Story Structure – Narrative Arc

[Trish]

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.

I understood that. And agree that some authors version of "world building" makes me want to chuck the book or skip 2 chapters.

My question was related to the simple 3 act structure that makes *a lot* of books feel like cookie cutters. Like the author just changed the names and setting and boom - new book.

 

[Louanne Learning]

the simple 3 act structure story overall.

 

[Louanne Learning]

3 act structure that makes *a lot* of books feel like cookie cutters.

Oh, but there is so much latitude that can be taken with that structure.

 

[Trish]

View attachment 11

Yeah, while overall I understand the theory, and see the point, there is absolutely no reason for there to be only one "inciting incident" and only one "resolution". Much too formulaic for me. I don't like knowing what's coming unless I'm reading a romcom. Then it's a candy read or palate cleanser for me. Forgotten as soon as the words "The end" are read.

 

[Naomasa298]

Yeah, while overall I understand the theory, and see the point, there is absolutely no reason for there to be only one "inciting incident" and only one "resolution". Much too formulaic for me. I don't like knowing what's coming unless I'm reading a romcom. Then it's a candy read or palate cleanser for me. Forgotten as soon as the words "The end" are read.

Right, but what you tend to have there is multiple, intersecting three arc stories. The overall structure of the greater story still remains the same.

Remember, as I said above, the structure is descriptive not prescriptive. It is just describing how stories are generally constructed, not telling you that you MUST write that way.

 

[Louanne Learning]

there is absolutely no reason for there to be only one "inciting incident" and only one "resolution". Much too formulaic for me.

I'm not sure I understand. Why should there be only one inciting incident and one resolution?

The sky is the limit. There are unlimited inciting incidents and unlimited resolutions, depending on what you want to say in your story.

 

[Trish]

Right, but what you tend to have there is multiple, intersecting three arc stories. The overall structure of the greater story still remains the same.

Remember, as I said above, the structure is descriptive not prescriptive. It is just describing how stories are generally constructed, not telling you that you MUST write that way.

I'm not sure I understand. Why should there be only one inciting incident and one resolution?

The sky is the limit. There are unlimited inciting incidents and unlimited resolutions, depending on what you want to say in your story.

Agree with both. Been out of the game for a while and way back when people liked to argue that the cookie cutter formulaic writing was THE way to do it, the ONLY way to do it, etc. Since I don't have any previous knowledge of your stance on it I thought that was what you were saying. My apologies. Glad to see things have changed.

 

[NotoriousNAG]

Right, but what you tend to have there is multiple, intersecting three arc stories. The overall structure of the greater story still remains the same.

Remember, as I said above, the structure is descriptive not prescriptive. It is just describing how stories are generally constructed, not telling you that you MUST write that way.

I'd be a lot more convinced that the structure is descriptive if I didn't routinely see people using such structures prescriptively.

The whole point of something like Save The Cat is explicitly for it to be followed. The Hero's Journey might have been meant initially as a description, but it's used as a guide pretty often - Star Wars is probably the most famous example.

 

[Trish]

I'd be a lot more convinced that the structure is descriptive if I didn't routinely see people using such structures prescriptively.

The whole point of something like Save The Cat is explicitly for it to be followed. The Hero's Journey might have been meant initially as a description, but it's used as a guide pretty often - Star Wars is probably the most famous example.

What is Save The Cat?

 

[Naomasa298]

Agree with both. Been out of the game for a while and way back when people liked to argue that the cookie cutter formulaic writing was THE way to do it, the ONLY way to do it, etc. Since I don't have any previous knowledge of your stance on it I thought that was what you were saying. My apologies. Glad to see things have changed.

No problem, we're cool. I would never tell someone their way of storytelling is wrong - the only consideration is whether it works for the reader.

Where it becomes problematic is when people think they're being told they MUST write that way, and actively think "Screw the rules, I'm going to do it my own way!". It's not that you have to do it one way or another, it's just that the majority of stories tend to break down into those structures, at a very high level.

 

[NotoriousNAG]

What is Save The Cat?

It's a book originally about screenwriting that pretty much lays out a structure for you to follow. It's reasonably well known and has been adapted for novels since it came out (there's an official version now apparently).

I'd hesitate to call it formulaic but only because that's got such negative connotations - it's a recipe for a successful story (so says the author, at least)

 

[Naomasa298]

I'd be a lot more convinced that the structure is descriptive if I didn't routinely see people using such structures prescriptively.

Well, that's down to people misunderstanding what it is. If you want to use it prescriptively, that's down to you. I very much doubt they were originally intended that way. And if that's how they've been adopted, well, I can't help that, and that's not what we're discussing or suggesting here.

