Do we need to know about story structures?

[pmmg]

Well, all of them are, if you say they are. Cause you can find a way to fit everything in if you wish.

Handmaid's tale is like the Diary of Anne Frank. We follow events in the MC's life and it ends unresolved. Its beats are not typical beats.

And Diary, just gonna say...when I read that, I had an odd feeling it was not genuine. That someone had in fact doctored it to give it more of a story narrative than a Diary really ought to have. I suspect the world will soundly reject the suggestion, but it what I felt reading it.

But...yes, is some sense everything will fit into the frame if you want it to. The frame is open ended enough to allow it.

 

[pmmg]

I'm gonna skip on finding ways to argue definitions about stuff, and say this instead....

When I write, I don't pull out a template and think...oh, I need to do this to match some story structure. I just write it, and if others want to say it matches, then okay... But I bet you could take plenty of templates and fit the stories into several, if not all. Few will line up in a way that matches one and only one template. That whole Midpoint/rising action/confrontation covers a lot of ground. And does not always really do justice to the many things that happen in a story.

 

[Ban]

Well, all of them are, if you say they are. Cause you can find a way to fit everything in if you wish.

Handmaid's tale is like the Diary of Anne Frank. We follow events in the MC's life and it ends unresolved. Its beats are not typical beats.

And Diary, just gonna say...when I read that, I had an odd feeling it was not genuine. That someone had in fact doctored it to give it more of a story narrative than a Diary really ought to have. I suspect the world will soundly reject the suggestion, but it what I felt reading it.

But...yes, is some sense everything will fit into the frame if you want it to. The frame is open ended enough to allow it.

Otto Frank removed a couple of pages (sensitive information about his wife) if that is what you are referring to. That isn't a secret. The authenticity of the work itself however has been defended successfully for decades. Its handwriting, writing material and chronology all confirm this. Carry on, just had to say my piece there as the veracity of Anne's diary is a rather important topic for me as a Dutchman.

 

[pmmg]

That's not what I mean. I mean that, when I was reading it, it had the feel of all the events lining up in a way to maximize impact, as if someone was 'fixing' it to make it more a narrative than an everyday recounting. True or not, I don't know. If there is a hand written copy, then that would seem convincing its not. I will defer that it is most likely genuine, but its peculiarities glared at me during the reading.

 

[Finchbearer]

Handmaid's tale is like the Diary of Anne Frank. We follow events in the MC's life and it ends unresolved. Its beats are not typical beats.

Handmaid’s Tale is nothing like the Dairy of Anne Frank. It’s a contemporary novel, a work of fiction. It’s just carefully created to feel like a personal account, but still has all the hooks you’d expect from a standard novel.

 

[Mad Swede]

I'm still not convinced that we need to know or even learn about some or all of the theories. I guess part of my objection is that there are so many videos and books out there which claim that "if you follow this sort of method you'll produce a good story" and implicitly suggest that you'll then be able to sell the story. There seems to be quite a lot of empirical evidence which suggests that in fact a good story sells anyway even if you don't know how you're supposed to write - as Dick Francis' books show. Timilarly, there's also no evidence that Tolkien followed any sort of model in his writing, in fact the various notes and fragments published by Christopher Tolkien suggest the opposite.

So where does this leave me and my thoughts? I wonder if we carry the seeds of our story creation inside us, fed by the stories we were told as children. My mother and grandmother told me many stories as a child, and I'm sure they have been more of a subconcious influence on the way I structure my stories than anything I've read about writing. Yes, the editing process my first published book went through taught me a lot about writing. But what it didn't do was change my style or structures in any sigificant way. That's partly because my editor didn't see that either necessary or as part of her role. I think It's also partly because I've found a style and structure which suits my stories, which may be a matter of luck, talent, subconcious knowledge or some combination of these. And maybe I'm just overthinking the whole issue...

 

[pmmg]

Well...I think its true that you can do a lot of things without knowing the underlying theories and building tools. Story is no different.

I don't know a lot of about building log cabins, but I bet I could build one. And if I knew all the ins and out, and had all the tools, I bet I could build one better.

 

[Incanus]

If you are already publishing and selling books, there's probably little need to 'go back to school' and learn all the crafting techniques.

Tolkien is one of my all-time favorites, but he's not a very good example of how to go about writing a novel. His skill-sets in other areas ended up totally overwhelming his unprofessional and quirky writing style. I don't have those skill-sets, and neither does anyone else anymore.00

Maybe part of my struggle is that I didn't have story-telling mothers and grandmothers when growing up. I didn't get anything custom, just the standard Little Red Riding Hood, and whatnot.

