Do we need to know about story structures?

[Mad Swede]

This came up in another thread, and it seems to me to deserve it's own thread since so many writers seem to feel that story structures are important.

My view is that we as authors don't really need to know the theories - and yes, I know that's sacrilege for many writers. Although Aristotle was one of the first to define a story structure the real theoretical discussion didn't get going until the middle of the 20th century. Given that the popularisation of story structures is so late I don't see that knowing about these structures and theories is neccessary to write a successful story. It might help, but at the end of the day it's still all about our creativity, what we write and how well we write it. Not everyone agrees:

I sort of both agree and disagree with this.

I think most authors can write most stories without knowing the theory behind story structures. Stories are one of those things that make us human. Most people have read and seen thousands of stories by the time they become adults, from small Donald Duck comics to 400k word doorstoppers. All of those show us what stories are like.

What's more, our own lives are stories. On theory about why the Hero's Journey is so powerful, is that it mimics children growing up, moving out on their own and learning to lead their lives.

Where the theory does become useful, is when it doesn't work. When as a writer you're stuck in your writing, and you know you need to improve something but you don't know what, then the theory can become useful. You can take that theory and apply it to your story to see why something does or doens't work. It's a tool you can use to find solutions.

Also, I believe that good story structure is probably the hardest thing to get right. And if you're just starting out, then simply copying some story structure can result is vastly better stories.

And yes, I agree with that - in part. But...

Like Swede, I don't think in terms of models but decades of reading will imbue you with patterns and models of storytelling. I was using the models long before I learnt what they were.

To me that is an important qualifier. What we read and the stories we're told as small children are directly related to the culture we live our lives in. Most literary critics and analysts argue that story telling structures vary with culture. That's fine, but we don't all share the same culture and hence we may not share the same patterns and models of storytelling.
Most of the models and structures we talk about in these forums are western European concepts which build on Aristotles ideas. Yet even in Europe there are other patterns and models of storytelling. And this is not to mention storytelling traditions in Africa and Asia.

So does following those western ideas about story structures restrict us? I'd argue that there is a risk of that, and that if we follow those structures we're somehow restricting our own freedom and hence our own creativity.

But what do the rest of you think?

 

[Finchbearer]

If there is a debate on geographical cultural differences, as someone who has read quite a lot of international fiction, I would say there are differences, but there are also lots of similarities in that a good story is a good story. If you’re a westerner, or someone living in the west, you’re just more likely to write to that market, and what’s wrong with that? The west has a lot of culture too. There are so many varying cultures just within one county here in the UK, and I’m sure it’s really no different anywhere else. There’s also a risk in putting other cultures on a pedestal just because they are different from our own these days.


On the subject of creativity, I think most people who pursue something creative often draw from a very basic desire to do something specific. Most people will have an idea of what they want to write. That’s the starting point of anything creative, just a desire to do it, whether you’re good or bad at it, in the beginning that doesn’t matter, but that will not carry just anyone to a place of accomplishment. Then we have the question of ‘do you actually need to know what you’re doing?’ I think there is immense value in this. Learning the craft of something, is an art in itself. It’s usually always a complex combination of innate desire, drive, discipline, education and of course the most illusive of all qualities; talent.

 

[pmmg]

Um....I am happy to learn about anything that might make my tool bag more full of tools, but I don't ever sit down to start a story and say, 'hmmmm...Let me check that story structure and make sure I have a match'. I just write it ugly and fix later. As I go, so many of the parts seem innate though....if I bring up some thing about a character longing, or a traumatic childhood, or whatever, I am sure to come back to it later in the tale and show why it mattered.

