Question of how to end the middle Act

kuatolives · Jan 7, 2010

What would be more effective in carrying a narrative:
The novel is structured into 3 Parts.

Proposal A:

Part 1 blah blah protag and love interest get together.
Part 2 ends with the love interest being murdered.
Part 3 begins with the protag being wrongfully accused of it. Blah blah.

Proposal B:

Part 1 blah blah protag and love interest get together.
Part 2 ends with the love interest being murdered AND the protag being wrongfully accused of it.
Part 3 blah blah

The question is what is a better proposal to keep the narrative going with interest? While ending it with the love interest's death is nice and shocking and all that. Boom! She's dead! Oooooo isn't that shocking? But having him accused of the murder in the same breath sort of sets up the final act doesn't it? Both work because the narrative could be carried in A by the question: who killed the love interest? While B works because you get that question plus putting the protag in jeopardy. But if you don't accuse him in the same breath and defer it to Part 3, you have a killer (pun intended) intro to Part 3.

Suggestions?

alleycat · Jan 7, 2010

I don't see as much difference in the two ideas as you do. You've following a classic pattern in that the worst possible thing happens near the end of Act II (the death of the love interest), but whether the protagonists is immediately accused, or accused a few pages later doesn't matter as much as the protagonist finding out who the killer is, and why the love interest was killed. That's the questions that will be set up as soon as the love interest is killed. I think most reader will assume this will now become the protagonist's quest, whether he's accused of the murder or not. Just being considered as a possible suspect will complicate his reaching his goal; he will be trying to find the real killer, while having to defend himself.

Here's one alternate (of many possible ones): The love interest is almost killed at the end of Act II (perhaps in some particularly horrible way). It could be that someone else is killed by mistake, say, a friend of the love interest. There has been some implications along the way that the protagonist isn't completely who he says he is. Now many think he's the one who tried to kill the love interest (including the love interest). Now he has a great motive to find the killer: to win back his lover, to clear his name, and to save the lover from being killed in the future (he might be the only one who knows for sure that the real killer is still at large; the police are only looking at him--now he has to find the killer himself, and quickly before the killer acts again). This would allow for a somewhat happier ending (a lot happier for the love interest).

EclipsesMuse · Jan 7, 2010

I don't see how it would make much of a difference. #2 might give the character less of a chance to process his love interests death.

Also, what POV is it in? Depending on the POV you may be able to convince the reader that you protag is the killer, or assailant with alleycat's idea. At least for a little while.

Joe Moore · Jan 8, 2010

You might be starting in the wrong place. I would suggest beginning with the murder and false accusation, then reveal the relationship as the protag races or is on the run to prove his/her innocence.

kuwisdelu · Jan 8, 2010

I prefer A.

But that's just me.

Danthia · Jan 8, 2010

I like B because something bad happens (the murder) and it negatively affects your protag (the accusation) and gives narrative drive to the third act. It's a subtle difference, but it gives the third act a goal to solve and will probably tighten the story up a little better.

I think the accusation would work better as an ender than an intro, because it puts your protag in serious jeopardy before the reader has a chance to end the chapter and set the book aside. Wanting to see how he gets out of this problem would likely keep them reading, while just having the murder could go either way. Odds are the reader knows it's a murder mystery or thriller when they pick up the book, so the murder won't be a big shock to them (assuming this is what the book is about and this isn't just a side plot).

That is one thing to think about. What info does the reader know about going into the book? What do they know from the cover copy? That'll help you know what would be a shock and what is expected and which would hook the best.

kuwisdelu · Jan 8, 2010

I think a murder is more than strong enough to end a second act.

The accusation, I think, is a great way to start and pull the reader into the third act with a bang.

bearilou · Jan 8, 2010

Echoing the B votes.

edit: Upon further reflection, why not kill her at the end of Part One and spend Part Two with your MC trying to dig his way out of it. The end of Part Two being where he hits the lowest of the low (whether in respect to maybe...say...doubting his own innocence, or everyone around him doubting it...) and then Part Three is where he crawls out from under it and proves he didn't/proves who did.

I suppose it depends on the type of story you're trying to tell.

James D. Macdonald · Jan 8, 2010

There isn't that bright a line dividing acts in a novel as there is in a stage play.

