I've focused on visual art my entire life, wanting to illustrate (mostly comics). I'm finally deciding to start learning how to write, so I'm going through this entire series of storycraft. I've also added several various videos to my "watch later" playlist.
This one video is more comprehensive, and more detailed, informative, and useful in writing than a college course... let that sink in. seriously. Brevity is the soul of wit, yes, however, brevity can also drive points home better.
+dmiraie1 It won't do any good because if JJ Abrams really cared about his work, he would have watched his own Star Trek 2009 dailies and realized that his lens flares transformed his movie to a poorly shot strobe light rave.
I've written as a hobby for ages. Now I want to write a serious story and unlike all the others it has an aesop. This minute change was enough to stump me to the point I decided to start over and relearn the basics. T_T
So, I know this video is months old, but I just stumbled across you and I think you're criminally underrated. And I have a minor point that really has nothing to do with anything: You said in ancient china one wouldn't be likely to hold a libertarian philosophy, and I think that's largely true, you hit the nail on the head. However there WAS a period, however brief, before the Qin Dynasty where scholars were blossoming and having rigorous discussion of multitudes of different ideas. And this doesn't really cancel out anything you said, you are still totally right to assume that social pressure would force somebody to closet any idea of a free egalitarian society. The reason I bring it up is because of what happens after that period of enlightenment: the first Emperor of China (Emperor Qin) decreed the burying of scholars and the burning of books. And that decree is exactly what it sounds like: once he attained power he wanted to make sure that there were no competing ideologies or cultures that could undermine his rule. Now imagine this: Somebody writes a the story of a scholar who has just witnessed Qin's rise to power. Wouldn't that make for an excellent drama? Would our protagonist flee his homeland? Would he fight for his beliefs while on the run? Would he chuck his writings in the fire himself to destroy the evidence of his crime? Would he decide that his beliefs were not worth fighting for and eventually settle down with a woman, trying to forget the days he ever held such radical thoughts? Would he pull a 1984 and decide that his ideas are priceless and worth dying for?
This video actually helped me flesh out one of the traits of the Main Character of a book I'm writing. Why he became like that, how that drives his growth, and how it directs him to the "main" plot. EDIT: the main trait, almost the only trait. It's a tragic character who was left with an obsession as his only motivation for living from a young age, but achieves greatness in that regard.
David Stewart It's okay, I sent my script to Damon Lindelof, and he fixed it. The solution turned out to be to just have shit happen, and not worry why.
Good treatise and I am glad you are able to break down to individuals looking to become creative writers that the 3 act structure is important, and not just defined in film alone.Also, sorry if it is just me being picky,, but denouement is French, and it is pronounced 'Day-new-mon'.
Consider listening to my podcast, where I cover this stuff a lot more - itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/writers-of-the-dawn/id1202124828 or on soundcloud/com/writersofthedawn
+Marc Nelson The hard part is getting to see a movie while a review is still relevant to the market. I'm happy to analyze older stuff, but that's really more of an intellectual pursuit, I suppose.
Well I disagree with this (at 2:20-ish) that setting has to exist before characters. Maybe it's a side effect of being an avid fanfiction... fan, but I think characters ought absolutely to exist independently of the setting. Even though the setting should affect characters and shape things like their world views and experiences, I think all that is just a layer of complexity that doesn't change who the character is. I haven't finished watching the video, but wanted to post this since I'll probably forget by the end of the other 12 and a half minutes.
little question: what do you think about stories, that pretty much hurl the reader into the action and bit by bit show the reader, what the needs to know? because yeah we all know the obligatory first 50 pages just exposition. showing the world, explaining the magic. I admit i don´t always like that. i at least like to have some sort of sparring match, if combat is supposed to be an important element. The reader doesn´t get dry theory, but a sparring is a nice idea to explain mechanics. because in a sparring you have a very natural environment to explain the mistakes the looser make.s For instance you would not tell an assassin who tried to kill you "your left leg is exposed when you strike. it was easy to get your artery, you should know, to always lead with your weapon". there are characters who would do that, i´m aware of that, or you could clearly show the artery being cut due to that opening. But in a sparring that´s a pretty much normal idea: you´re on your butt and here is why. Or having two characters immediately discussing the situation at hand. For instance in the prologue for the thing i finally started to get serious about, one character remarks the growth of skill of the protagonists disciple, which is a fairly important plot point. After a short remark, that she is by no means at the level she needs to get to, they discuss her further training and the protagonists growing anger and distrust towards his ally, because his ally does not seem to keep their end of the bargain. it was a clear deal: He would do her dirty work, she would protect his disciple. And while it is looking pretty good with the dirty work, he had to obliterate three Assassins, since they started their cooperation plus his concern about the rising skill level of Assassins. Do you think something like that works: immediately getting into the action, or would be the "classic" exposition better?