I suppose I might question, did Aristotle make the model, or did he borrow from a model archetype? (I bet he would love that question). Cause I feel some of the parts to what makes story structure and/or an engaging story are somewhere along the lines of a universal truth (least a human one). I did not need Aristotle to, on my own, figure out that three beats resonates better than four.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

In these modern times, I think almost everybody has an innate sense of story structure, which in its most basic 3-act form is beginning—middle—end. The trouble comes when a lot of writers fail to understand or translate into the story what their subconscious knows. A conscious awareness is useful even if you write just fine without it. Understanding 3-act can also help tighten the story, which is most helpful in screenwriting, where you've got a semi-hard limit on the length of a spec script.

I don't think in terms of 3-act or HJ (and most everything is just an expansion of 3-act) or anything else. My brain seems to have a natural grasp of 3-act from all the movies I watched as a kid on up, LMAO. If I wanted to write an HJ story, then I would study it. This turned out pretty good for George Lucas. That said, knowing it doesn't hurt.

So NEED is incorrect. But is it beneficial? Yes.

EDIT: I'll add that knowing the basics of HJ can be useful because even if you don't follow its strict guidelines, or hardly at all, pulling elements out of the structure can still be useful.

 

[Incanus]

I've found that knowing this stuff is better for me than not knowing. My instincts seem to be shaky at best, so I need all the help I can get.

I went more with instinct on my first novel, and it did not turn out well. More recently, I had a short story idea that should have been my best story ever, and that turned out pretty poor. These days I try not to rely on instinct, since it's lead me astray before, more than once.

So if you happen to have good instincts, you could just go with that. But either way, it seems learning the elements should be helpful. Also, it's hard to imagine how it might end up being harmful.

 

[pmmg]

I think harmful might come from being too forumlaic, or too much in the box. Not testing the boundaries enough to find something greater you might break through to. Missing on the wandering some stories take that might connect us more to the human aspects of a story, and less about the conflict.

Also something along the lines of, ignorance is bliss. Once something is learned, something we were before is lost, and cannot be regained.

 

[Incanus]

I think harmful might come from being too forumlaic, or too much in the box. Not testing the boundaries enough to find something greater you might break through to. Missing on the wandering some stories take that might connect us more to the human aspects of a story, and less about the conflict.

Also something along the lines of, ignorance is bliss. Once something is learned, something we were before is lost, and cannot be regained.

Formula seems to work in some cases. The Romantic Comedy genre seems to do pretty well.

 

[pmmg]

Formula seems to work in some cases. The Romantic Comedy genre seems to do pretty well.

I would never say differently. It certainly works many times over.

 

[Penpilot]

I actually wrote a whole Mythic Scribes article on this.

Do Writers Really Need to Know Theory?

How theories of writing can help fiction writers.

mythicscribes.com

 

[Demesnedenoir]

I think harmful might come from being too forumlaic, or too much in the box. Not testing the boundaries enough to find something greater you might break through to. Missing on the wandering some stories take that might connect us more to the human aspects of a story, and less about the conflict.

Also something along the lines of, ignorance is bliss. Once something is learned, something we were before is lost, and cannot be regained.

3-act isn't a formula, it's an extremely flexible structure. I'm not sure what great work can't be plugged into the 3-act structure. It's extraordinarily basic. The most complex epics are multiple 3-acts all jumbled together. That's its beauty.

 

[pmmg]

3-act isn't a formula, it's an extremely flexible structure. I'm not sure what great work can't be plugged into the 3-act structure. It's extraordinarily basic. The most complex epics are multiple 3-acts all jumbled together. That's its beauty.

Well, the point is taken. I can probably take any work and make it fit the structure, but...some I think are not really in such a structure....

The Diary of Anne Frank
The Iliad and Odyssey
Beowulf
Just about everything by Shakespeare
The Arthurian Legends
The Mabinogion
The Bible
The Silmarillion
The Divine Comedy
And, I am thinking the Hand Maids Tale.
...And, I hesitate to add, Atlas Shrugged, as its three parts, but the parts are almost different stories from each other.

And...if I jump to different cultures, there are a few that are not 3 act as well. (Thinking mostly of the four act style of Asian areas.)