The curtain doesn't come down and the audience doesn't retire to the lobby to buy refreshments and discuss The Story So Far while stagehands change the scenery.

Jamesaritchie · Jan 8, 2010

I don't even think of novels as having three acts. I just want to tell a coherent story that begins on page one, ends on page last, and flows along smoothly through the intervening pages.

lucidzfl · Jan 8, 2010

Yeah this is the last thing I'd worry about.

job · Jan 8, 2010

Joe Moore said:
You might be starting in the wrong place. I would suggest beginning with the murder and false accusation, then reveal the relationship as the protag races or is on the run to prove his/her innocence.

What the man said.

lucidzfl · Jan 8, 2010

job said:
What the man said.

I've decided I'm never going to tell anyone to start their story at a different point.

I feel it's presumptuous. In addition, that should be feedback that a reader, of the entire MS, should give. Not someone who reads three bi-lines describing the story.

Lady Ice · Jan 8, 2010

I'd say B. Don't get too hung up on Acts- you aren't writing a stage play. The action is continuous.

But for the record:

Act 1 is Exposition- introducing us to the characters and locations and setting up a possible onflict

Act 2 is Conflict. Naturally Act 2 is the longest, hence why I think the murder should come near the end of Act 2 and the accusation should end Act 2

Act 3 is Resolution. Basically winding your story down and ending it, resolving the conflict.

job · Jan 8, 2010

lucidzfl said:
I've decided I'm never going to tell anyone to start their story at a different point.
I feel it's presumptuous. In addition, that should be feedback that a reader, of the entire MS, should give. Not someone who reads three bi-lines describing the story.

I give writers advice on many topics, including where to start their story.
I do not think it is presumptuous to give advice that has been requested in a forum devoted to the giving and receiving of just such advice.

The fiat that one must complete a readable manuscript draft before requesting advice on plot structure strikes me as just odd. Is that really what you meant?

lucidzfl · Jan 8, 2010

job said:
I give writers advice on many topics, including where to start their story.
Sometimes, they pay money for this advice.

I do not think it is presumptuous to give advice that has been requested in a forum devoted to the giving and receiving of just such advice.

The fiat that one must complete a readable manuscript draft before requesting advice on plot structure strikes me as just odd. Is that really what you meant?

The "structural advice" you provided fell outside of the two options the poster was considering. They said, "end act 2 this way, or start act 3 this way"

You said "Throw away act 1 and 2."

job · Jan 8, 2010

lucidzfl said:
The "structural advice" you provided fell outside of the two options the poster was considering. They said, "end act 2 this way, or start act 3 this way"

You said "Throw away act 1 and 2."

Almost right.
My advice is actually, "Seriously consider that you may be starting the story in the wrong place."

Many times when someone is hesitating between two alternatives, it's because neither of them is right.

Starting the manuscript before the action of the core story is one of the most common mistakes people make with early manuscripts. I did a blog on 'Beginnings' back in . . . riffle riffle riffle . . . May, here, in which I suggest writers routinely check the first draft to see whether Chapter Four should be their starting chapter.

I would listen carefully to a complaint from the O.P. and be sorry for any unintentional offense I cause him or her by adding useless and possibly confusing comment and advice.

However, you seem to be instructing me to limit my posts to a strict construction of the questions asked. This seems ... may I use your own word? ... presumptuous.

Feathers · Jan 8, 2010

I like A, but only because I can see it has somewhere to go; I sense the mystery coming together, and would be ready to jump into the climax from this point and see where it all goes. Option B doesn't flow so naturally for me.

However, I think in the context of the story, these two options are so close in wordcount that no one will notice the difference.

Swordswoman · Jan 8, 2010

Excellent question, and I wish someone had asked it six months ago when I was wrestling with just this problem.

I went with A, and ended on horror, saving the turning point for Part 3. Yes, it gave me a good kick-start into part 3, but the narrative drive was pants, and smelly ones at that. Now I'm going back and doing it right - or at least what is right for me.

It's absolutely right to say Act divisions don't matter as much in a novel as a play, because all the reader has to do is turn a page rather than wander off, queue for 20 minutes outside the loos, drink champagne, eat a sandwich and wander back in - preferably not all simultaneously. But in terms of narrative drive it matters a lot, and affects the way in which you write the whole of Part 3.

