Do we need to know about story structures?

[Jackarandajam]

Have I reached a comment maximum yet for this thread?

Hahaha thinking exactly the same thing

 

[JBCrowson]

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.

Except that most publishers and agents don't make a decision based on story structure - true up to a point, but scenes have micro structure, and the first X chapters / words that you send will contain some structure though clearly not all of it. What makes your first X chapters accepted - they deliver things the publisher has seen in books that sold well before - scene structure and the beginning of story structure will be among those. An opening that doesn't show evidence of structure is likely to be rejected.

When you pass the first cut and they read the whole manuscript you may still get rejection or major re-writes if the rest isn't as good as the beginning section, with structure, or lack thereof, being an important part of that decision.

 

[Ban]

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.

I think we're just approaching this with different preconceptions. I don't view informal as unpolished, or art brut as not requiring a delicate touch. Something can be imagined and constructed entirely out of sight from theory, ceremony and institutions, while still being delivered with care and an eye for quality. The difference is simply in the degree to which predetermined form is followed.

 

[Incanus]

It's the theory detailing the stories that he (and I) question(s).

I really do appreciate your response. I get the feeling we're sort of talking past one another though.

I honestly can't make heads or tails of the above quote. I have absolutely no idea what this could mean.

I don't have to understand the arguments to understand that some folks have some sort of problem with the idea of using structure. That's OK--go with whatever is working for you, as will I.

 

[Ban]

I really do appreciate your response. I get the feeling we're sort of talking past one another though.

I honestly can't make heads or tails of the above quote. I have absolutely no idea what this could mean.

I don't have to understand the arguments to understand that some folks have some sort of problem with the idea of using structure. That's OK--go with whatever is working for you, as will I.

That's alright. I'll summarize it as such: This is a theoretical discussion about whether knowledge of writing theory is required for good writing. That's about it. We're focusing on story structures in particular, but the conversation has meandered into different fields. The conversation isn't concerned with practice, in the sense that we aren't discussing what someone should do, but whether we would need to.

 

[Incanus]

That's alright. I'll summarize it as such: This is a theoretical discussion about whether knowledge of writing theory is required for good writing. That's about it. We're focusing on story structures in particular, but the conversation has meandered into different fields. The conversation isn't concerned with practice, in the sense that we aren't discussing what someone should do, but whether we would need to.

Thanks Ban. That helps.

Indeed, I believe you mentioned this earlier in the thread, so I should have picked up on it.

I'm always thinking in terms of 'in practice', which is why I got a bit lost in the discussion. I admit I don't have much interest in the purely theoretical aspects of my project. I mostly want to do everything and anything that makes my novel work as I think it should. Theories alone won't get me there.

 

[pmmg]

As with anything, there is theory, and then there is application. All the theory in the world does not get something done. Sometimes, you just have to do it.

 

[skip.knox]

This is always a fun topic. I have a comment and a question.

Comment: different forms have different conventions. A person can be a good storyteller yet not be a good novelist. As many writers have found, one can be a good novelist but not be a good screenwriter. Verbal story-telling is its own form, short stories are another. Moreover, as has been noted on this thread, there are different conventions in different cultures. Also, there's been some serious work done arguing that the invention first of writing and then of printing had a significant impact on how we tell stories. It's worth taking that into account.

Question: oh, all right, it's another comment, but it ends with a question. I have looked at story structure, story patterns, and read books and articles about same. The chart posted by Malik is as good a summary as any of their variety and similarities. I keep running into the same wall: I don't know what to *do* with the information. Even the ones that are so specific as to say Beat X must fall N% into the story. First, I can't stay on the beat, nor can I even edit my way there. More importantly, the outline or list or earnest exhortation still leaves me cold. It's no help at all when I sit down with pen and paper to string words together to get my characters through a scene.

I can't *use* the damn stuff. It neither instructs nor inspires me. At most, it might be useful to a developmental editor helping me understand how I might improve a story I've already written. But for me, stories tend to set, like cement. The longer I'm with them, the more complete I make them (this includes following my own editing), the more difficult revision becomes. At some point, the material is fully cured and the only option becomes to take a sledgehammer to it, haul it all away, and start again. And yes, I've done that. Actually, to press the metaphor, I just move away and let weeds overtake it.

So, sure, all the story structure advice and instruction can be valid. It can be most obstinately, obdurately true, but that doesn't help me one whit as a writer. There's other writerly advice I've read that has proved useful. But story structure isn't one of them. I think it's useful somewhere else in the literary world, whose air I've not breathed.

Oh yeah, my question: have any of you folks actually used story structure in your writing? If so, precisely at what point(s) and in what way(s)?

 

[pmmg]

Oh yeah, my question: have any of you folks actually used story structure in your writing? If so, precisely at what point(s) and in what way(s)?

The only time I've actively looked up story structure, was in looking up 5 act story structure to see if it 'matched/or I could follow it somewhat' in that I had five books, and it might be that each book hit one of the aspects of it. And....I decided it was not even close. And that was the last of that.


