It's been cool to watch Story Grid shift from a 3-act to a 4-act structure. The middle build being turned into a two-step process keeps the inertia of the narrative going and can/should help address sagging middles in novels.
I agree this is a more useful way of looking at the macro level. I never liked how the "middle build" or act 2 always seemed to be the biggest part of a story with the fewest "important" plot points to hit.
I've always felt this way about the 3-act structure which is why I've always been partial to Dan Harmon's story circle. It talks about what happens about the middle. People love tallking about openings but dont seem to understand the middle -which in 3-act is the majority of your story!
I really like Save the Cat Writes a Novel's description of this difference. It describes the buildup from the catalyst (what story grid calls the inciting incident at the grand level) to the midpoint (what story grid might call the end of act 2) "solving the problem the wrong way." There's the idea that the protagonist has some sort of "want," in Katniss's case in The Hunger Games, for example, it's survival at all costs, that they strive to attain, and depending on the type of story they're either failing constantly and arriving at a false low point or they're succeeding but the victories are hollow and lead to a false high point that is the midpoint. At the point the "A story" of the protagonist's want and the "B story" of the protagonist's need, in Katniss's case this is the need to stand up to the Capitol even if it risks here life, and from that point the story becomes about the need and in the case of the Hunger Games it leads to the mutual poisoning that completely sacrifices the earlier want for the sake of the deeper need. In a traditional 3 act structure, there's no real divide between the period of "solving the problem the wrong way" and the period of getting aligned with the character's deeper need, but it's a necessary ingredient in telling a good story imo.
Thank you for giving us another option beyond the 3 point structure! This works so much better with the fantasy fiction novels I'm writing. Your videos have been so helpful!
In our lives, we are presented almost daily with story in one form or another. Everything that happens to us and around us is some form of a story. Story is at the basis of evolution. it's a way to not have to start from scratch, but to rely on what has been figured out so far, which is where the concepts of 'prescriptive' and 'cautionary' come from. So being faced with story constantly, we kind of understand it unconsciously, already. And it could not be more important. But it takes understanding story consciously to be able to use it as a tool to teach yourself to write and to be able to present stories effectively. One thing that didn't make a lot of sense to me at first was the inevitable change that happens between Act 2A and Act 2B (quadrants two and three). 2A and 2B are mostly procedural. But I finally began to see a pattern, and the pattern typically turns out to be the protagonist is acting reactively in 2A and then begins acting proactively in 2B. Upon analysis, you can find this same pattern in nearly every good story, and to my amazement, I discovered that I had already used this pattern in every story I had ever written, without ever even thinking about it. Of course, there has to be some sort of transition, and that can be thought of as a 'protagonist looking in the mirror' moment, and understanding that they have to stop reacting and start using a proactive approach. There can be an 'all is lost' moment that signifies this, or a 'dark night, of the soul' moment, or a few other ways to look at it. But what it really boils down to is the protagonist stopping just reacting, thinking things through, and beginning to act proactively by using a better approach. Having a new and better plan. Maybe finding their inner courage. And this sort of behavior is pretty universal not only in fiction, but is the basis of success in real life, which when written into your story, makes it feel real to the reader. It's just an alternate way of looking at what Tim is telling us here. But maybe it can make sense to you in the same way that it makes sense to me. If you understand this consciously, it allows you to look at how your story is working and go in and make it even stronger.
Like the 3-act structure where Act 2 is 2a & 2b before / after the "midpoint." But describing it with the Buddhist style terminology really helps put depth to the character arc.
I love thy shirt. I keep trying to tell people this, but they don't wanna listen. Humans just gotta keep getting it wrong, like you said. Maybe someday we'll get it right. Excellent video.
This is fascinating! My writing often focuses on the occult and esoteric concepts, so this makes a lot of sense to me. Story Grid has some truly unique ideas about storytelling. Where does the inciting incident typically fall in this plan? I presume at the beginning of the second quadrant, as the catalyst which initiates the Solve stage.
There is a global inciting incident in the first quadrant. Each quadrant will also have their own distinct inciting incidents. The global inciting incident might overlap with the first quadrants inciting incident.
The short answer is yes. For instance, individuals often consider "literary" to be different than "science fiction"; but you can have literary science fiction - such as Ursula Le Guin; and N.K. Jemisin. or literary fiction by Anne Tyler, Toni Morrison, Salman Rushdie, John Irving, etc. The reason for this is that literary is more of a style applied to content, so the content may be focused externally on science fiction and internally on morality; in some literary fiction, writers will downplay the external and focus more on the internal, so it appears plotless; however, there is an cohesion that holds it together.
It's been cool to watch Story Grid shift from a 3-act to a 4-act structure. The middle build being turned into a two-step process keeps the inertia of the narrative going and can/should help address sagging middles in novels.
I agree this is a more useful way of looking at the macro level. I never liked how the "middle build" or act 2 always seemed to be the biggest part of a story with the fewest "important" plot points to hit.
I've always felt this way about the 3-act structure which is why I've always been partial to Dan Harmon's story circle. It talks about what happens about the middle. People love tallking about openings but dont seem to understand the middle -which in 3-act is the majority of your story!
