I third the Snowflake Method, especially if you want to organize your story in a nice and fleshed out plan. Wrote a 74k book within a month this way! It will also make you ask yourself some questions about the story, so you might get more than you think. Give it a shot!
As you may have noticed, my thoughts are all over the place, I am trying to handle everything at once and it kinda helps my process honestly thinking out loud lol but I can totally see how or why it is difficult for others to provide helpful feedback throwing so much out there at once.
I tend to suggest doing your thinking out loud into a word document or similar then picking out the bits you actually need to communicate to others
Thank you for the suggestion on the book, I have added it to my to-do list of more immediate acquirements. At first I thought it was just another website or article explaining a concept in general terms (which there are many). This seems to be where the confusion is. I can explain what my story is about and have tons of summaries and stuff (I think I mentioned this earlier this morning in another comment) but the *technical* process of putting it together- the framework, the structure... not creating the story, itself. Like all, there are obviously plot holes I need to fill and ideas I have and seek feedback on or need ideas for, etc. In my head the story is complete but to actually write a complete story you need to put it into words, the right format. I can tell you Ben did xyz and this happened later, but don't necessarily know *how* to put it into words and to link the ideas together sequentially.
The confusion comes from using the word story which is often synonymous with novel or book or whatever If you’ve got it in your head but haven’t yet written it then you essentially only have an idea for a story rather than a complete one what you write will wind up being significantly different from the first beautiful idea
Sometimes one needs outside perspective to help work through a thought or an idea. I can and do write stuff out to myself but at some point that will only result in leaving my ideas unanswered by myself or tons of documents I've written with freewriting thoughts to myself, so I need to talk it out with other- throwing ideas out there and asking for feedback. I understand if it is not everyone's cup of tea. My sister was very instrumental in this process back in the day, I used to propose my various ideas or possible scenarios, etc and we'd talk through it. Like maybe I have an idea and someone thinks of a possible hole or question (or answer) I have not.
That kind of brainstorming is fine So long as you are clear about it being what you want in your first post of a given thread but you can’t throw out several hundred words of random wool gatherings and then get mad because people aren’t answering the questions you haven’t clearly asked
This reminds me—I used to do something similar way back on another message board. I would ask questions and not get any answers, and I was getting pissed off, wondering why everybody hated me. Then one day I realized why it was. That they weren't answering I mean, they actually didn't hate me. Each time I asked a question I would conjecture about possible answers. Like "How would I do this? I suppose I could ....., or I could maybe ....., but if I did that, then maybe..... ." The problem is, I dithered on after asking the question. In fact I basically answered it, a couple of different ways. It was conjecture, sure, but people didn't see it that way. They saw a question followed by some answers. That doesn't prompt people to answer. What makes them want to answer is a brief post ending with a question. It's almost a psychological trick. I tested my theory, and immediately started getting answers. It's like the question mark right at the end creates a void, and people feel a need to fill it with answers. Nature abhors a vacuum, especially human nature.
My method may be a little different, but here goes... First I have something to say and I need characters to show it. I start with a flawed character with the intention of showing a character arc. I also try to find a constant feature. My first novel, a young girl, inherited her mother's wedding ring. When she became a nun, she put it on the ring finger of her right hand. In exile and no longer with the church, she got married and used the ring on her left ring finger. Through all of this, and based on the fact that I had something to say is a theme. It could be something as simple as unintended consequences.
I purchased the Kindle version of this book, I have not gotten too far into yet. Still trying to understand how to use it other than reading a story about Goldilocks. lol.
