pmmg
Myth Weaver
Imagine the system one must have for rejection if they are getting manuscripts at that rate.
-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
Do we need to know about story structures?
- Thread starter Mad Swede
- Start date
Finchbearer
Istar
This pretty much describes my ‘process’ too. Very back and forth and I spend probably just as much time thinking about my story as I do creating it.
Jackarandajam
Maester
Yeah, I'm still developing it, but for me more on the front end is way healthier mentally.
I don't want to burn myself out ironing flat every little detail of the story but the plot, big ideas, and logic (motivations, acrion/reaction making sense as far as there not being a hugely obvious and better alternative action) have to be pretty airtight or I completely lose faith in a story as soon as big questions arise that contradict a bunch of what I've written.
The "pantsing-extremely heavy edit" method, I've found, is too overwhelming.
Very much so. I wrote a whole article for Mythic Scribes detailing why its useful. It's like a carpenter learning about the types of wood, screws, nails and various tools available to them. Does not knowing about these things in detail prevent them from building a chair? No. Does knowing about these things automatically make them a great carpenter? No. A great carpenter is more than just the tools. But ask a great carpenter to build something with zero tools at their disposal, I don't care how great they are, it's going to be a tall ask.
Also on a more pragmatic side of things, even if there are people who don't use story structure consciously, it and the lingo of it is a part of writing. To ignore it completely isn't possible, and IMHO, to at least know what things are will help in communicating with others about writing.
This ^
Penpilot is correct. It's Writer 101. We should know about story structure. We should know about the submission process. We should know how our industry functions. We should know about everything we can about being authors because even if we don't consciously use any of it, it informs our writing and makes us better writers.
And yes, it's 250 words maximum. That's your average printed page. Some agents and editors will read even less. I'm going to get some pushback for this, but it's true. Your average publishing house sees hundreds of submissions per day. They have interns who go through what's called a slush pile, and you have 250 words to catch the attention of a bored, tired, probably horny and definitely over caffeinated college student before you have a chance of being rejected by an actual editor. For anyone who wants to go trad - and we're right there, we plan on going hybrid soonish - this is the industry. Waiting time is better than it was, at least. Last story we place took something like 90 seconds? But we'd already placed a story with them before and had a relationship.
Penpilot is correct. It's Writer 101. We should know about story structure. We should know about the submission process. We should know how our industry functions. We should know about everything we can about being authors because even if we don't consciously use any of it, it informs our writing and makes us better writers.
And yes, it's 250 words maximum. That's your average printed page. Some agents and editors will read even less. I'm going to get some pushback for this, but it's true. Your average publishing house sees hundreds of submissions per day. They have interns who go through what's called a slush pile, and you have 250 words to catch the attention of a bored, tired, probably horny and definitely over caffeinated college student before you have a chance of being rejected by an actual editor. For anyone who wants to go trad - and we're right there, we plan on going hybrid soonish - this is the industry. Waiting time is better than it was, at least. Last story we place took something like 90 seconds? But we'd already placed a story with them before and had a relationship.
I know about story structure. I'm not sure it has helped me in my writing. For a time knowing the stuff was actually negative, as it made me anxious about things -- how do I tell Act 1 from Act 2? Is the shift in this chapter or that one? Yes rising tension, but how much? And how do I measure it? Does Story Beat X fall at Y% of the story?
And so on. I gave all that up and am a better human being for it.
I'll take this space (seemingly unoccupied at present) to complain that no one has been able to tell me exactly *how* they have used Story Structure in their actual writing, anywhere from planning right through final edit. In fact, most who have responded so far have done so in order to count themselves among the Not Using faction. I am genuinely curious, as everything I've read has been too nebulous to be practical.
And so on. I gave all that up and am a better human being for it.
I'll take this space (seemingly unoccupied at present) to complain that no one has been able to tell me exactly *how* they have used Story Structure in their actual writing, anywhere from planning right through final edit. In fact, most who have responded so far have done so in order to count themselves among the Not Using faction. I am genuinely curious, as everything I've read has been too nebulous to be practical.
