Many people seem to think that a story has to fit into a preestablished structure. Sometimes, they even think that a scene has to fit into a preestablished structure. Regarding a story, it can be the 3 act structure, the 4 act, or the hero's journey, things like that. And regarding a scene, I've read things stating that a scene has to show your character wanting to accomplish something, there must be tension and a climax, then a resolution, with a cliffhanger because there must be some "oh crap" moment, leading to another conflict to feed the next scene. I must admit that to me it sounded like a receipe to cook a script for an action movie that Micheal Bay would later make. I also heard things like a scene ends and starts when a character enters or leaves the scope of the scene. And this time I thought : doesn't sounds like a novel; it sounds like theatre. Am I wrong when I think that what makes a scene is much more simple than all of this, and allows for much more freedom ? To me a scene has a purpose. Showing how a character feels about something. Showing that a character has to act or how does he act. Or establishing a setting in order to create an ambiance. Or anything else. When I'm writing a scene, I'm usually thinking : "ok, what's my point here ? What am I trying to say ? Which ideas am I trying to convey ?" Then, I think about the best way, given the characters, setting and plot, to do it. If it happens that in the result, there is a cliffhanger or whatever. Fine. But I'm not trying to check boxes. And regarding the story as a whole... I must say that I'm really working the same way. I'm not trying to fit into a preestablished story structure at all. I'm trying to say something, to convey ideas, and think about the best way to do it. If, in the end, I happen to write something that fit some structure, fine. But that would be coincidental. What do you guys think about all these story/scene structures ? And how do you work ?
I've been doing a bit of research on story structure (especially the three act structure) as of late, because I want to write stories that people will enjoy. And a key part of that is to know how well-received stories have been written. And as far as I can tell the structures are not meant to be rules but guidelines to help writers write the best story possible. They help to make sure that a story has a good pacing. That the first act has strong hooks, but also doesn't overstay its welcome. That the middle act has scenes that raise the stakes so that the story doesn't drag. And that the third act has enough of a climax (and resolution) to give the whole story weight and intensity. Even if you aren't intentionally following these structures, you will likely find that your story follows them. Because almost all stories that would be considered good, follow at least one of the common structures. It's kind of like how most music follows music theory. When it doesn't something just feels off. Since I am new to all of this, I do try to keep story structures in mind as I'm writing/plotting.
I think there's a lot of confusion here of story telling. First off, it's worth saying that books are not movies. They're two completely different mediums, so there's different rules for each. But even with that said, I think we need to clear up some misunderstandings. All stories follow the basic structure of exhibition, rising action, climax, falling action, and resolution. Ones that don't follow this structure or disproportionately favor exhibition over rising action, end not to be very good. Looking at you Twilight. But that's simply to describe the whole story overall. Individual scenes, don't need to follow this format. A scene is merely where stuff happens. It doesn't have it's own rising action. It's part of the rising action. And the whole rising action is built on scenes put together in succession. Now, I can get into what goes into a well written scene versus a mediocre scene, but I don't think that's necessary. Scene are very malleable. They can be and do anything you wish. They don't have to follow a particular structure. However, they do have to serve a purpose to the rest of the story. They don't have to have a cliffhanger, but scenes do have to feel as though they flow into each other. The "three act structure" is a film structure, not literary structure. Shakespeare had how many Acts? But it's still a solid structure and can still translate well into books. If you want to do a three act structure, Lindsey Ellis has a wonderful explanation of the three act structure for your viewing pleasure.
I so totally agree with this approach. Once I started using it, my writing got a lot sharper, very quickly. Before I start writing each scene I ask myself: What do I want this scene to accomplish? And I make myself answer that question before I begin. Notice I didn't say, "What do I want my character to accomplish?" Sometimes that's exactly what I don't want. But each scene must have a purpose FOR THE READER. What do I want the reader to take away from this scene? This approach keeps me from dwithering on, describing a scene without any focus, or creating a dialogue exchange that's 'kinda fun' but doesn't get anything done. Instead, I know exactly WHY I'm writing this scene. I want the rural setting to convey the tranquility of nature, which is so important to my main character. (Which I will shatter in the next scene...) I want the reader to be aware that my main character has developed intense feelings for his landlady. I want my reader to realise that Sally has a different agenda from what James thinks she does. With this kind of intentional purpose in mind, I am able to build my scene so it goes in the direction I want it to. What this method gives any writer is a sense of direction. And that helps to move the plot along.
