Do we need to know about story structures?

[Ban]

To elaborate a bit further, I believe the best dishes are invented by those without formal culinary education. Recently I've been developing an interest and appreciation of the Caribbean nations, specifically the smallest ones, from Saint Lucia to my fellows within the Kingdom over in Aruba. What draws me to their languages, cultures and histories is how they have masterfully unified disparate cultures, from Javanese to French to Indian to Guinean and more, into robust new, national entities. And when you look at their cuisines, you see those elements mingle into unique and delicious forms that reflect traditions far and wide. But was an esteemed gastronome required in that creation process? Of course not. Instead, regular people intuitively merged different methods of preparation, different ingredients and different flavours into dishes that now reflect these hybrid, fusion islands.

All of this isn't to claim that there is a one to one comparison here between cuisine and literature, but I do believe we should develop a greater appreciation for the art brut element of the craft. While the world has need of its Escoffiers, the autodidacts do fine without guides or laws. Earlier it was said that knowing the rules allows you to break them, but there is a freedom inherent in never knowing the rules to begin with. When you break a rule instead of being ignorant to it, I believe you are playing a different (though also worthwhile) game. To conclude my thoughts, I would say I haven't been disadvantaged in any way by knowing about story structures, but the question is about necessity, and seeing how much grandeur and beauty is shaped by those folks outside of the strictures, I don't see any reason to assume that a true "need" exists.

 

[Prince of Spires]

I believe the best dishes are invented by those without formal culinary education

René Redzepi (the guy who had the best restaurant in the world for 6 years...) would disagree. It's by no means impossible to make great dishes without a formal education, but part of what made him the best is the fact that he apprenticed with top chefs for 5+ years.

Cooking without formal education is like evolution. You try stuff, keep what works, and discard what doesn't. After some time, it does give great results, but it is by no means fast. Also, no formal eduction is a bit of a stretch in the sense that many (most) people did (and still do) learn how to cook from parents who were very good at it. While they don't give you a degree at the end, you learn an aweful lot from standing next to your mother, watching her do her thing while you're peeling potatoes.

 

[Ban]

René Redzepi (the guy who had the best restaurant in the world for 6 years...) would disagree. It's by no means impossible to make great dishes without a formal education, but part of what made him the best is the fact that he apprenticed with top chefs for 5+ years.

Cooking without formal education is like evolution. You try stuff, keep what works, and discard what doesn't. After some time, it does give great results, but it is by no means fast. Also, no formal eduction is a bit of a stretch in the sense that many (most) people did (and still do) learn how to cook from parents who were very good at it. While they don't give you a degree at the end, you learn an aweful lot from standing next to your mother, watching her do her thing while you're peeling potatoes.

René may disagree. Not to cause conflict with Denmark, but I put more trust in an Aruban home cook than a Danish Michelin chef operating in the nouvelle cuisine sphere. Better cost value as well

As for the second point, no it's not a stretch at all. Being taught by one's parents is the definition of informal. My mother taught me how to cook, and while she's given me a more useful culinary education than some schools might provide, there is no formality there. Utility does not determine formality.

But the most important part here is your comment on what cooking without formal education is. Indeed, it is the organic accumulation of experience. While slow, it is that incremental process that allows for experimentation and development. Now I'd be a bit bothersome if I'd suggest that story structures are the great inhibitor to being able to do that, but if we're perceiving writing from a holistic perspective, I find much greater value in the deliberative, practical and iterative approach than the formal alternative.

 

[Finchbearer]

If we’re comparing creative writing to cooking, then we could say that if you should throw a home cook into a professional kitchen, some will do well enough, but many would sink without formal training. If you’re a writer who enjoys dabbling for one’s own pleasure, I would think it a lot different to writing a novel that will sell. If you’re talking about intuitive creativity, and applying that to writing something, you’re just more likely to also be able to do it professionally, but I’d imagine it would still take time and at least a bit of know how. But everyone is different. Mad Swede is a traditionally published author from what he tells us, so whatever he’s doing works for him, but that’s not a universal approach.

