I've always found Dwight Swain's simplistic analysis of scene and structure to be a viable way to write, but lately I feel like it's very rigid in its application towards novels and stories that are more character-driven than action-paced novels. It seems that I can't find I'm looking for some perspective on how others plan, if you do, when it comes to outlining scenes and what they should involve. I'm probably over thinking things but beyond the simple outline of goal, conflict, and disaster into sequel of reaction, dilemma, and decision I just feel like it's a write-by-numbers approach and many others believe that too. Are there any more approachable methods of outlining scenes?
Just write the scene, and then rewrite it if you don't like it? Maybe just have a general idea of what you want to accomplish, and then write it. It's a story after all, and probably has something of a life of its own.
You could look up Story Structure online. You can find a lot of blogs, sites, and books going into various levels of detail about it. It sounds like this guy you're talking about is using a simplified version of it. A great place to start is with Aristotle's Poetics. It's a small book, or you can find it all over the internet as PDFs, or sites dedicated to explaining it and showing how to use the principles for books or movies. Another good book is Robert McKee's Story. It basically is Aristotle's structure (most of them are) but developed much deeper.
So every single scene needs to be physical and full of conflict. How is that applied to slow burning novels, or character-driven romance? It seems like Mckee's work is more focused on movies which does work for more thriller or plot-driven work.
I keep hearing people say that, but it doesn't make any sense to me. Because he talks about conflict doesn't mean it's only action/adventure blockbuster stuff. Romance has loads of conflict in it, it's just more internal or of a different nature. Rather than explosions and car chases there are explosions of love or hate and boy loses girl, boy must chase girl chases. Nothing in the book is specific to a genre, it's all at the level of actual story structure, the underpinnings, not specifics. He talks about inciting incidents and turning points— those are vital parts of story structure no matter what genre you're working in. And while he does use movies as examples more than stories, he also talks about novels. Story is story, whatever the presentation. If you go to Amazon and click on the Look Inside for the book, scroll back a page or two from where it automatically puts you, you can see the table of contents. There's nothing about action, explosions, or car chases. You'll see sections about The Elements of Story, The Principles of Story Design, etc. Read as much of the book as you can, see if it sounds helpful or not. I think there's just a widespread misunderstanding that conflict means physical action.
I'll second McKee's Story. I read that shit 15 years ago and it's stuck with me. Enter a scene late and leave early! Edit: Conflict does not have to be physical. I can't name a single story I've read without conflict. Not sure it's possible, to be honest.
I am not a fan of Swain, because I think he is WAY too rigid and dictatorial. If everybody wrote his way, all books would be more or less the same, or follow the same pattern—which they clearly don't. You can learn some things from him, but he is not The Great Guru except, maybe, in his own mind. He certainly isn't one of the bestselling authors who comes to mind when people ask, 'what's your favourite book of all time?' Is he a great author, passing on his personal secrets to the masses? Erm. No. He's a very minor genre author who has figured out he can make a buck or two selling how-to books to wannabe authors. Take his advice if you want, but with a grain of salt. I've developed a trick that works for me. Before writing any scene I force myself to answer this question: What do I want this scene to accomplish for the reader? What do I want the reader to learn as they read this scene? I force myself to answer that question clearly before I start writing that scene. It's open-ended, in that I can 'accomplish' my goal in many different ways. For example, maybe I want my main character to finally meet the woman who is going to change his life. But although this woman will be massively important—and she knows it— I also want the reader to know that my main character doesn't understand this yet. He thinks she's just his mother's best friend—a misunderstanding that is likely to lead to plot consequences later on. If you can focus the purpose of your scene in this kind of way, you will be moving forward without having to stick to some action-oriented formula. But it will make the scene matter. It's not just a meeting between two people. There is an overall purpose to the scene that will make you write it a certain way. You would write it differently if they were romantically attracted to each other on sight. Or if they both immediately realised their relationship was going to matter. Or if he was immediately struck by how important she was, but SHE was oblivious. If you just decide this is the scene where X meets Y, the scene can end up dribbling along, filled with banter, dialogue that doesn't actually do much, description of hair colour, eye colour, weight, height, etc. But if you know exactly what the PURPOSE of this scene is—to make the reader aware of the importance of this meeting, but that the main character isn't aware of the importance—you will be able to write with strong intent. Then do the next scene the same way. What do you want THAT scene to accomplish? And keep going. This method certainly works for me. It stopped me writing scenes that just happened —banter banter banter banter banter—but didn't actually go anywhere. It also made me stop writing scenes that were just for descriptive purposes, because I liked describing that person or scene. It also stopped any wooden plot-point scenes —he said this, she did that, this happened, that happened, the end—that can happen if a writer gets too fixated on moving the plot along and forgets the reader has an emotional stake in the story. That description or dialogue or action has to accomplish something for the reader. Bring the reader's awareness into the mix, each time. And do it deliberately. Decide exactly what that scene should accomplish BEFORE you write it. Don't start writing it until you can answer that question in detail.
