Story Structure – Narrative Arc

Louanne Learning

Active Member
How important do you think a coherent narrative arc is to a story?

For greatest reader engagement and satisfaction, IMO, stories should have a beginning, a middle and an end that follow this path:

Exposition > inciting incident > rising tension > climax > resolution

To me, this is a winning formula.
 
Exposition isn't always necessary though, and can often be misunderstood. Particularly in fantasy, many writers make the mistake of beginning with long tracts of exposition explaining their world and setting. This tends to disengage readers.

Rather than exposition, I would say scene-setting, which can be done in a number of ways (exposition is one of them).
 
I agree. Maybe that is what I should have said instead of exposition. But I do like to have some idea of where we're at when a story starts. In particular, I don't care for starting a story with dialogue. Set the scene, at least a little bit.

Modern advice often suggests starting in media res for short stories. I dunno if I agree with that though.

It's also a piece of advice that's sometimes misunderstood to mean "start in the middle of an action scene". What it really means is to start with something happening.
 
I think a lot more emphasis is put onto structure than is really due. It's important to make sure you're keeping things moving but it's easy to get bogged down tinkering with stuff like "hero at the mercy of the villain scene" instead of actually writing.

This is the sort of thing I'd think of more as editorial than when you're writing from whole-cloth.
 
I think a lot more emphasis is put onto structure than is really due. It's important to make sure you're keeping things moving but it's easy to get bogged down tinkering with stuff like "hero at the mercy of the villain scene" instead of actually writing.

That's getting down into scene specifics though.

Talking about narrative structure zooms out further and is about the actual way the whole arc is built. It's a more abstract concept.

It's like how "the hero's journey" doesn't mean the hero actually getting on a horse and travelling from A to B.
 
That's getting down into scene specifics though.

Talking about narrative structure zooms out further and is about the actual way the whole arc is built. It's a more abstract concept.

It's like how "the hero's journey" doesn't mean the hero actually getting on a horse and travelling from A to B.
Yeah but you can't follow a structure without considering key plot points that have to happen within scenes. You can't really plot out your inciting incident without getting into scenes, just like with any other plotting keyframes.
But a story that doesn't follow that basic structure feels incomplete?
There's a lot of very successful books that don't particularly follow standard structures. It's necessary on some level, of course, but my point was mostly that it's very easy to get so preoccupied with Save The Cat, for example, that you never get to actually finishing the story.
 
Yeah but you can't follow a structure without considering key plot points that have to happen within scenes. You can't really plot out your inciting incident without getting into scenes, just like with any other plotting keyframes.

It's something you shouldn't actively have to follow, not on a high level basis. It's about learning how to tell a story, and internalising it. I have never once thought about plotting an "inciting incident". Just like any plot beat, it's asking "what's going to make my character do what they're going to do next".

Story structure is descriptive, not prescriptive.
 
Yeah but you can't follow a structure without considering key plot points that have to happen within scenes. You can't really plot out your inciting incident without getting into scenes, just like with any other plotting keyframes.

Those "standard structures" are tools. No one has to follow them. They exist as one way of telling a story, and yes, some people get too caught up in trying to follow them exactly. Then you end up with people asking "why do I have to follow this?".

It's not really what I think @Louanne Learning and I are talking about here.
 
, stories should have a beginning, a middle and an end that follow this path:

Exposition > inciting incident > rising tension > climax > resolution

To me, this is a winning formula.
Just for clarity - do you mean this for a complete story as in Exposition = beginning and Resolution = End or as more of a rolling wave throughout?
 
do you mean this for a complete story as in Exposition = beginning and Resolution = End or as more of a rolling wave throughout?

Ooh, I like the imagery of a rolling wave. Set the scene. Give the main character a problem to solve or a goal to reach. What obstacles stand in their way? How do they overcome them? Or not? How is the character changed during the course of the story? What lesson is learned by the end?
 
Just for clarity - do you mean this for a complete story as in Exposition = beginning and Resolution = End or as more of a rolling wave throughout?

In normally usage, exposition usually means info-dumping, but that's not what we mean here.

There, we're talking about opening the story and scene-setting. So, for example:
"Westley, it's time to milk the cows!"

That immediately tells us that we're on a farm, and the characters are farmers.

Or:
The beeps of the heatbeat monitor stopped.

We're in a hospital. Someone has just died.

These are potential openings for a story, and can include the inciting incident.

What some people start with is "And in the Beginning, Bob begat Sam, who begat Joe and they all had a big fight and the world was born." That's the bad kind of exposition.
 
Ooh, I like the imagery of a rolling wave. Set the scene. Give the main character a problem to solve or a goal to reach. What obstacles stand in their way? How do they overcome them? Or not? How is the character changed during the course of the story? What lesson is learned by the end?

I prefer it as a rolling wave over the simple 3 act structure story overall.
 
Back
Top