I see story structure as a combination of important things: 1) Order: When I first began writing, I assumed that this was a no-brainer (I was wrong), that the chronological timeline was all that was important. I assumed that the closer the reveal of events followed that, the easier it would be for readers (and me) to follow the story. I do believe that's true, and that a writer should try to follow the timeline whenever possible, but I learned that it was not actually a requirement, and that there were moments when not adhering to the timeline made for a better story. Order, and an understanding of when and how to change that up, is probably the most important part of structure, IMHO. 2) Content-having the elements needed: The best approach, IMHO, is to know your genre and the conventions and expectations associated with it, and to then serve all those the best you can and as uniquely as you can. This applies to subplots as well, though the necessity to add every obligatory moment isn't quite as important there. If you are a student of scene structure and the elements that go into that (and when and how to use them or not use them), you will likely see that story structure, while not the same thing, is similar. The elements of scene structure may also be, on occasion, the core elements of story structure. Your take on the inciting incident is a good example. Scenes need them, and the story needs them, too, at a more comprehensive level. 3) Coherence. I believe that coherence in a story is often based on structure, and what I mean by that is if you have scenes that interconnect, that inform what happens in other scenes, that is what makes a story feel, and be, coherent. If you have major and minor subplots, I think it's also really important to get the events there to be relevant to the main plot events. When you don't, that can irritate the reader who was 'in' the main story and might feel 'jerked out' into a different (subplot) story. When you do, even when the focus moves to a subplot, it all feels to the reader as if it's all the same story, which is the goal. It also is a little murkier to sort out, but there are obvious explicit connections (or should be) between events in different scenes, and there are much less obvious implicit connections that hopefully emerge based on theme and tone, and sometimes even pacing. I find it difficult to 'plan' such things (as a pantser who doubles as a 'reverse plotter') since they are not really in the domain of the conscious mind, but these things do seem to emerge, usually on their own, and usually only in the revision process or the late draft process when I can hold the story more solidly in my mind. 4) 'In Scene' versus 'In Summary': What you place directly in a scene (often considered 'showing' if done well) and what you place only in summary (not directly in a scene, sometimes considered 'telling') is a constant series of artistic judgment calls. And these choices are critical to structure. I see these aspects of structure as important requirements. As for the various 'codified story structure' approaches out there, I think most are simply variations on the theme of 'beginning-middle-end'. It's good to study all of them and then see how your story might fit them, but I suggest not bending your story to fit them unless you yourself decide that they can add aspects that your story needs. Most capable writers will find that they are incorporating most of these ideas automatically, anyway. The one that resonates the most with me (other than the 'Act I-Act IIa-Act IIb-Act III' basic one) is probably the hero's journey, or maybe Michael Hauge's 6-stage approach to the 3-act structure, but what resonates is personal-something different might make more sense to someone else, and none of them are required, or as important as the 4 components above, at least in my opinion. What I think is important regarding all those various approaches is to not let them distract you from the things listed above about structure, which I feel are much more important than them. I consider those to be of critical importance, while I consider these recipes and formulae to be nothing more than suggestions, some helpful, most not helpful, and some can even be harmful if you allow them to sweep you into their grasp. But be strong. The only thing that is important is what you decide, and what is not important is what others who may have no concept of the story you are telling, might decide. Some of these 'gurus' might have tons of experience and have an intricately-structured viewpoint, but it might not be the right viewpoint for you. Trying to learn how to do something based on how other people learned to do something can be good, but when it isn't a fit, it's the functional equivalent of trying to learn orthodonture from a plumber. Or plumbing from an orthodontist. It seems as if how I see structure is not all that different from how you do. But it's really valuable for me to see you explain things from your point of view, as well, as this gives me a firmer grasp on understanding, and it gives me things to think about if your outlook is a bit different at times, which can have a positive effect on my own journey as a writer. Thanks for that. You're one of the very few that seem to have a handle on things.
Thank you! One of my biggest writing pet peeves is when people conflate "story structure" with a specific beat sheet, like 3-act structure or Save the Cat. Drives me nuts.
Story structures take random events, which may happen simultaneous, combine them with the characters' external actions and internal reactions of the characters to created a linear narrative. 😉👍🍀🕊
Another great video :D have you guys considered a video on absurdist fiction? It’s a type that I’m a bit curious about, but since it’s not very popular there aren’t much resources on it online. I’ve been thinking about incorporating some traits of it into my own writing, but I’m not really aware of the general qualities that may occur in the genre
In hindsight, I would have liked to start with something like the 27 Chapters structure. Simple, clear, maybe can lead to feeling formulaic but would have been easy to follow for my first novel. Generally, I find it more helpful to follow principles like "have an inciting incident as early as possible" than "In the 3rd chapter, after character and world introductions, make your MC face a call to action, he must be reluctant but ultimately accept the call." Thanks!
The best book I've read on story structure, and I've read many, is Larry Brooks' book Story Engineering. For example, the first plot point is not necessarily the inciting incident--it's not the same thing. Larry tells you the difference.