- Thread starter
- #87
Mad Swede
Auror
You know, having spent the day thinking about this, for once in my life I'm going to disagree vehemently with you and with Penpilot .
Or at least vehemently disagree with the idea of story structure. It isn't about using or modifying a given structure for a story. It's about our ability to communicate. I've spent a large part of my life giving orders to do things and writing reports about what (I think) has happened. I've also written academic papers and seen them published. I've got four books out there, three novels and a collection of short stories. They all have something in common, and I'm not thinking about the author.The thing they have in common is that I'm trying to convey something: the why, the where, the how, the what, the when and the who. That needs thought.
In the military we insist on a structure, because we need that when we're under severe stress (like in the middle of a firefight). We need to know where to look in the orders to quickly find out what we're to do next. BUT, even then I don't need all the bits. For a multinational force, yes, I need all the order sections. But when leading my own Swedish troops, no - because we have a number of things in common which means I don't need to say some things. A set of orders for a multinational force might run to 45 pages, the same orders for my Swedish brigade I could write on less than 2 pages. It's all about thinking what I need to say.
In academia you need a certain structure to show what you've done and how you came to those conclusions. But, depending on what I'm writing about I may be able to refer to or cite certain other papers so reducing or even eliminating the need to say something. Really original research needs far more explanation and discussion, not because it's controversial (although it might be) but because it is original. You need to think it through when you're trying to explain it.
So where does that leave my argument on story structure? Well, you don't need to know about it to write a good story, but you do need to think about your story. Who is it about, how did they get there, why are they reacting like this, where are they going, when and why? Answering those questions isn't about story structure, it's about characterisation. Then you can start writing. The story, when it ends, should in my view have answered those questions. But that doesn't mean you have to answer the questions in any given order, or even in the same order for all characters or in all your stories. Think it through, every time. Then write.
I'm generally in the Mad Swede's camp on this (never bet against Sweden), but I want to say a word on behalf of newbies. A cursory browse through Scribes will reveal that the new author has a *ton* of questions, and many of those questions center exactly around thinking it through. Specifically, the posts express confusion and even dismay about *how* to think things through.
I can remember my own self at that stage. Thinking through any one of a hundred questions about writing seemed only to lead to still more questions. Requests for guidance were met with variations on "it depends" and "just do it." None of those replies are wrong, but they sure weren't much help in the old thinking department. For myself, progress came when progressed along two fronts: first, I did indeed just start writing. Much, much effort expended there, and much of it repetitive if not exactly in vain. Second, I was able to narrow and focus my questions. Getting answers to specific questions, often questions highly specific to my project and probably not of much use to anyone else, helped me feel like I was getting somewhere. And eventually I was able to gain some ground on those more general questions (e.g., how do I make a believable character, or how do I adjust pacing ... that sort of thing).
Maybe, just maybe, learning about story structure would be beneficial to the newbie. I rather doubt that; if it's going to be useful, or even merely informative, it's more likely to be so for the writer who has just finished their first or second novel. To someone, iow, who has some context for that information. I dunno; as I've said, I've never been able to use general stuff, though articles on the structure of a scene have indeed been helpful. They deal with specifics.
I can remember my own self at that stage. Thinking through any one of a hundred questions about writing seemed only to lead to still more questions. Requests for guidance were met with variations on "it depends" and "just do it." None of those replies are wrong, but they sure weren't much help in the old thinking department. For myself, progress came when progressed along two fronts: first, I did indeed just start writing. Much, much effort expended there, and much of it repetitive if not exactly in vain. Second, I was able to narrow and focus my questions. Getting answers to specific questions, often questions highly specific to my project and probably not of much use to anyone else, helped me feel like I was getting somewhere. And eventually I was able to gain some ground on those more general questions (e.g., how do I make a believable character, or how do I adjust pacing ... that sort of thing).
