subconscious structure

I've sort of realized that I tend to write my short stories in thirds. My stories tend to be 25 to 30 pages. Now, I'm a total pantser. Like, 100%. I don't usually have any sort of idea what I'm going to write about. I just sit down and do it. But it is a little weird that I tend to write my stories in thirds. Does it seem like I'm subconsciously following some sort of three-act structure? Are there any other pantsers out there finding themselves doing similar things?

 

I think it's more that three-act structure is the natural way stories unfold. An introduction, the main body of the story, and an ending. Aristotle didn't invent it, he discovered it already there in all the plays he examined. So yes, you could say it's the subconscious structure we automatically default to most of the time.

 

So, did the writers of the time have a process that relied less on theory and more on their passion and intuition to what a good story should be like?

I often wonder about how much professional writers actually apply theory to the stories they write, do they do intuitively based on what a good book should feel like? Or have they actually studied story-telling theory a lot? I make effort to do reading when I can when it comes to theory, but I'm a very hands-on person, I hate reading theory... I must admit. But I do it because running away from the things you don't like isn't always a good thing.

My stories have a structure to them, and for my first book, I honestly just got on with it and read nothing theory-wise. But I did try and it never worked out, all the things I was reading were flying right past my head, and nothing remained. But after writing my first book, the theory I was reading started making more sense to the point where I had a glimmer of hope to understanding it. My intuition and subconscious observation basically put perspective and helped me to understand what I was reading and trying to interpret.

 

I don't know for sure, but from what I've read, there was no such thing as ideas about story structure until Aristotle decided to study plays (as he studied everything else). He studied the natural world and created a system of Taxonomy (divisions into categories like Phylum, Species, Race etc), and the system we use today is mostly just a somewhat modified version of the one he created. The guy was a bonafide genius, and his specialty was examining things and discovering the inherent structures within them.

 

I don't think it's so much about the rules that one must obey as it is about elements that need to be there for the finished story to feel right. Good writers will have developed a feeling for it and thus can spin a story from beginning to end and make it feel right, without necessarily thinking about individual structure points.

However, if you have a story that is supposed to be finished, yet it somehow doesn't seem right, the structure theory can help one figure out where the problem is. It can also be helpful, especially if one is more inclined toward planning the story in advance, in coming up with the ideas for various parts of the story to be.

 

This so much!

I do not consider myself a great writer, but I think I'm good enough that there are certain things that I take as a given to the point that I don't understand how others don't. Three Act Structure is very high on that list. When I hear a writing guru go on and on and on about the importance of a Three Act Structure I roll my eyes. Another way to say "use a three act structure" is "USE STRUCTURE"

I know there are other types of structure you can use but I've personally never seen one that wasn't in some way the 3 act structure, they are usually building on that foundation, breaking each of the 3 acts in to more specific parts. I am pretty sure the 3 act structure is the barebones of any type of writing structure.

I think (an admitted assumption) most writers have a basic, if not subconscious, understanding that they need to introduce their audience to the world (beginning), and they need to give their audience some kind of resolution and exit (end), and stuff needs to happen in-between to connect the beginning to ending (middle). That's the 3 act structure, that's all it is.

 

I think another common structure for many short stories is a two-act structure. People say many short stories are like a joke (though not funny necessarily)—a setup followed by a payoff (like a punch line).

 

I don't think that's true at all of short stories.

 

Here's an article that includes 2-act structure: The 2-Act Structure [Because You Write The Rules]

If you look around a little I'm sure you can find more.

 

Both Save the Cat, and Story Grid use the basic three act structure, and add genre specifics that readers expect, like inciting incidents. Which are good tools if your a planner, and for editing if your a pantser. And give editors what they want.

 

Thanks, but that's not the kind of thing I'm interested in reading. I do, however, read a lot of short stories, and it's not really a popular tactic to end these sorts of stories with any sort of punch line and structure them the way you would a joke. I know you're big on pointing to articles to back up what you're saying. But I know today's short story scene. Sorry if this is coming across harsh. Having a really bad day.

 

Hello @deadrats, it has been a while since I chatted with you. I am on the opposite end of the length spectrum from you, in that my Eagle and the Dragon is 240K words, and I just finished first draft of the sequel, The Long Road Back to Rome, at 220K words. That said, both consist of various crises, short stories as it were, that link the main plot and keep it moving. I haven't taken any writing theory classes, and don't intend to, I just take dictatin from my characters and let them tell the story. I agree with all the above comments, that the basic structure of a story is beginning, when you introduce the setting, characters, and provide an early hook to grab the readers interest, the middle, where you develop the goals of the the characters and the obstacles they must overcome, and the conclusion, success or failure. And my substories fit that description, as does the overall story.

 

That makes it really simple, and seem like this approach would make it impossible to not have a 3-act structure in place. Even if someone claims to have a two-act structure or a 5-act structure, couldn't it still be boiled down to actually remaining a 3-act structure? I honestly don't know here. Again, when I create structure it feels intuitive and I don't really give it much thought while writing, but I do feel like the structure of my stories (both short stories and novels) is solid even if I might not before of how many acts or whatever it's made up of.

 

It does seem like everyone could implement this without too much thought or even planning. And that some variation of it is always there even when you're not thinking about it, right?