 

[Jackarandajam]

All of this isn't to claim that there is a one to one comparison here between cuisine and literature, but I do believe we should develop a greater appreciation for the art brut element of the craft.

I think it's a great comparison, but slightly reversed.
Both top chefs and home cooks are doing the same thing; putting their own twist on basic cooking theory.

Top chefs are top chefs because they know the theory so well they can push the boundaries of expectation and consistently pull it off.
They know -exactly- what they're doing, sometimes literally down to the molecular level.
They can force weird combinations into working because they KNOW better than the "rules."

This kind of mushroom with that kind of honey on this kind of cracker, add a pickle, boom. Food alchemy. people can't believe what's happening in their mouths. Subverting what people think they know about how food goes together.

Home cooks generally tweak tried and true family recipes (see: structure), adding to decades of careful experimentation. Wonderful deliciousness.

My five year old mixes seltzer water and milk and gummy bears and rosemary in a cup and presents it to me with her kitty apron on and a smug smile on her face.
Who knows? Maybe one of these days she'll rock my world with an unexpected combo, but I'm not holding my breath (except, of course, while a take a careful sip/chew of her concoction and smack my lips and tell her how good it is).

None of that is to say it isn't fun to go in the kitchen and throw stuff around and see what happens every once in a while.
I just wouldn't do that if I'm supposed to be cooking dinner for other people.
EDIT: In reality, I can and do throw stuff together in the kitchen all the time. I can do that and other people enjoy it because, while I'm no chef, I've spent enough time learning recipe structure/food theory that I can make it work.

 

[Ban]

Agreed in part Jack. Well-educated, highly-experienced, professional chefs can indeed be magicians with their food, which comes in part from their thorough understanding of the fundamentals of their discipline. However I have three caveats. For one, those chefs at the height of their field would have been masterful without the theory, because what drives them there are traits that require no formal education (curiosity, determination, etcetera). Number two, is that while I'm sure your kid has the potential to be a great cook, she isn't a fair comparison. It is more apt to compare a professionally-trained chef to a local autodidact who has written successful cookbooks or ran a successful restaurant. That person carved their own path and has the credentials to prove it. And third (the more important one to me), those chefs have the ability to be great, because others before them have done the experiential legwork. The difference than is in perspective. I am personally more impressed and interested in those creative heavyweights whose paths are their own to a larger instead of a lesser extent.

 

[Jackarandajam]

Agreed in part Jack. Well-educated, highly-experienced, professional chefs can indeed be magicians with their food, which comes in part from their thorough understanding of the fundamentals of their discipline. However I have three caveats. For one, those chefs at the height of their field would have been masterful without the theory, because what drives them there are traits that require no formal education (curiosity, determination, etcetera). Number two, is that while I'm sure your kid has the potential to be a great cook, she isn't a fair comparison. It is more apt to compare a professionally-trained chef to a local autodidact who has written successful cookbooks or ran a successful restaurant. That person carved their own path and has the credentials to prove it. And third (the more important one to me), those chefs have the ability to be great, because others before them have done the experiential legwork. The difference than is in perspective. I am personally more impressed and interested in those creative heavyweights whose paths are their own to a larger instead of a lesser extent.

This sounds more like an argument between trad VS. self-publishing, or going to school for writing VS. teaching yourself.
I'm easy either way on both counts. Whatever you need/feel strongly about/think you can afford, go for it.

In all of your examples, whether self-taught or schooled, the people making food had to learn how to cook, and they learned how to do that by learning how food works via self-training or being taught. So they, as writers who want to be successful should, studied structure and theory.

 

[Ban]

This sounds more like an argument between trad VS. self-publishing, or going to school for writing VS. teaching yourself.
I'm easy either way on both counts. Whatever you need/feel strongly about/think you can afford, go for it.