I hesitate to say, cause Malik was not the first to post that graph up, but I find Malik's graph more interesting, if only for amusement purposes.

 

[Incanus]

Oh yeah, my question: have any of you folks actually used story structure in your writing? If so, precisely at what point(s) and in what way(s)?

I'd say yes. I use structure to figure out the plot, plot to figure out the next scene to write. When I'm writing a scene, I'm not thinking about the greater structure necessarily, but I wouldn't have made it to that scene without the structure. I guess that's not very precise, and maybe it doesn't count in the way you mean.

 

[Finchbearer]

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.

Yeah, not me.

 

[Jackarandajam]

Oh yeah, my question: have any of you folks actually used story structure in your writing? If so, precisely at what point(s) and in what way(s)?

So for my current wip, here's a VERY tiny breakout of the process:
1. Scene popped into my head. A good one.
2. Thought alot. Came up with a few more scenes.
3. Wrote a zero outline which started a bunch of big questions.
4. Thought a lot, answered questions which generated more questions.
5. Characters started popping up out of the fog. Started fleshing them out.
6. Revisited my outline. Moved stuff around.
7. Wrote out pages of bios and descriptions, fiddling with my outline.
8. Started referencing the 3 act structure, checking my scenes, coming up with new scenes that i liked that made better sense plotwise.
9. Had the HUGE hangup that I didn't like the journey aspect of the story. Could have made it work but really didn't want to.
10. Thought. Alot.
11. Had an inkling, wrote a few pages, liked where it was going, rewrote the outline, double checked the three act, close enough for a first draft.

There are still some elements of the last half of the book I don't care for, but It's time to smash through a draft and hope either inspiration strikes or it sounds better when I write it out than it does on the short list.

There are aspects of the story that I consider concrete, because I love them and without them it would be a different story. Other than that it's all fluid.

 

[Karlin]

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.

"the guy who had the best restaurant in the world". Think about it. Who decided? What's "the best"?

 

[Prince of Spires]

Do we need to know how breathing works to breathe?

This is actually an interesting comment, though I realize it's more an off-hand remark that shouldn't be picked apart too much. But it's a great example of the yes and no nature of the whole discussion here.

Because no, we don't generally need to be tought how to breath. It's something we've picked up.

However, as someone who has had a lot of singing lessons as a kid, some people do get taught how to breath for very specific reasons. If you're singing, then breathing becomes extremely important. If you breath correctly (for singing that is), then you can sing for longer without needing to draw a breath, and you'll learn when and how to breath so the audience doesn't notice your breathing and just hears a continuous song.

And yes, I'm sure you can pick this up by just singing a lot more and analysing your own singing and what works and what doesn't. However, doing specific breathing excercises and being told what to do actually helps. And most professional singers do these kinds of excersises. So yes, I have actually been taught how to breath, and it helped me in specific instances.

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.

I'm not really sure what we're arguing anymore, if character development, plot development and how conflicts get resolved have nothing to do with story structure. That to me is exactly what story structure is and achieves. You can't have them without a good and logical story structure. While it might not be formally 3-act structure or whatever, and you might not conciously apply that structure, it is still structure.

have any of you folks actually used story structure in your writing?

George Lucas, of Star Wars fame, has. Star Wars (both #4 and #1) follows the hero's journey closely, and he used it intentionally. So there's that.

While I don't use 3-act structure when designing my stories, when I'm outlining, I do think of the types of stories I want to tell, and which events should happen. It's less abstract that something like 3-act, and more about "what events make a satisfying underdog sports story"

"the guy who had the best restaurant in the world". Think about it. Who decided? What's "the best"?

several different "best restaurant lists". But my argument wasn't so much about arguing culinary specifics and the merits of different lists, but more the general idea that a top chef produces very different food compared to a home cook.

 

[Prince of Spires]

I'm curious why some people are arguing against the fact that knowing theory about some aspects can help improve your writing. I haven't seen anyone here argue that you can't write great stories without knowing the theory, and that you must always study the theory and follow what it says to the letter. Far from that even.

However, knowing theory doesn't hurt you, and in certain situations it can definitely help.

There's a reason why professional athletes still have coaches, even though they're at the top of their game and probably intuitively know more about their sport that many coaches ever will. Having someone explain what you need to do is a way to help you improve, to become better than you are. Same with musicians. They don't need to know theory, and can create great art without it. However, knowing the theory doens't hurt and will make you learn the basics faster and better.

 

[Penpilot]

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.

For me, structure doesn't define the story. Structure is just one person's way of looking at a story. Two different structures are just two people looking at the same thing and describing it in a different way because of their unique perspectives.

Another way to put it is if you have a car. One person is standing at the front. Another is standing at the side. They're each seeing the same thing, but because of the angle they're looking at from, they'll describe it differently. There will be similarities, but each will emphasize different things, based on whats more prominent from their point of view.

For me, structure is just a tool for helping remind me of what general components comprise that car and what tends to go where when I'm designing my own car. If I use multiple structures, it gives me a more complete picture of that car and a bigger list of reminders.

