# Georges Polti and scene writing



## Justin Rocket (Dec 23, 2013)

I've been analyzing Polti's 36 dramatic situations and am thinking that they might be helpful in writing scenes.  My hypothesis is that each scene should have at least one of these dramatic situations.  Can you provide any counter-examples?  Can you provide any examples of a scene having more than one of these Dramatic situations?


----------



## Jeko (Dec 24, 2013)

I believe a writer shouldn't care about this sort of thing until editing, and that every scene _will_ have on of these situations whether the writer likes it or not, to some greater or lesser extent - we're talking structuralism here, aren't we? 

Following that, the writer should have the freedom to use and manipulate these tools as they wish.


----------



## Outiboros (Dec 24, 2013)

Justin Rocket said:


> I've been analyzing Polti's 36 dramatic situations and am thinking that they might be helpful in writing scenes.  My hypothesis is that each scene should have at least one of these dramatic situations.  Can you provide any counter-examples?  Can you provide any examples of a scene having more than one of these Dramatic situations?


Dramatic what? I've never heard of them, and so far my writing's going fine. This isn't chemistry, where the slightest deviation from the rule will mess up the whole. The more you get into this dull meta-discussion, the further you get away from creativity.

I just googled them and, man, do they read like horoscopes. I think it'd be hard to write anything and _not _include one of these.


----------



## Tettsuo (Dec 24, 2013)

Justin Rocket said:


> *I've been analyzing Polti's 36 dramatic situations *and am thinking that they might be helpful in writing scenes.  My hypothesis is that each scene should have at least one of these dramatic situations.  Can you provide any counter-examples?  Can you provide any examples of a scene having more than one of these Dramatic situations?


... why?

Honestly, I don't see why anyone would care to analyzing something that's a given.  There are no new stories.  Every story has been told.  Mr. Polti has put in writing (and taken credit) for something that every writer should already know.

I'm sorry, you're asking a honest question.  I'm just so over these "rules" being tossed around like they're facts and we all should be adhering to them.

I should write a book titled "Protagonist, You Need One" and detail out why every story should include as least one protagonist.


----------



## Sam (Dec 24, 2013)

This is the sort of over-thinking that usually leads to nothing being written at all.


----------



## Morkonan (Dec 24, 2013)

Tettsuo said:


> ...I should write a book titled "Protagonist, You Need One" and detail out why every story should include as least one protagonist.



/win

I predict it would get published by Writer's Digest within five minutes of the submission of the manuscript.


----------



## Jeko (Dec 24, 2013)

> I'm just so over these "rules" being tossed around like they're facts and we all should be adhering to them.



They're not rules - they're the product of literary criticism. It's as far from rules as you can get.


----------



## Jon M (Dec 24, 2013)

Justin Rocket said:


> I've been analyzing Polti's 36 dramatic situations and am thinking that they might be helpful in writing scenes.  My hypothesis is that each scene should have at least one of these dramatic situations.  Can you provide any counter-examples?  Can you provide any examples of a scene having more than one of these Dramatic situations?


It'd be great if you included in your OP some information on Polti and a few examples of dramatic situations. This increases the likelihood of a fruitful discussion, and lowers the chance that threadgoers like myself will gaze stupidly at your OP and wonder aloud, _Durghh, who's Georges Polti?_

Thanks.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Dec 24, 2013)

There are two kinds of writers; pantsers and plotters.  

If you're a pantser, go have fun.  Write all your stuff on the first draft and spend a gazillion hours rewriting it, restructuring it, and doing whatever else you have to do to get it published by a large publisher.

But, not all of us are pantsers.  Those of us who are plotters like to spend time getting the story structured correctly before writing it.  It saves us from those gazillion hours rewriting it and restructuring it after we get to "the End".  For us, if we know what the scene's dramatic conflict, characters, motivations, etc. all are before we write the scene, then we can write the scene in far less time.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Dec 24, 2013)

From my own experience, I have a scene where a character is trying to get a street punk to tell him how to get an antidote for a poison his friend is dying from.  The character and his friend are being hunted by killers and the cops are no use.

I reviewed Polti's list and found a dramatic situation where a character is trying to get a second character to give him something, but a third character wants that item too.

