# "To Three (Act Structure), or Not to Three?" - Shakespeare (kinda)



## Kyle R (Feb 16, 2012)

What are your thoughts on Aristotle's Three Act structure for storytelling?

View attachment 2704


I'm actually plotting a novel right now using it. Interestingly though, as I was researching it, I discovered an argument that the Three Act structure is antiquated, in favor of such advances as the "Four Act Structure", 

View attachment 2705

the five act structure (Shakespeare),

View attachment 2706

the seven step structure (Syd Field's added "Pinches"),







and even the 22 step structure (Jon Truby's book). It's certainly enough to make one's head spin.

And then you have the liberal authors and writing coaches who rename the parts of the structure (doorways, journey points) and reshape it from a linear progression into pyramids, circles, and even rising and falling mountain ranges.

Then, you have the freestyle writers who argue that true storytelling is organic and defies organization.

Everyone, it seems, swears by their method (or non-method) for constructing a storyline.

I caught Suzanne Collins (author of The Hunger Games) speaking about all this in her writing process:

_"It helps me to work out key structural points before I begin a story:  the inciting incident, act breaks, mid-story reversal, crisis, climax,  those sorts of things. I know a lot of what fills in the spaces between them as well, but I leave some uncharted room for the characters to  develop, and, if a door opens along the way and I’m intrigued by where  it leads, I’ll definitely go through it.”

_And then you have the great Ray Bradbury, who put the counter-argument (of simply writing without structure or planning) quite simply:

_"Your intuition knows what to write, so get out of the way."

_So now we have a _Crisis _in this post, two conflicting approaches preparing to clash. I suppose that puts us in _Act Three (or Four, or Seventy-Billion): Climax and Resolution_.

That's where you come in to set the record straight.


----------



## Rustgold (Feb 16, 2012)

> Invalid Attachment specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator


----------



## Terry D (Feb 16, 2012)

Great topic, Kyle.  This one should have legs.

Ultimately, I think the discussion will distill down to the same conclusion, or non-conclusion, that most issues of technique do -- "Whatever works for you."  I've spent more than 30 years reading books and magazines on writing fiction, soaking up all the advice on character development, plotting, voice, POV, and structure.  But when it comes to actually sitting down and putting the words on paper (see, there use to be these things called typewriters which you put a piece of paper into . . . well never mind, that's another thread) I just can't bring myself to conform to formal tools.  I am in the Bradbury camp -- not surprisingly, as he was one of the authors who most influenced my decision to write.  I write by ear, so to speak, if what I am writing sounds right in my head, then I trust it.  I think of structure in terms of flow -- if the story is flowing right, if the pace and the rhythm _feel_ right, if they fit the mood I'm trying to capture, then I'm happy with it.  I'm sure I could sit down afterward and dissect the story, or book and find that it fits one of the prescribed structures, but I can't tell you what the hell it is -- I'm just trying to tell a story.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Feb 16, 2012)

I loosely follow the five-act dramatic structure (exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, catastrophe), simply because it works for my story.  I have a point I'm trying to make (climax), but a lot of stuff needs to happen for me to get there (exposition, rising action).  Once I'm there, I need to detail the reactions and regression of the characters (falling action, catastrophe).

The story starts with one character who doesn't know anything about the world he's in.  It ends with everyone dead.  Things just seem cleanest that way, and that plotting makes my story a perfect candidate for the five-act structure.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Feb 16, 2012)

What's structure? My life has no structure, so why would I expect my fiction to?


----------



## Kyle R (Feb 16, 2012)

Rustgold said:
			
		

> Invalid Attachment specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator



Fixed (I think).



			
				Terry D said:
			
		

> I think of structure in terms of flow -- if the story is flowing right, if the pace and the rhythm _feel_ right, if they fit the mood I'm trying to capture, then I'm happy with it.  I'm sure I could sit down afterward and dissect the story, or book and find that it fits one of the prescribed structures, but I can't tell you what the hell it is -- I'm just trying to tell a story.



That's a good approach. Do you consider things such as "protagonist" and "antagonist" and "goal" and "conflict", or are you purely a right-brain storyteller? I'm writing a journey/adventure story but I keep getting hung up on the advice of writing coaches telling me "You need to have an opponent, or an antagonist, whose goal directly opposes the hero." And I'm left thinking, "Well.. does Life or The Great Wide World count as an antagonist?" and of course the responses I get are "No! A specific individual is the best opponent to have. This way the antagonist moves through his own character arc and may even become an ally against a greater foe (Think Darth Vader). A non-entity antagonist leads to episodic (and therefore weak) storytelling."