I do not think that all stories need to follow the tree acts structure, american sniper for example, do not follow this structure ("The Closer Look" have a good vídeo about this), "The Last Wish" from Andrzej Sapkowski looks like to not follow this structure too.
This seems to apply more to "standart" movie and story driven books. In those cases it`s basically a "must". But I feel like that when it comes to classic, more idea driven literature it`s not impossible to omit some of it at least in the cases when story isn`t or shouldn`t be the main focus of the work. For me, story in Brave New World is borderline distracting. Sure, through conflict it tries to describe their society from different angle but you can read first few chapters and then skip to the dialogue of John and The Controller and you get way more than somebody who reads the whole thing but focuses on the story. And the you have the extreme of Plato`s dialogues. They have something like a "story" in the background - at least the story of Socrates (if you read them all). So I guess my question is... How does this theory apply in situations when story isn`t as important, what can be omitted to what degree, how to treat the story to not make it distracting, how to not bury the message under the story. Because I believe that story is not much more than form, that it can`t be content just by itself if not at all.
Only if majority reads them. And majority reads stories, not essays. If the idea is for example to introduce absurdism to people, Bojack Horseman does that for large group of people. Others would read The Stranger or The Plague but not many would reach for The Rebel (taking Camus as an example here). Story is way more accessible form than dry academic discourse but if there`s too much focus on it, it`s distracting.
So, you pick the medium that communicates what you want most effectively. If you do choose to do that in a story, you ought to know what 3500+ years of dramatic tradition has learned about effective story telling; if you don't want to write a good story, you aren't to keep people reading or attract attention. In such a case, why make it a story at all? Moreover, the idea that big ideas distract from story or the otherway around is a total false dichotomy. 1984 is a great story because it's setting, characters, and plot are the result of some very important ideas. Starship troopers would be better known if the story was better, if Heinlein was able to actually have some sort of meaningful sequence of events, rather than long conversations that espouse a philosophy. The Lord of the Rings explores big ideas too.
+NotOrdinaryInGames Whatver it is, its not going to be an interesting story. I'm sure people out there have done stories without conflict, characters, or plot (?) but that's probably part of a post-modern or deconstructionist ideal and are not very widely known or liked.
Conflicts can take many forms. You can also think of conflict as tension related to the desires and wills of the characters. Either they want something to change, or they want it to stay the same when someone else wants to change it. Resolution happens when the aims of the characters either succeed or fail.
You have a very good point. So it's true that this whole conflict-climax-resolution structure is just something imposed on art, often confused with a "rule"? Keep in mind that eastern works of literature don't follow this same structure. Also consider that it's Studio Ghibli and Miyazaki we're talking about. The man is a genius! xD
"Good, effective, meaningful, memorable story for you audience." Well put.
Thanks for saving me 14.5 minutes!
I've focused on visual art my entire life, wanting to illustrate (mostly comics). I'm finally deciding to start learning how to write, so I'm going through this entire series of storycraft. I've also added several various videos to my "watch later" playlist.
David Benioff and D.B. Weiss need to see this.
This one video is more comprehensive, and more detailed, informative, and useful in writing than a college course... let that sink in.
seriously.
Brevity is the soul of wit, yes, however, brevity can also drive points home better.
someone forward this to jj abrams plz ;]
+dmiraie1 I'll leave that to you. I don't think he would take my call.
+dmiraie1 It won't do any good because if JJ Abrams really cared about his work, he would have watched his own Star Trek 2009 dailies and realized that his lens flares transformed his movie to a poorly shot strobe light rave.
+dmiraie1 lol
Thank you, much appreciated.
I've written as a hobby for ages. Now I want to write a serious story and unlike all the others it has an aesop.
This minute change was enough to stump me to the point I decided to start over and relearn the basics. T_T
Very nice David! Thanks for sharing your knowledge on this subject!!
+Fernando Tonin Thanks so much for watching!
So, I know this video is months old, but I just stumbled across you and I think you're criminally underrated. And I have a minor point that really has nothing to do with anything: You said in ancient china one wouldn't be likely to hold a libertarian philosophy, and I think that's largely true, you hit the nail on the head. However there WAS a period, however brief, before the Qin Dynasty where scholars were blossoming and having rigorous discussion of multitudes of different ideas. And this doesn't really cancel out anything you said, you are still totally right to assume that social pressure would force somebody to closet any idea of a free egalitarian society.
