Hey, so I am a beginner writer, like absolute beginner I'm trying to figure out the theory and techniques involved in writing fiction. I've seen a few people divide scenes into action and reaction scenes, it makes sense and those guys seem to know what they're talking about, so naturally I try to apply this to my own writing. But I'm having trouble getting a story to fit into the structure. I think 50% of the text would fit the structure nicely. But the rest doesn't want to fit. I'm not sure whether I'm exaggerating the need to have the story comply to the action/reaction structure or not being creative enough to get the "bad" scenes to play ball. For example: I have the goal of introducing a character via dialog into the story and I have the main protagonist speaking to that character. The setting is that they happen to have adjacent seating in an airplane. I could force the structure unto the dialog by adding some ulterior motives to the characters. In this case the character could be trying to seduce the protagonist and she's trying to avoid his advances. While that certainly would spice up the scene I'm having great trouble imagining an appropriate "disaster". (Him giving his ponenumber disasterous enough? She gets upset unable to deal with the situation? Planecrash?) My goal really is only to stage the guy, he will become important later on. Would it not be more productive in this case to make the dialog interesting and enjoyable without having the protagonist trying to achieve a goal, or reeling from some setback? In this case maybe the protagonist leaves the guy hanging but leads him on enough to keep at it and keep her entertained. (Which could itself be interpreted as the goal/blockage/disaster pattern, only not imposed on the protagonist) And that is another thing... Rigid adherence to the action/reaction structure would mean every goal the protagonist in a scene has would end up in some kind of disaster. Making things worse is obviously a good way to arouse the readers emotions. But I suspect kicking bottom can be very good too. I guess I'm feeling a little rebellious, but I'm not naive enough to believe I know better than the authors who wrote about the action/reaction structure. And they've been very clear and firm on the matter. I hope I expressed myself clearly enough! What are your thoughts on this?