Do we need to know about story structures?

[Mad Swede]

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.

I'm not sure it is obvious. To me, saying you need some structure implies that you as a writer have to do a lot of learning about these things before you're ready to be taken seriously as a writer. For me that verges on arrogance and ignores the fact that many writers produced classic novels without knowing about structures, story beats etc. Worse still it risks putting some newbies off, they get frightened and back away when they should be just getting words down on the page. Only when you've done that can you start to think about adding, changing, deleting, moving text around or whatever.

Yes, for some writers a whole load of notes and diagrams may help, it seems to work for you. Others amongst us just write. But that doesn't mean we don't think about what we write.

 

[Michael K. Eidson]

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.

So... I wrote a story one way. I then wrote the story another way. Both versions of the story had the same main events, and by the dictionary I use, plot equates to the main events of the story. So both versions of the story had the same plot. But I also claim that one version of the story had structure and the other didn't. That's because structure (at least some published formulations of it) doesn't rely solely on plot, but may have as much to do with perspective, if not more so. Changing the perspective of my story from one character to another allowed me to add structure to a story that didn't before have it.

Consider... when you refer to structure key points with names like "Bad guys close in" and "Dark night of the soul," those are purely matters of perspective. If the story were told from the perspective of one of the so-called "bad guys closing in," it completely wrecks the formula for the structure, even when the main events remain unchanged.

I also don't see anything wrong with a writer formulating their own structure to apply to their own works, as I'm doing. Otherwise, Campbell should have been prohibited from using his own formulated structure... unless his is more special because he formulated his first... or maybe because he has superpowers, which I admittedly don't. He did what made sense to him, and I'm doing the same for me. All formulated structures are basically lists of key points, though each key point might have received any amount of discussion as to why it should be a key point or to explain what is intended for the key point. When you look at the chart of different story structures, it looks like a bunch of key points to me. They're still referred to as types of story structure, not story plotting devices (though some writers may actually use them that way).

Once upon a time I also thought that story structures were inherent to humans as storytelling creatures. I'm not so sure any more. Those of us reading or listening to stories inherently recognize good ones, but does that translate to being able to tell a good story, whether that means applying structure or not? Heck, not every writer even thinks of structure the same way. Perhaps many of us are inherently good at applying to our stories what we think of as structure, and thus don't feel the need to study the topic. Hey, we're all different, which is what makes discussions like this so interesting.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Everyone who grows up listening to, reading, or watching stories picks up a knowledge of story structure. Hell, it might be ingrained into the DNA. When a story works, it has structure. When it doesn't work, a problem in the structure is one thing amongst many to look for. From Oedipus Rex to A Christmas Carol to The Three Little Pigs to Scarface to Star Wars to Harry Potter to Pulp Fiction to Gone Girl to a story about an intelligent cockroach I wrote as a kid, they all have a structure that fits basic 3-Act structure. Yep, Star Wars, famous for being Hero's Journey, still fits into 3-act.

3-act is merely putting a name to something that has been around a long damned time. Same for Hero's Journey.

Do you need to know it? Well, you already do, whether you can put it into words or not. The question is, do you need to study it, and the answer is no, but a conscious knowledge of the structure is useful even if you never sit down and plot out something by 3-act structure and never think about it while writing or after.

That said, there are plenty of people out there mucking around with 3-act and trying to complicate it enough to write a book big enough to make money on. 3-act is simple and only a small—but critical—part of a successful story. I've read books/shorts where the author is shooting for a structureless stream-of-consciousness tale they don't think has structure, and it does. One act plays and four-act plays, which are 3-act structures. One shouldn't get hung up on the term "act." Beginnings and ends of "acts" don't have to have some literal or figurative curtain.

