing its outline; i.e., reverse engineer it.


----------



## kennyc (Nov 16, 2015)

Yes the best way to learn to write is by reading great books. Historically that's been the best approach. It does help to have some flexible context into which to do the reading/analyzing, but studying what works and why in context along with your reason for writing is the best. This is why two instructional books are at the top of my recommended how-to-write books.

The Making of a Story by Alice LaPlante 

and

Reading Like a Writer by Francine Prose

and thirdly a more traditional book, but it too contains many great examples and analysis of them.

Writing Fiction by Janet Burroway


Read, re-read, study the stories you love and that you want to write. Then Write! Analyze/Critique your own work and Read, re-read, study, and write some more. 

There is no easy path other than the one recommended by Neil Gaiman.


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 16, 2015)

FifthView said:


> The folks at _Writing Excuses_ suggest taking a novel that you like and writing its outline; i.e., reverse engineer it.



It's funny how much this is becoming instinct for me now, in both books and movies. I can identify the elements of three act structure or the hero's journey everywhere. Especially moves, because I have been watching a lot of movies lately. An example I gave Miskatonic in another post is the "midpoint reversal".  In the last couple movies I watched (MI3 and Fool's Gold) I checked the time right at the part that everything changed for the MC. The point when the stakes were raised higher then ever, or a point when everything crumbled around them or they had a false victory… yep, exactly the half way point. 

Today I watched The Sorcerer's Apprentice with my son (the Fantasia one) and checked the time right when Mickey destroyed the broom and then it backfired on him and turned into a million more brooms… yep, just after half way. 

It is surprising how many variations of stories can be made from one formula.

This is actually why I have been watching a lot of movies lately. In two hours I can see: 

- How they framed both the external and internal conflict. 
- How they created the Save the Cat moment
- How they created each scene to highlight the goal, the conflict, the building conflict. 
- How they raise the stakes throughout the story 
- How they show the character arc. 

Movies are great for getting a lot of ideas on story structure quickly. Book are great for seeing how they do it with words.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 16, 2015)

FifthView said:


> The folks at _Writing Excuses_ suggest taking a novel that you like and writing its outline; i.e., reverse engineer it.



Yes, but just to be clear: outline on a scene level as well as a story level.  Story level outline details how the story works.  Scene level to figure out how to make scenes work - use of tension, showing, word choices. backstory, etc.


----------



## kennyc (Nov 16, 2015)

Interestingly today's Goodreads quote of the day:

*We write in response to what we read and learn; and in the end we write out of our deepest selves. 
 - Andrea Barrett *

Happy birthday, Andrea Barrett! Some of the American novelist's characters appear in more than one story. She addressed this in her 2007 book, The Air We Breathe, which featured a family tree, outlining all the overlapping relationships.


----------



## Miskatonic (Nov 16, 2015)

kennyc said:


> Yes the best way to learn to write is by reading great books. Historically that's been the best approach. It does help to have some flexible context into which to do the reading/analyzing, but studying what works and why in context along with your reason for writing is the best. This is why two instructional books are at the top of my recommended how-to-write books.
> 
> The Making of a Story by Alice LaPlante
> 
> ...



"If they are going to be stories, try and tell the stories you would like to read. ".

I said this in an older thread and was told it's not what I want it's what the readers want.

Glad to see someone agrees with me.


----------