That gave me the idea that, in my story, the character trying to get the street punk to guide him to information may face a situation where someone else wants that antidote as well.    That new contender for the antidote could be anything from a kid trying to get the antidote for their one and only parent or a parent trying to get the antidote for their child or one of the hunters who wants the antidote as well or any number of things.  But, the list is helpful in zeroing in on the dramatic conflict which can be added to a scene.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Dec 24, 2013)

First, there are, in fact, rules to writing good stories.  Try writing a story without conflict.

Second, you seem to be tossing away a -tool- for fear that someone might think it is a -rule-.  

As for whether Polti provided anything new, his contribution isn't in saying that every scene needs dramatic conflict, nor is his contribution in saying that there is nothing new in stories.  His contribution is in enumerating what conflicts are possible.


----------



## Sam (Dec 25, 2013)

Justin Rocket said:


> There are two kinds of writers; pantsers and plotters.
> 
> If you're a pantser, go have fun.  Write all your stuff on the first draft and spend a gazillion hours rewriting it, restructuring it, and doing whatever else you have to do to get it published by a large publisher.
> 
> But, not all of us are pantsers.  Those of us who are plotters like to spend time getting the story structured correctly before writing it.  It saves us from those gazillion hours rewriting it and restructuring it after we get to "the End".  For us, if we know what the scene's dramatic conflict, characters, motivations, etc. all are before we write the scene, then we can write the scene in far less time.



This is the typical ignorance that surrounds seat-of-the-pants writing. It's obvious you don't have the first clue about the topic. I've never spent a gazillion hours editing _any _novel I've ever written. I've self-published two times, been accepted for traditional publishing once, and refused a new contract with the same publisher because they didn't meet my standards. So, please, continue spouting the same nonsense that I've heard a million times before and come back to me when your plotting leads to you being a published author.


----------



## Outiboros (Dec 25, 2013)

Sam said:


> This is the typical ignorance that surrounds seat-of-the-pants writing. It's obvious you don't have the first clue about the topic. I've never spent a gazillion hours editing _any _novel I've ever written. I've self-published two times, been accepted for traditional publishing once, and refused a new contract with the same publisher because they didn't meet my standards. So, please, continue spouting the same nonsense that I've heard a million times before and come back to me when your plotting leads to you being a published author.


Seat-of-the-pants writer here. I found your post very unhelpful. Rather than telling him his approach is wrong, could you explain to me which one's right, in your opinion? Honestly interested.


----------



## Sam (Dec 25, 2013)

Outiboros said:


> Seat-of-the-pants writer here. I found your post very unhelpful. Rather than telling him his approach is wrong, could you explain to me which one's right, in your opinion? Honestly interested.



I never said his approach was wrong. I would never presume to tell anyone how they should write. What irritates me is people who think that pantsers write rubbish that has to be edited a million times. It's a completely bogus myth perpetuated by ignorant writers. 

There is no right way to write. Whatever works best for the individual is what counts.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Dec 25, 2013)

What's the title of the book you wrote which a large publishing house published without major editing (Inpired Quill is a tiny publisher)?  Anyone can self-publish.
For the record, I never said there's anything wrong with the finished work of pantsers (after they've done major editing).  But, if an author does no plotting, then he can't do much foreshadowing.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Dec 25, 2013)

Cadence said:


> I believe a writer shouldn't care about this sort of thing until editing, and that every scene _will_ have on of these situations whether the writer likes it or not, to some greater or lesser extent - we're talking structuralism here, aren't we?
> 
> Following that, the writer should have the freedom to use and manipulate these tools as they wish.





Cadence said:


> They're not rules - they're the product of literary criticism. It's as far from rules as you can get.


Learning from others and a combination of practice is something I find helpful.

I agree with Cadence. I am not convinced  and I don't think people can learn from books since what works for one writer could not work for all. I would just use what inspires the person to practice, and write. What makes them excited to write since that can make a writer very productive. What people say, and  when their feedback is honest they are not wrong, especially good writers. I don't think craft books should be labeled as craft books either but as tools for critiquing. However people should write  constantly about things that they are the most passionate about. 

Practicing is the best advice. 

You can sense what are your strengths and weaknesses.

Therefore I'd try as hard as I can to write the best manuscript.


----------



## Sam (Dec 25, 2013)

Justin Rocket said:


> What's the title of the book you wrote which a large publishing house published without major editing (Inpired Quill is a tiny publisher)?  Anyone can self-publish.
> For the record, I never said there's anything wrong with the finished work of pantsers (after they've done major editing).  But, if an author does no plotting, then he can't do much foreshadowing.