 

[NotoriousNAG]

Well, that's down to people misunderstanding what it is. If you want to use it prescriptively, that's down to you. I very much doubt they were originally intended that way. And if that's how they've been adopted, well, I can't help that, and that's not what we're discussing or suggesting here.

I think any discussion of what's important in a story will inevitably end up being a discussion of how to build that thing into stories. I'm not sure there's much of a distinction, really, between describing stories that work because of their structure and discussions using a structure to write a story that will work.

Reverse engineering anything is usually aimed towards building that thing anew.

But there's a million ways to skin (or save) a cat so whichever way one thinks of it, it doesn't make much of a difference.

 

[Trish]

No problem, we're cool. I would never tell someone their way of storytelling is wrong - the only consideration is whether it works for the reader.

Where it becomes problematic is when people think they're being told they MUST write that way, and actively think "Screw the rules, I'm going to do it my own way!". It's not that you have to do it one way or another, it's just that the majority of stories tend to break down into those structures, at a very high level.

So it's not a problem for the story, it's only problematic when they don't because they want to be edgy or something and then the reader suffers?

I can't agree with that. Stories aren't haiku, and, imo, should imitate the human condition at some level. I guess you could say born, lived, died is a 3 act but I feel that would be a cop out, personally.

 

[Naomasa298]

I think any discussion of what's important in a story will inevitably end up being a discussion of how to build that thing into stories. I'm not sure there's much of a distinction, really, between describing stories that work because of their structure and discussions using a structure to write a story that will work.

Reverse engineering anything is usually aimed towards building that thing anew.

But there's a million ways to skin (or save) a cat so whichever way one thinks of it, it doesn't make much of a difference.

People come to writing forums because they want to learn how to do it. All these things are useful for them to learn, whether someone agrees with, or wants to use them or not.

 

[Naomasa298]

So it's not a problem for the story, it's only problematic when they don't because they want to be edgy or something and then the reader suffers?

I can't agree with that. Stories aren't haiku, and, imo, should imitate the human condition at some level. I guess you could say born, lived, died is a 3 act but I feel that would be a cop out, personally.

No, it's a problem when they actively try to circumvent it to the point where their writing suffers. It doesn't mean your writing WILL suffer, but if you're sabotaging your own writing because you don't think you should be "bound" to a structure, then it's a problem - mainly for you. Just write what you want to write. Don't even worry about whether it is or isn't fitting into some abstract structure. If it ends up doing so, it's not a problem. It doesn't mean you've conformed, if that's your concern.

If it doesn't fit, but it still works, then who the hell cares? No one is going to condemn you for it.

 

[Luxuria]

In my opinion, structure is very important to the story, but should be the foundation of a house. Holding it up, but not obvious. I get annoyed sometimes because I can tell what the twist is or where we are in the story arc. The arc should be seen upon reflection, not while reading.

Another thing I want to point out is a Eastern style Story Arc:

Kishōtenketsu: Exploring The Four Act Story Structure - The Art of Narrative

Kishōtenketsu is a story told in four parts. Kishōtenketsu is a Japanese story structure that doesn’t need conflict to work. Learn to write without conflict

artofnarrative.com

Which is called Kishotenketsu and I actually really like this structure as I feel it's closer to how I structure stories naturally. I think for me, I get bored with typical structures or structures that don't spend enough time on each point. My favorite segment of a structure is 'the new world' where the Hero is trying out new powers and seeing what they can do. I get annoyed with Superhero movies that rush over the discovery in favor of the next fight scenes.

But Kishotenketsu is wonderful and I love it, because according to the article above "it doesn't NEED a conflict". Which is awesome.

 

[Trish]

No, it's a problem when they actively try to circumvent it to the point where their writing suffers. It doesn't mean your writing WILL suffer, but if you're sabotaging your own writing because you don't think you should be "bound" to a structure, then it's a problem - mainly for you. Just write what you want to write. Don't even worry about whether it is or isn't fitting into some abstract structure. If it ends up doing so, it's not a problem. It doesn't mean you've conformed, if that's your concern.

If it doesn't fit, but it still works, then who the hell cares? No one is going to condemn you for it.

So first - I'm not talking about me, I'm speaking in general.

No one mentioned conforming. I'm not suggesting Rebel one and all because REBELLION! That's utter nonsense.

You argued both that circumventing structure purposely can make writing suffer and that the structure should be ignored and they should just write and not worry about it unless it's a problem (paraphrasing of course).

I'm gonna go ahead and agree with the second part and move on since you're arguing both sides of the coin now and I'm not really sure where to go from here.

 

[Naomasa298]

So first - I'm not talking about me, I'm speaking in general.

Sorry, I'm using "you" in the general sense, not you specifically.

 

[Louanne Learning]

I love this discussion!