 

[Michael K. Eidson]

I'm not sure it is obvious. To me, saying you need some structure implies that you as a writer have to do a lot of learning about these things before you're ready to be taken seriously as a writer. For me that verges on arrogance and ignores the fact that many writers produced classic novels without knowing about structures, story beats etc. Worse still it risks putting some newbies off, they get frightened and back away when they should be just getting words down on the page. Only when you've done that can you start to think about adding, changing, deleting, moving text around or whatever.

Yes, for some writers a whole load of notes and diagrams may help, it seems to work for you. Others amongst us just write. But that doesn't mean we don't think about what we write.

It might even verge on arrogance for someone, like me, to think they can write books without taking any formal training. It's tough, and I can see it being easy for newbies to be put off. I put words on the page for decades before finally trying to publish a book, and even then, when I got to the point of paying for an editor, I was told that my story wasn't good. They didn't say it lacked structure, but what they did tell me amounted to the same thing, even though at the time I didn't realize it.

I did, however, take everything to heart and studied more. Maybe I still can't produce a good story, whatever that means. But the drive is in me to write, to create, and it won't be denied. I decided at some point that self-publishing was the only way I'd get my work out there within my lifetime, so that's the route I've taken. At this point, I've mostly given up on further studying the writing craft. I still do read this forum from time to time, obviously, and sometimes I read an article here or there. And my thoughts on whether or not to study more might change any day... who knows?

Far be it from me to discourage anyone from writing--newbie or otherwise--even though my own story as a writer isn't a particularly inspiring one, if told truthfully. The sad truth remains that some writers of "good stories" won't have the pleasure of gaining high numbers of readers, even while some writers of "bad stories" will gain a ton of readers. It can feel so random at times, as if success as a writer is decided by the roll of some Cosmic Dice or is woven into a Tapestry of Fate by some Deity of Writing. That very idea discourages me, but I can't allow it to affect me to the point of quitting. I can't imagine me ever quitting until I can no longer physically put words down. If anyone--newbie or otherwise--can be discouraged from following their dream, maybe such discouragement is in their best interests, because what if they put soooo much effort into writing but never gain a satisfactory readership? Trying so hard and ultimately failing could be viewed as a huge waste of time that might have been better spent doing something else more productive.

 

[skip.knox]

>a conscious knowledge of the structure is useful
This strikes as more a statement of faith than a statement of demonstrable fact. There's a bunch of stuff about writing that I'm glad I read, even though I don't use it. Was it useful, if it's not used? I dunno, but I can still be glad I read it.

People as a species, as cultures, do tell stories, but that doesn't mean every individual is a storyteller, any more than the fact that we collectively produce songs means we're all singers. Some of us are very bad singers. Similarly, some of us are poor storytellers. I don't think knowledge of structure is going to help that sort of person's stories. At best, maybe those who have some talent and have the ability to improve might benefit from looking at their last story, taking what they've learned about structure to do better next time (though I think pacing and characterization and such are more important ... and more useful). Mebbe.

I go back to the phrasing of the OP. Is knowledge of story structures *necessary*? Probably not. Is it helpful? Possibly. Is it useful? Surely, to some. Aw crap, now I'm back to "it depends".

 

[Demesnedenoir]

It's unprovable as a universal fact. A conscious knowledge of structure will never make a nonwriter into a writer, but they will be able to write a story with structure, heh heh. Maybe. I've seen screenwriting students struggle with structure in ways I can't even grasp. I have a friend who has a knack for words (poetry is more his bag), but dear God! Trying to get him to make a coherent story is like pulling teeth. He will never finish a book, let alone write a successful one. He has one part of the skillset but not the other. In screenwriting, I've seen people who can cobble together a helluva story—and in H'Wood that might sell, because idea can sell—but their spec script is shit because they can't write dialogue. At all.

I've also heard singing instructors say that everybody can sing if trained, but not everybody will be great at it. It's all a matter of degrees.

>a conscious knowledge of the structure is useful
This strikes as more a statement of faith than a statement of demonstrable fact. There's a bunch of stuff about writing that I'm glad I read, even though I don't use it. Was it useful, if it's not used? I dunno, but I can still be glad I read it.