Swain's idea of a scene and Mckee's seems to be exactly the same to me. Swain's is the idea of: Goal, Conflict, Disaster while Mckee's is: Desire (Goal) Action & Conflict (Conflict), and Change (Disaster). I don't know if I'm missing something but it seems like they are pretty much the same in their explanation. I'm not sure if I understand it correctly but Mckee's explanation of change seems to be more applicable to films. A film is not a novel in many ways and the action, pace, and design of it is much different to a condensed story. I just cannot see how to apply Mckee's knowledge to my writing. I'm getting more confused.
I am totally unfamiliar with this McKee person. I see others on this thread have mentioned him. I think Swain's advice is more or less all about structure. My advice (for what it's worth) is to worry less about structure and more about content. What is your story about? What makes your characters interesting? To you AND to your readers. You can restructure a story later on, but without this basic understanding of the meaningful content of your particular story, you can end up flawlessly structuring an empty stack of boxes.
Like Jannert, I take a simple approach to writing a scene. I make a bullet point list at the top that starts off with... "What does this scene DO?" I then list the main reason for the scene's existence. I try and make sure it is something that can lead to a goal/resolution/hook, ie - SoAndSo attends the meeting that was scheduled due to the previous scenes events, learns of his enemy's intent. I then list all of the stuff in the scene that I need to add in for the plot/character arcs -Mystery Man is there, and catches SoAndSo's attention during the meeting, due to him cropping up in the next scene, and refreshing the reader's mind about the character. -Workers and Corporate people must be seen clashing, to set up their conflict, reason from previous scene. -SoAndSo notices that despite his mentor pointing out that he must watch out for the lies and deception of the corporates, mentor ends up lying and deceiving himself - showing him to be no better than the people he distrusts. With that settled, I then find I've been let loose of the worry of trying to think about all this while I'm writing the scene, and can just have fun actually writing the dialogue, the action, and concentrate on setting, atmosphere and characterization, etc etc. For me, I find the goal/conflict and resolution of the scene then comes naturally, without me often even having to think about it. Because I look at this list, set the characters in motion, and then imagine their natural reactions to how it all plays out. I feel like a director at the end, saying "CUT!" when it comes to a point that either resolves, intrigues, or hooks as a natural end point.
What is it about Dwain you find rigid? His idea of scene to sequel? I'm confused because whenever I try to find how others plan it seems like Swain is one of the most universal when it comes to plotting, if you are a plotter. Or every other method revolves around the same structure but just names it differently. It's enough to make me want to quit.
I don't see why a scene can't exist without one or more of the aforementioned elements. Writing isn't like painting by numbers. If you go into it thinking "sensei Bob says a scene must include these elements therefore I will write everything like that", you're putting totally unnecessary restrictions on yourself. 1) Does the scene advance your story in some way? 2) Is it interesting? Job done. "Unlearn what you have learned."
I guess I'm used to others telling me that those things are key and my story will not be one without them. It's hard breaking rules but I understand. I feel like I'm over thinking it all.