Maybe, just maybe, learning about story structure would be beneficial to the newbie. I rather doubt that; if it's going to be useful, or even merely informative, it's more likely to be so for the writer who has just finished their first or second novel. To someone, iow, who has some context for that information. I dunno; as I've said, I've never been able to use general stuff, though articles on the structure of a scene have indeed been helpful. They deal with specifics.
pmmg
Myth Weaver
Its in answering the 'where are they going' that the structure starts to apply.
You dont have to think about it, but it might be impossible to escape.
Whoops! Sorry, I completely spaced on this part. We use story structure a like, and fully intentionally. We like the traditional 3 Act, with action rising and hitting mini-climaxes (good heavens, I really am 3 12-year-olds in a trench coat) and giving the reader, and the characters, a wee break before we're off again. It came as a lifesaver with Beneath a Stone Sky. Keeping track of 3 storylines that eventually merge was a hell of a circus act
and my wife is a genius. The structure and pacing are all her being awesome sexy and 10 times smarter than me.The next two books are an in-series duology, same time over one weekend, two different cities, and the whole group keeps tabs on the other, so getting time and pacing is crucial.
Another place we touch on story structure is the Hero's Journey. In our story universe, there are such a thing as Heroes, and their path through life follows that roadmap. Eventually, they meet their Destiny, and then the Universe no longer needs them. Story's over.
Is that what you were thinking of, Skip?
Why Swede! What will the neighbors say?You know, having spent the day thinking about this, for once in my life I'm going to disagree vehemently with you and with Penpilot .
The thing they have in common is that I'm trying to convey something: the why, the where, the how, the what, the when and the who. That needs thought.
In the military we insist on a structure, because we need that when we're under severe stress (like in the middle of a firefight). We need to know where to look in the orders to quickly find out what we're to do next. BUT, even then I don't need all the bits. For a multinational force, yes, I need all the order sections. But when leading my own Swedish troops, no - because we have a number of things in common which means I don't need to say some things. A set of orders for a multinational force might run to 45 pages, the same orders for my Swedish brigade I could write on less than 2 pages. It's all about thinking what I need to say.
In academia you need a certain structure to show what you've done and how you came to those conclusions. But, depending on what I'm writing about I may be able to refer to or cite certain other papers so reducing or even eliminating the need to say something. Really original research needs far more explanation and discussion, not because it's controversial (although it might be) but because it is original. You need to think it through when you're trying to explain it.
So where does that leave my argument on story structure? Well, you don't need to know about it to write a good story, but you do need to think about your story. Who is it about, how did they get there, why are they reacting like this, where are they going, when and why? Answering those questions isn't about story structure, it's about characterisation. Then you can start writing. The story, when it ends, should in my view have answered those questions. But that doesn't mean you have to answer the questions in any given order, or even in the same order for all characters or in all your stories. Think it through, every time. Then write.
Michael K. Eidson
Archmage
I've enjoyed this discussion on story structure, and have something to add. Many years ago I put out a call for short stories for a couple of anthologies. I received a goodly number of submissions, but not so many I couldn't read them all from beginning to end. The stories I could easily reject out of hand fell into the camp of requiring too much work for me to include them in the anthology. Prevalent poorly structured sentences... numerous illogical, contradictory, or confusing passages... an abundance of multiple fonts used throughout the document, making heavy use of symbols.... Ugh. I wouldn't have said these authors weren't creative--in fact, just the opposite in some cases, especially the one with all those fonts--but they weren't knowledgeable enough in the craft to be submitting stories for traditional publication.
Then there were the stories that weren't so easily rejected. In deciding which stories to accept, I didn't assess each story to see how well it fit some defined scheme or structure. No, it was a more visceral process... how did each story make me feel? Did the more well-structured stories have a better chance of making me feel better, and thus have a better chance at being accepted? Perhaps, but I wasn't keeping score. So, I can't rightly say to what degree adhering to some given structure gave any story preferential treatment from me. I no doubt had my own biases, and the biases I had back then differ greatly from the biases I have today.