When I first started writing my WIP novel, I had a basic idea for a story and set out to write it. Knowing how previous projects went, a short way in I decided to write the end scene. I've said elsewhere that it gave me a light at the end of the tunnel that I was pretty sure wasn't the oncoming train. Yeah, so, anyway... I didn't have any structure; no idea about much of anything, I was just writing. I slogged through what I have loosely titled Part One, a story in itself, and decided I needed a different approach to make a whole work that people would want to read. So I've been assembling the structure, creating chapter folders, then scene sheets for the things that need to happen in those chapters, and each sheet gets a description of the key points for the chapter. This is a damn lot of work, let me tell you. But as I developed this structure, I found myself moving things around, throwing them away (indeed, I took out an entire section I had planned because it really didn't propel the story any). So here I am building structure. But I still don't know, beyond a vague idea of the chapters for Part Two, what the overall end structure will be. Part One had ~46K words, and I'm mildly concerned that Part Two won't have that much. But I won't know until I write it, and even then a lot may get left on the cutting room floor (to use a film analogy) or added in. In short, pre-determined structure be damned. But structure, in its own, organic right, is good. Or so I find.
This is true , and is true for many of the other ideas presented to the beginner in , how to write, books . I have found copying out other writers work will often prove most ides about writing as just a starting point and useful to know .
The thing is, by using an unstructured method like this, you open yourself to discovery. Instead of just executing a preconceived plan, you are figuring out what your story actually consists of. Yes, that might take more time and might result in lots being thrown away and lots being rearranged, expanded on, condensed, etc ...but my belief is that you can also end up with a much stronger story. Things that didn't occur to you when you were planning will come to light. And events may converge in unexpected ways to produce what I call 'story gold.' Not everybody wants to work like that, but I know that's kinda how I write, so I'm comfortable with it.
Rules are made, not to be broken or ignored, but transcended. In order to do this, you must learn and then outgrow them. A scene is not an act. This is like saying every novel can only have 3 chapters. Just like in movies, an act consists of several scenes. If you look at the story of a movie, it actually behaves just like the story of a book. When Aristotle discovered the 3-act structure in his Poetics, he was observing plays, not movies.
/shrug I read a lot of craft books. I keep the stuff that resonates, and leave the stuff that doesn't. When it comes time to organize my ideas into a narrative, I do whatever feels right for the story I'm telling. I take breaks between drafts to read traditionally published novels inside my genre and out (I'm sure there are lovely selfpub books out there but that's not my industry and my time is limited) and when I get a new idea, I kind of decide on the fly how I'm going to organize it, determine if I have a viable story, and then use whatever process works to get it on the page--whether that means deciding if the story has three major turning points, or four, or five, or if there's something weird in the organization like parallel stories, how many people need their point on the view on the page--and then I impose limits on it dictated by the contracted word length, usually by estimating how many scenes I can use to tell the whole thing. A scene is a single unit of dramatic action--emphasis on drama. the three act structure is a reliable way to tell a story, but it's not holy writ. act division is about the climax of a sequence of scenes that opens further consequences and complications until the final climax. Organizing the story is the way I keep it cohesive, instead of trying to carry the whole thing in my head like i'm Johnny Mnemonic. A whole novel is just too big for me to carry, but I don't want to put it all on paper until I'm actually writing it.
Thank you for proving my point. The reality is film is nothing more then the extension of the theater. There's are some aesthetic differences between how a story is presented on stage as opposed to film and there can be some argument in the adaptability of some plays to movies and visa versa, but these differences stem more from the limitations of stage production then it does any story telling differences. Plays that depend on the limitations would be difficult to adapt, but that doesn't change the fact they are fundamentally the same: It's a visual medium using actors to tell a story. I mean, the fact a script is officially called a "Screen play" is not coincidence. That term is by design. In fact, modern films draw heavily off of older plays. As for your statement about acts and scenes, I will admit that was a typo on my part. I meant to say that Shakespeare had more acts than three, not scenes. Sorry about that.
They exist for a reason. They have been used for thousands of years for a reason. They aren't a set of rules you must apply to, they are simply a guide line. It's often a belief that free writing is best because you focus on the story, not building one. But I find thinking and planning helps me define the story much better. They think all be do is structure. We are free writing like they are, just not in manuscript style. There is no such thing as a planner and a panster because we are all both. They panster as a first draft an actual manuscript. We panster as documents and lists whatever. They have their novels planned out to a certain level, especially when they return to correct their work. They are figuring out the story in long form, we're doing the same thing in short form. A few years ago I wrote two novellas. One I panstered and on I planned just to figure out which way worked best for me. Those I gave it to couldn't tell the difference. Because it didn't really matter. One thing they did notice was that the ending of my planned book was better. They felt it just fit naturally whereas the panstered ending felt predictable and was a bit flat. I felt more comfortable planning out my work because I dislike editing. So that's what works for me. EDIT: forgot the second part of your question. Once I have an idea this usually includes a few characters, I begin working on them. Not in regards to the plot, just as characters themselves. I give them a life goal, a motivation, people who influenced and shaped their opinions. I just create them as individuals and jot down any character arc moments or plot ideas as I go. I may even do extensive work on the characters Mother or Father or Teacher even if they don't feature. Because understanding those my character lived around and was influenced by can help me understand him/her. I just brain storm then pick the ideas I like and that all fit together. Next I work on character arc and plot together. Sometimes I use guidelines like 3 act or Hero's just to make sure I'm hitting the pace. Lasting I work on setting.
