Yes, you are correct; however, in terms of writing, this is called subtext which is not the subject, at hand, being discussed. - The whole idea behind story structure is to create a chain of events that leads to some type of change, good, negative, or something between. No beloved story that exists can escape this facet when examined. The idea behind models is to give a writer theory based off of successful stories, and, like all theory, you are free to experiment with it in any way, shape, or form you choose. Some writers succeed, leaving their mark on Story Structure theory for others to follow, and many more fail. Even the successful Pansters I know have some a type of self-made (or industry-made) structure they follow. - I often think people dislike story structure because they feel it creates 'self-restriction.' This is a misguided belief. 'Restriction' is one the healthiest things an artist can add to his or her work, and a modeled structure can add a lot of 'restriction.'
and that is how we wind up with soulless tracts of development where every house if exactly the same (what we call bovis boxes in the UK, but i doubt that means much to an American) If you want your book to be exactly like someone else's then follow someone else's structure, but on the whole a novel should be like an architect designed house, carefully thought out and well put together, but individual not the product of following a mass production plan
I dunno, if I had to chose between two types of ignorance, I'd choose the type where I was a success of some sort.
Oh, this is a piss-poor counter-argument that I've seen 100 times. The inciting event/call to action is a plot point often discussed in story Structure theory. Give me a week, and I can think of 1000 different events that can fill in this role, just like how a builder could design 1000 different fireplaces. A custom built house uses the same construction codes as a track-house; the only difference is time, money, and vision that goes into the custom-built home. People can get really creative with how they use story structure, rather or not they do is not the fault of the theory but of the writer. - I really have no issue with people not using Story Structure theory -God bless you- my issue is that when someone wants to learn about it, like Francis, other people go on the offensive and act as if is the death of good/original story; it's not. I highly encourage Francis to take the time to look into the subject. Maybe he falls in love this the approach, maybe not, but he won't find out if he doesn't explore it himself. Francis, I use a blend of different methods (actually, after you read a few you start to see they all say the same thing, just different authors put different priorities on different stages.) I highly encourage you to read the book. Like I said, at worst -you hate it, but learn some interesting approaches to a story that you might not have considered. At best, you fall in love with it and it leads you to learn about other things that help your writing. If ther is an opportunity to learn something about your craft, go for it. Just remember to apply what you learn about. (I make it a goal to master one element of writing with each story I write.)
The problem with story structures is that people tend to forget the adage that "rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools" and follow them so slavishly that they stultify their creative process
But surely even more wary of believing advice from an unsuccessful person, in which case... no advice?
So successful people lack awareness of the factors in their own success, but unsuccessful people understand the factors that led to their failures? Sucess can't be understood because "... there is almost never straightforward cause-and-effect. A simple effect might be caused by a dozen interlocking causes that no one ever took notice of, or an incredibly complicated phenomenon might be stopped in its tracks by a single variable." But these interlocking factors don't apply to failure? I don't know. If I wrote horror and had to choose between getting advice from Stephen King or from somebody who's never successfully written or published anything, I'm going to choose King. Would you really choose the person who's completely unsuccessful?
What am I reading? You should totally follow the advice of successful people. Of course, it's important not to be formulaic in art, or else what's the point? That's like saying you shouldn't do master studies while painting, and should instead try to copy paintings by amateurs.
Rule 1 of a writer's group: do not try to convince writers that there is any craft involved in storytelling. If there were, they would have to practice.
They do, but there's less of a selection effect. Successful people are much more visible than failures. Think of all the centenarians that attribute their longevity to a special diet or lifestyle when in fact it is largely genetics. Also, I'm not saying you should listen to what failures have to say about getting published or writing amazing stories. You should listen when they negate advice, e.g. "I tried [so-and-so] for ten years and I got nowhere!"
So, just because one person couldn't do something, that automatically means if you try you're going to fail? I could see that being far more limiting than helpful.