In all of your examples, whether self-taught or schooled, the people making food had to learn how to cook, and they learned how to do that by learning how food works via self-training or being taught. So they, as writers who want to be successful should, studied structure and theory.

Well yes, as I indicated before I am expanding the conversation, but the crux of the matter remains the original question. Do we need (knowledge of) story structures? All of my examples and tangents revolve around my main point that nothing formal is needed in the arts. Traits are needed, be they curiosity, discipline or grit, but no particular theory is necessary. Perhaps I'm being a legalist here, but necessity is ultimately the main point of this thread. Additional education has value, but any individual lesson, as well as the whole institution of education can be thrown out and we would still have literary luminaries.

 

[Jackarandajam]

Well yes, as I indicated before I am expanding the conversation, but the crux of the matter remains the original question. Do we need story structures? All of my examples and tangents revolve around my main point that nothing formal is needed in the arts. Traits are needed, be they curiosity, discipline or grit, but no particular theory is necessary. Perhaps I'm being a legalist here, but necessity is ultimately the main point of this thread. Additional education has value, but any individual lesson, as well as the whole institution of education can be thrown out and we would still have literary luminaries.

Ok, so I think structure is entirely based on reception, not creation.

Because human brains, including mine, like to hear a structured story.
The subconscious engages in the flow of thought that leads from one thing to the next and justifies the existence of each item. It searches future story for explanation about the previously mentioned thing that hasn't been explained yet. It looks for the behavior of the protagonist to result in something that makes sense, some action/reaction within the boundaries of the rest of the information its been fed. The subconscious sees the end and considers the beginning, whether there is order. whether the parcel of information its been given agrees with itself. If it can see order in the cascade of events, it is extremely pleased.
The subconscious is looking for order and pattern all the time, out in the world, where often there is none. It searches for predictable behaviors so it can try to guess what's going to happen next. It guesses the future and rewards itself for being right.
A story is like brain candy, where everything in it circles everything else and the brain can romp around and tie strings together and purr.
It's a conversation between the writer and the reader, too. The writer builds a pattern into their art that takes the readers brain by the hand and leads them through to the end.

I would speculate it got started orally, when some stories were remembered and some weren't. The stories that were remembered the best were the ones that made the most sense within themselves, all parceled together with meaning and resolution all over the place.
If story structure had never existed before today, today it would be immediately invented.

Also, brains purr and romp and have hands.

 

[Ban]

Ok, so I think structure is entirely based on reception, not creation.

Because human brains, including mine, like to hear a structured story.
The subconscious engages in the flow of thought that leads from one thing to the next and justifies the existence of each item. It searches future story for explanation about the previously mentioned thing that hasn't been explained yet. It looks for the behavior of the protagonist to result in something that makes sense, some action/reaction within the boundaries of the rest of the information its been fed. The subconscious sees the end and considers the beginning, whether there is order. whether the parcel of information its been given agrees with itself. If it can see order in the cascade of events, it is extremely pleased.
The subconscious is looking for order and pattern all the time, out in the world, where often there is none. It searches for predictable behaviors so it can try to guess what's going to happen next. It guesses the future and rewards itself for being right.
A story is like brain candy, where everything in it circles everything else and the brain can romp around and tie strings together and purr.
It's a conversation between the writer and the reader, too. The writer builds a pattern into their art that takes the readers brain by the hand and leads them through to the end.

I would speculate it got started orally, when some stories were remembered and some weren't. The stories that were remembered the best were the ones that made the most sense within themselves, all parceled together with meaning and resolution all over the place.
If story structure had never existed before today, today it would be immediately invented.

Also, brains purr and romp and have hands.