I don't doubt that the authors who submitted stories with some structure fared better than those who didn't. But I wasn't thinking about story structure at the time. If I were to try putting together an anthology again these days and put out a call for submissions, I might pay more attention to that aspect of the stories, because my opinion of story structure has changed over the years. Editors and publishers come in all persuasions. Some will be more concerned with story structure than others, and not all of them will have the same idea of what constitutes good story structure.
Of course, the writer who wants to traditionally publish must grab the attention of editors and publishers. But it isn't necessary to traditionally publish to have one's works read. If the writer's primary reason for writing is to be read, then the most important person to the writer is the reader, not the editor or publisher.
There are no doubt plenty of readers out there who don't think twice about story structure... but that's not to say they don't subconsciously prefer stories with structure over those that don't.
So... to the question, does following those western ideas about story structures restrict us? My answer is yes, they do, but I think in a good way, and to some degree even in a necessary way... if one's target readers are a western audience. Structured stories are what most readers making up a contemporary western audience have come to expect and want more of. I mean, you could conceivably find an audience for any story told in any way you wished to tell it, even an experimental piece using symbols from a variety of esoteric fonts. But if the idea is to find the most readers you can for your writing, then you have to give readers more of what they want. Readers addicted to stories with structure--even if they don't realize they're addicted to it--are more likely to enjoy a story that adheres to the kind of structure they prefer than one that doesn't. The "experts" who promote certain structures are basically describing the forms they are observing as having a strong impact on some reader base. If that happens to be the same reader base you want to appeal to, then applying the same forms to your writing won't guarantee you any readers, but not applying the forms may well cause your work to be dismissed by the readers you most want to attract.
As mentioned earlier, my ideas about story structure have changed over the years. That's because I've studied the writing craft more in that time, and story structure is probably the one topic I've studied the most. It feels that even the experts don't agree on the matter of story structure, and there's no one widely-accepted definition of it. Each expert describes it in somewhat different terms than the next expert. Many of them effectively are saying the same thing, but I never was able to line them all up in the same way as the chart presented earlier in this thread. And most of the descriptions I've read of a 3-act structure always seemed like 4 acts to me. They simply lumped the two middle acts together and called it one, even though they often labeled the two halves as acts 2a and 2b.
How do I apply structure in my own works? That has changed over time. I've come to think of story structure in my own way after having studied it and then written a five-book series with a continually growing regard towards using it. I pay some attention to percentages, but don't try to hit them exactly. I'm more concerned about order and intensity. First and most importantly is the hook. Now, face it, any writer concerned about writing the hook first in their story is showing some belief in the necessity of structure, even if the only structure you apply is hook first, remainder of story next.
Some experts also talk about an inciting incident coming early in one's story. There seems to be a good deal of confusion about what an inciting incident is, how it differs from the hook, and at what percentage of the work it should appear. For me, it's the event that sends the protagonist off in a different direction than their normal everyday routine. I have this event come after the hook, and usually not too long afterward. The percentage doesn't matter much. Whenever it feels right for it to happen, I have it happen.
After the inciting incident, things keep happening, dragging the protagonist along, until the point of no return. That's when the protagonist can't go back to their normal everyday routine, completely putting the inciting incident behind them, even if they wanted. This is also the end of act 1 for me. If it's around the 25% mark, great, but if not, oh well.
Act 2a is then the protagonist acting in response to events until we reach the point, at approximately the 50% mark, when the protagonist starts acting preemptively... not always with nice results, but at least they're trying to take charge of their own fate. This starts act 2b. This keeps going until something really dreadful happens, maybe around the 75% mark. Then act 3 begins, where we build towards the climax, followed when ready by the denouement and possibly a setup for what's coming in the next book.
