I keep looking at you and I see Lumberjack, Navy Seal, Airborne Ranger, all the stereotypical Burly Boy life stuff. And your a Reader and a Writer ... I'm totally impressed
Perhaps being a recipient of the Kruger/ dunning effect, I would have to disagree. First you need the setup then the inciting incident ( should I stay or should I go- meet the challenge), then, finally- the beginning of act 2- if it’s a film , the first surprise, the point of no return. IF the principle is the same- film or book, a relevant example then is the film‘ Aventures in babysitting’, the original that is. Setup, the protags best friend threatens to runaway . Completing the set up ,will Chris babysit? Of course. Inciting incident, Christs best friend has runaway will C pick her up in D.T chicago( no bus fair to get bk. Taking her charges with her- the blowout on the freeway is surprise number 1. No going bk now.😊
Does every story need to have a major turning point where the focus shifts uberdramatically? There is a significant shift in focus in Chinatown when Jake Gittes realizes what Evelyn Mulwray is up against, and there is a significant shift in focus in Gone Girl when Nick Dunne realizes his wife has set him up for a fall. That's all well and good. Both stories also have lots of other turning points, many of which are dramatic yet don't reach the level of being quite that significant. But it seems that the great majority of good stories maintain a fairly direct focus toward a fairly direct path, even if there might be a number of twists and turns at less dramatic levels. Good stories do have a solid turning point in every scene, and I think some of those can do double duty as turning points at the story arc level, the sequence level, the secondary plot level, the character arc level, and as a transition from act to act. So good stories do have tons of minor shifts in focus, and a number of greater shifts in focus, all based on minor moment-to-moment changes and medium-level turning points within the scenes. And a major significant shift in focus based on a story-arc-level turning point can be a very good thing. But how important is that? It doesn't seem to me that a lack of a super-dramatic shift in direction would disqualify a story from being a good story. It seems to me that most good stories just aren't going to have that, or even really need it. There are countless great stories that don't seem to have a dramatically-significant ginormous shift in focus anywhere in the story based on a story-arc-level turning point. Popular television shows with runs of 300 episodes might never encounter such a huge shift in focus. Maybe it's genre-specific. I guess mysteries are more prone to embrace this concept, even if it is not a reader-expected convention. And the authorial goal in certain stories is to make everything as twisty as possible (which sometimes ends up shooting the author directly in the foot). But I believe a good story can easily transcend any burning need to have a story-arc-level turning point that dramatically shifts the direction of the story, simply by having a number of medium shifts in focus based on solid turning points at the scene level. What do you think?
Characters make the story. Characters we can relate to, empathise with and believe in, and the turning point should be relative to their personal journey. But in my humble opinion, it's really important to have a 'will he/won't he succeed?' moment in there, when the reader sees the protagonist fall short and even fail. Of course they get back up and fight to win, but a good writer will have the reader cheering them on as they do.
I love Ghost Protocol, but It should be a sin not to recommend Mission Impossible 1. DePalma did an amazing job with conflict and tension. Start with that one
I don’t agree. Before I explain, let me say that I don’t have a problem with using this method. For those who like this kind of story, I’m sure it works well. Also the basics of this writing style are very well explained here. However, I dislike stories that put too much pressure on the characters, especially ones that are unbelievably difficult to the point of absurdity. My life is difficult and it’s not entertaining for me to read about someone falling off a cliff (the original cliffhanger). Yes, I’m probably weird. No, I’m not exclusive about this and there are plenty action adventures that I enjoy. But I am rather consistent in believing that many stories could cut out the stupid “let’s almost kill our main character just for thrills,” and I would love it so much better. My preferred story has the inciting incident and uses that to carry the MC through their efforts. I’ve seen this style used more often in cozy murder mysteries where the mystery or murder is the most dramatic part of the whole story and the rest travels along one clue at a time. The final solution is usually a high, but it’s not the big door buster being promoted here. Now I have no clue whether my preference would be a good seller. But I do know of several books that are popular which follow it.
Question as it relates to the Protagonist but also as it relates to the Inciting Incident. Using Scene 1 for Pride and Prejudice. In that scene, Mr. Bennet serves as the protagonist and the scene turns on whether he will or will not visit Mr. Bingley. Now, the question is that the inciting incident throws the protagonist's life out of whack, and the arrival of Mr. Bingley to Netherfield does that. But it could also be said that it's Elizabeth's and Darcy's story that is important (although others play out as well); in that sense, the inciting incident, even thought it affects Elizabeth and Darcy peripherally (she thru her father, Mr. Bennet initially; and Darcy through his friend Mr. Bingley), it would still serve as an inciting incident for them as well. Is that a fair and correct interpretation?
I LOVE that you specified Mission Impossible 4 being the place in the series to start. I say the same thing. Its like with the Fast and the Furious franchise, it basically starts with fast five, MAYBE fast four (Fast and Furious) but not 1-3, just like MIP movies
lol You think the best Fast and Furious movie starts with 5?? After the 1st one they're all ridiculous. Mission Impossible 1 should 100% be seen by everyone, not sure why he said to start with 4.
