I find writing structures depressing. Why do they exist? Why do they matter?

It doesn't mean we're robots. It just means that we're abiding to certain principles. Refer back to my post. How are you going to write a story without a beginning? Something like this is probably physically impossible. The three-act structure basically says that the beginning should have a setup, the middle a confrontation, and then a resolution. You can write all kinds of stories with that structure. Sci-Fi, Romance, Fantasy, you name it!

But that model doesn't claim that all stories must have a resolution at the end. You can have something else as the ending. Nothing is set in stone. Generally though, Aristotle is right. All stories have a beginning, a middle, and an end. What you do with those parts is up to you.

Here is where I think you're kind of confused. Your posts about humans being robots kind of tell me that you're talking more than just structure. You're talking about marketing and tropes.

If you ever look into self-publishing, you'll realise that you need to write for a market. There are many "markets". You can think of them as groups of people. And certain elements or tropes within a book appeal to those groups. You'd therefore write a book that has those elements so it appeals to them. Tools like "Publisher Rocket" can help you find and understand those markets.

There are many markets. Way too many. They also vary in size. People's preferences vary wildly. If we were all robots, I don't believe that this would be the case.

Some markets are big, some are small and niche. Authors that want to write full-time will generally target the bigger ones because more readers means more sales, and therefore more money. You need money to survive...

Can I ask what your goal as a writer is? What do you want to do?

 

Think of it this way. (I'll use a chess analogy, because having played chess for decades, I'm very familiar with it).

A story structure is like an overall strategy in chess. In chess, you assess the position, ask yourself "What should I do?", and plan accordingly. (For instance, if your opponent isn't attacking and has a weak spot, you attack that weak spot. Or, if you're in trouble, you concentrate on defending).

A story structure is similar: you ask yourself "What kind of story do I want to write? A rags-to-riches hero's journey? A villain's redemption arc? Etc.?", study the structure, and plan accordingly.
==================
Once you've decided (in chess) what you need to do, you create a rough plan, watch out for your opponent's schemes and traps, and proceed. This is called tactics.

Similarly, when you're writing, once you've written out your structure, you can break it down into chapter summaries and beat sheets. These will tell you (in as much detail as you care to put down):

1. who the characters are
2. what the timeline is
3. a summary of your story in a back cover blurb
4. a summary of your story in one paragraph (for use to sell to agents)
5. a summary of your story in one sentence (for use when people ask "What's your story about?")
6. and for each chapter, you write:
- what your hero's goals are
- what the obstacles are
- how he decides to overcome those obstacles
- etc.

At least, that's the way I do it. It can take some time, but you don't have to stop pantsing if you don't want to.

I include my initial "pants" ideas as part of the beat sheet, and write out as much detail as I want. Later, when it comes to writing the actual story, I either incorporate those ideas, or junk them if they no longer make sense.

I hope that makes more sense now.

 

But do all stories really come with a structure? And if so, why? Why do they have structure?

 

The original question was not how do these structures work but why?
Why do stories all follow the mono myth, the hero's journey or save that cat?
What effect do they have on us.
Why are they structured the way they are?
Do all stories really follow them? Are we stuck with these forever?

 

No I am not a "pantser." In fact I'm the opposite.

I want to understand why these repeating patterns exist, why they work, what effect they have and will we reject any story told any other way?

 

I think we've gone as far as we can in trying to explain it in a way that will satisfy you. If you want to try a different structure, you can, of course do that. Or try writing without a structure at all. I suspect you will end up fitting one of them anyway.

 

I know writers need to keep readers interested, get them to care about characters and give them an emotional payoff. But that NOT what I was asking about. I was asking why do stories have the same structure? Will human only respond to stories of that structure? Why do they respond? And are we, as humans, stuck with them?

I do want to further understand the idea but not to use it to write a book. I want to understand why this is a part of human behaviour and if it's unchangeable.

 

Well if this is the best you can do then I a very disappointed.
I would think that writing enthusiasts would understand the why. Rather then taking the dogmatic approch of "It just works."
Now I don't know what to do for answers.

 

We explained the why to you, several times. You won't accept it, so there's not much point in us carrying on.

I'm afraid my interest, and participation in this thread ends here.