Anyway, this is the structure I aim to apply at this point in my writing career. My aim hasn't been too precise in the writing of the five books of my series (a series which isn't only mine, as I have a co-author, but I did write all the first drafts). I recently revised the second book of the series based on reader feedback, and writing the second edition made me take a good, hard look at the first edition. It had little in the way of structure, honestly. It certainly didn't follow the structure I outlined above. In writing the second edition, I realized if I was to have any chance at following my preferred structure, I needed a different protagonist. The original protagonist was stuck for far too long in the "in response" stage... act 2a... and there was no good way to change that and still fit with the other existing four books in the series. By considering my desired structure, I quickly determined who the protagonist needed to be, and I feel the second edition of the book is a great improvement over the first edition. It was a struggle to morph the first edition into a story that neatly fit my preferred structure, and I didn't try to force it, but it's a close fit, I think. I've yet to get much feedback on it, as it was only recently released and I've not done much in the way of promoting it.
Did my attempt to apply structure restrict me? I wouldn't use the word restrict. I think it assisted me to make improvements. I had a story, and it had been released to the world, but its target readers weren't thrilled with it. So I used story structure as a tool to make changes. The jury is still out on whether those changes were necessary or will even be of any benefit. I wish I'd released the second edition of the story as the first edition. If I'd been concerned about story structure in the first place, that might have happened.
Then there were the stories that weren't so easily rejected. In deciding which stories to accept, I didn't assess each story to see how well it fit some defined scheme or structure. No, it was a more visceral process... how did each story make me feel? Did the more well-structured stories have a better chance of making me feel better, and thus have a better chance at being accepted? Perhaps, but I wasn't keeping score. So, I can't rightly say to what degree adhering to some given structure gave any story preferential treatment from me. I no doubt had my own biases, and the biases I had back then differ greatly from the biases I have today.
I don't doubt that the authors who submitted stories with some structure fared better than those who didn't. But I wasn't thinking about story structure at the time. If I were to try putting together an anthology again these days and put out a call for submissions, I might pay more attention to that aspect of the stories, because my opinion of story structure has changed over the years. Editors and publishers come in all persuasions. Some will be more concerned with story structure than others, and not all of them will have the same idea of what constitutes good story structure.
Of course, the writer who wants to traditionally publish must grab the attention of editors and publishers. But it isn't necessary to traditionally publish to have one's works read. If the writer's primary reason for writing is to be read, then the most important person to the writer is the reader, not the editor or publisher.
There are no doubt plenty of readers out there who don't think twice about story structure... but that's not to say they don't subconsciously prefer stories with structure over those that don't.
So... to the question, does following those western ideas about story structures restrict us? My answer is yes, they do, but I think in a good way, and to some degree even in a necessary way... if one's target readers are a western audience. Structured stories are what most readers making up a contemporary western audience have come to expect and want more of. I mean, you could conceivably find an audience for any story told in any way you wished to tell it, even an experimental piece using symbols from a variety of esoteric fonts. But if the idea is to find the most readers you can for your writing, then you have to give readers more of what they want. Readers addicted to stories with structure--even if they don't realize they're addicted to it--are more likely to enjoy a story that adheres to the kind of structure they prefer than one that doesn't. The "experts" who promote certain structures are basically describing the forms they are observing as having a strong impact on some reader base. If that happens to be the same reader base you want to appeal to, then applying the same forms to your writing won't guarantee you any readers, but not applying the forms may well cause your work to be dismissed by the readers you most want to attract.
As mentioned earlier, my ideas about story structure have changed over the years. That's because I've studied the writing craft more in that time, and story structure is probably the one topic I've studied the most. It feels that even the experts don't agree on the matter of story structure, and there's no one widely-accepted definition of it. Each expert describes it in somewhat different terms than the next expert. Many of them effectively are saying the same thing, but I never was able to line them all up in the same way as the chart presented earlier in this thread. And most of the descriptions I've read of a 3-act structure always seemed like 4 acts to me. They simply lumped the two middle acts together and called it one, even though they often labeled the two halves as acts 2a and 2b.