Whats worked for me in outline a WIP is I will write a key scene, or a main event and set that as a bullet point. then I will do a sub-bullet with more details, like who i involved, what i foresee the outcome to be, etc. Sometimes I will even add snippets of dialogue. example: MC has a falling out with a friend that leads to conflict [insert rest of description] MC confronts friend in [setting] and is so [emotion] that [events] [more detail] [possibly dialogue?] [etc.] Next scene [more detail] [you get my point] This makes it easier for me to go back to my notes and add stuff or delete stuff. It also keeps me on track. I've tried more rigid outlines and character description sheets. One of them is actually a spreadsheet format than was in the blog of another author. None of these ways helped ME. they were tedious, and I felt like I was losing my notes because they weren't organized like how I had them organized in my head. They just didnt follow my train of thought. Sometimes I will break up my bullet points into parts: Beginning, Middle, End. ex: Part I: Beginning MC has a falling out with a friend that leads to conflict [insert rest of description] MC confronts friend in [setting] and is so [emotion] that [events] [more detail] Next scene next scene next scene Part II: Middle [scene] [detail] etc. etc. But this is the extent of my planning/organizing. The scenes dont have to be written in the order of the bulletpoints. Sometimes some work better in other places. I KNOW, though, if I have it under a certain Part, that scene, no matter the order, has to happen in that Part.
I think structure and content are equally important. You want to pay as much attention to what you build the house out of as to its design. Ok, I'm starting to understand where you're coming from. What differences are you talking about, if you could get a little more specific? In a novel of course you can go into the characters thoughts and feelings directly, which you can't do in a movie. Is this what you're referring to? I'm learning a lot since I got here, and this may well be something I have yet to learn about. As it stands now, I'm thinking that when you move inside the character's skin so to speak, you're shifting from the external to the internal level. You know, the old adage about 3 kinds of conflict—man against man, man against nature, and man against himself. Novels are a lot better at the third than movies are. But when you move into that inner realm, my thought is that the same dramatic structure would apply—it's still about a character with a strong desire facing some adversarial force in order to achieve his goal. It's just internal now; the adversary is some aspect of himself. I'm not sure how action or pace would be restrained by structure. McKee talks about every different kind of movie and many kinds of novels. Many are slow and meditative, or hugely expansive.
Actually, writing is very much painting by numbers. Story structure is generally fixed. You have your beginning, your middle and your end. It follows some kind of arc and there are specific expectations within every genre. Now once you get down to the nitty gritty, you have plenty of latitude, but the overall story you're going to tell was determined before you ever showed up. at least if you expect anyone to enjoy it. Humans have very specific expectations. It's why books operate the way they do.
Just had a thought. McKee writes primarily about what he calls Archplot, which is traditional, classical narrative form. He does mention Minimalism and Antiplot, which are the 2 Arthouse forms for movies that don't adhere to the Archplot structure. He briefly explains how those are structured. Novels probably have other forms as well. If you're looking into something like that then I can see where McKee's structure would be too limiting. But I've run across the idea, in visual art as well as writing (and I'm sure it's the same for music as well) that it's best for artists to learn the form first—the craft, so they understand what it is they want to either react against or wander outside of. Some have a great natural talent and don't need to study anything, but that's pretty rare.
I guess because I don't organise my stories beforehand. I would just be painting by numbers if I did it his way. To each his own. Instead, I developed the 'what do I want this scene to accomplish' method of keeping a story on track. The notion that every story should follow a similar pattern, as he advocates, just doesn't sit right with me. Don't over-worry this. But if you're having trouble with some aspect of your story writing, the only way to break out of it is to make some changes in your approach. You're not likely to get a different result unless you do. That might mean leaving Swain behind, and maybe either reading some other books on writing, or just trying things out for yourself. See if you can get deeply into each scene. Forget about connecting the structural dots. Just dive into it. Ask yourself what the reader should take away from the scene ...what kind of emotional connection the scene will make, etc. Why are you including it. What do you want it to accomplish? How do you want the reader to feel when they finish reading that scene? Apprehensive? Curious? Relieved? Enlightened? Then work on making that happen. Writing (unless it's an assignment) is risk-free. Nothing is set in stone until you publish, so don't be afraid to go off-piste. To quote your own OP: I agree that's write-by-numbers. So maybe forget that structure? Try something else. Get at the emotional content, the underlying character development, the scenery and personal interactions that give the story rich life. If it veers away from Swain's notion of what should happen next, so what? Try what feels right. Don't be afraid to 'fail.' I actually threw away more than a third of my original first draft after I'd completed it ...and made so many changes to structure, etc, that I couldn't begin to revisit each draft. I swapped chapters, combined chapters, even swapped POV in a few scenes. Cleaned up the over-writing. Added scenes. Wrote an entire extra chapter. AND a completely new beginning chapter. BUT I wrote my original without fear. I told myself if it didn't turn out, I wouldn't show it to anybody ...so I wasn't afraid to learn as I went along and make mistakes. I'm happy with it now, and my beta readers seem to be as well. So I got there. But I didn't do with Dwight Swain or any other guru breathing down my neck. I did it on my own.