I have no doubt whatsoever--If I hadn't learned about the craft, I wouldn't be working on my novel right now. It would have been tossed on the failed pile with all the others a while ago.

 

[Ban]

I'm with Mad Swede on this, for I believe the greatest value fiction can have is to express matters of the soul in the ways inherent to that soul. I don't pick up a work of fiction to experience the thoughts of one author streamlined through the theory of another, but to find an authentic vision. An amount of sense and reason is needed here, but if someone can find a heterodox solution to an issue, I implore them to pursue it in full.

Following paved roads hinders the development of orchanic trails. While some might enjoy viewing the forest from the safe perimeter, I'd prefer my fiction to delve into its depths. That requires eschewing the precepts of previous writers and experimenting with what works for the individual. I.e. in creative matters, DO reinvent the wheel. You might get a fun new shape.

 

[Jackarandajam]

It's just a question of storytelling craft.
There are people who are "natural storytellers," and there are people who aren't, and there is a huge gray area between the two. Natural storytellers can do very well for themselves even if they "don't know what they're doing." Problem is if they get stumped, or burnt out, or start overthinking it, everything goes away because nothing was ever concrete (I privately think we're dealing with this exact thing on several fronts in the "waiting for the next book" fantasy publishing arena).

I know when I started writing I was terrified that learning theory would crush my individual spark of creativity amd corrupt my work. And yeah, in a way, it's kinda like finding out there isn't a Santa Claus. The Santa Claus, in this case, was my belief that I had something pure and divine and truly original to bring to the table that any additional information would just negatively normalize.
In reality, I was sitting on a big wheel imagining that I was the fastest driver in the world.
Getting into storytelling theory was giving that up and starting down the difficult, frustrating road of actually learning how to drive.

 

[Ban]

Jackarandajam new writers often think they are the next Tolkien or Hugo, and while such lofty heights are mere mirages for most of us, I do believe a hearty dose of stubborn grit is needed to (have a chance to) be remembered at all. That requires following one's own path and pursuing one's own vision. I will never argue against engaging with available information, but if the question is whether knowledge of story structures is needed, my answer is an affirmative, full-bodied no. What is needed is the will to write and a mind that can translate a thought and a feel into interesting words.

 

[Incanus]

How about an analogy? We writers tend to love those.

I'll take a page from the Hero's Journey/Arthurian legend.

If I am Sir Galahad, questing for the Grail, then I want to train up. I get comfortable wearing armor. I practice with sword and bow and spear. I build up endurance and will power. I try to gain useful knowledge.

But when I head out on my quest, I enter the forest where there is no path, because where I'm headed, no one has been before. My quest is an individual one. Without my training, I might lose my way, or lose my nerve.

My project--the skills I've learned in no way hamper my originality. My story reflects my tastes and my thoughts, no one else's. I have quite a few original ideas as the foundation for my story. It is custom fantasy, not generic fantasy.

That said, if you've completed a novel to your satisfaction, it hardly matters how it was you did it. I'd say there's no wrong way to arrive at a successful project, so long as it is actually arrived at.

 

[Jackarandajam]

What is needed is the will to write and a mind that can translate a thought and a feel into interesting words.

This can result in some really gorgeous, engaging prose, the more original the better.
Add storytelling theory to it and boom, it has a beginning, a middle, and an end that carry readers through its beauty to the finale before they know what hit them.

I guess to me that's what the structure part is about; teaching what hooks other people and drags them through what you want to show them. So I'm not so much changing my stuff, I'm shaping my stuff so other people get the most they can out of it.

Which is why, when it comes down to it, it's a question of how much one cares that other people find their work accessible.
"I really want the freedom to tell my stories however I want"
VS.
"I really want to entertain as many people as possible."

Neither is wrong. Done well, the world needs both.

 

[Jackarandajam]

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.

The way I see it, a trillion stories have been told. Most of them sucked. In modern times we browsed the stories that made it through time and asked "why? Why did these make it and countless others didnt?" Campbell threw his hat in the ring with a theory, as did Aristotle, as have many others. The advent of cinema, particularly American Hollywood, pushed for an easy-button formula for success. Modern (western) story theory is a harshly condensed, point-by-point breakdown of the most effective consumer mind-hack story that people who really wanted other peoples money could come up with. Maximum tension, maximum payoff.

So to dismiss story structure theory is two-part:

Dismiss the rigorous boundaries and inflexible play-by-play arcs and pigeon-holing tropes? Sure. Live a little.

Dismiss the idea that a most-effective story structure more or less exists and go completely rogue, attempting to reinvent what people want out of a beginning, a middle, and an end? Sure. But chances are either you accidentally follow a structure well enough (due to your saturation in it) that people like it, or you don't follow it well enough and people get bored and move along.