What's right for you depends on the shape of your story, and how you see part 3 driving to resolution. If your Part 3 is concerned with the MC needing to clear his name, then the accusation is the end of part 3. If your Part 3 is concerned with his grief at the loss of the love interest, then the death is the end of part 2. If, of course, your Part 3 is only concerned with more angst-on-angst then either of these endings will do. You may not have the greatest of novels, but at least you don't need to worry about Act breaks.

Basically I'm with Lady Ice, and think Part 3 is about Resolution. Only you know what your resolution is going to be, so only you can answer this question. Even then, it's sometimes hard to know whether you end on the trigger to resolution or at least the decision to move towards it, and I suggest you have a look at books or films closest to your own style to see what works best for you.

Going for the simplest possible example, I'd opt for the original 'Destry Rides Again' (if only because I love it so much!). Which for you is the end of Part 2 - when the loveable sherriff is gunned down and Destry realizes his peace-loving gunlessness simply isn't working, or the moment he crosses the street, climbs those stairs, opens the cupboard and gets out his gun? There are only 5 seconds between them, but for me it's the latter, because the final image tells the viewer/reader exactly what to expect from part 3 and makes them turn that page with trembling fingers because they can't wait to see it.

That works for me and my style, but may not work for you. Only you know your style and what you're trying to achieve, but I hope at least this helps clarify the issue.

Louise

lucidzfl · Jan 8, 2010

job said:
Almost right.
My advice is actually, "Seriously consider that you may be starting the story in the wrong place."

Many times when someone is hesitating between two alternatives, it's because neither of them is right.

Starting the manuscript before the action of the core story is one of the most common mistakes people make with early manuscripts. I did a blog on 'Beginnings' back in . . . riffle riffle riffle . . . May, here, in which I suggest writers routinely check the first draft to see whether Chapter Four should be their starting chapter.

I would listen carefully to a complaint from the O.P. and be sorry for any unintentional offense I cause him or her by adding useless and possibly confusing comment and advice.

However, you seem to be instructing me to limit my posts to a strict construction of the questions asked. This seems ... may I use your own word? ... presumptuous.

I simply said "I" wouldn't tell anyone when to start their story.

ETA: Unless it was specifically the question being asked. (Which in this case, it was not)

kuwisdelu · Jan 8, 2010

James D. Macdonald said:
There isn't that bright a line dividing acts in a novel as there is in a stage play.

The curtain doesn't come down and the audience doesn't retire to the lobby to buy refreshments and discuss The Story So Far while stagehands change the scenery.

Crap.

You mean I should take out that paragraph instructing the reader to go make himself a sandwich and use the potty while the narrator angst, navel-gazes, and takes a nap for the next three pages and then come back when he's done?

kuatolives · Jan 8, 2010

Swordswoman said:
Excellent question, and I wish someone had asked it six months ago when I was wrestling with just this problem.

I went with A, and ended on horror, saving the turning point for Part 3. Yes, it gave me a good kick-start into part 3, but the narrative drive was pants, and smelly ones at that. Now I'm going back and doing it right - or at least what is right for me.

It's absolutely right to say Act divisions don't matter as much in a novel as a play, because all the reader has to do is turn a page rather than wander off, queue for 20 minutes outside the loos, drink champagne, eat a sandwich and wander back in - preferably not all simultaneously. But in terms of narrative drive it matters a lot, and affects the way in which you write the whole of Part 3.

What's right for you depends on the shape of your story, and how you see part 3 driving to resolution. If your Part 3 is concerned with the MC needing to clear his name, then the accusation is the end of part 3. If your Part 3 is concerned with his grief at the loss of the love interest, then the death is the end of part 2. If, of course, your Part 3 is only concerned with more angst-on-angst then either of these endings will do. You may not have the greatest of novels, but at least you don't need to worry about Act breaks.

Basically I'm with Lady Ice, and think Part 3 is about Resolution. Only you know what your resolution is going to be, so only you can answer this question. Even then, it's sometimes hard to know whether you end on the trigger to resolution or at least the decision to move towards it, and I suggest you have a look at books or films closest to your own style to see what works best for you.