And then my brain explodes. My story is resisting the structure. Normally I'd say "To heck with it, I'm going to write what I want to write." but I keep pausing and rubbing my chin and saying "hmm" as I see the words thrown back at me, "Go ahead, but that just puts you in with the rest of the amateurs who are _doing it wrong._" and "Leaving out certain components will result a forgettable story that fails to realize it's true potential."

Ultimately I trust in my story over some arbitrary rules, but such rules are hard to ignore when the claims against following them are so authoritative and absolute.



			
				Gamer_2k4 said:
			
		

> The story starts with one character who doesn't know anything about the world he's in.  It ends with everyone dead.  Things just seem cleanest that way, and that plotting makes my story a perfect candidate for the five-act structure.



Sounds like quite a story! Is this your Sci-Fi one?



			
				Bloggsworth said:
			
		

> What's structure? My life has no structure, so why would I expect my fiction to?



That's a pretty good philosophy.

The argument that's been presented to me is that certain structures affect and move readers better than others. I pointed out to a friend the formula that Disney movies follow, and you can pretty much count the beats in each one (annd.. introduce the playful sidekick.. now the enemy becomes an ally! here comes the big reveal!) and while one could argue it's formulaic.. it also works well. People love Disney movies (well, some people), because it moves them through a satisfying emotional progression.


----------



## kevinbgwrites (Feb 16, 2012)

I think if you grip too tightly to structure you can make a book cliche.

I'm writing a multiple POV story, and while some acts definitely follow the 3/4 act structure, overall they don't, nor do they reach a true resolution as it is only book one(though they still have their climaxes).

As a whole I don't know what my current work falls under, perhaps shakespeares, with the failing action coming aft the climax before the books resolution.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Feb 16, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> Do you consider things such as "protagonist" and "antagonist" and "goal" and "conflict", or are you purely a right-brain storyteller? I'm writing a journey/adventure story but I keep getting hung up on the advice of writing coaches telling me "You need to have an opponent, or an antagonist, whose goal directly opposes the hero." And I'm left thinking, "Well.. does Life or The Great Wide World count as an antagonist?" and of course the responses I get are "No! A specific individual is the best opponent to have. This way the antagonist moves through his own character arc and may even become an ally against a greater foe (Think Darth Vader). A non-entity antagonist leads to episodic (and therefore weak) storytelling."



I think the more you structure yourself, the more you hinder yourself.  Guidelines are there to be guidelines, to prevent stories from being plotted like the average dream (that is to say, chaotically).  However, if you stick to formula and never stray from that, your story will never be as good as it could be.  It'll be cliche instead of original.  Yes, it's easier to make a good cliche story than a good original one, but that's not the point of writing, is it?



KyleColorado said:


> Sounds like quite a story! Is this your Sci-Fi one?



It is indeed.  And when I wrote it, I didn't think "It must have three protagonists and two antagonists and a new conflict every three chapters" or anything like that.  No one directly opposes the "hero" except the plot itself.  He's in a war.  Bad stuff happens because it's war.  He grows and develops (and regresses and crumbles) as a result.  He doesn't have a goal besides survival.

In fact, one of the main purposes of this book was to not make it goal-driven.  No character really drives the plot.  There is no quest to fulfill.  There is no hidden power to find.  There is no single enemy to defeat.  The point of the story is character development, pure and simple.  There are so many twists and turns and ups and downs that I have trouble saying, "Here is conflict #1, here is conflict #2."  EVERYTHING affects the protagonist; it wouldn't be in the story if it didn't.

And honestly, I think that approach does wonders for pacing.  I don't have to cram in filler between distinct conflicts.  Everything happens for a reason, and because of that, the story never grows dull.  The book will have 200,000 words when it's finished, and it doesn't drag one bit.  I'm actually worried about editing because I don't know what I can possibly remove.

So, in short, don't listen to the "experts."  The reason people suggest structure is because that's the surest way to a comprehensible story.  A truly good story, however, doesn't need such a concrete format.


----------



## Terry D (Feb 17, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> Fixed (I think).
> 
> 
> 
> That's a good approach. Do you consider things such as "protagonist" and "antagonist" and "goal" and "conflict", or are you purely a right-brain storyteller?