The reason I bring it up is because of what happens after that period of enlightenment: the first Emperor of China (Emperor Qin) decreed the burying of scholars and the burning of books. And that decree is exactly what it sounds like: once he attained power he wanted to make sure that there were no competing ideologies or cultures that could undermine his rule.
Now imagine this: Somebody writes a the story of a scholar who has just witnessed Qin's rise to power. Wouldn't that make for an excellent drama? Would our protagonist flee his homeland? Would he fight for his beliefs while on the run? Would he chuck his writings in the fire himself to destroy the evidence of his crime? Would he decide that his beliefs were not worth fighting for and eventually settle down with a woman, trying to forget the days he ever held such radical thoughts? Would he pull a 1984 and decide that his ideas are priceless and worth dying for?
I think you should start writing, you are coming up with interesting ideas.
Seconded. I want to read this story.
How's this book coming? Throw the coronavirus in there to spice things up a little, maybe.
I submit that a plot diagram should be a fractal. At all levels/scales, you basically want a three act structure.
This video actually helped me flesh out one of the traits of the Main Character of a book I'm writing. Why he became like that, how that drives his growth, and how it directs him to the "main" plot.
EDIT: the main trait, almost the only trait. It's a tragic character who was left with an obsession as his only motivation for living from a young age, but achieves greatness in that regard.
So glad you got some use from me!
*sadly tears up epic saga of a libertarian revolution during the Song Dynasty*
+jaxxstraw You can still do it. You just need a time travelling wizard to make it historical fantasy, right?
David Stewart It's okay, I sent my script to Damon Lindelof, and he fixed it. The solution turned out to be to just have shit happen, and not worry why.
Not even into writing a book, yet im here, listening to Davids Stewart sweet voice
I am impressed with how knowledgeable you are.
If only everyone was.
Another informative and accessible video, loving this channel mate keep it up!
+Daniel Clark-hughes Thanks! Glad it was informative.
Good treatise and I am glad you are able to break down to individuals looking to become creative writers that the 3 act structure is important, and not just defined in film alone.Also, sorry if it is just me being picky,, but denouement is French, and it is pronounced 'Day-new-mon'.
I subscribed!
I'm glad to discover these videos. I think I found your channel based on mostly unrelated "Star Wars sucks" videos.
Another great video! +1
+Aaron Marshall Thanks!
And here I was wondering why every movie I'm trying to analyze doesn't fit this 3-something structure.
Very well done, David. Glad I subscribed.
Consider listening to my podcast, where I cover this stuff a lot more - itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/writers-of-the-dawn/id1202124828 or on soundcloud/com/writersofthedawn
David Stewart will do sir
Rats, I was really hoping you would mention the original Star Wars plot curve.
+ColdCutz That will have to wait for the video in the series where I talk about plot development in particular.
+David Stewart Wonderful to hear, can't wait!
would love to see some more movie reviews from you mate
+Marc Nelson The hard part is getting to see a movie while a review is still relevant to the market. I'm happy to analyze older stuff, but that's really more of an intellectual pursuit, I suppose.
Day-new-maw
Well I disagree with this (at 2:20-ish) that setting has to exist before characters. Maybe it's a side effect of being an avid fanfiction... fan, but I think characters ought absolutely to exist independently of the setting. Even though the setting should affect characters and shape things like their world views and experiences, I think all that is just a layer of complexity that doesn't change who the character is.
I haven't finished watching the video, but wanted to post this since I'll probably forget by the end of the other 12 and a half minutes.
I fucking love your content.
what drugs were you on when you wrote this?
thanks!
little question: what do you think about stories, that pretty much hurl the reader into the action and bit by bit show the reader, what the needs to know? because yeah we all know the obligatory first 50 pages just exposition. showing the world, explaining the magic. I admit i don´t always like that.
i at least like to have some sort of sparring match, if combat is supposed to be an important element. The reader doesn´t get dry theory, but a sparring is a nice idea to explain mechanics. because in a sparring you have a very natural environment to explain the mistakes the looser make.s For instance you would not tell an assassin who tried to kill you "your left leg is exposed when you strike. it was easy to get your artery, you should know, to always lead with your weapon". there are characters who would do that, i´m aware of that, or you could clearly show the artery being cut due to that opening. But in a sparring that´s a pretty much normal idea: you´re on your butt and here is why. Or having two characters immediately discussing the situation at hand. For instance in the prologue for the thing i finally started to get serious about, one character remarks the growth of skill of the protagonists disciple, which is a fairly important plot point. After a short remark, that she is by no means at the level she needs to get to, they discuss her further training and the protagonists growing anger and distrust towards his ally, because his ally does not seem to keep their end of the bargain. it was a clear deal: He would do her dirty work, she would protect his disciple. And while it is looking pretty good with the dirty work, he had to obliterate three Assassins, since they started their cooperation plus his concern about the rising skill level of Assassins.