If you feel confined by traditional narrative structure, you would probably get a lot out of John Gardner's The Art of Fiction. Not a hint of structure in it. And it's about writing, though he might mention screenplays a few times. But mainly just novels.
There's so many approaches . . . Here's a great video I was watching today. It's about screenplays, but I think you'll see how it carries over. I give it six stars out of five. Every one of these guys/gals is a master of the craft. They have techniques in common, but some also approach scenes in ways that leave their peers lost. We say it here all the time that there isn't one approach or one solution, and that really is true. Maybe see if there's something in here that interests you?
That video is very helpful as it's shown me that there really is a plethora of ways to set about outlining but I'm still overall confused by scenes, chapters, and outlining. I'm told that I should throw away any kind of rules and just write while at the same time understanding that there are fundamental rules that, when adhered to, will give me a better understanding. A scene cannot just be two characters talking, but it also can be if you put enough meaning and emotion into it as well as purpose. I'm struggling to figure out what actually makes up conflict within a scene that doesn't involve primarily physical danger. How does internal conflict come across in a chapter? What are the key aspects of a scene that make it work on a general level. I'm not asking for information in lieu of writing itself. I'm not expecting the answers to be the holy grail in which I can expect to have amazing writing if I adhere to these rules. I just can't understand what makes a scene or chapter worth it. I'm more muddled up behind the context of scenes in terms of Mckee's story. I keep seeing scenes as polarity shifts of values and I'm stepping further away from the emotional aspect and draw of my characters because of it when trying to determine all these values in accordance with my scenes. It's not so much internal conflict itself that I'm confused about, it's more about scenes themselves, and how I'm told every scene must be applied to the story in some way, but what constitutes the worthiness of a scene? Does it just require conflict? And what is conflict? Is it arguing? Goals in terms of scenes must be physical, and must relate to the story but how miniscule can the conflict be? All I ever seem to read is guides on how to follow generic templates and plots that revolve more around movies that involve physical plots, like Die Hard, Tangled, or Star Wars. I'm looking for something more intrinsic to character-driven work and how to make it work. I know how physical conflict works, I understand that scenes are physical real-time events in which there is conflict and change, but how do I apply that to more internal work? How do I apply conflict and change into a story more revolved around character as opposed to plot without boring the reader?
I'll give it a go: A couple is going cross country in hopes that a road trip will 'fix' their relationship. The woman saw a sign that advertised the 'world's greatest milkshake' at the next rest stop. "Wow, I could go for something to drink." The woman said. The man glanced at the fuel gauge. "We'll stop when we need gas." They zoomed by the rest stop, and the woman began to stew. "Oh,what's got you upset...now." The man snapped.
But that's an argument that is essentially static. There's supposed to be an end to the scene, and if all we've been shown is a bickering couple, the actual goal of the scene is kind of just ignored as we continue on with this repetition of A arguing with B, and B retorting and so on and so forth. It's not exactly conflict, or conflict that's going to interest a reader if that's all we're being given.
You mentioned McKee earlier as if you'd read it. Did you just skim, or have you read the book? Because honestly, it sounds like you're confused about story structure, and the way to remedy that is to learn about it. Even if you plan to write totally internal novels that could never be done as a movie, you should still be familiar with basic story structure. Maybe you don't need McKee's book, but you should learn Aristotle or at least look up a bunch of sites about story structure. That's the part of the equation that can be learned, and once you understand it then you decide how much of it you want to use, how you want to modify it, or how much of it to simply discard. I found that, after reading a few books about it, I started noticing how structure was used in movies I was watching, and I could follow along. That's when the knowledge starts to get incorporated into understanding.