People as a species, as cultures, do tell stories, but that doesn't mean every individual is a storyteller, any more than the fact that we collectively produce songs means we're all singers. Some of us are very bad singers. Similarly, some of us are poor storytellers. I don't think knowledge of structure is going to help that sort of person's stories. At best, maybe those who have some talent and have the ability to improve might benefit from looking at their last story, taking what they've learned about structure to do better next time (though I think pacing and characterization and such are more important ... and more useful). Mebbe.

I go back to the phrasing of the OP. Is knowledge of story structures *necessary*? Probably not. Is it helpful? Possibly. Is it useful? Surely, to some. Aw crap, now I'm back to "it depends".

 

[Karlin]

Of course stories have structure. The question is whether one needs to think about it consciously, or it comes naturally to a story teller. In Modern Times (apologies to C. Chaplin) one needs to officially study something in order to be considered a proper practitioner of a trade. But it wasn't always like that.

Two related comments:
1. Ask an AI program to write a story. You'll get a properly structured story. Will it be interesting? Fun to read? No.
2. There are alternate story structures. We all think of a standard structure, yet to some degree it is a cultural construct. This has been mentioned above. I'd like to bring another example: The Journey to the West. Some have complained that it "isn't a proper novel". That it's "Episodic". That it has too many poems woven into it. i.e., that it doesn't fit our modern concept of what a Proper Novel Ought To Be. It's been in print for over 400 years, which should make one think....

 

[Demesnedenoir]

I'm not 100% certain AI will create a properly structured story at this point in its development.

By most accepted definitions, no, an episodic tale is not a novel in a way similar to the Iliad and the Odyssey are not novels, but what constitutes a novel can be nebulous. The Bible and the Canterbury Tales are not novels. The Lord of the Rings isn't really three novels; it's one novel printed in three books. A collection of stories can be printed as one book or multiple novels can be printed in one book. That doesn't change the structure of story. Just like Hero's Journey is multicultural, so is basic 3-act.

I'm curious about these other story structures. As with Star Wars being written as a Hero's Journey structure, that doesn't make it not 3-act.

 

[Jackarandajam]

I'd like to point out what I see as a few possible misconceptions here:
1. Good Story Structure is innate.
This is ignoring thousands of years of natural selection. The reason we are raised being conditioned to think of story in a certain way is because as humans have marched through time, we've accumulated more and more stories that meet the criteria for being retold.
Grimms fairy tales are a compilation of the most commonly retold stories of Germany and the surrounding regions, and, as indicated by multiple versions of the same tales in the books, as they were told they evolved. Their structure was tweaked to please the listener more and more, by the natural selection of trial and error. We get the versions we get because they were the most enjoyable to listen to.
By now we listen to elite, concise stories that each excel at illiciting everything desired from the listener/reader. The preference of the consumer has slowly weeded out or evolved less interesting tales. Consumers, not writers, set the bar.
2. The convolution of analysis with man-made law.
Structure isn't telling you what to do.
Structure is an analysis of successful stories and how to apply their principles to your own creation.
3. Arbitrary levels of understanding.
There is no standard here, but its entirely possible to feel really good about something not very great if you dont KNOW what youre looking at. You don't get the same quality of story engraved in your psyche no matter your background, it's different for everyone based on not only what stories they were exposed to, but also their individual ability to absorb and analyze the content. It might take a new writer years of study to catch up to what another writer got from being exposed to fairy tales and classical literature at a young age.
4. Structure is structure is structure.
What a writer is exposed to at a young age is the same structure that may or may not be studied. The line between natural absorption and purposeful study is completely arbitrary. What you get from reading is an incomplete portion of the whole. It may or may not be enough, again, to write as well as you could, depending on a million different factors. The only way to know where you land on this spectrum is to study it and see what you did innately.
5. There is a difference between being able to do something and being as good at something as you can be.
Can anyone write well enough to "get by?" Sure, depending on what they're trying to "get by" at.
If I desire excellence at anything, it's romantic but illogical to bank on my instinct, or imagine the portion of my mind unblemished by information and instead wholly devoted to throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks will be the secret to my success.
It's entirely possible that may be the case, but it's kinda like buying lottery tickets instead of getting a job. Way less work, but you're counting on a one in a million chance you're incredibly lucky (or "the chosen one," if I may).
6. I still think you can't know how to make a pizza based on the taste.
Or, more directly, good writers make it look easy. In fact, anyone skilled at pretty much anything makes it look easy. Readers just... read the book. It flows into the psyche seamlessly. Just like a pro skateboarder makes the sport look intuitive, or a pro chef can make a dish in which it's unclear where the taste of one spice stops and another starts.
I could say now "oh I totally can. I can taste a pizza and recreate it." But that's only because I've spent alot of time studying how food works. I know how to make a basic pizza dough, so I can pick out from that what was probably done differently. I never would have guessed the combination of water flour and yeast, the process of kneading and letting rise, or many other things based on the taste.
So the question is, if you think you know all you need from the stories you read as a child, what misconceptions might you possibly be struggling under? There is no way to know.
I could say with perfect honesty that all you need to know to whittle is that knives cut wood, and I wouldn't know how much more there is to it until I checked. I could maybe even make some damn good carvings to prove my case, but they might have been a thousand times better if I'd known a bit more. I can't know that though, unless I go study carving. Until then, I will insist I know all I need to know.