I follow the structure as a guideline, but I also write different characters and/or events in the setting to influence each others' development based on what I think would be a reasonable/realistic response. Sometimes I use dice and random number generators to throw in things that break up the structure. For example, I could be writing a romance but a war happens in the setting's timeline at that specific point and it completely disrupts what was supposed to happen at the climax of that arc because one of the characters straight up died, and now half of them are being drafted to fight in a country on the other side of the planet.
The only time I remember reading about more than a 3-act structure was in John Truby's Anatomy of Story, where I think he discussed 5 acts and maybe more (I don't remember it very well). What I was thinking at the time is that he just took a 3-act structure and broke some of the acts up into smaller parts and called them acts. To me it seemed labored and artificial, in each case the 3 act structure seemed like it was more clear and to the point. At least I would stick to a 3 act structure and see no reason to make things more complicated, especially since I don't like to structure things too strictly or formulaically, just as a loose guide.
It could be argued that each chapter in a novel is an act. Shakespeare’s plays are presented as 5 acts although there are those who insist he just wrote scenes that flowed together. Someone else broke them up into acts. Chapter or act, I don’t care. Either way, it’s a convenient place to insert a bathroom break.
I completely agree with this. So many students of story structure (not referring to anyone here specifically, just in general) struggle with this. There is so much focus placed on trying prove or disprove the rules/guidelines that the lesson gets lost in the argument. A lot of learning has to do with the act of practice, of simply doing, of performing the exercise and absorbing everything you can from the experience and then looking back to see what you've gained at the end of the journey. That said, I also agree with the OP in that stories should not be "formulated." There is no formula for great storytelling, but one can gain new insights about themselves and about their writing by applying some of these rules. So first learn, then apply, then create your own.
There isn't a formula but there is a pattern. There are things that our minds automatically look for when we're reading a story. That's why all of the various forms exist. They are all similar in construction, but vary somewhat in execution. Far too many people are either not consciously aware of how story beats operate, or they think they can just ignore them. Most of the time, they are simply wrong.
I think it's perfectly fine how you are doing it. I can't say that I'm some sort of scholar that you should trust. But I did see a lot of things that you said that I, myself, use. It's very important to ask questions in regards to your scenes. In my opinion, it's the only way to prevent yourself from creating continuity errors. You don't want to put out a piece of material that would contradict itself. And it's also important to consider what type of questions a reader may ask, when it comes to your current writings. It may help you find any pitfalls or things that you never considered.
Trying to get a point across and trying to tell a story aren't always the same thing. I love an avant grade story or structure and there are probably endless possibilities there, but whatever kind of structure you're using, the story still needs to come through and make sense regardless of the form.
Storytelling can be among the most boundless and infinite art forms. Especially at the conceptual stage: an idea, daydream or even spoken word. When story's take written form they become stifled. Like a bird in a cage. It seems that this is a necessary evil so that everyone can see the bird. Something is lost as we trade boundless creativity for acceptability, credibility and a word I have grown less fond of lately: form. Maybe that is the price one pays for seeking a wider audience. For me, form can stifle creativity. Don't get me wrong I follow the rules for p.o.v, balancing show vs tell and all of the other hurdles we jump to tell our stories. I accept form as it is necessary, but I will not be allowed to quash creativity.
I agree with Cephus, pattern is a more accurate description. And the ability to recognize these patterns and beats is something that comes more naturally to some than others, but once you get better at it, it often opens up more doors than it closes. I always tackle story building like a game rather than a chore because it is what I enjoy most about the creative process, but I also understand the process isn't the same for everyone.