 
I'm pretty much a right-brained storyteller, but I recognize all the elements as I write them.  In my current WIP I came up with the idea for the story thinking I knew who the protagonist was going to be, but now I realize (101,000 words in) I have three possible protagonists.  As this draft is sitting now there is one clear protagonist, but it won't take much re-writing to shift to either of the others.  That's a left-brained decision I'll have to make once this draft is done.  Being an engineer/manager by trade I am very use to left-brained thinking and I indulge that in the second draft.  That's where I recognize flaws in my structure and pacing, but by then my right-brain has already done the bulk of its work.



> I'm writing a journey/adventure story but I keep getting hung up on the advice of writing coaches telling me "You need to have an opponent, or an antagonist, whose goal directly opposes the hero." And I'm left thinking, "Well.. does Life or The Great Wide World count as an antagonist?" and of course the responses I get are "No! A specific individual is the best opponent to have. This way the antagonist moves through his own character arc and may even become an ally against a greater foe (Think Darth Vader). A non-entity antagonist leads to episodic (and therefore weak) storytelling."



Beware of those who dispense advice for the masses.  They probably would have told Melville it was a bad idea to use a whale as his antagonist. 



> And then my brain explodes. My story is resisting the structure. Normally I'd say "To heck with it, I'm going to write what I want to write." but I keep pausing and rubbing my chin and saying "hmm" as I see the words thrown back at me, "Go ahead, but that just puts you in with the rest of the amateurs who are _doing it wrong._" and "Leaving out certain components will result a forgettable story that fails to realize it's true potential."



Do you read a lot?  Have you always read a lot?  If yes, then the entirety of what you need to know about good storytelling is already in your head.  You've been taught structure by the masters.  If what _you_ write doesn't work, in your head it will sound like a lead bell.  If it does work, you'll re-read it and smile knowing you nailed it.



> Ultimately I trust in my story over some arbitrary rules, but such rules are hard to ignore when the claims against following them are so authoritative and absolute.



Don't ignore them.  Understand them, look at your work in their light and then decide if you want to apply them to your story, or not.  Writing is as much about knowing when to break the 'rules' (and why you are breaking them) as it is in applying those rules.  I don't think I could write anything worth reading if I tried to abide by all the rules, but I know I couldn't write anything worth reading if I didn't understand them and apply them when needed.




> The argument that's been presented to me is that certain structures affect and move readers better than others. I pointed out to a friend the formula that Disney movies follow, and you can pretty much count the beats in each one (annd.. introduce the playful sidekick.. now the enemy becomes an ally! here comes the big reveal!) and while one could argue it's formulaic.. it also works well. People love Disney movies (well, some people), because it moves them through a satisfying emotional progression.



Many writers have made a good life by writing to a formula, and there is nothing wrong with that.  Some have started that way and then moved on to a more individual style (the mystery writer Lawrence Block comes to mind, he started out writing soft-core porn novels at the rate of about two per month, but eventually he became a top selling crime novelist [and an excellent writing teacher]).  But no one will ever consider formula writing great writing.  If you want to read some great writing which shatters tons of rules try Cormac Mcarthy's _The Road.  _I bet he can tell you exactly why he broke every one.


----------



## Rustgold (Feb 17, 2012)

I think act structure is more of a way of describing the constructional arrangement of your particular novel.

For instance, you could have.

1: First Incident.
2: Rising Action.
3: False Climax/Climax one.
4: Failing Action/Initial Resolution.
5: Crises/Tragedy.
6: Point of No Return/Recovery.
7: Rising Action.
8: Climax two.
9: Resolution.

And declare that as the new formula.  You could even throw in another rising action & crises in for the sake of it, but it'll be no more of a magical formula than any other.

I think all of this magical act structure formula seeking is a load of hogwash.  There's no magical act structure for perfect book construction, and people are wasting their time trying to create such a formula.  There's many guidelines which help to improve one's writing, not this isn't on of them.

Btw: If anybody wanted to do a cheap quality formula for a easier buck, you'd remake Romeo & Juliet's formula in a different setting (Twilight anybody).