This is concerned with the nature of story structures, but the question is whether we need to know about them. We use them intuitively regardless of our knowledge. And they exist regardless of our understanding of them. Do we need to know how breathing works to breathe? Do we need to understand motion to move? I haven't argued for stories without structures, or for that matters living without breathing or moving, but the underlying knowledge thereof isn't necessary. If there were no known structures we would discover them (I don't think invent is the correct term), which reinforces to me that we do not need to know them in a conscious manner. The subconscious suffices. But we'll get circular here. If someone wishes to argue it is better to have knowledge of story structures for most writers, I'd agree, but none of it is necessary. One could write a great story without understanding how commas work. I'd suggest they'd learn it anyways, but one could do it without any real impediment to the story.

 

[pmmg]

No one beats my bacon pizza....

I think I am formally siding (if I haven't before) with, no, not necessary, but still good to have.

Honestly, this strikes me as one of those things that are good on forum sites, but not really upfront when people are actually writing.

What even is story structure? Most of us dont even outline.

 

[pmmg]

If we’re comparing creative writing to cooking, then we could say that if you should throw a home cook into a professional kitchen, some will do well enough, but many would sink without formal training.

Don't have to speculate. This happens on the food network quite often. --Though it does seem like all of them cant beat Alex Guarnaschelli. That might be a 1 in the pro column.

 

[Mad Swede]

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.

Except that most publishers and agents don't make a decision based on story structure. Agents in most of the world seem to ask for the first few thousand words or first three chapters. The same is true of the first readers the publishers here in Sweden use, they read the first two or three chapters and sometimes skim the rest. You don't get any feel for story structure from that - but what you do get is a feel for how well the author can grab your interest.

As my publisher puts it, the aim when selling your book is to first get the potential reader to pick it off the shelf and open it for a quick look. If they're still standing there reading more than two minutes later you've sold a copy of the book, they will be buying it. That is not about story structure, no matter what the literary critics think. It's about how well you as the author get the reader hooked on the characters and hence the story. And if the reader finishes the book, sits back and sighs with pleasure then you've also sold the next book. That isn't really about structure either, it's about characterisation, character development, dialogue, plot development and how the conflicts get resolved, combined with an engaging style.

My editor says that if it helps to use some structure then that's fine, but the structure won't help you with the basic of a good story: characterisation, dialogue, plot or setting. That comes from your imagination. Even your style has little to do with structure, what you have to do is work out what your style is.

 

[Jackarandajam]

This is concerned with the nature of story structures, but the question is whether we need to know about them. We use them intuitively regardless of our knowledge. And they exist regardless of our understanding of them. Do we need to know how breathing works to breathe? Do we need to understand motion to move? I haven't argued for stories without structures, or for that matters living without breathing or moving, but the underlying knowledge thereof isn't necessary. If there were no known structures we would discover them (I don't think invent is the correct term), which reinforces to me that we do not need to know them in a conscious manner. The subconscious suffices. But we'll get circular here. If someone wishes to argue it is better to have knowledge of story structures for most writers, I'd agree, but none of it is necessary. One could write a great story without understanding how commas work. I'd suggest they'd learn it anyways, but one could do it without any real impediment to the story.

I think it's delightfully spiritual to compare writing to autonomic function, but that is the difference of opinion here.

I see story, just like I see fine art or the stage or writing or language, or sculpture or architecture or cooking, as something that humans may have an inherent understanding of to some degree, but also an art we have been developing for thousands of years.
To both take advantage of that by leaning on childhood saturation with the long-honed concepts, but also pretend to be a free agent by not continuing to furiously study the finer points of the art into adulthood, doesn't make any sense to me at all.

To go back to the food thing, no matter the vast number of cheeseburgers I ate when I was a kid, I was never imbibed with the knowledge of how to cook beef, make cheese, kneed bread for buns or grow those big, meaty tomatoes.
I did know what a good one tasted like though, and that helped alot with the adult process.

So reading is very good, particularly reading very good things. When you know what it looks like, you can tell when your studying and practice is starting to pay off.

But if reading great stories, passion, some talent and holding your mouth right was all it took to write one, we'd be having this conversation at an awards ceremony right now.