I see story structure as a combination of important things:
1) Order: When I first began writing, I assumed that this was a no-brainer (I was wrong), that the chronological timeline was all that was important. I assumed that the closer the reveal of events followed that, the easier it would be for readers (and me) to follow the story. I do believe that's true, and that a writer should try to follow the timeline whenever possible, but I learned that it was not actually a requirement, and that there were moments when not adhering to the timeline made for a better story. Order, and an understanding of when and how to change that up, is probably the most important part of structure, IMHO.
2) Content-having the elements needed: The best approach, IMHO, is to know your genre and the conventions and expectations associated with it, and to then serve all those the best you can and as uniquely as you can. This applies to subplots as well, though the necessity to add every obligatory moment isn't quite as important there.
If you are a student of scene structure and the elements that go into that (and when and how to use them or not use them), you will likely see that story structure, while not the same thing, is similar. The elements of scene structure may also be, on occasion, the core elements of story structure. Your take on the inciting incident is a good example. Scenes need them, and the story needs them, too, at a more comprehensive level.
3) Coherence. I believe that coherence in a story is often based on structure, and what I mean by that is if you have scenes that interconnect, that inform what happens in other scenes, that is what makes a story feel, and be, coherent. If you have major and minor subplots, I think it's also really important to get the events there to be relevant to the main plot events. When you don't, that can irritate the reader who was 'in' the main story and might feel 'jerked out' into a different (subplot) story. When you do, even when the focus moves to a subplot, it all feels to the reader as if it's all the same story, which is the goal.
It also is a little murkier to sort out, but there are obvious explicit connections (or should be) between events in different scenes, and there are much less obvious implicit connections that hopefully emerge based on theme and tone, and sometimes even pacing. I find it difficult to 'plan' such things (as a pantser who doubles as a 'reverse plotter') since they are not really in the domain of the conscious mind, but these things do seem to emerge, usually on their own, and usually only in the revision process or the late draft process when I can hold the story more solidly in my mind.
4) 'In Scene' versus 'In Summary': What you place directly in a scene (often considered 'showing' if done well) and what you place only in summary (not directly in a scene, sometimes considered 'telling') is a constant series of artistic judgment calls. And these choices are critical to structure.
I see these aspects of structure as important requirements. As for the various 'codified story structure' approaches out there, I think most are simply variations on the theme of 'beginning-middle-end'. It's good to study all of them and then see how your story might fit them, but I suggest not bending your story to fit them unless you yourself decide that they can add aspects that your story needs. Most capable writers will find that they are incorporating most of these ideas automatically, anyway. The one that resonates the most with me (other than the 'Act I-Act IIa-Act IIb-Act III' basic one) is probably the hero's journey, or maybe Michael Hauge's 6-stage approach to the 3-act structure, but what resonates is personal-something different might make more sense to someone else, and none of them are required, or as important as the 4 components above, at least in my opinion.
What I think is important regarding all those various approaches is to not let them distract you from the things listed above about structure, which I feel are much more important than them. I consider those to be of critical importance, while I consider these recipes and formulae to be nothing more than suggestions, some helpful, most not helpful, and some can even be harmful if you allow them to sweep you into their grasp. But be strong. The only thing that is important is what you decide, and what is not important is what others who may have no concept of the story you are telling, might decide.
Some of these 'gurus' might have tons of experience and have an intricately-structured viewpoint, but it might not be the right viewpoint for you. Trying to learn how to do something based on how other people learned to do something can be good, but when it isn't a fit, it's the functional equivalent of trying to learn orthodonture from a plumber. Or plumbing from an orthodontist.
It seems as if how I see structure is not all that different from how you do. But it's really valuable for me to see you explain things from your point of view, as well, as this gives me a firmer grasp on understanding, and it gives me things to think about if your outlook is a bit different at times, which can have a positive effect on my own journey as a writer. Thanks for that. You're one of the very few that seem to have a handle on things.
Thank you! One of my biggest writing pet peeves is when people conflate "story structure" with a specific beat sheet, like 3-act structure or Save the Cat. Drives me nuts.
Story structures take random events, which may happen simultaneous, combine them with the characters' external actions and internal reactions of the characters to created a linear narrative. 😉👍🍀🕊
Just tell a good story from the beginning, middle, and end. It must make sense.
Another great video :D have you guys considered a video on absurdist fiction? It’s a type that I’m a bit curious about, but since it’s not very popular there aren’t much resources on it online. I’ve been thinking about incorporating some traits of it into my own writing, but I’m not really aware of the general qualities that may occur in the genre
In hindsight, I would have liked to start with something like the 27 Chapters structure. Simple, clear, maybe can lead to feeling formulaic but would have been easy to follow for my first novel. Generally, I find it more helpful to follow principles like "have an inciting incident as early as possible" than "In the 3rd chapter, after character and world introductions, make your MC face a call to action, he must be reluctant but ultimately accept the call."
Thanks!
The best book I've read on story structure, and I've read many, is Larry Brooks' book Story Engineering. For example, the first plot point is not necessarily the inciting incident--it's not the same thing. Larry tells you the difference.
Great vid!
I use save the cat myself, but I'm hoping to branch out soon!
I have a manuscript. Please I’m looking for a good editor.