Hi Everyone,

Came across this today http://storyfix.com/story-structure-series-1-introducing-the-four-parts-of-story

Just wondered if it was true - are all stories structured like this?

Interested in your thoughts...

Ummm, well, some useful pointers, eg, The thing to remember about Part 4 is that no new information can enter the story here. Everything the hero needs to know, to work with, or to work alongside (as in, another character) is already in play.

The occassional daft comment, eg, Because the story really begins at the point at which Part 1 ends - according to them, that's a quarter of the way into your novel! The agent, meanwhile, will be looking for the main plot thread to start in the first 3 chapters.

And some surprising ommissions, eg, I was expecting them to mention the 'rug pull' moment, where things are at their darkest, it can't possibly get any worse, the mc thinks they've lost the love of their life, &/or they're about to die, and which comes before the big denoument.

Probably easier just to deconstruct a published novel or two in the genre oyu're writing in, and follow that format - It's worked for a number of writers who are now successfully published.


- NaomiM

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. And why not tick-boxes, while we're at it? Just because quite a lot of storytelling does actually work in this way doesn't mean that it's the most helpful way to think about it, any more than understanding the biology of raised blood pressure is the most helpful way of finding a kind of exercise you're happy to do every day.

Which isn't to say that it's not useful to think about such stuff, in a free-form, take-it-or-leave it kind of way. But you you need to read it, think about it, and then leave it behind and write the book you really, really want to write. I agree with Naomi to the extent that thinking about what you read, across tons of reading, is a much better way of educating your own story-telling instincts.

Emma

The trouble with these things is which genre are they talking about? Do they seriously think a character-driven Womans Fiction novel can follow the same structure as a plot-driven Crime novel? They fudge it by writing in 'marketting-speak' so it comes across as all things to all men; interpret it any way you want. Yes, structure is important, but it has to be the right one for your story.

I did think it was more for plot orientated novels and it is a formula I have noticed used particularly in American style films - films I find I am now bored with as this format seems so over used! Or is the blogger right and it's just a case of it's in all stories but subtler in some? He seems to make more referrences to film structures than novels on his site, so I suppose he is aiming his blog for those authors who hope to have their stories on film eventually.

I think when he says your story starts at the end of part one, he is referring to the way that often the first page (ish) starts right in the middle of all that's going on- the precipice of a challenge or life changing incident, then, usually, the author goes back from there to colour in the MC's background, etc. This happens in a lot of stories, though I don't know if it's absolute LAW that it must be done this way.

I've been trying to think of books I've read but I've mostly been reading non-fiction and the only recent fiction book I have read through to the end lately was a murder mystery, so that was a plot important tale too! I did start the Girl With a Pearl Earring but got annoyed with it as she sounded so adult when she's only meant to be twelve at the beginning!

I did start the Girl With a Pearl Earring but got annoyed with it as she sounded so adult when she's only meant to be twelve at the beginning!

Well, don't forget when the story was set - twelve would have been fairly grown up in the days when the law of averages was against you making it to your fifth birthday.

But to the link itself - he's right, in a way. A lot of published books and films do follow this structure, more or less, and if you have a set of wonderful characters but a plot you've lost control of, some of his comments could be helpful. Perhaps it might even work - goodness knows, we've all seen some absolute tosh published - Dan Brown, anyone?

What it won't do, of course, is produce a good, well-crafted work with an interesting voice. If only there was a formula for that ...

And not to generalise, but he is an American - there does seem to be a slight transatlantic fondness for 'how to' manuals, as if everything is ultimately fixable/achievable in life if you only have the right guide.

Nothing anti-American intended, just my opinion

I did start the Girl With a Pearl Earring but got annoyed with it as she sounded so adult when she's only meant to be twelve at the beginning! Well, don't forget when the story was set - twelve would have been fairly grown up in the days when the law of averages was against you making it to your fifth birthday.

Oh yeah, I understand that, but she's still only twelve, with the experience of just twelve years, no matter what age she'd live till. The first few pages, I thought she was about sixteen, until she stated otherwise. And even if they were more austere/responsible/less frivolous in those days, it's still being written for a modern market. The author's voice was what I heard, not the character's. If it had started from her POV as an adult looking back into the past, then I could've let it slide, but that isn't how it was done (IMHO as a reader). I still plan to have another go at it, but right now I am reading two non-fiction books and can't fit in another!

But, regarding story structures, etc, I hang out in another writers' site as well as here and most of the active members are American. A lot of them seem to be more plot orientated and sometimes, when they review, they don't seem to be happy with a piece unless it is fast paced action scenes (not all, but a lot). It's part of the reason I joined WW - so I could see if there was a difference in what the UK like to read/write, and I think there is.

