: Re: Story Structure I gained a lot of momentum from the answers to my first question. I've read a couple of writing books and read a lot of articles online. Although I'm still quite 'green',

@Ogunnowo420

Vote Up Vote Down

You will read more expert nonsense on story structure than anything else involving writing. The most common advice is to structure a story in three parts—a beginning, middle, and end. This comes from Aristotle, who never wrote a story in his life, and, in any case, was writing about Greek theatre.

Many of the recent story theories derive from a 19th century German writer named Freytag, who talked about a "story pyramid" with a five-part structure, including an introduction, rising action, a "climax", falling action, and conclusion. These corresponded to acts in a play, but other theories have suggested structures with eight acts, four acts, and the current darling, three acts.

Freytag's system was later adapted into a "story arc" structure, with the climax usually moved closer to the end, because his terms are widely misunderstood. Freytag's version of a climax doesn't refer to the peak of the action, but to a certain turning point in the story where the main character undergoes a change in fortune, and that often happens roughly in the middle of the story. In screenwriting, this is sometimes called the midpoint. Today we think of climax more as the big confrontation at the end.

There is NO simple structure that applies to all works of fiction, although some people have made money peddling such theories. (I'm looking at you, Joseph Campbell!) Many stories have a compound structure, with different stories interweaving. But for a story involving a good protagonist and a happy ending, I've found the following structure useful when actually writing, as opposed to analysing. (It's based closely on Freytag. Many stories follow a structure something like this.)

(I) Introduction. Describe a happy, or at least stable situation in a way that you can't help but be interested in the main character. (Show the main character caring deeply about something the audience can understand.)
This ends when: Something occurs which shakes things up. A problem. In screenwriting, the first "plot point". In English class, "the inciting incident".
(II) The character tries to solve the problem but the situation is confusing. Things get worse and worse and the character's discomfort builds to a peak.
This ends when: The character makes a discovery or comes to a realization which changes his attitude. (Typically, this is where they discover the REAL problem, eg, the person behind it all.) This is Freytag's "climax". This phase might be in an act of its own.
(III) The character's energies are now focused on dealing with the real problem. Now the character is making steady progress.
Which ends with: A final test or confrontation where some unexpected twist brings a satisfying conclusion. The "climax" in the action movie sense. Assault on the Death Star. And, when he's won against all odds...
(IV) A conclusion, where things are back to normal, stable, and perhaps better than they were.

Again, this is just one more formula, albeit a common one. Take it all with a pinch of salt.

The hard part is the introduction, the "normal" before the story starts. Many writers are anxious to get into the action, thinking that action is interesting, but without a baseline for normal, it's hard to make people care about something unusual. When an author makes the investment at the start so we connect with the protagonist, readers care deeply when things go wrong and will root for the character's efforts.

(0)

Login to post a comment!