If you look at the chart Malik put up, that's what it's showing. The beginning is on the left, the end is on the right, and all the various structures are just describing the same thing, a story. Each is just describing it in a different way, because the originator of that structure is looking at it from a different angle.

At the end of the day, structure is just a tool. You still need the skill to wield the tool to create something with it.

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.

I very much believe that we all have a natural feel for how stories should unfold, but not everyone understands that feel well enough to make use of it to tell a story. It's like when you like or dislike something. You don't always know why you feel that way. You just know you do. But if you find a way to articulate it, it may help you find more things you like and better avoid things you don't like.

For me, structure is about articulating that feel for story and sharing it with others, so they can understand it better, too.

There are people who, when asked about their day, can weave a long engaging tale about their office job. But for people like me, I can't do that. If asked about my day, I tend to be very terse with my answers.

"How was your day?"
"It was good."

No stories about the weird copier repair person. No antidotes about the mysterious lunch thief.

That's just not my natural instinct because I have anxiety about boring people. For me, structure is a tool that does many things, one of which is reminding me there's more to tell than "It was good."

Structure also acts as an organizer., a way to make sense of the chaos. I tend to get flooded with thoughts, before I write, as I write, and after I write, and I use parts of structure like buckets to separate those thoughts into the appropriate places to be dealt with at the appropriate time. Before I started using structure, everything would get tossed into a big jumbled pile. Things would get lost and forgotten about in the shuffle.

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.

Structure is just a tool. Anyone who claims otherwise is selling a false dream. It's like showing someone a hammer and saying if you buy this hammer, you'll be able to build a mansion, guaranteed. No, you'll be able to hammer something.

BUT a hammer in the hands of a skilled carpenter, well, they can build a mansion with it. While others, without the proper knowledge or skill, they'll be lucky to hammer a nail in straight.

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.

I believe Aristotle Poetics is considered the earliest surviving work on dramatic theory.

Syd Field popularized the three-act structure in his screenwriting book in 1979.

 

[pmmg]

At the end of the day, structure is just a tool. You still need the skill to wield the tool to create something with it.

Does this mean you are on the side of, its useful to have and to study?

 

[Mad Swede]

Except that most publishers and agents don't make a decision based on story structure - true up to a point, but scenes have micro structure, and the first X chapters / words that you send will contain some structure though clearly not all of it. What makes your first X chapters accepted - they deliver things the publisher has seen in books that sold well before - scene structure and the beginning of story structure will be among those. An opening that doesn't show evidence of structure is likely to be rejected.

When you pass the first cut and they read the whole manuscript you may still get rejection or major re-writes if the rest isn't as good as the beginning section, with structure, or lack thereof, being an important part of that decision.

No, they don't make a decision even on a micro-structure in a scene. They simply don't have time. Even here in Sweden there's a couple of hundred submissions per week to look through at the big publishers, and the people doing that don't have time for any sort of structured analysis. I think it was A. E. Lowan who made a comment that you have about 250 words to grab them. And what gets your book the second reading is whether you grabbed the first reader. That is mostly about feeling and emotion: do the characters pull at me, does the concept have potential? Your writing style is part of that, and so is the spin you put on your story concept.

The second reader (over here, the lektör) will assess your manuscript and make a recommendation about acceptance or not, but structure (three act, heros journey or whatever) isn't a big part of that. I know it isn't, my first book went through the process. As my editor puts it, structure can be fixed. What is much harder is to get things like characterisation and dialogue sorted out, and at least over here a large part of the assessment focuses on things like that. Characterisation in particular is very much about the author and their ability to write characters whom readers will care about.

As skip.knox says, story structures don't instruct us or inspire us. I'd go further and say that they may a good tool for literary critics but that they are rather less helpful for authors in that structure alone doesn't make for a good story. It's our skills as writers which do that, and there I agree with Penpilot

 

[Mad Swede]

Oh yeah, my question: have any of you folks actually used story structure in your writing? If so, precisely at what point(s) and in what way(s)?

No, never. Not at any time. When I set out to write a story I think the story through. Thoroughly. The characters, the setting, the what and the why. Then I write. One pass, no editing. And then it goes to my editor at my publisher. Is it as easy as it sounds? No. Far from it. But I never think about story structure.

 

[Finchbearer]

I recently watched an interview with one of the big publishers in the UK, and she said she gets something like 100’s of submissions per day. And they are just a team of four women, with each their own preferences. So you have to keep an eye out for when these big publishers are open to submissions. She got into the job because she’s a prolific reader, so I assume she’ll have an intuition for when to get in touch with a new author or not. She did go on to say however that she likes stories that have a very simple structure, as in this is the premise, and it’s catchy and hooky. Something along the lines of ‘a woman inherits a property, finds relatives documents, finds something mysterious in them, could it involve murder?’ For something like that, I’d imagine you need a structure. Other agents may prefer something more esoteric. If self publishing, does any of this actually apply seeing as you and a couple of beta readers are pretty much the only obstacles to getting your work out there?