@@film_magician let me guess MIP1 had “no business looking that good” and the “Fast sequels didn’t do enough to create verisimilitude” yea well I tell you this bud any James Bond where they tried to make it really realistic was boring compared to the ones with gadgets that could never exist, and this is my opinion compared to your differing one, and you can laugh at me all you want for not having the same opinion as the film people you look up to
This is a strange thing to notice, but why do you show up with different bruises on your face? It was on the right side of your face/eye ... I've seen it in at least two of your videos now.
I was actually wondering if/when anyone would notice 😀 I practice Brazilian Jiu-jitsu and have had an unfortunate run of catching a knock in the face. - Tim
@@StoryGridlol... well you look like you took some really good hard knocks. Please say "you should have seen the other guy" ... ❤ Glad to hear you're ok. ~I really like the no nonsense writing advice on your channel. IT's been what I've been looking for to link to my writing group... so people start making things make sense... because I'm dealing with baby-writers. Anyway, I hope you have a great Nanowrimo. 😄
For me, "Mission Impossible" is too far beyond believability. But I get the principle. Question: Where did this fad begin of pronouncing "nuclear" as "noo-kyoo-lar?"
@@StoryGrid I meant the comment as a question for you. I don't know how one derives that pronunciation phonetically. So nope. That's it. Otherwise it was "Above the Grid!"
“With each choice, it becomes harder and harder to get back to the way things were.” But why would a protagonist want to go back to the way things were?
Depends on the inciting incident, but if it is a cancer diagnosis or the threat of nuclear bomb, then the protagonist, wants to get his life back to before the cancer diagnosis or the threat of nuclear bomb. - Tim
@@StoryGrid so it’s basically the story of Eden where an “alternative plan interjects” and then the protagonist’s choice leads away from God. Now I’m wondering, isn’t the choice itself the inciting incident (over and over)? Sort of like what you tell a child, “nobody made you angry, you decided to react that way.”
I keep looking at you and I see Lumberjack, Navy Seal, Airborne Ranger, all the stereotypical Burly Boy life stuff.
And your a Reader and a Writer ... I'm totally impressed
You continue to do an excellent job of distilling concepts and making them actionable -- looking forward to the whole series!
this was great
I'm so glad to see this posted as my WIP is in dire need of tension after a tense chapter where I don't know how to link to the 3rd act.
Perhaps being a recipient of the Kruger/ dunning effect, I would have to disagree. First you need the setup then the inciting incident ( should I stay or should I go- meet the challenge), then, finally- the beginning of act 2- if it’s a film , the first surprise, the point of no return.
IF the principle is the same- film or book, a relevant example then is the film‘ Aventures in babysitting’, the original that is.
Setup, the protags best friend threatens to runaway .
Completing the set up ,will Chris babysit? Of course.
Inciting incident, Christs best friend has runaway will C pick her up in D.T chicago( no bus fair to get bk.
Taking her charges with her- the blowout on the freeway is surprise number 1. No going bk now.😊
Does every story need to have a major turning point where the focus shifts uberdramatically? There is a significant shift in focus in Chinatown when Jake Gittes realizes what Evelyn Mulwray is up against, and there is a significant shift in focus in Gone Girl when Nick Dunne realizes his wife has set him up for a fall.
That's all well and good. Both stories also have lots of other turning points, many of which are dramatic yet don't reach the level of being quite that significant.
But it seems that the great majority of good stories maintain a fairly direct focus toward a fairly direct path, even if there might be a number of twists and turns at less dramatic levels. Good stories do have a solid turning point in every scene, and I think some of those can do double duty as turning points at the story arc level, the sequence level, the secondary plot level, the character arc level, and as a transition from act to act.
So good stories do have tons of minor shifts in focus, and a number of greater shifts in focus, all based on minor moment-to-moment changes and medium-level turning points within the scenes. And a major significant shift in focus based on a story-arc-level turning point can be a very good thing.
But how important is that? It doesn't seem to me that a lack of a super-dramatic shift in direction would disqualify a story from being a good story. It seems to me that most good stories just aren't going to have that, or even really need it. There are countless great stories that don't seem to have a dramatically-significant ginormous shift in focus anywhere in the story based on a story-arc-level turning point. Popular television shows with runs of 300 episodes might never encounter such a huge shift in focus.
Maybe it's genre-specific. I guess mysteries are more prone to embrace this concept, even if it is not a reader-expected convention. And the authorial goal in certain stories is to make everything as twisty as possible (which sometimes ends up shooting the author directly in the foot).
But I believe a good story can easily transcend any burning need to have a story-arc-level turning point that dramatically shifts the direction of the story, simply by having a number of medium shifts in focus based on solid turning points at the scene level.
What do you think?
Characters make the story. Characters we can relate to, empathise with and believe in, and the turning point should be relative to their personal journey.