If we accept that long life is largely genetic, then short life is also largely genetic. So lifestyle and diet don't have much effect on lifespan. But I don't accept that there's a logical parallel to writing. There are things that are under the control of writers that do have an effect on their success or lack thereof. I assume you believe this, or else we're back to the "there's no point taking advice from anyone" stage. I agree that negative advice may be useful. "I tried something and it didn't work" is useful. But I'd say it's more useful when it comes from a successful person. Because an unsuccessful person is essentially saying "I tried something and it didn't work, and then I tried something else and it didn't work, and then I tried something else and it didn't work." At some point we have to question whether the person just isn't very capable, don't we? Alternatively, a successful person can say "I tried something and it didn't work, and I tried something else and it didn't work, but when I tried THIS, it worked!" Yes, some level of self-awareness is required for the advice to be useful from either party, but I don't think unsuccessful writers are any more likely to be self-aware. There are infinite ways to fail as a writer. There are far fewer ways to succeed. I'd like to hear from those who've found some of the ways to succeed.
I'm curious BayView, what is your view on an Ademtic study on Literature. I personally enjoy reading essays and studies on famous author's works, but I seem to be in the minority on this site in such regards.
I studied English Lit as part of my undergrad degree, and I enjoyed it. I think it helped my writing indirectly, just by exposing me to lots of different styles and making me think about them, but I don't think it helped me directly in terms of writing. I see creating writing and analysing that writing as fairly different disciplines. I think the more direct parallel to the "advice" discussion would be reading the famous authors themselves talking about their writing, rather than reading an academic's take on it. And even then, I think most writers would be inclined to focus on the product more than the process, so I'm not sure if it would be useful or not.
Again with the cut-and-clear causes. Lifestyle and diet can cut your life short if mishandled, but you'll never reach a hundred without it being in your genes. True, but we have little way of measuring their actual usefulness. Stephen King may give you his special technique for writing, to which he attributes a large portion of his success, but that doesn't mean that you using that technique will actually get you published. I know a guy, an architect, he makes a lot of money on his projects. He'll work sometimes for twelve hours at a time, because he loves doing it. He totally loses himself in his design. But the only thing that determines what he likes is biology and upbringing - there's no other way to get truly obsessed with something. Stephen King is the same. Doesn't need the money, doesn't need the validation, he just keeps on cranking out books because that's who he is. But you still run into the same problem, which is that you have no way of evaluating whether something works on general principle or was contingent on that person having certain qualities or doing it under certain circumstances. Getting your mistakes out of the way is far more useful, since, as you say, there are many more mistakes than productive strategies.
If you want to make an argument against advice in general, I can accept that. I don't personally find how-to-write books useful, have no formal writing education, etc. etc. But I don't see anything in your arguments that shows advice from unsuccessful people is more valuable than advice from successful people. Possibly because you're thinking of successful people as people who've never failed? While I think of them as people who've worked through failure and then succeeded. So a failed writer can only see one side of the coin, but a successful writer can see two sides.
The way that I'm viewing advice at this particular moment, as a result of this discussion. - One person can't think of every last thing to try. - Advice may give you a thing that you never thought to try. - If the advice comes from a successful person, then you know that, at the very least, that thing does not always result in doom.
Succeeded how? You're simply assuming that they owe it all to reproducible actions. If they don't, they're going to twist it in their heads to make it so. You're also neglecting the "negative advice" portion. Failures vastly outnumber successes (at least in this business), so the observations of winners are highly atypical. If lots of failures tell you that some bit of writing advice is bullhockey, that's much more reliable than a single winner telling you that it's how they made their fortune. Go play the lottery then. Some guy won multiple times and says the key is to just keep on playing! (Can't find the article right now, but it's real and he says that.)
And if that guy didn't buy a ticket because someone else told him that they never won, then he'd still be broke.
As it relates to the OP? Absolutely none. I do find it peculiar, though, considering how adamant you are at demanding that you should only listen to failures and keep then keep insisting that people listen to you on this point.