 

[pmmg]

Except that most publishers and agents don't make a decision based on story structure. Agents in most of the world seem to ask for the first few thousand words or first three chapters. The same is true of the first readers the publishers here in Sweden use, they read the first two or three chapters and sometimes skim the rest. You don't get any feel for story structure from that - but what you do get is a feel for how well the author can grab your interest.

As my publisher puts it, the aim when selling your book is to first get the potential reader to pick it off the shelf and open it for a quick look. If they're still standing there reading more than two minutes later you've sold a copy of the book, they will be buying it. That is not about story structure, no matter what the literary critics think. It's about how well you as the author get the reader hooked on the characters and hence the story. And if the reader finishes the book, sits back and sighs with pleasure then you've also sold the next book. That isn't really about structure either, it's about characterisation, character development, dialogue, plot development and how the conflicts get resolved, combined with an engaging style.

My editor says that if it helps to use some structure then that's fine, but the structure won't help you with the basic of a good story: characterisation, dialogue, plot or setting. That comes from your imagination. Even your style has little to do with structure, what you have to do is work out what your style is.

But...this is an incomplete picture. Cause after the publisher and agent reads the first number of pages and say...Hmmm...think this one might be a winner, they then ask for more to look at the whole thing, and acceptance/rejection may follow that.

And those readers who look at the first pages and think...Yep, I like this...may end up being DNF and not know why.

And, its also possible that the Structure is so ingrained in us, that only seeing a part of it is enough to expect the rest.

So...before its all done, the whole structure has to be there...or rather, the whole thing has to maintain its draw.

 

[Ban]

I think it's delightfully spiritual to compare writing to autonomic function, but that is the difference of opinion here.

I see story, just like I see fine art or the stage or writing or language, or sculpture or architecture or cooking, as something that humans may have an inherent understanding of to some degree, but also an art we have been developing for thousands of years.
To both take advantage of that by leaning on childhood saturation with the long-honed concepts, but also pretend to be a free agent by not continuing to furiously study the finer points of the art into adulthood, doesn't make any sense to me at all.

To go back to the food thing, no matter the vast number of cheeseburgers I ate when I was a kid, I was never imbibed with the knowledge of how to cook beef, make cheese, kneed bread for buns or grow those big, meaty tomatoes.
I did know what a good one tasted like though, and that helped alot with the adult process.

So reading is very good, particularly reading very good things. When you know what it looks like, you can tell when your studying and practice is starting to pay off.

But if reading great stories, passion, some talent and holding your mouth right was all it took to write one, we'd be having this conversation at an awards ceremony right now.

To become a great runner, one has to possess a healthy (enough) body and mind, willpower, a bit of luck, and the will to get running. I see no reason to consider writing to be different. Both pursuits require basic tutoring, but once the baseline has been reached, no amount of reading about running gait will finish a marathon. Listening to one's body however, gets the results. I don't have to know why wine gums help me on the road, just that my mind craves them and my muscles respond with appreciation. Once more, that doesn't mean it has no value whatsoever, but it has no necessity. As for your comparison, I'm not sure what it addresses. I agree that consuming food doesn't make you a cook, nor reading books make you a writer. But both can certainly enhance one's appreciation for cooking or writing, and to an extent shed light on one's ability to do so. I don't quite see where you perceive a difference here.

 

[Jackarandajam]

Except that most publishers and agents don't make a decision based on story structure. Agents in most of the world seem to ask for the first few thousand words or first three chapters. The same is true of the first readers the publishers here in Sweden use, they read the first two or three chapters and sometimes skim the rest. You don't get any feel for story structure from that - but what you do get is a feel for how well the author can grab your interest.

As my publisher puts it, the aim when selling your book is to first get the potential reader to pick it off the shelf and open it for a quick look. If they're still standing there reading more than two minutes later you've sold a copy of the book, they will be buying it. That is not about story structure, no matter what the literary critics think. It's about how well you as the author get the reader hooked on the characters and hence the story. And if the reader finishes the book, sits back and sighs with pleasure then you've also sold the next book. That isn't really about structure either, it's about characterisation, character development, dialogue, plot development and how the conflicts get resolved, combined with an engaging style.