 

[Jackarandajam]

I'm curious about these other story structures. As with Star Wars being written as a Hero's Journey structure, that doesn't make it not 3-act.

What a matter? You mean YoU dOnT kNoW tHe DiFfErEnCe InNaTeLy?!? You obviously aren't cut out for this writing thing.

 

[Finchbearer]

There’s been some mention of structures in writing other than full length novels, but arguably you can implement much less structure into poems, elegies, short stories etc.

Although poetic prose has its own set of rules.

 

[pmmg]

Well, there are one act plays, and manuscripts, so I am sure they dont follow the three act frame.

 

[pmmg]

So....three act story structure has several definitions.

But, which ever one you choose, to write something outside the structure, just change the order of the steps.

Though, unless I am trying to prove something, I dont know why I would actively do this.

One story widely regarded as not fitting 3 act story structure is Finnegan's Wake. You can read if you like.

While three act story structure is kind of one of the most basic, and more 'all' encompassing (hard to beat something like, beginning, middle, end, or Setup, confrontation, resolution), but this is also very simplistic. Other structures have gone further and provide more a road map for beats along the way. I think a author would have more luck trying to follow Heroes' Journey, or Save the Cat, than 3 act. Even if someone comes along later and says, hey, I can deconstruct all this down to three act if I like.

 

[Jackarandajam]

I think a author would have more luck trying to follow Heroes' Journey, or Save the Cat, than 3 act.

My understanding is that Heroes Journey is a plot that most commonly follows the three act structure. Most diagrams of the 3 act you see use heroes journey as their example plot (hence phrases like Dark Night of the Soul and Returning with the sword).
Save the cat is a principle/device of story that helps writers remember in which order to put story beats to keep reader interest, so it could be considered structural, but in no way is an either/or question when it comes to three act.
So for example, Star Wars Ep IV is all of the above: three act (structure), a heroes journey (plot), and he implemented "save the cat" by showing princess Leia captured first (device).

Edit: for those curious to see examples of 3 act that isn't heroes journey, see plot structure for mystery, crime, romance, drama...
Harry Potter, for instance, convoluted mystery and heroes journey until towards the end, when the mystery element of each book faded and it became wholly about Harry's transformation. Pretty sure all of them though, with the exception of maybe the last one that was split in half, followed three act.