I really like Save the Cat Writes a Novel's description of this difference. It describes the buildup from the catalyst (what story grid calls the inciting incident at the grand level) to the midpoint (what story grid might call the end of act 2) "solving the problem the wrong way." There's the idea that the protagonist has some sort of "want," in Katniss's case in The Hunger Games, for example, it's survival at all costs, that they strive to attain, and depending on the type of story they're either failing constantly and arriving at a false low point or they're succeeding but the victories are hollow and lead to a false high point that is the midpoint. At the point the "A story" of the protagonist's want and the "B story" of the protagonist's need, in Katniss's case this is the need to stand up to the Capitol even if it risks here life, and from that point the story becomes about the need and in the case of the Hunger Games it leads to the mutual poisoning that completely sacrifices the earlier want for the sake of the deeper need. In a traditional 3 act structure, there's no real divide between the period of "solving the problem the wrong way" and the period of getting aligned with the character's deeper need, but it's a necessary ingredient in telling a good story imo.
Thank you for casting this spell of story harmony, wizard. You preach the magic of written science.
Love your T-shirt message almost as much as I love your writing instruction. 💙
This is great. The breakdown of the middle into dissolving the protagonist and applying heat is lovely.
Thank you for giving us another option beyond the 3 point structure! This works so much better with the fantasy fiction novels I'm writing. Your videos have been so helpful!
Just superb, simply superb. Thank you for this. Love the shirt, too.
I hadn't heard of this theory, but it's amazing to think about how this structure applies to my main character.
In our lives, we are presented almost daily with story in one form or another. Everything that happens to us and around us is some form of a story. Story is at the basis of evolution. it's a way to not have to start from scratch, but to rely on what has been figured out so far, which is where the concepts of 'prescriptive' and 'cautionary' come from. So being faced with story constantly, we kind of understand it unconsciously, already. And it could not be more important.
But it takes understanding story consciously to be able to use it as a tool to teach yourself to write and to be able to present stories effectively.
One thing that didn't make a lot of sense to me at first was the inevitable change that happens between Act 2A and Act 2B (quadrants two and three). 2A and 2B are mostly procedural. But I finally began to see a pattern, and the pattern typically turns out to be the protagonist is acting reactively in 2A and then begins acting proactively in 2B. Upon analysis, you can find this same pattern in nearly every good story, and to my amazement, I discovered that I had already used this pattern in every story I had ever written, without ever even thinking about it.
Of course, there has to be some sort of transition, and that can be thought of as a 'protagonist looking in the mirror' moment, and understanding that they have to stop reacting and start using a proactive approach. There can be an 'all is lost' moment that signifies this, or a 'dark night, of the soul' moment, or a few other ways to look at it. But what it really boils down to is the protagonist stopping just reacting, thinking things through, and beginning to act proactively by using a better approach. Having a new and better plan. Maybe finding their inner courage. And this sort of behavior is pretty universal not only in fiction, but is the basis of success in real life, which when written into your story, makes it feel real to the reader.
It's just an alternate way of looking at what Tim is telling us here. But maybe it can make sense to you in the same way that it makes sense to me. If you understand this consciously, it allows you to look at how your story is working and go in and make it even stronger.
Like the 3-act structure where Act 2 is 2a & 2b before / after the "midpoint."
But describing it with the Buddhist style terminology really helps put depth to the character arc.
I love thy shirt. I keep trying to tell people this, but they don't wanna listen. Humans just gotta keep getting it wrong, like you said. Maybe someday we'll get it right. Excellent video.
Good video and a nice, clean overview. I've watched it twice. It supports information presented previously by Story Grid on the quadrants. 👍
This is fascinating! My writing often focuses on the occult and esoteric concepts, so this makes a lot of sense to me. Story Grid has some truly unique ideas about storytelling.
Where does the inciting incident typically fall in this plan? I presume at the beginning of the second quadrant, as the catalyst which initiates the Solve stage.
There is a global inciting incident in the first quadrant. Each quadrant will also have their own distinct inciting incidents. The global inciting incident might overlap with the first quadrants inciting incident.
@@feruspriest Thank you!
Thank you!
love this
Should be interesting. All we ever hear about is the 3 story act with the bifurcated second act.
Excellent thumbnail
I just re-watched this, thanks again
I like the shirt man. Any idea where you got it?
Can the 4 acts be used like Arcs in a manga such as one piece?
Does this happen in literary fiction?
The short answer is yes. For instance, individuals often consider "literary" to be different than "science fiction"; but you can have literary science fiction - such as Ursula Le Guin; and N.K. Jemisin. or literary fiction by Anne Tyler, Toni Morrison, Salman Rushdie, John Irving, etc. The reason for this is that literary is more of a style applied to content, so the content may be focused externally on science fiction and internally on morality; in some literary fiction, writers will downplay the external and focus more on the internal, so it appears plotless; however, there is an cohesion that holds it together.
0:12 specious lies! We'll find the formula one of these days you nonblinking red/pepto pink/salmon shirt! Mark my words!
/villainarch
Hei bro Are you looking for a professional youtube thumbnail designer?
I'm not against it. tim@storygrid.com - Tim
Wtf is this video about