How important is the “three act structure”?

I’ve just been reading about the three act structure and realised that there is no such structure to my WIP. Is this likely to be a problem? I have no main protag - there is a cast of disparate characters who each have their own arc, but they interact at various points on their journeys to accomplish their goals. There is a denouement, and each character gets some kind of resolution. It would be impossible, or at least forced, to separate this into setup/confrontation/resolution as there is no main character whose POV could lead through these stages.

Looking at my plan, the sense I get is of a slow burn, a gradual build towards the grand finale. I just hope that this will be satisfying and enjoyable for readers as it seems the three act structure is somewhat of a convention.

 

So maybe what you're doing is more of a three act structure for each character? They each have goals, they each have obstacles, they each have a resolution, but they happen to intersect and be at different points throughout? Or am I misunderstanding?

 

Readers can get frustrated if they can't tell what the book is 'about', or if it doesn't seem to be heading somewhere. You mention a finale, and there must be some kind of set-up - you are introducing your characters. You probably have more of a structure than you think. As long is there is some sort of 'journey' going on, it's probably fine.

 

Yes, that’s exactly right. They each have a setup, a conflict, and a resolution. They don’t all happen at the same time, and the characters develop through their interactions with each other towards their own individual (and joint) goals. The actions of the characters contribute to resolving the overall issue of the story as a whole.

Thank you. I can see how that would be frustrating, but as @Trish pointed out, there is a structure within the arc of each character. The characters do very clearly progress towards their end points, so as long as it is ok to have nested arcs like this then I think it should be fine.


Thanks guys

 

I don't see any reason why you can't, as long as there's some thread of commonality between them. Happy to help Good luck!

 

A cast of Characters counts as 1 character (in term of Story Structure) if they are all the same story goal. (Example: The Goonies, the group's 'goal' is to find the treasure.)

If, however, it is more like a bunch of short stories that all intertwine and build on top of each other (Like Idylls of The King) then you have a lot more work ahead of you. (Every story needs a beginning, middle, and an end, while at the same time moving the 'overall' story towards its end as well.)

I would advise you not attempt the latter until you've perfected the former first. (But if you want to be brave, who am I to stop you?)

-OJB

 

What you're doing reminds me a little of Game of Thrones, where there are several characters of significance - Jon Snow, Arya, Sansa, etc. I think this works because Martin's piece is so big and long.

If your WIP is of what is regarded as a "normal" novel length of around 70-100 kilowords, you might struggle to give them all justice. One character or the other might also seem to you or the reader to be of greater importance than the others. Perhaps one character "binds" them all together?

I can't complete my tale in so few words. I'm writing in first person, so everything that he doesn't see, has to be fed to him. I'm up to almost 200 kilowords, but I have an entire planet to bring to my reader's imagination.

There are a number of structures you could use - 3-act, 4-act, 5-, or 6- or even more, depending on where you research. Then there's Campbell's "hero's journey" to consider. Perhaps an important key to making it work is to ensure you know exactly what each character is up to, and you have control of them at all times. It sounds as if you do. Trish's words are quite valuable.

Regardless, it sounds like an interesting work, and I look forward to perhaps seeing some of it.

 

I hope it's not critically important because the story I'm writing has nothing close to three acts, nor does it follow any of those pre-fab structures. I think the technique works well for some writers though, and it should work as a teaching technique for someone learning about story.

The theme of my story and the protagonist hold it together through a whole myriad of events that occur in different settings with purposefully contrasting elements.

Not to dis formulaic writing, but certainly it is not mandatory.

Conflict on the other hand....

 

This kind of sounds like Last Orders by Graham Swift. Not sure if you're familiar with it, but the idea seems similar to yours, and I thought it worked well in that book. Is that at all helpful?

 

Don't worry about if you write according to the three act structure. Readers will assign the acts even if they don't exist in the writers mind.

 

A good friend and mentor of mine subscribes to the notion fully, and is able to clearly delineate where each of the acts begins and ends in her manuscripts. She is a traditionally published author with one released book and another on the way in 2017.

I write with no notion of the three act structure and just wing it for the most part. I am a traditionally published author with one released book and another on the way in 2017.

You do you. What works for one writer may not work for another.

 

My WIP is indeed the latter, where the characters have their own individual stories and plot arcs which intertwine. I’m interested to know, why would you advise against this? Is it because it is more complex?