 

Writing is not like the laws of physics or thermodynamics. At least I used to think it wasn't before I learned about story structures. That's why I loved it, it was freedom.

 

No you didn't. I thought I was clear on the questions I was asking but you just didn't seems to under stand.

Why are things like the hero's journey an the mono myth a thing? Why do we keep using them? Can we do without them?

 

So you'd rather quit and leave me in the lurch rather then put in the effort?

 

I don't have a problem with having a beginning middle and end. It's the specific steps that how we seem chained to them that get to me.

 

Ashley, I'm afraid moose is right.

Firstly, your question -- i.e. why do people like stories that follow a structure? -- is going beyond our expertise. The only answer I can give you is: because they do. It's built-in to our psyche. Since the time of people dwelling in caves, the structure has been the same: get up, go to work, come home, eat dinner, go to sleep. (The cave dwellers' "workplace" was hunting or gathering, and their "home" was a cave, but the principle is the same). If you can't accept that, too bad.

Secondly: we are all here voluntarily. We like writing, talking about writing, and giving advice about writing. But we cannot, and will not, answer all your questions. It's up to you to think about our answers, decide whether it works for you or not, and put pen to paper.

If you'd like someone else to do everything for you, there's another option: find someone willing to do it and pay them. There are plenty of ghost-writers out there who'd be more than willing to take your money.

Now, I've been very patient and given you my fair share of advice, but there's nothing more I can do. Good day!

 

I never mean the beginning middle and end. Not having that would just be crazy. I meant...

1. The Ordinary World
2. The Call of Adventure
3. Refusal of the Call
4. Meeting the Mentor
5. Crossing the First Threshold
6. Tests, Allies, and Enemies
7. Approach to the Inmost Cave
8. The Ordeal
9. Reward (Seizing the Sword)
10. The Road Back
11. Resurrection
12. Return with the Elixir

Or

1. A character is in a zone of comfort. Everyday life is mundane and unchallenging.
2. But they want something. The protagonist’s desire compels them to take action.
3. They enter an unfamiliar situation. The character crosses the threshold to pursue what they want.
4. Adapt to it. They acquire skills and learn how to survive in this new world.
5. Get what they wanted. The character achieves their goal, but at a cost.
6. Pay a heavy price for it. New and unexpected losses follow the victory.
7. Then return to their familiar situation. The character goes back to where they started.
8. Having changed. The story’s resolution; the lessons they’ve learned stay with them, and the character has grown.

And people say you HAVE to write like this, that all stories are like this, always have been and always will be. Because that's the only thing a human will respond to.
They swear by these patterns and say that if you stray from them, if you deviate from them and try to do your own thing. your story will fail.
To me writing meant freedom, but these teachings say that there's nothing free about writing at all. That we're genetically locked into these and only these and there's nothing we can do about it.
It even suggest to me that humans might not be free, that in a sense we are machines. And if a story is not strictly and properly "formatted" we will always reject it.

 

I'm sorry if I offended. I had a rough day and this issue is very important to me and I was frustrated by how no-one seemed to grasp what I was saying. And this brought back memories from another time when I was going through a really bad time and, far from getting comfort from those around me, I had to work hard to get them to understand what I was going through. And even then they didn't understand why this issue bothered me.

 

I know what I did was a little out of line. But it can be upsetting to reach out to someone for help on something very emotional to you. Then be told you're to much trouble to deal with.

 

That's just the monomyth. No one who is only even marginally well-read (never mind reading. You see this in movies and video games too) claims that's the only kind of structure. It's in fact directly at odds with other classic story types like the tragedy or the comedy.

 

There's two differernt things going on.

Writing: There are no rules, no constraints. Switch off spell check, abandon sentence structure, never mind story structure. Do whatever you want.
Reading: If you want someone to read it, then constraints need to apply. Words need to be recognisable, sentence structure to convey meaning, similar with the narrative.

You're asking about writing and the natural inclination is to answer about reading. There's no rules in the former, there are in the latter, even at a cognition level.

The story structures outlined to you are those that are likely to appeal to a broader audience. Why? It's psychology. Or mysticism. If the story constructs reality in the same way that we do in our lives, it resonates. If it doesn't, it discombobulates and many people don't like to be discombobulated. I've heard a poet say that only poets buy books of poetry. The more personal your writing, the smaller the potential readership. There are authors who don't follow those structures. The greats who live long after they're gone push at those boundaries in many instances.

