I need help. I've never got on with this. I don't understand it and I've barely used it. I thought I might try and look at it again but the templates perplex me. I've always put inciting incidents and rising action into my story, but I haven't called it by these names. I know how to introduce a setting and characters and I know how to change characters over time. What I don't understand is why it's so rigid. I often find that some of the arbitrary terms don't fit at all with what I'm writing. For example, in my portal story (see below) I don't really have a single crisis that strips the characters of hope. I have different challenges unique to each character interspersed throughout the narrative once they enter the otherworld. What I really don't understand is how to use this structure in a novella that will contain a second viewpoint around the halfway point. If I'm writing from Robert's perspective in the first half and change to Alan's in the second, how can this possibly work? Very brief context. The story is by no means outlined concretely. Robert searches for his brother who went into a magic portal. He enlists the help of an old friend. They both enter the otherworld. This is the end of the first quarter or half of the book. Switch to Alan's perspective. Alan discovers his own gate and overcomes obstacles. He eventually encounters the two and they travel inward toward a single point. Something happens that causes them to leave. To give an idea of why I'm struggling with this: Act 1: Act 1 is fine, I think Exposition: Robert reminisces – life stale, connections lost, brother ‘dead’ Inciting: The purple leaf in the garden brings hope and Robert travels to Scotland and back, fussing over what to do. He gets a call from Stephen who has experienced his own 'gate'. Plot point 1: Robert and Stephen travel through their gates at the same time. Act 2: Here "The protagonist reacts to the new goal but suffers one step forward and two steps back." Why is it so darn prescriptive? My character viewpoint changes completely here around the half way point... Pinch point 1: What event adds more conflict? But this isn't really called for at this moment since we're starting from Alan's perspective and learning more about the fantasy world. Midpoint: What event can reinforce the story's goals? Again, Alan will travel in the otherworld and eventually meet his long-lost brother and best friend. Not sure how this applicable other than it probably is at the midpoint, but it doesn't fit with anything as they've found Alan. They eventually realise they are travelling further back in time and passing through "sub-portals" of memory. Pinch point 2: What events add more conflict? But it's a gradual thing... The character will face three episodes of challenge throughout the story. There is no single pinch point. Crisis: Perhaps this could be the end point where Alan struggles with leaving the fantasy world and barricades himself away by the use of magical powers until his brother and friend convince him. But it's certainly not a case of, "What event strips the characters of hope" since we're from Alan's perspective and that question doesn't even relate to him here. Act 3: "The protagonist summons the courage to overcome inner obstacles and conquer the antagonist force". There is no damn antagonistic force in my story at this point. It's a collaborative effort to leave the fantasy world and return, changed, to the real world. Climax: This is fine. Resolution: This is fine. I have my own more fluid outline which makes much more sense because it's gradual. I just don't understand how to work my story into this template. I was told two viewpoints in a novella can work, and I agree, but not with this act structure. I understand story and why it usually takes place within acts, but it's the specific points I disagree with. And yet it's deemed holy and I feel I should follow it for success...
Wonderful questions and critical thinking about the writing process! The plot structure Fraytag designed was quite ingenious and has been further developed and used in the education of writing. It is simple and helpful and really get students thinking about books in general. HOWEVER if your writing project doesn't follow it.... there is no problem there. Now many will disagree with me here, but writing does not have to be efficient. Writing is an art, and we often enjoy breaking rules in art. It doesn't have to be easy to understand, or follow. My suggestion? Write things your way. However you want. Then once you have written it, if it doesn't work for your selected purpose, go back through and tweek it until it does. You might find your work does follow the Fraytag system, or you may find it doesn't but you are still happy with it. This is yours! Play with your words! Hit me up anytime if you want to bounce ideas.
Thanks for the response. To be honest, this was less of a critique than just frustration and a call for help. Some of this doesn't matter anymore as I've decided on a few big changes, but I still feel like I need to stick to the structure somewhat. I know people have issues with it just like I do, but I know how commonplace it is. I would feel better if I knew that most writers disregarded it, but I'm not they they do. I like going by the book most of the time in life, so I'm more inclined to follow this. I just don't understand how to do that for the book I want. And it's not just my book, surely most books don't fit this. As said, the criteria described in most of these act templates are so limiting and prescriptive. It's almost like they takes creativity away.
Im not sure what 'criteria' you are talking about. The Fraytag 3 act plot structure was merely and observation of how books were already being made. Most books do, in fact, follow it. And it is quite simple. There it is, simple as that. There inst any more criteria you need to meet. I personally have never read a book that did not follow it that I can think of. Horror often seems like it doesn't follow it on the outside, but when you delve into character development you find that it still does. Could you give me an example of the criteria you are talking about and how your story doesn't seem to follow it?
The criteria I mentioned are those in the original post, e.g. pinch points and the crisis. My story just doesn't follow that. The thing is, I have no problem at all with your pyramid diagram. You're right, most stories do follow this and I agree. It's just the most detailed specific one I'm talking about above. In fact, here's where I took it from. This is an image I found on Google. There are many like them. I don't agree with or think there should be such pinch points ats such specific periods of time and whatnot. This type also seems to limit the narrative to one perspective/viewpoint only.