Its been said somewhere on here that we hear enough stories as kids to write without studying theory...
So why not actually turn around and look at the thing we kinda-sorta know already and make sure we have it down? If you grew up with five act, study that. If it's some other structure seldom seen and it works well enough that stories in it are popular in your culture, awesome.

The stories we hear as children aren't the only ones that have ever been told, they're just the best ones. If they have something in common that makes them timeless, I, for one, would like to know exactly what that is.

 

[Malik]

I'll just say, "F yes you do," and leave this here. Have fun, y'all.

 

[JBCrowson]

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.

I think good stories have structure, and there are not that many different structures out there. Can a person write a structured story without knowing any theories about it? Of course. A child can catch a ball without knowing anything about the theories of trigonometry. By practice we get better at stuff, its part of how our brains work. Story writing is no different, just the feedback loop is longer and more complex that the one in learning to catch a ball.

All that said, the probability of a story coming out well if the author deliberately ensures that it has good structure is higher.

Now writing stuff that will get an agent or a publishing contract, that seems to be a different thing. The industry expects certain things, and while sometimes someone takes a punt of something different, mostly they go for the safe option. Analysing a story's structure is a way of deciding if the story is safe - the publishers know the kinds of story that sell well, and what structures those stories have. If your masterpiece fits that pattern it's way more likely to get accepted. I really think The Hobbit would not get published if submitted today - there's a whole chapter "concerning hobbits" that is pure exposition and worldbuilding with no mention of the POV character and no actual action, no hook. Yet it is a great story and is rightly a classic.

 

[Karlin]

I don't "know" English grammar, as I never studied it properly. Yet I speak and write English properly. Likewise for storytelling. I've read many stories, so I have an intuitive feel for what a story should look like, but that's about it.

One wonders when "official story structure" became a thing to study.

Here's a great example of a storyteller. You know the characters:

 

[JBCrowson]

I don't "know" English grammar, as I never studied it properly. Yet I speak and write English properly. Likewise for storytelling. I've read many stories, so I have an intuitive feel for what a story should look like, but that's about it.

One wonders when "official story structure" became a thing to study.

Here's a great example of a storyteller. You know the characters:

One wonders when official story structure became a thing to study.

The cynic in me says when someone realised they could make money teaching the course.

 

[Finchbearer]

I see it this way: the more theories and structures you know about, the more rules you can break. Pretty much what underpins any creative education.

 

[Prince of Spires]

There are some great points here, on all sides of the argument.

My view on it is that it is not necessary to know story structures, but it can't hurt, and it will probably help make the works of most writers better.

You can write amazing stories without knowing the specifics of story structures. Though I would say that 3-act structure at its core is simply "a story has a beginning, a middle and an end". Which can be applied to almost anything. Most people who create have seen, read, and heard plenty of stories. They will have developed a basic idea (without realizing it) what needs to go into stories. Which is enough to sit down and write them. Also, the more you write, the more you'll learn about story structure and what works and what doesn't.

However, knowing the theory is a shortcut to a deeper understanding. It gives you a solid basis quickly without having to spend a decade reading and writing. It's similar to writing music. You can write great music without knowing music theory, simply by listening to what chords go together in what order. However, if you sprinkle some theory in there, then you will start to understand why certain things do and don't work, and you can play around with that.

Another observation is that while we intuitively know story structure, it is one of the hardest things to actually get right in writing for many writers. At some point, people understand how to create a decent sentence, and a decent paragraph. They'll be able to write a good chapter. However, putting it all together is a lot harder. Building all those individual sentences to a powerful climax is hard. Plenty of stories from beginning writers would have been better if they had strickly followed Hero's Journey, or 3-act, or 7 act, or any other structure, simply because then all those decent sentences would have been formed into a pretty good story.

I also don't see how knowing the theory would limit someone's creativity. In general, limits tend to increase creativity, not decrease it. And just because you know how the hero's journey goes and why it works, doesn't mean you will slavishly follow it. If anything, knowing the structure will also show you how and where you can break it. If you want to be original and experimental, then you first need to know what the default is.

This can be seen in plenty of painters. Look at the early works of Dali or van Gogh or Escher. They all started out as traditional painters who made some lovely, if standard, works. And after they had mastered those basics, then they got more experimental and developed the styles they are known for today.

And as I mentioned in the other thread, knowing the theory can help you figure out what's wrong with your story. You can just sit down and write your story without the theory. But if you get feedback that something doesn't work, or if you get stuck, then you can grab your theory to see if that can explain why it doesn't work and what you could do to fix it. It's a tool you have. You don't have to use the tool if you don't need it. But if you don't have it, then some jobs will become a lot harder.