A lot of published books and films do follow this structure, more or less

Because the writers have read this kind of 'how to' formula elsewhere, maybe?

he is an American - there does seem to be a slight transatlantic fondness for 'how to' manuals, as if everything is ultimately fixable/achievable in life if you only have the right guide.

How true. Something that Scot Adams tapped into (and parodied) in 'The Dilbert Principle'.

There is a great tendency towards this kind of formulaic reduction of all activities to sets of immutable rules which have to be followed for it to work. You can even see it happening in sport, where teams are expected to follow some kind of set formation or else the manager is in deep do-dos. As if a formula, rather than knowing what you're doing, is a recipe to automatic success.

There is a lot to be said for breaking these kinds of 'rules' deliberately. That way, you get something which stands out from the crowd, and is therefore more likely to pique a reader's interest (if well done).

Alex

I think if you spend any amount of time thinking about story and how it works, there is a general way in which it appeals to human kind.
We seem to have an intutive attachment to arc, at least in the western tradition. So I don't think it's a bad thing per se to break stories down in this way, however, I suspect most avid readers and writers hold this system in their DNA. So we're only reminding ourselves of what we already know.
Might also be worth reminding ourselves of how story works when we're looking at our own writing and suspecting that, actually, it doesn't.

This however, is not the same as trying to squeeze a plot into a template. No, no, no. Or worse, starting with a template and making up a plot that fits it.

For me, the most satisfying stories from Romeo and Juliet to Harry Potter, comfortably and naturally fit into what humans most want out of story. A happy coincidence borne from innate talent for story telling.

However, when I think of structure, this is not it. This is story.

Structure, and I do whole heartedly agree that this is one of the first things that a writer should decide upon, for me, has nothing to do with three or four acts/parts. It's to do with how the story is told. The methodology, if you like.

Will it be, first person throughout.
Will it be a paralel narrative.
Will we see the story via letters or diary?
Will we alternate between POVs?
Will all those POVs be close?
Will each chapter tell the same story from a different perspective?

This to me, is structure, and will ultimately make or break the story.
It will lift it or kill it, depending on what you choose to do.
HB x

I critted something recently which the writer said he'd written for a CW degree course (in the UK) where the emphasis was very much on following the same structure as screenwriting. It didn't make for a good short story, and I hate to think what a full blown novel would turn out like, but that's the way some CW courses seem to be going these days. Maybe it's with one eye on adapting the novel for the movies, because that's where the big bucks are. There is an old Hollywood adage, though, which says screenwriters make poor novelists, so it's probably best to be a novelist first and a screenwriter second.

I think if you spend any amount of time thinking about story and how it works, there is a general way in which it appeals to human kind. We seem to have an intutive attachment to arc, at least in the western tradition. So I don't think it's a bad thing per se to break stories down in this way, however, I suspect most avid readers and writers hold this system in their DNA. So we're only reminding ourselves of what we already know.

Yes, exactly.

A huge amount as what's sold as talking about structure for stories is actually taling about structure for movies, which is a much tighter form, not least because it's much shorter. And the script for a movie IS only the skeleton: the muscle and sinew and flesh and hair and eyes are all put on by people other than the writer, and the viewer experiences them simultaneously, whereas in a book the reader experiences everything sequentially. This fact, and the fact that the industry is dominated by the super-commercial demands of a Hollywood-ised market to a far greater degree than the equivalent in the book trade, means that plot and structure are a much bigger proportion, it seems to me, of what scriptwriters spend their time worrying about.

But if you want to tackle structure, the really good book is Robert Key's Story.

Emma

<Added>

Crossed with you, Naomi. Ewwww... I hate to think of a CW course making you follow a particularly structure.

Mind you, as a teacher, I know that you can never be sure that a throw-away remark about 'it might be a good idea to try a bit of...' won't be interpreted as the Gospel of all writing.

If only it was a throwaway remark, Emma. The writer refused to make any corrections based on the crit because it went against what they'd been taught on the course.

<Added>

the script for a movie IS only the skeleton

Exactly!

Oh, Naomi, oh lordy...

I had a rant about this stuff here:

http://emmadarwin.typepad.com/thisitchofwriting/2007/12/messes-clones-a.html

Emma

ah yes 'The Rules'.

I was talking to a writing friend recently about the tendancy for some writers - and there's always one in a CW Group, often a middle-aged man (sorry to be sexist, boys) - to want formats they can write to. It seems to me that these tend to go hand in hand with computer programming and the end result is a polifera of these storyfix-style software programs, which include the 'write a novel in 30 days' programs. I expect it works for some people.


- NaomiM

Learning to write is all about getting your intuition and your logic to pull equally in double harness. Left and right brain, if you like, or even male and female?

I must admit, although I completely agree with you about the people who cling to formulae, my heart sinks equally at hearing the writer who 'just writes' 'just pours it out', because their stuff is usually equally awful, in the opposite direction. A bit of stood-back logic and rational thought would do no harm there...

Emma