----------



## QDOS (Feb 17, 2012)

Hi, I probably use, but don’t get hung up on the three acts...   [FONT=&Verdana]

The early chapters/scenes lay down the background to the storyline, introduce the principal Characters and includes the life changing *Inciting Incident*_._ Which may happen right at the opening or be several chapters in?* Progressive Complications* introduce increasing difficult crises each stretching the reader’s imagination as to what is eventually going to happen. Followed by *Crisis, Climax and Resolution*, fulfilling the quest and revealing the ultimate meaning.[/FONT]    [FONT=&Verdana]

Having ideas I just write them down and start to arrange them in some sort of order. Having some structure helps identify more clearly those missing elements. I avoid being overly organised as it might kill off the desire to actually write the story.  [/FONT]    I do try writing that one-sentence summary, two or three words describing the main Character (not their name a pseudonym of sorts), then the Inciting Incident, that creates the implication to what might occur.  I invest some time on my principle characters – starting with a name and a short characterisation of their specific motivations, aims, conflict and traits. I try to create a simple shopping list of events, which I add to as I progress.     [FONT=&Verdana]

Being able to write a scene that engages the reader with a powerful emotional experience can be a daunting objective. However, in developing a scene structure, I feel better positioned to achieve this desired result. So to me the smaller steps of an *Event* which has an aim, creating conflict against change, and expressed in a *Value* of emotional reaction, a dilemma of choices in which your character has to make a decision is what counts.

[/FONT]    [FONT=&Verdana]However, if you want to be fanatical you can break this down into even smaller units. This consists of a succession of related *Beats* that develop the given *Event/Value* of a scene. Where a characters *Motivation* is separate from their *Response *with multiple paragraphs covering a single motivation or single response, but not to mix them in the same paragraph. Each *Motivation* external and objective. Each *Response *being internal and subjective, but compliant with the Characterisation of your Viewpoint Character.
 [/FONT]    *[FONT=&Verdana]
Event [/FONT]*- _Aim, Conflict, Disaster_ *[FONT=&Verdana]
Value[/FONT]* - _Reaction, Dilemma, Decision_ *[FONT=&Verdana]
Motivation[/FONT]* – _External and Objective - See, Touch, Smell, Taste_ *[FONT=&Verdana]
Response [/FONT]*– _Internal and Subjective - Feeling, Reflex, Rational Action _ _[FONT=&Verdana]

Read more, write more, develop your skills, not your kills. Just get the damn story written!!! [/FONT]_ *[FONT=&Verdana]

QDOS[/FONT]*:read:


----------



## Kyle R (Feb 17, 2012)

double post


----------



## Kyle R (Feb 17, 2012)

QDOS said:
			
		

> However, if you want to be fanatical you can break this down into even smaller units. This consists of a succession of related *Beats* that develop the given *Event/Value* of a scene. Where a characters *Motivation* is separate from their *Response *with multiple paragraphs covering a single motivation or single response, but not to mix them in the same paragraph. Each *Motivation* external and objective. Each *Response *being internal and subjective, but compliant with the Characterisation of your Viewpoint Character.
> *
> Event *- _Aim, Conflict, Disaster_*
> Value* - _Reaction, Dilemma, Decision_*
> ...



Right, I was taught the same thing, though with slightly different terms.

*Scene: *Goal, Conflict, Disaster*
Sequel:* Reaction, Dilemma, Decision
and the process repeats until the section or chapter is concluded.

And the smaller scale MRU's (Motivation Reaction Units)

*Motivation:* Events external to character*
Reaction:* Character response (Thought/Feeling, Action, Speech)
and the process repeats until the scene is concluded

It's fun to see another creating writing mechanics student!



			
				QDOS said:
			
		

> _Just get the damn story written!!!_


Amen to that.



			
				Terry D said:
			
		

> If what _you_ write doesn't work, in your head it will sound like a lead bell.  If it does work, you'll re-read it and smile knowing you nailed it.


I like this philosophy. Trust in one's own judgement. It's a good motto to write (and perhaps live) by.



			
				Rustgold said:
			
		

> Btw: If anybody wanted to do a cheap quality formula for a easier buck, you'd remake Romeo & Juliet's formula in a different setting (Twilight anybody).



The Twilight series made Stephanie Meyer a multi-millionaire. :shock: *rushes to the library to study Shakespeare* haha


----------



## Newman (Mar 20, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> I'm writing a journey/adventure story but I keep getting hung up on the advice of writing coaches telling me "You need to have an opponent, or an antagonist, whose goal directly opposes the hero." And I'm left thinking, "Well.. does Life or The Great Wide World count as an antagonist?" and of course the responses I get are "No! A specific individual is the best opponent to have. This way the antagonist moves through his own character arc and may even become an ally against a greater foe (Think Darth Vader). A non-entity antagonist leads to episodic (and therefore weak) storytelling."



Either that person was trying to get newbies to get used to writing stories or he only half knew what he was talking about.

The ride is never smooth. There's always a rub. In that sense, there is always antagonism.

But can the rub come from Life or The Great Wide World? Of course it can.


----------