Who in gods name wrote that? Goodness this seems to be specific to something. Throw that thing away! No need for things like this to confuse you. This may even be a guideline for a contest. It can certainly be done but yes it of course limits free writing and creativity of structure. The questions are all good questions to ask yourself. While this is not incorrect, it lacks the context. For those who have not studied plot, this would be quite confusing. I suggest you refer to the pyramid rather than this. My opinion: just....don't, please. And if you still want to try, 'pinch points' do not have to be events. They could be anything, a bad look, or a hurtful phrase, anything that adds fuel to the fire of the conflict. And for all the gods sakes, dont worry about word count!
Problem is, I see lots of these and they seem equally unsuitable. This one is clearly less specific to something, yet it has so much that wouldn't fit. And people profess it to be a kind universal one-size-fits-all method of crafting stories. Let's see... two obstacles? A big twist? A disaster and a crisis? It's all nonsense. I can't imagine anyone looking at this and saying, "Okay, I need to now write my second obstacle and there can only be two of them otherwise it won't be a proper story." The more I look at three act structures, not including your more free form one, I dislike them and don't understand why they're considered the norm. Edit: I've always written stories with gradual changes and events. They all still follow the beginning > mid point action ramp-up > climax and the fall overall. But the specific criteria or points along the line make no sense to me.
They are, with the education to understand them properly. These are done by people who are using them for a specific purpose to describe a particular story or to teach a particular lesson on writing. They are out of context. Remember, when searching for resources, always check credible sources. The simple Freytag model above is what is currently taught in the American core standards. I teach it myself to my students. But we are talking about art here. There is no CORRECT way. There is only average. The internet is full of wonderful resources but without proper context you may be causing more harm than help to yourself. Im so glad you asked. I hope you choose to throw all these out the door and use the simple guide to help you with your story. Again it is a guide drawn by a man who noticed this happens to be the model MOST plots follow. It doesn't have to be a rule!
No need to overthink it too much. It's just beginning, middle, then end. A character appears, does something, something goes wrong, they come up with a plan, the plan doesn't work, they try something else, more things go wrong, everything seems hopeless, then a new idea, something original they never would have thought of without experiencing the prior adversity, they execute plan, it almost fails but eventually works, they learn some new things, tie up some loose ends, fade into sunset... bing, bang, boom. Stories are dipshit simple at their core. Executing them ain't easy, but the reasons why they work are.
While I love learning about story structure, I don't think it is ever meant to be followed religiously. It is guidelines to help see where one should place certain story beats based on what generally works. But there's always room for exceptions for those who know what they're doing (or have good instincts). If you really want a story structure to help with your story, maybe the three act isn't the one to use. It sounds like your plot is essentially the voyage and return story. Looking into how those stories are structured might be more helpful than the more generalized three act structure. Those stories seem to generally start with a disillusionment over their lives' current status quo, travel to fantasy world where everything is better, slowly realize fantasy world has it own issues, until finally concluding that there's no place like home, and then return home better and more content than they were at the start.
I would punt out that Lester Dent (Doc Savage) used a 4 act structure http://www.paper-dragon.com/1939/dent.html
See, this is what I mean by an overabundance of rules being thrown at someone can just confuse - especially for beginners (not saying you are a beginner Teladan).
I think the point here is that you can take that classic 3 act and cut it up and copy paste for your own purposes. Its a great template to work anyway you want, if you have to have a template to write comfortably. But you do not have to have one to write well!
The fact is, all of the classic story structures are generally the same. They might focus on different things, but if you lay them side by side, they are all using the same overall structure. That's how people expect stories to be told. That goes back to the days of Aristotle when he first came up with the idea. Story structure the world over is generally very similar because people are generally very similar. It doesn't matter which of the story structures you learn, in fact, you ought to learn them all, because you're going to be using them in your writing whether you're slavishly attached to any of them or not. That's how humans tell stories.
Hello again. Yes, I understand that it's not obligatory for writers, but the problem I think I have with it is that it's pron I know this. I often read comparative mythology and books by Joseph Campbell, James Wood, Harold Bloom and the like. It's just that I don't know why it's considered universal when some of these points are clearly very specific. Yes, most stories are told similarly, but I'm not talking about the broad overarching aspects, the overall trajectory. I'm talking about, for example, "big twist" in the diagram above. Why a twist at all? Not every story has a twist, so why is it even in the three act structure diagram I've linked before? Already that one point has discounted it as a universal formula.
@Teladan, Are you more of a planner or a pantser (gardener)? If you're in-between, which direction do you lean more into?
Somewhere in between most of the time. For my current novella, I've outlined it fairly well, but I leave a lot of things open-ended to keep it fresh and enjoyable to write.
You might not need to slot into a pyramid or prism or whatever, but I think at this point the elements you feel are missing will just come through as you write the chapters. I think as long as you have that rough beginning middle and end, the planning phase is over (as it has done as much as it can for you). I asked just in case you were the kind of person who has to have EVERYTHING planned beforehand. I strongly believe that you could easily find parts of your story that match that beat sheet once it's finished, once the organics have grown. Also, while you said there's no antagonistic force, this seems like an open-shut case of man vs self to me.