Here is a Foolscap of harry porter, which may help. 6 Core Questions/Foolscap for Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone 1. Genre Action/Adventure 2. Obligatory Scenes and Conventions: Action Genre Obligatory Scenes An inciting attack by the villain. Voldemort kills Harry's parents. Hero sidesteps responsibility to take action. Harry is intimidated by his notoriety. Discovering and understanding the antagonist’s MacGuffin (Villain's object of desire). Harry learns Voldemort wants the Sorcerer’s Stone. Hero’s initial strategy fails. Harry and his friends rush to inform Dumbledore, but learn he has been called away from the school. Realizing he must change their approach to salvage some form of victory, the hero reaches All is Lost moment. Harry and his friends try to stop Professor Quirrell, but Ron and Hermione are left behind and Harry must face him alone. The Hero at the mercy of the Villain: the central event of the Action story, what the reader is waiting for. The hero’s gift is expressed in this scene. Harry must face Voldemort alone, but his mother’s love saves him again. The hero’s sacrifice is rewarded. Professor Quirrell and Voldemort are defeated, and the Griffyndor receive extra points for bravery, winning the House Cup. Conventions Hero, Victim, Villain: These three roles must be clearly defined throughout the story. The protagonist must be a hero. Hero: Harry; Victim: Harry and the Wizarding World; Villain: Book level: Professor Quirrell; Series level: Voldemort The hero’s object of desire is to stop the villain and save the victim. Harry is trying to stop Voldemort from getting the stone The power divide between the hero and the villain is very large. The villain is far more powerful than the hero. Harry and his friends are just novice wizards and children; Voldemort and Professor Quirrell are powerful and experienced adult wizards. Speech in praise of the villain. Many characters throughout the book talk about how feared and dangerous Voldemort is. 3. Point of View 3rd Person, Harry; 1st chapter (when Harry is a baby) is omniscient. 4. Objects of Desire Wants: Harry wants to be an ordinary wizard with no fanfare. Needs: Harry needs to be a hero. 5. Controlling Idea/Theme Lives are saved when Harry Potter faces and defeats Voldemort.
I haven't learned the method through the specific book you picked up but to me, it sounds like the book is trying to use an already-existing story as an example on how the method would be used to produce the story. Examples are good because it helps you to see how something is supposed to look like, it becomes a point of reference, especially when the story is something you likely know, which is probably why the author picked the fairy tale. It took me two weeks to finish the outline plan so keep reading and trying. If you still make little progress by the time you finished the book though, I suspect that you aren't very familiar with the way stories are structured. That is just a guess and nothing more, though. I wrote a long reply on why I think you're struggling to put the story down so much but it's all my personal speculation and I just don't think its very helpful. Regardless, I think you should just keep reading. The snowflake is a wonderful way to outline and I really think that it will help you make a more cohesive plan of all those scenes in your head.
You learned it without getting the book? The framing story is great! It's set at a writing seminar where Baby Bear (of the Three Little Bears) is one of the instructors. Goldilocks is the main character, and the Big Bad Wolf is another instructor. It's set in a world where the fairy tale characters are all real people and can interact with each other, from different fairy tales. As I recall though, it doesn't really explain the elements of structure, like the hook and inciting incident, turning points, acts, the climax and denoument, etc. But the Snowflake method is an excellent way to work through your story idea and develop it in depth, at macro and micro scales, which are both important. But, @JBean or anyone else wondering about getting books to help with plotting, you should also get a book or two that give all those nitty gritty details about the elements of story structure. Or at least read through K M Weiland's blog entries about plotting and structure—those links in the upper left corner of the blog. Note—what you get when you first click to see one of the series is a list of links, each with a brief explanation. The underlined title of each paragraph is a link to a much more in-depth breakdown. Be sure to click through on each link or all you're getting are the headlines. Once you understand that, her blog is like a series of books. One of the best free resources on the internet for writers.
Yep, not the best way I know. The concept sounds extremely interesting though, you are making me want to read it... I just read an article about the snowflake method and followed each of the steps over the course of 2 weeks. It wasn't the advancedwriting one you linked, but I have also read that one and the steps were very similar. I likely didn't use the method to its fullest potential because of this but it did work out, so I guess it couldn't have been that bad. I haven't written a new book since then but whenever I get an idea for another one, I will almost certainly use the method again. I need a solid idea though for that, first. Loglines with irony is what what works for me. Meanwhile, it might be nice to read that book.