 

[Ned Marcus]

I'm not sure it is obvious. To me, saying you need some structure implies that you as a writer have to do a lot of learning about these things before you're ready to be taken seriously as a writer. For me that verges on arrogance and ignores the fact that many writers produced classic novels without knowing about structures, story beats etc. Worse still it risks putting some newbies off, they get frightened and back away when they should be just getting words down on the page. Only when you've done that can you start to think about adding, changing, deleting, moving text around or whatever.

Yes, for some writers a whole load of notes and diagrams may help, it seems to work for you. Others amongst us just write. But that doesn't mean we don't think about what we write.

I've never thought that a writer has to study writing before writing. But I think it helps to study a bit at some stage. Just learn what's useful and forget the rest. Yes, many writers have written brilliant stories without ever having studied writing. As others have said, we're exposed to stories as we grow up, and many parts of storytelling become natural for us. Me too, I think.

My approach to learning foreign languages is largely through getting a lot of exposure to the language (comprehensible input etc) rather than a formal study of grammar, but, in small doses, studying grammar is useful. I approach reading about story structure in the same way. The best way to learn is by reading (or watching) stories, but sometimes it's useful to study a bit too. This is just my opinion.

There are many things that may frighten newbies. These are things they must overcome themselves. I once saw a newbie writer literally run away in tears from a harsh (but fair) critique of his story. I never saw him again. All writers need to develop a thicker skin, and I know it isn't always easy.

Some writers plan whole novels beat by beat. The idea makes me sick, but if it works for them, go for it. I hear the beats as I write. I almost can't help it. When I find them useful is when something doesn't seem right. It's only then that I'll go back and look to see if that is a problem. Sometimes it is.

Actually, I don't use a whole load of notes and diagrams. I know a successful writer who does, but it doesn't work for me. I use a minimal structure, but that structure saves me time later.

By the way, I never once thought you didn't think!

All of these are just my thoughts on what helps me, and what I think can help some other writers.

 

[Karlin]

I'd like to point out what I see as a few possible misconceptions here:
1. Good Story Structure is innate.
This is ignoring thousands of years of natural selection. The reason we are raised being conditioned to think of story in a certain way is because as humans have marched through time, we've accumulated more and more stories that meet the criteria for being retold.
Grimms fairy tales are a compilation of the most commonly retold stories of Germany and the surrounding regions, and, as indicated by multiple versions of the same tales in the books, as they were told they evolved. Their structure was tweaked to please the listener more and more, by the natural selection of trial and error. We get the versions we get because they were the most enjoyable to listen to.
By now we listen to elite, concise stories that each excel at illiciting everything desired from the listener/reader. The preference of the consumer has slowly weeded out or evolved less interesting tales. Consumers, not writers, set the bar.
2. The convolution of analysis with man-made law.
Structure isn't telling you what to do.
Structure is an analysis of successful stories and how to apply their principles to your own creation.
3. Arbitrary levels of understanding.
There is no standard here, but its entirely possible to feel really good about something not very great if you dont KNOW what youre looking at. You don't get the same quality of story engraved in your psyche no matter your background, it's different for everyone based on not only what stories they were exposed to, but also their individual ability to absorb and analyze the content. It might take a new writer years of study to catch up to what another writer got from being exposed to fairy tales and classical literature at a young age.
4. Structure is structure is structure.
What a writer is exposed to at a young age is the same structure that may or may not be studied. The line between natural absorption and purposeful study is completely arbitrary. What you get from reading is an incomplete portion of the whole. It may or may not be enough, again, to write as well as you could, depending on a million different factors. The only way to know where you land on this spectrum is to study it and see what you did innately.
5. There is a difference between being able to do something and being as good at something as you can be.
Can anyone write well enough to "get by?" Sure, depending on what they're trying to "get by" at.
If I desire excellence at anything, it's romantic but illogical to bank on my instinct, or imagine the portion of my mind unblemished by information and instead wholly devoted to throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks will be the secret to my success.
It's entirely possible that may be the case, but it's kinda like buying lottery tickets instead of getting a job. Way less work, but you're counting on a one in a million chance you're incredibly lucky (or "the chosen one," if I may).
6. I still think you can't know how to make a pizza based on the taste.
Or, more directly, good writers make it look easy. In fact, anyone skilled at pretty much anything makes it look easy. Readers just... read the book. It flows into the psyche seamlessly. Just like a pro skateboarder makes the sport look intuitive, or a pro chef can make a dish in which it's unclear where the taste of one spice stops and another starts.
I could say now "oh I totally can. I can taste a pizza and recreate it." But that's only because I've spent alot of time studying how food works. I know how to make a basic pizza dough, so I can pick out from that what was probably done differently. I never would have guessed the combination of water flour and yeast, the process of kneading and letting rise, or many other things based on the taste.
So the question is, if you think you know all you need from the stories you read as a child, what misconceptions might you possibly be struggling under? There is no way to know.
I could say with perfect honesty that all you need to know to whittle is that knives cut wood, and I wouldn't know how much more there is to it until I checked. I could maybe even make some damn good carvings to prove my case, but they might have been a thousand times better if I'd known a bit more. I can't know that though, unless I go study carving. Until then, I will insist I know all I need to know.