How do I apply structure in my own works? That has changed over time. I've come to think of story structure in my own way after having studied it and then written a five-book series with a continually growing regard towards using it. I pay some attention to percentages, but don't try to hit them exactly. I'm more concerned about order and intensity. First and most importantly is the hook. Now, face it, any writer concerned about writing the hook first in their story is showing some belief in the necessity of structure, even if the only structure you apply is hook first, remainder of story next.
Some experts also talk about an inciting incident coming early in one's story. There seems to be a good deal of confusion about what an inciting incident is, how it differs from the hook, and at what percentage of the work it should appear. For me, it's the event that sends the protagonist off in a different direction than their normal everyday routine. I have this event come after the hook, and usually not too long afterward. The percentage doesn't matter much. Whenever it feels right for it to happen, I have it happen.
After the inciting incident, things keep happening, dragging the protagonist along, until the point of no return. That's when the protagonist can't go back to their normal everyday routine, completely putting the inciting incident behind them, even if they wanted. This is also the end of act 1 for me. If it's around the 25% mark, great, but if not, oh well.
Act 2a is then the protagonist acting in response to events until we reach the point, at approximately the 50% mark, when the protagonist starts acting preemptively... not always with nice results, but at least they're trying to take charge of their own fate. This starts act 2b. This keeps going until something really dreadful happens, maybe around the 75% mark. Then act 3 begins, where we build towards the climax, followed when ready by the denouement and possibly a setup for what's coming in the next book.
Anyway, this is the structure I aim to apply at this point in my writing career. My aim hasn't been too precise in the writing of the five books of my series (a series which isn't only mine, as I have a co-author, but I did write all the first drafts). I recently revised the second book of the series based on reader feedback, and writing the second edition made me take a good, hard look at the first edition. It had little in the way of structure, honestly. It certainly didn't follow the structure I outlined above. In writing the second edition, I realized if I was to have any chance at following my preferred structure, I needed a different protagonist. The original protagonist was stuck for far too long in the "in response" stage... act 2a... and there was no good way to change that and still fit with the other existing four books in the series. By considering my desired structure, I quickly determined who the protagonist needed to be, and I feel the second edition of the book is a great improvement over the first edition. It was a struggle to morph the first edition into a story that neatly fit my preferred structure, and I didn't try to force it, but it's a close fit, I think. I've yet to get much feedback on it, as it was only recently released and I've not done much in the way of promoting it.
Did my attempt to apply structure restrict me? I wouldn't use the word restrict. I think it assisted me to make improvements. I had a story, and it had been released to the world, but its target readers weren't thrilled with it. So I used story structure as a tool to make changes. The jury is still out on whether those changes were necessary or will even be of any benefit. I wish I'd released the second edition of the story as the first edition. If I'd been concerned about story structure in the first place, that might have happened.
Ned Marcus
Maester
It seems obvious that learning story structure is better than not. I really don't understand the emotion and defensiveness I'm reading between the lines in some of the replies. You do understand that you can play with the structure, right? You don't have to follow it to the letter.
Skip asked for an example of how people use it. This is mine.
I simply list the key structural points on a sheet of paper (inciting incident, first plot point, first pinch point, etc) then I imagine a scene for each. Once I've got those, I'm ready to go.
As far as beats go, I don't overthink that. They come naturally, but I do notice them. That's when writing becomes more rhythmic. Sometimes, when I reread a piece of writing that doesn't seem right, I'll slow down and look at the beats to make sure I've got them there.
Skip asked for an example of how people use it. This is mine.
I simply list the key structural points on a sheet of paper (inciting incident, first plot point, first pinch point, etc) then I imagine a scene for each. Once I've got those, I'm ready to go.
As far as beats go, I don't overthink that. They come naturally, but I do notice them. That's when writing becomes more rhythmic. Sometimes, when I reread a piece of writing that doesn't seem right, I'll slow down and look at the beats to make sure I've got them there.
Finchbearer
Istar
Yeah but when does something without structure become meandering word soup? Surely if you have an intuition for a story, you’re still using a structure, it’s just unconsciously done.