I can see where you could use the method just from a synopsis of the steps. That's really the heart of it, but the framing story takes you through each step in great depth and with examples, like you said above. Though the story is a little awkward, and the writing isn't the best. But it does help you understand the point of each step way better. I think once you've read the book it's a good idea to download a breakdown of the steps as a quick reminder. You can find them all over, like on Pinterest.
I really believe in this method so I will pick up the book and expand my knowledge on it, thanks for letting me know!
I just rewatched "the sting". And I realized the entire thing is a story about telling a story, the con. Thought it might help
I looked up an article about the method where it actually describes the process and started playing with it, following along with the guidance provided. The one I was looking at wanted to focus on the 3 act thing. If you recall, that is kinda difficult for me with my story, I think or at least I wouldn't know how or where to break it down into acts in the way.
I always have a plan for my stories, I think of landmark moments that I want to happen throughout the story and then I just fill in the rest when I write. But I almost always change and adjust the story in several small and big ways as I go along. In my self published book on Amazon books, Voodoo House, I made many changes as it went along because a story in my opinion should be organic and not too formulaic. For instance, I didn't know how the final battle in my book would end, but I figured it out as I was writing. And I have several more books in my head, the blueprints of them I mean, lol. I've written down the titles and outlines of the sequels to Voodoo House as well as unrelated books in a different book universe.
Well, that's what the snowflake method is about. You start simple and then you slowly expand it, so it makes sense that you will build a framework for your story at some point. If you're completely and utterly stuck, I'd ask if you can outline three simple bullet points: What happens in the beginning? What happens in the middle? And how does it all come to an end? Are you able to outline that much? Just write this in very simple words. No need to get complicated. But it is important that you have this down, as this is what the three acts are about at their hearts. It's just that the structure breaks them down further, so if you do not have this much to begin with, then of course you'll be stuck. It might seem very rudimentary, but when I troubleshoot something, I always start from the first layer of things. I also want to ask: What conflict do your characters face? How do they get entangled into it? And then how do they overcome it?
In terms of the three act structure you want to figure out what state do things start in, for your main character, that reverses by the end. A story is essentially the reversal of a state through conflict. I don't really know what the big shape of your story is, but it sounds like it might be a romance, so it could be something like MC (main character) thinks he's on course for the romance to happen with the boyfriend, but something happens to knock that off course (this is the conflict). Then the story is him trying to get things back on track for that romance to happen. Your inciting incident is the thing that happens that knocks the romance off course and makes it all seem to be falling apart, when he thought it was going so well. And the rest of the story is basically him struggling to set things right again and make it happen after all. And in the end it does. This is one possible storyline, I don't know if it's the one you want to create or not. I'm just trying to help you understand how to look at it in a big-picture way, to figure out what kind of story you want to tell. A story is a reversal of fortunes, of states. In the beginning he thinks the romance is going well and he's happy, but then it all hits the fan (this might be the suicide attempt that makes him realize it isn't going well at all). So already, right at the beginning you have a massive reversal of the state of the relationship, from what the MC thinks is a good state, to he suddenly realizes it's just the opposite. Now it seems like it might not happen at all. But he doesn't give up, he keeps trying, and gradually, through a series of forward steps and big setbacks along the way (the turning points), he manages to make it right again and it ends where he was hoping it would (return to positive state). There are major turning points at the end of each act. A turning point means things reverse again, in a big way. So this means at the end of act one it seems like he's got things back on track and the relationship is going to happen after all. But that turns out to be false, or he discovers it isn't as good as he thought, so act two is about him trying and struggling and finding some way to reverse the things that still aren't working. At the end of act two, things really take a turn for the worse. This is the lowest point, now it seems impossible. After all his struggles to make it work, it turns out there's some problem that seems totally insurmountable. Maybe he even gives up hope completely, but then some glimmer of hope appears, he decides it's worth it to give it everything he's got to try to win through, and he tackles the problem head on. If his gamble doesn't work all is going to be lost. But