I have never seen Game of Thrones, but there are indeed several important characters in my story all of whom contribute in some small way to the overall outcome. I understand what you mean about not being able to do them all justice in a normal novel-length story (which is what I’m aiming for). However, there aren’t that many characters, and they actually all appear in pairs. Three pairs of characters, each going through their arcs as a pair and overlapping at various points, and a few side characters who do not need depth and development. The plot is fast paced, so I’m hoping I can keep all the characters developing and do them all justice.

There’s plenty of conflict in my story In one character it stems from a terminal illness combined with misogyny and misanthropy, in another it’s a damaged relationship, in another it’s the challenges of autism. I have planned carefully so that each of the characters develops somehow to address their individual conflict and combine their skills to work towards the finale (though how that all plays out isn’t yet solidly planned).

I haven’t read it, but I will now

Is that still true even if the proportions aren’t as they would normally be?

Interestingly, one of my characters is becoming more and more assertive (his idea, not mine ) and will, I feel, ultimately take control of the situation, eliciting the support of the others to achieve the overall outcome in the finale. This is the autistic character who previously had huge difficulty understanding and interacting with others, but through his experiences becomes more confident, learns some things about human interaction that help him along the way, and he ultimately becomes the hero of the piece. I can sense his role becoming more significant throughout, and I’m open to the possibility that he might end up becoming the main character and the others supporting characters. That wasn’t the balance I intended, and not what I’m actively aiming for, but I’m not against the idea if that’s where the characters lead me.

Great to know it can work either way, and that last sentence is brilliant advice

 

GoT is also (and was originally) a series of books. Doorstoppers every one. And from memory, Martin had something like 30+ pages at the end of the later books with his cast of characters, which is interesting in itself.

 

So, are you saying that a more normal-length novel is insufficient for the structure I'm using? GoT is ambitious for sure, and with that length of individual novel and series there is of course huge scope for developing a large number of characters. In my case, I have ten. Of these, three are the main characters whose plots culminate in the overall finale of the novel. Five are supporting characters who provide interactions for the main, and nudge the plot in the right direction (and of those, one is a dog). Two characters are backstory only and appear only in snippets.

Essentially I'm aiming for the main character arcs showing development and growth, a couple where smaller changes occur within the characters (so they aren't two-dimensional), and a couple where no development is necessary at all.

I might be wrong, but I think that's achievable in a novel.

 

I read a book called Into the Woods: How Stories Work and Why We Tell Them. The book is sometimes also called Into the Woods: A Five Act Journey into Story (I'm not sure if they are different editions, or just different titles, but I garner they are roughly the same in what they say). It is primarily about script writing but it is very useful for plot development more generally. It describes a 5 act structure that works in cohesion with the fundamental 3 acts. Instead of just: setup/confrontation/resolution. There is: Exposition/complications/climax/falling action/ resolution. Take a look at this page on Freytag's pyramid: http://www.ohio.edu/people/hartleyg/ref/fiction/freytag.html. So within the 3 acts it would look like: (Exposition) > ACT 1 (complications) > ACT 2 (climax, falling action) > ACT 3 (resolution). I found it helpful to compartmentalise the three acts so that I could pinpoint just what each part of a story needs.

In a story with so many different threads it is a good idea to pay close attention to your turning points, which come ideally in every scene. Turning points are units of change, and these are the key moments in your characters' lives' and in your story. Scenes develop as action/reaction/action/reaction, until the turning point when there is an unexpected reaction. It's the moment that Darth Vader announces that he is Luke's father. But they do not need to be as impressive as that, and can be very subtle things. A character might have an internal conflict about buying a chocolate bar, for example, perhaps they are a diabetic and this is a big deal for them, the turning point could be when they tell themselves mentally to put the chocolate bar down but impulse forces them to throw it in the basket anyhow. We find out several things about this character: they are indecisive, they are self-destructive in pleasure seeking, they are of ill-health, they have their own inner demons... The key is that every scene has a turning point in some form, because conflict is interesting.

I hope this helps you with your work, would love to see some of it in the workshop space.