Do you think something like that works: immediately getting into the action, or would be the "classic" exposition better?
See my video on direct vs indirect exposition. I've done it both ways.
@@DVSPress thank you going to do just that.
Story: It's meaning or catharsis given to an event.
I do not think that all stories need to follow the tree acts structure, american sniper for example, do not follow this structure ("The Closer Look" have a good vídeo about this), "The Last Wish" from Andrzej Sapkowski looks like to not follow this structure too.
What's "tree" act structure though
Where the story is broken up into eats, shoots, and leaves.
This seems to apply more to "standart" movie and story driven books. In those cases it`s basically a "must". But I feel like that when it comes to classic, more idea driven literature it`s not impossible to omit some of it at least in the cases when story isn`t or shouldn`t be the main focus of the work. For me, story in Brave New World is borderline distracting. Sure, through conflict it tries to describe their society from different angle but you can read first few chapters and then skip to the dialogue of John and The Controller and you get way more than somebody who reads the whole thing but focuses on the story. And the you have the extreme of Plato`s dialogues. They have something like a "story" in the background - at least the story of Socrates (if you read them all).
So I guess my question is... How does this theory apply in situations when story isn`t as important, what can be omitted to what degree, how to treat the story to not make it distracting, how to not bury the message under the story. Because I believe that story is not much more than form, that it can`t be content just by itself if not at all.
What is the intent behind creation?
Share or celebrate simple message, an idea - sometimes one, sometimes several. And pack it up in something nice - visuals, story, rhymes... all of it.
So if you want to communicate an idea widely and effectively, are you going to transmit it in Egyptian Hieroglyphs?
Only if majority reads them. And majority reads stories, not essays. If the idea is for example to introduce absurdism to people, Bojack Horseman does that for large group of people. Others would read The Stranger or The Plague but not many would reach for The Rebel (taking Camus as an example here). Story is way more accessible form than dry academic discourse but if there`s too much focus on it, it`s distracting.
So, you pick the medium that communicates what you want most effectively. If you do choose to do that in a story, you ought to know what 3500+ years of dramatic tradition has learned about effective story telling; if you don't want to write a good story, you aren't to keep people reading or attract attention. In such a case, why make it a story at all?
Moreover, the idea that big ideas distract from story or the otherway around is a total false dichotomy. 1984 is a great story because it's setting, characters, and plot are the result of some very important ideas. Starship troopers would be better known if the story was better, if Heinlein was able to actually have some sort of meaningful sequence of events, rather than long conversations that espouse a philosophy. The Lord of the Rings explores big ideas too.
What is a story has no conflict? It has stuff happen, but no conflict.
+NotOrdinaryInGames Whatver it is, its not going to be an interesting story.
I'm sure people out there have done stories without conflict, characters, or plot (?) but that's probably part of a post-modern or deconstructionist ideal and are not very widely known or liked.
+David Stewart I just seen My Neighbor Totoro and cannot forget it. Until the very end, there is no conflict and the movie is quite enjoyable.
+GuardianSoulBlade Fellow troper, high five.
Conflicts can take many forms. You can also think of conflict as tension related to the desires and wills of the characters. Either they want something to change, or they want it to stay the same when someone else wants to change it. Resolution happens when the aims of the characters either succeed or fail.
You have a very good point. So it's true that this whole conflict-climax-resolution structure is just something imposed on art, often confused with a "rule"? Keep in mind that eastern works of literature don't follow this same structure. Also consider that it's Studio Ghibli and Miyazaki we're talking about. The man is a genius! xD
have you read the wheel of time series
+tempest83 Short answer - Yes.
Do you participate in the national writers month?
+Alex Stone I participate in nothing!
Honestly, I just write all year long and so those things come around nothing really changes for me.
Part2?
+knight2battle Working on it! I'm going to try to do one a week. This has been a hectic week as well. Thanks for watching!
David Stewart Cant wait!