Going for the simplest possible example, I'd opt for the original 'Destry Rides Again' (if only because I love it so much!). Which for you is the end of Part 2 - when the loveable sherriff is gunned down and Destry realizes his peace-loving gunlessness simply isn't working, or the moment he crosses the street, climbs those stairs, opens the cupboard and gets out his gun? There are only 5 seconds between them, but for me it's the latter, because the final image tells the viewer/reader exactly what to expect from part 3 and makes them turn that page with trembling fingers because they can't wait to see it.

That works for me and my style, but may not work for you. Only you know your style and what you're trying to achieve, but I hope at least this helps clarify the issue.

Louise

Great points all but I'll comment on this one. To be clear the novel reads the same both ways in terms of text. It's just the placement of that one critical scene. (End of Act 2 or beginning of Act 3)

*A note on the Acts. My novel is ABOUT a stage play not coincidentally so that's why its organized into acts like it is. A tad gimmicky perhaps but what can you do.

I like what you've said but I think for this character its about the death, not the revenge bit. My character could care less if he clears his name. In fact he's ready to ride on his horse out of town and never look back after getting drunk and sulking for a bit. He does decide to come back eventually and find out who killed her, but he has to be convinced to do so. It's not that 'I'm gonna get you bastards' and reaches for the gun and then you know what to expect from Act 3.

It's more like 'ahhh she's dead boo hoo me woe is me I hate life and if I'm still alive tomorrow then maybe I'll care' type thing. So by this logic the DEATH of the love interest is the defining moment of the act, therefore should be its termination. But I'll think on it some more. It's just a matter of cutting and pasting a few pages of text here or there, but it does make a big difference.

job · Jan 8, 2010

lucidzfl said:
I simply said "I" wouldn't tell anyone when to start their story..

Ah. You were merely talking about your own state of mind. You were not speaking generally.

I misunderstood entirely.

lucidzfl · Jan 8, 2010

job said:
I give writers advice on many topics, including where to start their story.
I do not think it is presumptuous to give advice that has been requested in a forum devoted to the giving and receiving of just such advice.

The fiat that one must complete a readable manuscript draft before requesting advice on plot structure strikes me as just odd. Is that really what you meant?

Would you have told Shakespeare to start "Romeo and Juliet" at the part where he finds out Juliet is dead, since that's where his "conflict" starts?

Because that's essentially what you've advised this person to do.

I see a lot of people advise others to cut off the start of their story. And while yes, a lot of times people start with info dump, back story, or other tripe that should be cut from the book and interspersed in, this site gets so VERY entrenched in the "rookie mistakes" that it becomes the default advice to "start the story later" and the ever fucking helpful "If it works it works."

To whit. Those two pieces of advice are in diametric opposition.

Swordswoman · Jan 8, 2010

kuatolives said:
It's more like 'ahhh she's dead boo hoo me woe is me I hate life and if I'm still alive tomorrow then maybe I'll care' type thing. So by this logic the DEATH of the love interest is the defining moment of the act, therefore should be its termination. But I'll think on it some more. It's just a matter of cutting and pasting a few pages of text here or there, but it does make a big difference.

In that case, yes, I'd say you're absolutely right to end at that point.

The other advantage of it is that wonderful, wonderful aspect of Act breaks that enables you to pass time. Straight after a death is when you usually need to do precisely that, in order not to get bogged down in endless practical details. The accusation does require minute-by-minute updates of what happens, but grief doesn't.

And no, your structure doesn't sound gimmicky to me - or not in a bad way. It sounds like something I'd like to read...

Louise

Question of how to end the middle Act

Gonzo Journalist

Still around

Questing

Revolutionize the World

Danthia

Revolutionize the World

DenturePunk writer

Your Genial Uncle

Back from the dead

In the end, it's just you and the manuscript

Back from the dead

Makes useful distinctions

In the end, it's just you and the manuscript

Back from the dead

In the end, it's just you and the manuscript

emerging from the writing cave

Resilient and kind

Back from the dead

Revolutionize the World

Gonzo Journalist

In the end, it's just you and the manuscript

Back from the dead

Resilient and kind