My published book with Inspired Quill had very little editing. I urge you to contact the owner, Sara-Jayne Slack, and query her to that very statement. They are not a vanity press. I sent my work to them as per the same specifications as any publishing house. And please do send me a link to your traditionally published novel while you're at it. 

You've never written by the seat of your pants in your life, yet you seem to be an expert on it. It's patently obvious that you haven't the first clue about pantsing.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Dec 25, 2013)

Sam said:


> My published book with Inspired Quill had very little editing. I urge you to contact the owner, Sara-Jayne Slack, and query her to that very statement. They are not a vanity press. I sent my work to them as per the same specifications as any publishing house. And please do send me a link to your traditionally published novel while you're at it.
> 
> You've never written by the seat of your pants in your life, yet you seem to be an expert on it. It's patently obvious that you haven't the first clue about pantsing.



Inspired Quill is a tiny publisher.  I didn't say it was a vanity press.  If your work had been quality, you would have been able to sell it to a large publisher and make more money.

As I said, I really don't care what authors do to create quality.  I was offering a tool some authors will find helpful.


----------



## Sam (Dec 25, 2013)

Justin Rocket said:


> Inspired Quill is a tiny publisher.  I didn't say it was a vanity press.  If your work had been quality, you would have been able to sell it to a large publisher and make more money.
> 
> As I said, I really don't care what authors do to create quality.  I was offering a tool some authors will find helpful.



And again I ask: Where is your traditionally published novel that has been accepted by a large publisher and with which you have made a large sum of money? You're living in a delusion if you think that quality alone dictates whether you make money. Go ahead and check my reviews on Amazon -- better yet, ask around the site about whether my novel was or was not quality. 

I'm done with this conversation. You're just one of many deluded novices who think that a how-to guide and knowledge of a few dramatic scenes will make them a best-selling writer. Good luck with that.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Dec 25, 2013)

Sam said:


> And again I ask: Where is your traditionally published novel that has been accepted by a large publisher and with which you have made a large sum of money?



You would be justified in asking that question if, like you, I was asserting that there are only certain proscribed ways of writing a novel.

But, I didn't make that assertion.  You did.  Then, you tried to back it up with self-published books and a book from a tiny publisher who doesn't keep even their own website looking professional.




Sam said:


> You're just one of many deluded novices who think that a how-to guide and knowledge of a few dramatic scenes will make them a best-selling writer. Good luck with that.



Of course I never made that claim and I don't believe that, but don't let facts get in your way.


----------



## Terry D (Dec 25, 2013)

Justin Rocket said:


> What's the title of the book you wrote which a large publishing house published without major editing (Inpired Quill is a tiny publisher)?  Anyone can self-publish.
> For the record, I never said there's anything wrong with the finished work of pantsers (after they've done major editing).  But, if an author does no plotting, then he can't do much foreshadowing.




What difference does it make what 'size' a publisher is? Traditional publishing is what it is. Do what works for you, but making blanket statements like assuming that organically written novels require "major editing" and "can't do much foreshadowing" shows a tremendous lack of knowledge about the novel writing process.


----------



## Jeko (Dec 25, 2013)

> _For the record, I never said there's anything wrong with the finished work of pantsers (after they've done major editing). But, if an author does no plotting, then he can't do much foreshadowing._



I'm at a loss, JD, with this and many of your comments in this thread. 

My advice would be to listen to people who know more about the craft than you do, and take advantage of the resources available to you, rather than treat the Writing Discussion sub-forum as a literary boxing ring. As Jon M pointed out, an explanation of the 36 dramatic scenes, or a link to one, in the OP would have helped this discussion greatly. Now I don't know what anyone's supposed to be doing here. Ergo, this-



> I was offering a tool some authors will find helpful.



-is a bare-faced lie. If you were offering a tool for writers, you wouldn't have needed to challenge Sam's publication - it's entirely off-topic.


----------



## Breila (Dec 25, 2013)

Justin Rocket said:


> You would be justified in asking that question if, like you, I was asserting that there are only certain proscribed ways of writing a novel.