Lola

 

@lola.j.v.garratt
That is great advice, thank you. I will consider the points you have made, particularly about each chapter containing a turning point of some kind. I think this is essentially what I have done, but I need to be sure. Thank you again

 

No, I'm not saying that - my apologies for giving that impression. I was just pointing out the size of Martin's work.

I don't know your writing style, or the depth to which your characters are created, the amount of detail in the settings, action, motivations of the characters, sub-plots, dialogue, and so forth. I can't write without giving insights to the character's thoughts and detailing their surroundings and movements. Not to the extent that Banville went to in The Untouchable which I found unreadable, but what I feel is sufficient. (It's worth trying to read the novel as an instructive exercise - nothing actually happens for the first 100 pages or so - it's all the narrator's thoughts. Things may happen after that, but I couldn't tolerate it any more.)

My feeling is that as you write, you'll discover the appropriate length for the work and I'd encourage you not to write to a set word count. There are writers here who are very sparse with detail and to me that's detrimental to the enjoyment of their story: it may be adequate to say a room has a couch (sofa) in it, but I'd like to know what else is there and where, and whether the condition is new or badly worn, the quality of lighting, the smells, sounds from outside, the size of the room, etc: I want to be there. Some of my classmates used to say, "they'd let the reader decide what the protagonist/antagonist/location/environment looked like and they'd just focus on the character's inner thoughts. I didn't agree with them, but I'll allow that perhaps a good balance was midway between my views and theirs. Ray Carver was pretty good at inserting detail into a short piece - Popular Mechanics is brilliant.

With ten characters of more-or-less equal significance, and 100,000 words, each gets perhaps 10 kilowords or so, which seems bit short to me, but I don't know the storyline you have. Sense8 has 8 major characters and it seems at times they're all battling each other for equal screen time and authority. (I love theo show, though.) I think a member wrote earlier that one of your characters might dominate somewhat, linking the others together and that seems good advice. With 10 major characters, it might also prove difficult to give them distinctive physiques, voices, attitudes, thoughts, desires, opinions, even histories, but that is just my view. I have one major character, about ten "support" staff, and an antagonist. My MC is centre-stage at all times.

Many here launch into their longer works without planning, but I think you might get a lot of benefit from some protracted planning, noting your sub-plots, crafting your characters carefully and in detail so that you understand and know them intimately.

Sorry to be so wordy, but I like your premise, and wish you well with it. And I think you'll learn a lot as you progress, but you'll be okay.

 

That's a nice way of expressing turning points - I was taught they're incidents that propel the story in another direction. When John Book (Harrison Ford) in The Witness sees Jacob pointing at the picture of Danny Glover in the trophy cabinet; when Book clobbers the ruffian whilst pretending to be Amish; these incidents took the story forward in a new direction. If you watch critically, you can pick these.

Linda Seeger's Making a Good Script Great has some wonderful storytelling advice, relevant to fields other than scriptwriting.

 

There's a bunch of ways to think about story telling. Terms like three act structure have been come up with by people who study stories; you need to develop language to draw comparisons between similar but not identical things. And that's why (I think anyway) three act structure as a writer is almost useless to think about. Assuming your story as a whole starts, has action and resolves then you are within the bounds of what could be called three act structure. Now, if your story doesn't start or indeed doesn't end then that's a problem and to genuine novices that might be helpful. But assuming you've conceptualized something even vaguely close to a book that is actually a book (as opposed to a collection of shorts) then you really don't need to worry about it. If your story builds to a climax then no problem.

If you want to think about it in more useful terms then you should get a bit fractal and a bit meta with how you think about it. Forget about what you've learned about three act structure so far. Just think about what makes things feel satisfying, both in fiction and in video games and in everything. Think about (my favorite metaphor incoming!) how roller coasters are designed. Roller coasters are not just a high speed downhill run, are they? Why though? Those rapid, plummeting moments are what makes a roller coaster enjoyable, right? Well, sort of. High emotional intensity only works for short periods. It's exciting, but only until you get used to it. And once you are then you don't feel anything more. What makes roller coasters (and fiction) compelling is contrast.