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Some of those simply don't count, Diary is one. It wasn't a story. Every movie about it would be. Beowulf it's been too long since I read it, but poetry. The bible is a bunch of stories and poetry. The Divine Comedy... I suspect you're wrong, but it's been thirty-five years. Iliad and Odyssey as well, although those are poetry like Beowulf, and would likely fit 3-act anyhow. Silmarillion... multiple stories. Some would fit 3-act at the very least.

Shakespeare, oh yea. 3-act. Like with "4-act" you have to learn to ignore the word "act."

I won't read Handmaid's Tale, but I bet it is.

4-act is a version of 3-act, but we'd have to settle on a definition of 3-act, which isn't that easy.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

I'd actually call something like Song of Ice and Fire (or my books) as difficult to pin into 3-act because of the sheer scope and breadth of the stories. But! Somewhere in there it exists, it's just buried in a mass of 3-act structures. Sanderson described it once in one of his lectures.

 

[Penpilot]

I'd actually call something like Song of Ice and Fire (or my books) as difficult to pin into 3-act because of the sheer scope and breadth of the stories. But! Somewhere in there it exists, it's just buried in a mass of 3-act structures. Sanderson described it once in one of his lectures.

The way I look at things like that is each plot/subplot has a 3 act structure. Most of the time we talk about stories in terms of just the main plot. But if we examine the subplots they tend to unfold in a 3 act structure, only they may be abbreviated.

So a simplified look at ASOIAF is there’s a 3 act structure for each book. And then there’s a 3 act structure for the overarching story over all the books that covers everyone.

It starts to get really complicated when we add in the 3 act structure for each individual major character’s story, etc.

That’s the way I interpret things like that.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Yup, spot on.

The way I look at things like that is each plot/subplot has a 3 act structure. Most of the time we talk about stories in terms of just the main plot. But if we examine the subplots they tend to unfold in a 3 act structure, only they may be abbreviated.

So a simplified look at ASOIAF is there’s a 3 act structure for each book. And then there’s a 3 act structure for the overarching story over all the books that covers everyone.

It starts to get really complicated when we add in the 3 act structure for each individual major character’s story, etc.

That’s the way I interpret things like that.

 

[Rexenm]

It is the elephant in the room. A story has a capacity to be larger than the soul. Your target is acquired, as soon as you wish it. Also, a cat has your tongue.

I err with Redwall. A child classic, and rambunctious, although it has three acts, it is mostly description - not much story structure.

four act? how about five acts. haven’t heard of that one.

Language has story structure, but is not endemic, making you wonder, how do you know it?

 

[Finchbearer]

Handmaid’s Tale is a contemporary novel that fits into a 3 act structure. Under his eye.

The Japanese fiction I’ve read is probably the most different from the typical beginning, middle and end structure all wrapped up with a nice conclusion like we have more in the west. It’s more of a wandering narrative where the metaphysical and metaphorical is explored, and so there isn’t necessarily a character arc as such. But there’s always at least a beginning and an end. You’re also talking about translation too.

Even with things like Gilgamesh and Beowulf, if you’re reading them in the modern English translation, it’s probably a westernised version. More modern versions are attempting to show the actual meaning of things as they were originally intended, which changes the whole atmosphere and meaning. But I will go back to, a good story is a good story, and transcends time and geography.

 

[Penpilot]

four act? how about five acts. haven’t heard of that one.

TV uses 5 act structure and apparently so do Shakespearean plays.

 

[Ned Marcus]

I half agree. We internalise story structures whether we know it or not, and I'm sure a lot of good stories have been told without any formal knowledge of story structure. On the other hand, why not learn it? It can sometimes help.

To be honest, I don't think I could not have learnt about it. Simple curiosity.

 

[Rexenm]

It think it is also important to know when to disengage. A story is an art form. It is the media of children. Perhaps it is the respect of the past. The old sit, reading the same word over, and the young make play. If anything, motivation has more to do with it, or some truer answer, than it.