Not asserting perhaps, but you are definitely implying that your way is better with this:



> If you're a pantser, go have fun.  Write all your stuff on the first  draft and spend a gazillion hours rewriting it, restructuring it, and  doing whatever else you have to do to get it published by a large  publisher.
> 
> But, not all of us are pantsers.  Those of us who are plotters like to  spend time getting the story structured correctly before writing it.  It  saves us from those gazillion hours rewriting it and restructuring it  after we get to "the End".  For us, if we know what the scene's  dramatic conflict, characters, motivations, etc. all are before we write  the scene, then we can write the scene in far less time.



For whatever it is worth, I'm relatively new to the world of fiction writing but I completely pantsed my way through my master's thesis, made an A on it and was asked to submit it for publication to a major journal. Some of us pantsers do get it right the first time for the most part.


----------



## Jeko (Dec 26, 2013)

BTW, I generally hate the concept of 'plotters' and 'pantsers'. It's like a form of literary segregation. I'm a writer, and I do it my way, like every writer does. Giving me a label only makes me want to limit myself.


----------



## Gavrushka (Dec 26, 2013)

Until I joined this site, I'd little idea of literary terminology, and so felt comfortable with the generic title of  'writer'. Discovering that I can have a more specific label attached didn't alter my writing style, nor did it improve/reduce the quality of the words I write. Practical help and the cumulative experience I've gathered from writing are the only things that change that.

I think this is the thread where I read someone suggesting a particular style of writing is better than another. I had to laugh, and gave my signature a little hug. I think it is the words we write that give our prose value, and not some arbitrary label that some feel the need to assign and then give a value category to as well.


----------



## Tettsuo (Dec 26, 2013)

Gavrushka said:


> I think it is the words we write that give our prose value, and not some arbitrary label that some feel the need to assign and then give a value category to as well.


Agree 100%

All that matters is the work.


----------



## Tettsuo (Dec 26, 2013)

Justin Rocket said:


> First, there are, in fact, rules to writing good stories.  Try writing a story without conflict.
> 
> Second, you seem to be tossing away a -tool- for fear that someone might think it is a -rule-.
> 
> As for whether Polti provided anything new, his contribution isn't in saying that every scene needs dramatic conflict, nor is his contribution in saying that there is nothing new in stories.  His contribution is in enumerating what conflicts are possible.


The only rule to a good story is to write something the audience both understands and enjoys.  If you accomplish this, then nothing else matters.

My question to you is - *If a book follows all of the rules, does that make it a good story?
*


----------



## Jeko (Dec 26, 2013)

> The only rule to a good story is to write something the audience both understands and enjoys.



I'd replace 'enjoys' with 'can/will respond to'. Some stories are more geared towards enlightenment than entertainment.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Dec 26, 2013)

There are rules as to how to use a hammer or a saw.  Does using a hammer according to the rules make someone a good carpenter?


----------



## Gavrushka (Dec 26, 2013)

LOL! You've lost me Justin. I must admit, when I'm a in a creative frame of mind, the last thing on my mind is a rule book. - I think you are arguing against rules? My argument is more positive, and that is just damn well write. - In due course, and after a lot of good kickings, you may just stumble on something special.


----------



## Tettsuo (Dec 26, 2013)

Justin Rocket said:


> There are rules as to how to use a hammer or a saw.  Does using a hammer according to the rules make someone a good carpenter?


To answer your question with a question that you answer my question with...

Does not using the hammer according to the rules make you a bad carpenter?


----------



## Justin Rocket (Dec 26, 2013)

Tettsuo said:


> To answer your question with a question that you answer my question with...
> 
> Does not using the hammer according to the rules make you a bad carpenter?



Yes.  Trying to use a ping hammer as a saw saw makes you a bad carpenter.


----------



## spartan928 (Dec 26, 2013)

If a model, method, example, principle, rule, mentor, or piece of writing helps you to write better and more often then by all means use it and don't listen to what anyone says. Opinions are irrelevent. Producing is the only thing that ultimately matters. If it inspires you to write, whatever the heck "it" is, use it. There are probably thousands of approaches writers have made over history to find the way that works best for them.


----------



## spartan928 (Dec 26, 2013)

Justin Rocket said:


> Yes.  Trying to use a ping hammer as a saw saw makes you a bad carpenter.



A story about a guy trying to saw wood with a hammer is so much more interesting.


----------



## Tettsuo (Dec 26, 2013)

Justin Rocket said:


> Yes.  Trying to use a ping hammer as a saw saw makes you a bad carpenter.