if it does there's a slim chance he might prevail and make it all right. But he stands to lose everything now, more than he thought possible. This is the climax. He fought with everything he had, more than he thought he had, and it works out, though things got incredibly dark and for a moment it looked like he had chosen wrong and was going to lose everything. But it does work. Ideally what pulls his fat out of the fire here should be something unexpected, but that seems inevitable when the reader re-examines the whole story. It should be like an "Of COURSE! Why didn't I see this coming the entire time! It makes perfect sense now!" But they didn't see it coming. That takes some clever writing. And after the climax is the denoument, the winding down. The climax was an emotionally high-pitched moment of intensity, and now things wind down and return to normal, only this is the new normal. He now has what he wanted, though at several points it seemed like he had lost it forever. The emotional state comes back down and now things are proceeding the way he wanted from the beginning. See, the whole thing is like a roller-coaster ride. It starts off slowly, climbing that hill as a slow, pleasant ride, but suddenly you can see over the top and wow, it's a long way down, and oh shit—you're going too fast and it looks like you're about to crash! But a sudden turn... no, you've just avoided the total crash, and now at least you're still moving, but too fast, and out of control! But you're still alive and still moving forward, though on seemingly the wrong course. There are several big points, the biggest one being a loop that you thought was going to kill you both (the climax), but you made the right choices and made it all work out, and now the ride is winding down and you're reteruning to the platform, out of breath and exhausted, but alive and together now. Just some metaphors to help you understand the three act structure and how it all works.
It doesn't have to be that precise, though that's about right. Those numbers are really more relevant to screenplays, especially for something that might end up on television one day, because they make it easy to break for commercials at the right points. For books you have more leeway, though you do want them in the right order, and somewhere in the ballpark of the percentages you quoted. Basically act 1 is the first quarter of the story, give or take. It contains the introduction to the situation and to the main characters, the hook, and the inciting incident that kicks off the conflict. Act two is the largest part, the main body of the story, and runs from about the 1/4 mark to the 3/4's mark. Then the rest is act 3, which contains the climax and denoument. It needs to keep getting more intense as it moves toward the ultimate climax. It's probably a lot easier to understand it with a visual aid: This is pretty good. I like the way it includes the idea of a climax for each act. That's the big turning points, the major disasters of the story. Each act ends with one, and then the big climax is in act 3. Or on this chart it seems to be the turning point between acts 2 and 3. But I think @JBean is saying he doesn't understand where to place the events of his story on this kind of chart. Yes, that's the trick. You'll need to struggle with that, and figure out how to arrange things to get a sense of continually rising conflict, or "Rising action" as it's called. It needs to keep getting more intense as it moves forward toward the ultimate climax.
Stories that fit this kind of shape work, they engage the audience powerfully. The more they diverge from this kind of shape, the more confused and pointless they can start to feel. And it's important to understand, this isn't an arbitrary thing somebody decided to impose on us as writers, it's the shape Aristotle discovered when he studied plays that worked and plays that didn't. The ones that worked always had these elements in this order, more or less. It's the archetypal shape good stories naturally have. Of course once you've learned it you can play around with it. It's a powerful tool. But it takes time to learn how to make your stories work, and to make them fit this pattern. It takes more than time, it takes a lot of wrestling with things, a lot of frustration, and work. You get better at it as you go. And some stories will be easier than others to make work. Welcome to the struggle of being a writer!
And there are other shapes. We spoke on another thread just recently (I think it was one of yours) about a parallel structure, where the story is told in two parts, each mirroring the other to some degree. But often, even if a writer uses something like that, there's still a three-act structure underlying it. Like I said, it's just the intuitive story structure that emerges from the human mind when it sets out to tell a story. Just as jokes have a certain structure (Setup > Punch Line). You can play around with it, but generally a story that works is going to fall into some variation of this shape. Unless you're a great intuitive storyteller. Some people just have the ability to tell a story and rivet the audience, without learning any structure, Often they just intuitively came up with three-act structure without knowing what it's called. Or they're just geniuses and managed to figure out something else that worked. But most of us aren't good enough naturally to sell books without having studied structure and character arc.