I like this
"2. The convolution of analysis with man-made law.
Structure isn't telling you what to do.
Structure is an analysis of successful stories and how to apply their principles to your own creation."

 

[pmmg]

I dont know. I feel like this thread is just spinning around with people agreeing over the same stuff and yet presenting in a way that seems like they are not. I think I will let others tack down what remains of the loose canvas and go back to writing my story in a way where I never once think about what structure it is in.

 

[gineraay]

Structure (or form) is simply the way events and characters are organised. Every story has a structure, by definition.

The dominant form in Western storytelling is the called the linear or classical form divided into three acts, it's what people expect. Setup with inciting incident, confrontation ending in a crisis, climax and resolution (Yorke, Into the Woods) and 4/5/6/8 acts are variations on this. Usually simple cause and effect, and chronological order are assumed.

An act is a series of events ending in an event that throws the story in a different direction (usually the inciting incident and the crisis). There's no reason why there can't be more or less other than convention, and I would argue, those who follow formulas like the 7/11/22/116 points of plot, or the 15 beats of story may not understand what acts are or do.

Why the three act form is dominant is unknown. Perhaps it's like language, we are taught a way of speaking from birth, but there are thousands of languages and you don't expect people to talk to you in Aramaic (unless you're Aramaic). Like any language, most people can use it, more or less.

To get back to the original question, why learn it? If art is about communicating your ideas in the best way possible, then it makes sense to understand how this happens and how things can go wrong, how it confuses or fails to communicate. Some people can do this well already, some need to learn. It's about using the "language" to clarify what you mean. And there are times when you want to break the rules to convey some other meaning, eg Catch-22, Pulp Fiction, Severance, Cloud Atlas, Normal People. Raiders of the Lost Ark and many, many more.

 

[Mad Swede]

To get back to the original question, why learn it? If art is about communicating your ideas in the best way possible, then it makes sense to understand how this happens and how things can go wrong, how it confuses or fails to communicate.

To quote David Hockney "The moment you cheat for the sake of beauty, you know you're an artist." You don't have to follow conventions, you can do it your own way as Hockney's own career (and indeed his graduation from the Royal College of Art) show.

 

[Finchbearer]

To quote David Hockney "The moment you cheat for the sake of beauty, you know you're an artist." You don't have to follow conventions, you can do it your own way as Hockney's own career (and indeed his graduation from the Royal College of Art) show.

The whole ‘cheat like an artist’ is nothing new, but is heavily rooted in being formally educated in the arts. I will refer back to my line of thought and say that if you want to break the rules, you have to know them first.