But in my humble opinion, it's really important to have a 'will he/won't he succeed?' moment in there, when the reader sees the protagonist fall short and even fail. Of course they get back up and fight to win, but a good writer will have the reader cheering them on as they do.
That's so informative. A million thanks! Why is view numbers only 6.5 K?
Love it. Thanks.
Great video thanks!
At what point of the story can I expect the turning point to occur. Is it usually the Midpoint? Are the Midpoint and turning point the same?
thank you a million times
Impressive Explanation
I love Ghost Protocol, but It should be a sin not to recommend Mission Impossible 1. DePalma did an amazing job with conflict and tension. Start with that one
I don’t agree.
Before I explain, let me say that I don’t have a problem with using this method. For those who like this kind of story, I’m sure it works well. Also the basics of this writing style are very well explained here.
However, I dislike stories that put too much pressure on the characters, especially ones that are unbelievably difficult to the point of absurdity. My life is difficult and it’s not entertaining for me to read about someone falling off a cliff (the original cliffhanger).
Yes, I’m probably weird. No, I’m not exclusive about this and there are plenty action adventures that I enjoy. But I am rather consistent in believing that many stories could cut out the stupid “let’s almost kill our main character just for thrills,” and I would love it so much better.
My preferred story has the inciting incident and uses that to carry the MC through their efforts. I’ve seen this style used more often in cozy murder mysteries where the mystery or murder is the most dramatic part of the whole story and the rest travels along one clue at a time. The final solution is usually a high, but it’s not the big door buster being promoted here.
Now I have no clue whether my preference would be a good seller. But I do know of several books that are popular which follow it.
Question as it relates to the Protagonist but also as it relates to the Inciting Incident. Using Scene 1 for Pride and Prejudice. In that scene, Mr. Bennet serves as the protagonist and the scene turns on whether he will or will not visit Mr. Bingley. Now, the question is that the inciting incident throws the protagonist's life out of whack, and the arrival of Mr. Bingley to Netherfield does that. But it could also be said that it's Elizabeth's and Darcy's story that is important (although others play out as well); in that sense, the inciting incident, even thought it affects Elizabeth and Darcy peripherally (she thru her father, Mr. Bennet initially; and Darcy through his friend Mr. Bingley), it would still serve as an inciting incident for them as well. Is that a fair and correct interpretation?
Apakah ada cara untuk menulis flashback yang baik?
Is there a way to write flashbacks well?
I LOVE that you specified Mission Impossible 4 being the place in the series to start. I say the same thing. Its like with the Fast and the Furious franchise, it basically starts with fast five, MAYBE fast four (Fast and Furious) but not 1-3, just like MIP movies
lol You think the best Fast and Furious movie starts with 5?? After the 1st one they're all ridiculous. Mission Impossible 1 should 100% be seen by everyone, not sure why he said to start with 4.
@@film_magician let me guess MIP1 had “no business looking that good” and the “Fast sequels didn’t do enough to create verisimilitude” yea well I tell you this bud any James Bond where they tried to make it really realistic was boring compared to the ones with gadgets that could never exist, and this is my opinion compared to your differing one, and you can laugh at me all you want for not having the same opinion as the film people you look up to
This is a strange thing to notice, but why do you show up with different bruises on your face? It was on the right side of your face/eye ... I've seen it in at least two of your videos now.
I was actually wondering if/when anyone would notice 😀 I practice Brazilian Jiu-jitsu and have had an unfortunate run of catching a knock in the face. - Tim
@@StoryGrid Nice
@StoryGrid I noticed the same thing a couple of weeks ago on an older video. Made me wonder lol
@@StoryGridlol... well you look like you took some really good hard knocks. Please say "you should have seen the other guy" ... ❤ Glad to hear you're ok. ~I really like the no nonsense writing advice on your channel. IT's been what I've been looking for to link to my writing group... so people start making things make sense... because I'm dealing with baby-writers. Anyway, I hope you have a great Nanowrimo. 😄
I noticed but I was too polite to talk about that, instead I made a lot of story about the reasons in my mind 😅
For me, "Mission Impossible" is too far beyond believability. But I get the principle.
Question: Where did this fad begin of pronouncing "nuclear" as "noo-kyoo-lar?"
Is there anything else you didn’t like about the video? Imma need a full list. - Tim
@@StoryGrid I meant the comment as a question for you. I don't know how one derives that pronunciation phonetically.
So nope. That's it. Otherwise it was "Above the Grid!"
“With each choice, it becomes harder and harder to get back to the way things were.”
But why would a protagonist want to go back to the way things were?
Depends on the inciting incident, but if it is a cancer diagnosis or the threat of nuclear bomb, then the protagonist, wants to get his life back to before the cancer diagnosis or the threat of nuclear bomb. - Tim
@@StoryGrid so it’s basically the story of Eden where an “alternative plan interjects” and then the protagonist’s choice leads away from God.
Now I’m wondering, isn’t the choice itself the inciting incident (over and over)? Sort of like what you tell a child, “nobody made you angry, you decided to react that way.”
4:55 Except for One-Punch Man.