So how do you design a compelling moment? Start of slow, build up to a big moment, then flatten out. Up, down, level out, up down, level out. Build tension, pay it off, let the pressure off. And that is three act structure right? Except that this is what describes everything. It's what describes what makes the shotgun in doom feel just right. There's timing to it that makes it feel visceral and impactful. It also describes almost every fictive moment; build tension, pay it off, take a breath. You build up into the big emotional moment, then you let the reader go back to zero again, ready to be pulled off balance again in the next moment. My point here is that three act structure is really just a way to describe most things that feel good to us. Anticipation, action, reflection. Seduction, shag, cuddle time. Hype, buy the game, bitch on the internet.

That's the lesson to take from three act structure. It's the conventional way to create effective things. And that in no way makes it bad. There are other ways of doing things, and they can be very effective because the reader expects it to go how they expect. Subverting expectations is important. But I strongly suspect that if you look closer you can find plenty of three act moments in your work. I suspect in fact that there's acts all over it, even if the whole work doesn't fit that just yet. The three acts that fit your work might be much bigger or much smaller.

 

I'm far from an expert on the formal structures, but I really don't see how the proportions can be the same for every book. I'm a fan of the "start as close to the end as you can" so I think my books start part way through the "first act" (as far as I understand that term) with the "inciting incident" (as far as I understand that term). I don't think I'm rare in this.

And I know as a reader that the amount of writing after the climax varies greatly from book to book.

Almost all stories will have a beginning, a middle, and an end. There should be rising action leading to a climax. Honestly, I think that's about all the structure we really need.

 

No problem, it's more like that I misunderstood what you meant.

My general strategy is to give enough information about the character's thought process to reveal their feelings and intentions, but no more, and enough detail about the environment to show how the character perceives it, but no more. The rest is dedicated to description of the characters' actions, and dialogue of course.

Actually I don't have a set word count. I'm roughly aiming for 80,000, but if it turns out to be more I'm ok with that. I wouldn't want it to be much less than that, as I don't think I could do it justice in less than that amount.

I think I'd want to be sure that the description was important to what the character is perceiving. For example, my autistic character will notice things like the space in the room, the resonance, the lighting etc., but not much detail about people's faces. Another character who is very misanthropic and misogynistic would notice things like what women are wearing and doing (and be derisive of them), how other people are behaving (and hate them for it), but probably not care much about the environment around him unless it impacted him directly.

Well, there aren't ten main characters. As I said, there are three main characters, one of whom is becoming more significant as I write. The rest are supporting, guiding and providing interactions for the main three. I see what you mean about Sense8. I liked it, but couldn't get into it as it felt a bit shallow. A better example in my opinion is Orphan Black, where all of the clones have their own personality, motives and plot arc. But that has been running for several seasons and more and more clones have been introduced over time, allowing each one space to grow. In my novel, I'm estimating about 10k of writing directly regarding the supporting characters, and the rest from the POV of the 3 main characters. That's roughly 23k per character, perhaps more for the one more significant and slightly less for the other two. I think if I keep my writing tight and the plot fast-paced, it's doable.

One day I'll get round to posting my flow chart. It's extremely detailed. I also have tables detailing my characters and their overall obstacle, inciting incidents, resolutions and lessons learned. I've been working on this for a year so far, so I'm not jumping in unprepared

No no, please don't apologise. I really appreciate your input! I am passionate about this story and want to do it justice. It needs this cast of characters to tell it properly, so I just hope I learn enough as I go to do a good job telling it.

That makes sense. I think I've got a more gradual build-up where the characters get closer and closer together until the finale. Think of the movie "Crash" (2004 with Sandra Bullock, not the weird 1996 David Cronenberg one), or 1Q84 by Murakami. Of course I can only dream of creating something as great as either of these, but it gives you the idea of what I'm aiming towards.

 

@LostThePlot
Your rollercoaster analogy is fantastic. Your description of building a compelling moment is inspiring, and I like your description of smaller 3-act structures within a larger structure. Perhaps with each being a slight escalation from the last until the final act/rollercoaster-plunge/demon-slaying-shotgun-blast

 

Mashers,
Consider the novels you have read over the years? Do they all follow the 3 Act Structure?

The ones I have read, some do very clearly, others not so clearly but I think I can fit them into that mold, and some others, not so much.

If you're telling an engaging story that will keep readers' interest, that is what counts most.

 

I don't know. It's hard to represent a whole novel at once and consider its structure. I would have to re-read something and concentrate specifically on identifying that. I'll take your word for it, though, that they don't all do this

Fingers crossed my story is interesting enough