Using a hammer to take out a worn screw does not make someone a bad carpenter.  Although removing screws is not the specified use for a hammer, does not mean it can't be used to do the job, and certain doesn't make you a bad carpenter.


----------



## Gavrushka (Dec 26, 2013)

spartan928 said:


> If a model, method, example, principle, rule, mentor, or piece of writing helps you to write better and more often then by all means use it and don't listen to what anyone says. Opinions are irrelevent. Producing is the only thing that ultimately matters. If it inspires you to write, whatever the heck "it" is, use it. There are probably thousands of approaches writers have made over history to find the way that works best for them.



I agree wholeheartedly.

Now I've been on this site for a little while, I have the inkling of an idea that there are a few people on here that don't write as much as they might. I've a feeling they're talking about methodologies and clinging to ideas when they perhaps should just get on and churn out a couple of thousand words every day. - It's just a feeling, and I could well be wrong, but I see so many threads discussing how other people write, and perhaps even criticising too.


I was blathering on about what I've been up to, but I think I will cut that into a new thread. Let's all get on with a bit of writing. It's what we're all here for, isn't it?


----------



## Justin Rocket (Dec 26, 2013)

Tettsuo said:


> Using a hammer to take out a worn screw does not make someone a bad carpenter.  Although removing screws is not the specified use for a hammer, does not mean it can't be used to do the job, and certain doesn't make you a bad carpenter.



You'd leave a gapping hole in the wood if you tried that with a hammer.  A set of pliars (possibly needle-nose pliars if the head of the screw came off) will get the screw out and twisting metal is a specified use for pliars.  Also, professional carpenters have a specialized drill bit which can get such a screw out as well.


----------



## squidtender (Dec 26, 2013)

Someone get Stephen King on the phone. He's a pantser and if he expects to be successful, then he'd better get his act together!

Use every tool you want, or none at all. There is no right or wrong way. Whether building a house or writing a book, there's only one thing you need . . . 



...I've heard you can get to Carnegie Hall that way, too.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Dec 27, 2013)

squidtender said:


> Someone get Stephen King on the phone. He's a pantser and if he expects to be successful, then he'd better get his act together!



Coming at it from the other end, JK Rowling is a plotter.  

I agree with your main point, though.  Use whatever tools you need and don't let pride stop you from using a tool you need to use.


----------



## Jeko (Dec 27, 2013)

> There are rules as to how to use a hammer or a saw. Does using a hammer according to the rules make someone a good carpenter?



The difference between a hammer and a story is that I can hit you with a hammer, but I can't hit you with a story. 

Know what I mean? A story is not a physical thing - it's art; it's in the head. It's fluid, bordering on organic. Heck, it _is _when it's told to someone, and when we're writing it we're telling it to ourselves. Agreed, sometimes art is like assembling flat-pack furniture, but that's the mechanics of what's underneath - structuralism, shall we say.  Beyond that, it's a wonderful, personal mess, and if you can get a degree in scratching the surface of literary criticism, you can spend a lifetime never working it all out. So it's a bad idea to pretend that things are that simple - things can be modeled, but never let the model mar your perception of the true beauty of the complexity of the art you are investing your life into.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Dec 27, 2013)

Cadence said:


> It's fluid, bordering on organic.



What do you mean by this, exactly?


----------



## Gavrushka (Dec 27, 2013)

Umm, I'd say it means it is a living thing that forms into something slightly different according to who the reader is...

...but that's the awesome quality of prose - we get to interpret to a degree without losing the thread of the story. - Every telling is a variant on the last one.


----------



## Jeko (Dec 27, 2013)

> What do you mean by this, exactly?



Think about it: how every new reader adds a new dimension to your work; how as the world changes, as society alters itself, its perception of your work also modifies; how characters grow for some writers, and grow for some readers, in different ways; the fact that changing one little thing can change everything. 

A story is a most delicate ecosystem, like a plant - a living thing. It's parts are so many, and not just designed to keep it standing, but also to keep it living.


----------



## ppsage (Dec 27, 2013)

From wikipedia:





> *Georges Polti or George Polti (15 December 1867 – June 1946) was a French writer, best-known today for his list of thirty-six dramatic situations.*


not for his fiction, apparently.


----------



## Leyline (Dec 27, 2013)

ppsage said:


> From wikipedia:not for his fiction, apparently.



LOL! Exactly. It reminds me of the 'legendary screenwriting gurus' who have not a single script of distinction to their name.


----------