I wrote a three-part article on how I use structure. It's about 8 years old, so I've evolved a bit since, but the basics of how I use it are there. Here's a link to the first part.
Big Picture Story Structure – Part 1: Three-Act Structure
An overview of the three-act structure. The first part of a series on story structure for writers.
mythicscribes.com
BUT as it turns out, a couple of seconds before I popped onto here, I was just laying down the outline for a short story, so I'll take you through the basics of that. I'll try to be brief. And at the end of the day, it's still a work in progress, a first draft of the outline, but I'll give you the lowdown on how I use things.
So the story is about a guy going back for his 20th high school reunion where he reconnects back up with the one that got away.
So, I start with a character's WANT and NEED, and WHY?
WANT (It relates to the plot and how the story will unfold) : He wants to reconnect with his high school crush, hoping for kind of a redo. He believes she was the only one who's every truly believed in him, and not having her in his life is why his life hasn't met expectations.
NEED (It relates to the character arc) : He needs to understand he must rely on himself to fix his own life, not others.
WHY? (The reasons for his WANTS and NEED. Not 100% necessary, but good to know.)
His family was never there for emotionally for him. They were always too busy working to put food on the table. In a lot of ways, he's eternally waiting for mom and dad to come help, but they never do.
So the WANT will be used for the plot sketch and the NEED will be used to determine the character arc. The character arc is a simple change arc, which starts with a character believing a lie. Then the character is confronted with the truth, and at the end they have to overcome the lie and accept the truth.
The lie he believes: Reliving the past will fix his present and future.
The truth: The past can't be changed. The future is defined by the choices we make now.
So that's the basic sketch of the main character. Now I sketch out the plot in three-act structure.
Act 1
Act 1 is where we get to see what the character's normal life is like. The story starts with him circling the block around his old high-school over-and-over as he looks for a spot to park. There are people making their way to the school all dress up and happy. As he drives, he's thinking about how crappy his life is right now, and how he should just leave and crawl back into bed. He skipped the 10 year reunion, why not skip the the 20th?
Inciting incident - He decides to go to the reunion instead of running away.
Act 2 - pt 1
Break into act 2 - This is the threshold where the character moves from Act 1 to Act 2. He enters the high school, leaving the normal world of Act 1 and entering the story world of Act 2
This part is where we make good on the promise of the premise of the story. It's a high school reunion, so let's do some reuniting. This is where the main character meets up with old high school friends. They talk about the past, the present, and the future. Some of their stories are going to serve as examples that the main character is going to have to learn from. There's maybe some stories about the 10th reunion that the main character missed, maybe about his crush.
Mid-point - This is a high point or a low point in the story, a false victory or a false defeat.
For this story, it's going to be a high point. After all his apprehension and doubt, after trying to get away from drunk friends intent on not letting him hang out with anyone else but them, the main character finally meets up with his old crush, and the magic seems to still be there. it appears that she has been thinking about him, too. They almost had a moment back in the day, but the main character ran off when he got scared.
Act 2 pt -2
Bad guys close in - This is where the literal or figurative bad guys come into kick the main character down. If things have been going well, a false victory, this is the bad guys peeing in the punch and watching people drink. If things were going bad, a false defeat, this is the bad guys pouring that punch over the main characters head, and to make it worse, the main character had their mouth open the whole time and everyone knows.
As the main character and their crush talk, they both start to realize they both have similar issues. They're both messed up and they start to think it's not a smart thing for them to even think of getting involved. This realization scares them both, and they run away from each other.
Dark night of the soul - This is the character at their lowest in the story. In a lot of ways, they're worse off than they were at the beginning.
Here the main character is confronted with the truth that meeting back up with his crush isn't going to fix things. In fact it's worse because the illusion has been shattered. There's no more dreams of what if. There's just the reality of what is.