If you want to write without those structures, there's prose poetry and jazzy approaches you can take but there are two caveats. Firstly, you won't make money because most poets will buy their collections second-hand. The second is that the writers writing in that space are very good at it, breaking through to get published is not easy.

 

In undergrad, I took Writing Popular Fiction.
In this class, we learned about the structures and what you mentioned in your initial post. essentially, the formula of popular fiction. We then had to read a book in a different genre and analyse it by pulling out the format (the professor chose books in the genres we were studying:

• Cozy Mystery (i cant remember the book, but had "crocodile" in the title)
  • Spinster is involved, either by choice or accident, into a mystery
  • She is very independent
  • Her partner almost always becomes the love interest, but also frequently needs to be saved by her
  • Will they/wont they tension
• Romance (Bet Me by Jennifer Crusie)
  • average woman down on her luck meets guy who is overwhelmingly attractive
  • love/hate relationship
  • Dark night of the soul
  • a whole lot more to this structure because, like the Hero's Journey, this one has a specific, sellable structure. I wont get in to it on here right now, but if you want to talk more, PM me)
• Fantasy (Pawn of Prophesy by David Eddings)
  • Classic Hero's Journey
• Science Fiction (Old Man's War by John Scalzi)
• Urban Fantasy (Dead Until Dark by Charlene Harris)

(the last 2 have less strict structures so i dont remember the units that much)

After we read the book, we had to pick a genre and then read a book of our own choosing in that genre, and either make the case for how well that book fit the structure, or how it didnt fit the structure, and how well it worked, and/or how well we could improve the structure.
I think I picked romance (because it was the one that had a clearly defined structure) and then i picked fantasy (I still have my papers!).

After that, our final assignment was to pick one of the genres and write in that genre.

this sounds like the kind of class you are in right now.

My take away from the class was that we were not beholden to these structures, but it was a good class in teaching us why and how those genres sell. As many other have said, it is popular because it provides a sense of gratification. It made sense when it shifted back to US (when we had to pick a book that we read). I picked my favorite book series at the time. Why did I pick it in the first place? What about it made me want to read it? What about it did I like? None of these was because of the structure. I picked it because the story looked interesting. I wanted to read more of it because I was invested in the main character's plight. I liked certain elements of it (worldbuilding, light romance between characters, underlying message). The structure of it never occurred to me until after learning about it and when I was require to look through the books that I read on my own for the essay.

Pivoting slightly, my minor area of study in undergrad was visual art. For my Oil Painting class, much of Oil Painting 1 was learning techniques and studying the techniques used by the "masters." For a the final assignment, we had to choose an artist (I chose Edward Hopper), then pick one of their paintings, use the techniques they did and try to replicate the painting down to the last detail. However, again, the goal isnt to BE Edward Hopper. It isnt to say that, if I became a painter, I NEEDED to use these techniques. Picasso was a classically trained artist and painted traditionally through his first years in art school. Only after learning the techniques, he utilized them in breaking the status quo, and became a master of abstract.

This is how I view the Writing Popular Fiction class. It teaches us what works and what has worked (and why), while also pushing us to challenge it. I do not believe your professor said that you HAVE to write this way. Perhaps for an assignment, and perhaps for the purpose of the class (immersing yourself in these structures and styles, as my professor did).

(EDIT TO ADD: like @big soft moose said above)
In terms of why authors default to those structures? The basic story, regardless of genre (and in addition to Beginning Middle and End) is:

• There's a character
• Character's status quo is disturbed
• Character explores disturbance
• character resolves disturbance

Think about the books you like to read. Why do you like to read them? What are you getting out of reading them? (dont think about the structure of those books, only think about why you like to read them).
Now, as a writer, those books that you've enjoyed or the books that you admire or have brought you joy now become the inspiration for the things that you write. Unconsciously, you have picked up the structure that has resonated with you. Unconsciously, you begin writing your own version of that structure. This is why writers tend to follow the same pattern. Every writer has a writer or series of stories that came before them that they have read and that inspires their own writing