Formula and complete lack of it are the Scylla and Charybdis on a writer's journey—going too far in either direction can be fatal. You need to find your best path between the two, and this varies from project to project, maybe from day to day, due to changes in the tide, wind, fog, etc—so it's a constant balancing act. As far as I'm concerned the 3 acts are Introduction, Body and Conclusion. It's hard for me to see any story that can't be divided up pretty neatly in this way. This is why I feel people talking about more acts are just ignoring the natural divisions and trying to make up some alternative. That's fine, you can make as many acts as you want, as long as you have a good solid intro, body and conclusion. This is very close to an amazing quote I heard that was specifically about visual art, but applies to all of them I think. Let's see if I can remember it right: "Learn as much as you can about form (especially composition), practice until it becomes ingrained, and then work intuitively" Composition is a thing in writing as well. Without having pondered it enough yet I'm leaning toward it having strong importance in writing too, as in maybe stronger than anything else. I suppose it depends on what you mean by composition (it's not as clearly defined for writing). But I need to think about it some more. EDIT: I looked back at the OP and I want to add this. I think fiction can be divided into 2 different kinds; Narrative and Poetic. It sounds like you're leaning more toward the poetic. Narrative is the kind that uses all the form and has all the rules/guidelines etc. I'd say genre fiction all fits into narrative (though you can also have poetic narrative—a mixing of the 2), but when you get into the arena of literature it often becomes more poetic. I think to write poetic fiction well you need to be pretty darn intuitive and capable of understanding how to make it work, like with writing poetry or doing any kind of freeform art outside of the rules and regulations. I guess it's like the difference between creating a short simple Verse Chorus Verse pop hit in music and making a long meandering instrumental Prog Rock song. You have your bands like Rush, Yes and Kansas who can break all the rules at will and create masterpieces. But how do they do it? Well it's simple, you just have to be a genius! One thing that occurs to me though—every member of those bands studied music hard and got really good at the basics (probably really fast) and then surpassed all need for conventional structure. Maybe some can do it without learning anything, but those would need to be the REAL geniuses!
I believe that structural methods (I hate the word formula) like the 3 act or whichever, comes in very handy for pacing a story. I mean, you might not be sure from where to start of where to end a story, but at least you should know when to place your climax, because this somehow determines your rising action. Place it too soon and your story creates a belly afterwards. Place it too late and... oh wait. I've seen this happen before and it worked well, but it was a rarity. But yeah, at least don't place it too soon. Then it'd feel like your story just drags for no reason. Anyhow, even this: falls under a category of structure that has been noted down as a set of "rules" and can be taught. Not exactly as you describe it, but rather close. It has to do with "goals", "desires", "emotional pulse/subtext", "plot complications", etc, etc. and then, to confuse you a little bit more, when you are studying lets say a script, things get even more berzerk, because apart from the script's character's goal (MC tells his bf he loves her), there's also the directorial character's goal (he screams it at her and smashes his beer bottle on the wall), which has as you can see 2 different types of analysis for the same thing. I kid you not, it's the toughest lesson of them all. Everybody keeps failing at this lesson again and again, it's ridiculous! It's like studying to become psychologists. Now, why do they keep pestering us so much with this damn lesson, teaching us this nit picking type of scene analysis? Because of communication. It is a very important part as a director, perhaps the most important, to be able to communicate to your actors what you want to show in a scene. Direct them. You must be crystal clear and make it simple or you might confuse the hell out of them. Same thing goes for writing. Your reader plays out a scene you have directed in your mind. He/she needs a scene that makes sense (with driven characters) and leads to somewhere or else what? When I am writing (even when I did before reading about any rules) I follow the rules because they have been taught to me subliminally. They work as patterns. I've watched tons of movies and read tons (maybe not tons per se) of books. When I started writing I was guided with these as rulers to my inspiration without even thinking about it. Analysing these aspects just make you progress faster I believe. Chewed food. You understand better what you are doing, not how to do it. I can't start to explain why I disagree so heavily about that, because I'd digress. It's oh so completely different. It's like saying you read a comic, you read a novel... extension. Different kind of writing, different kind of acting, different kind of directing, lighting, dialogues, monologues, poetic, realistic, sound, budget, time, and the list goes on. Cinema is a thing of its own. Much more liberating than theatre from my pov, but much more troublesome. Anyhow, structural methods are merely blueprints. (That's why I hate the word formula). They are incomplete, very rough and can be viewed differently by anyone, since they arose from completed stories and not the other way around. It's just story patterns that got analysed. Not all books follow or have to follow these methods. Take Dostojevski or Esser for example. A lot of classic writers did whatever they fancied. They went completely crazy! Damn anarchists!
Rather than keep adding to my previous post I'll make a new one now (I edited that one like 4 times). The reason it took me till so late in the thread to think about poetic story is because I never thought about it in relation to writing before—my studies were into poetic film. I did a series of blog posts about it some years ago, though I don't claim to know a lot about it—it was more me trying to figure it out and understand the puzzle. If anybody is interested, look for a blog called darkmattr on Blogspot. Check the sidebar for a section called Resources, and scroll down till you find a link for Poetic Film Posts @ Darkmatters. The blog was about stopmotion animation, which involves a lot of disciplines rolled together, including of course storytelling.