Act 3
When Act 3 starts, they main character has everything they need in order to "win"
The reunion is over. People start to disperse. The main character has made peace with the fact that he's probably never going to see his crush again, because screw the 30th. He almost leaves, but instead, he wanders the halls of his high school, remembering all the stories his old friends shared with him earlier. Maybe there's one where one of his friends found their way through a tragedy, and it all started with making a choice, to stop letting that moment dominate every moment of their lives.
The main character finds himself wandering to the spot where he and the crush almost had their moment all those years ago. She's there. He almost turns around to walk away, but stops.
I'm not sure how I want this to end yet. There's still a lot of revising, revision, and rumination to be done before the actual prose gets put down. This is just a framework. Nothing is set in stone. Lots will change once I start writing and filling in the exact details. But, for me, it puts my head in the right space and helps keep it there.
For me, that's what structure does, it's a framework that gets me thinking about the story in a very specific way. that helps me write the story I want to tell. I always say it's not about having the answers. It's about knowing the right questions to ask. Asking the questions with structure as a framework and answering them over and over, zeroing in on the "right" answer puts my head in the proper space before I start.
Riffing off Michael K. Eidson, I see a few replies to this thread saying emphatically that knowing story structures is of great import, but then some go on to state they barely use a structured approach to storytelling. If you're changing a 3 act structure into a 4 act structure, or guiding your writing only via a list of keypoints, you're not following a story structure, but are simply plotting. Those are different things to my mind. Following a story structure ought to require you adhere to the theory as laid down by the person who formulated it, be that Campbell or Freytag. If you don't do that, you're simply conflating plotting as a whole to the specific concept of story structures, as in their formulised theories, which I deem a misnomer. I can't go around and say I am following the hero's journey if I omit two of its steps. Now again, just to remind anyone who might reply, my stance is that story structures are inherent to us as storytelling creatures, and thus don't need to be specifically taught (though it doesn't hurt). I am not arguing for purposefully writing stories without structure here, but that this notion of explicitly knowing and following story structures has little necessity in practice. Just reiterating that as I don't wish to defend something I don't believe in.
Last edited:
Ned Marcus
Maester
We have different definitions.
Structure, as I see it, simply means arranging the elements of story in a good order and understanding the relations between them. I'm using the dictionary definition of structure. It's a practical thing and does not have to mean adhering to a theory. It means creating a structure over which the plot can be developed.
Structure, as I see it, simply means arranging the elements of story in a good order and understanding the relations between them. I'm using the dictionary definition of structure. It's a practical thing and does not have to mean adhering to a theory. It means creating a structure over which the plot can be developed.
If that's the definition we go by I don't believe it is possible to write a story without a structure. Disjointed ramblings don't make a story, and that's ultimately what a tale without any structure would be. Even if we create a story as we go, the plotting will always possess structure, even if never written down or made explicit.
Finchbearer
Istar
98 replies Swede - you are officially a disturber of the peace.
Maybe I should elaborate on my not running comment. I posses health and the basic ability to run, but I’m not naturally pre-disposed to it. If we relate this to writing, we can perhaps also say that there is a complex mixture of factors there to make someone be both good at writing naturally and also have things in place (like a basic structure, unconscious or conscious) for it to be an overall successful endeavour. That’s why I will stick to yoga and lifting weights.
Maybe I should elaborate on my not running comment. I posses health and the basic ability to run, but I’m not naturally pre-disposed to it. If we relate this to writing, we can perhaps also say that there is a complex mixture of factors there to make someone be both good at writing naturally and also have things in place (like a basic structure, unconscious or conscious) for it to be an overall successful endeavour. That’s why I will stick to yoga and lifting weights.
- Thread starter
- #100
Mad Swede
Auror
I should b***** well hope so. After all, that was what I was trained to do: disturb the peace when necessary, in order to never have to disturb the peace.
It's your earlier comment about using structures unconciously which I want to come back to. This is, I think, at the heart of why I don't think we need to know story structures. We carry them within ourselves, we just need to let them run as we write.
Similar threads