My editor says that if it helps to use some structure then that's fine, but the structure won't help you with the basic of a good story: characterisation, dialogue, plot or setting. That comes from your imagination. Even your style has little to do with structure, what you have to do is work out what your style is.

I've put lots of books down.
Not because I evaluated them and discovered they broke cardinal rules of story, but because they didn't make my brain happy. I quit caring early, nothing I could do about it.
Come to find out, stories that make people's brains happy have a bunch of stuff in common.
Apparently, brains want a few surprisingly specific things in the first few chapters of a story; give or take - a hook, tension, a lie, a call to action, a paradigm shift, a sympathetic & dimensional mc, an antag...
People compiled those things that brains like, and have liked for a few thousand years now, into a few different formulas.

 

[Incanus]

I have to admit I'm uncertain what Mad Swede is saying.

I can't tell if he's saying that some stories have no structure at all, or that the structure they do have is irrelevant somehow.

I've never seen or heard of a story with no structure whatsoever. I can't picture what that would even look like. If there's a plot of any kind, there's structure.

There's no question my project would not work without structure, so I'm sticking with that. So, I consider it necessary in that sense.

I'll just assume I don't understand what's being said here.

 

[Ban]

I have to admit I'm uncertain what Mad Swede is saying.

I can't tell if he's saying that some stories have no structure at all, or that the structure they do have is irrelevant somehow.

I've never seen or heard of a story with no structure whatsoever. I can't picture what that would even look like. If there's a plot of any kind, there's structure.

There's no question my project would not work without structure, so I'm sticking with that. So, I consider it necessary in that sense.

I'll just assume I don't understand what's being said here.

The way I've been engaging with this thread is that the question is whether it matters if you actively know the story structures. That the structures exist and are intuitively followed seems a given to me. We're storytelling creatures. It is inherent to us.

I don't think Swede at any point argued that such structures themselves don't matter, nor that their existence is up to debate. It's the theory detailing the stories that he (and I) question(s).

Have I reached a comment maximum yet for this thread? Haha, perhaps we should implement one. Have it be percentage-based.

 

[Jackarandajam]

To become a great runner, one has to possess a healthy (enough) body and mind, willpower, a bit of luck, and the will to get running. I see no reason to consider writing to be different. Both pursuits require basic tutoring, but once the baseline has been reached, no amount of reading about running gait will finish a marathon. Listening to one's body however, gets the results. I don't have to know why wine gums help me on the road, just that my mind craves them and my muscles respond with appreciation. Once more, that doesn't mean it has no value whatsoever, but it has no necessity. As for your comparison, I'm not sure what it addresses. I agree that consuming food doesn't make you a cook, nor reading books make you a writer. But both can certainly enhance one's appreciation for cooking or writing, and to an extent shed light on one's ability to do so. I don't quite see where you perceive a difference here.

Writing for myself? A journal entry or stream of consciousness or experimental piece? 100% agree.

Just like I:
1. sit back with my electric guitar with my cans plugged in, crank up the chorus, zone out and pick around and have the time of my life.
2. Snack on canned Sardines on saltines, smothered in mustard and cheese, popped in the microwave for 20 seconds. Delicious.
3. Make big scribbles on paper and then pick out shapes to make faces or animals out of.

Am I presenting any of this to the public?
Nope. Absolutely not.

If they get anything, maybe they'll get:
1. a carefully composed blues album, complete with lyrics.
2. A recipe I've worked hard to get just right, maybe Mississippi Delta-style Tamales.
3. My slowly improving experiments with the art style of Arthur Rackham.
4. A full-sized, carefully plotted, planned, structured, designed, written and edited fantasy novel, using every method at my disposal and all of my studies combined with my creativity to make it as enjoyable as possible.