Contradictions -- Pacing or Hook?

1. Write in Acts, typically three, each of about the same size.
2. An Act break is when something dramatic happens that changes the narrative forever.
3. Put your best dramatic event at the very beginning to hook the reader.
4. Find the first exciting thing in your story and cut everything before it.

I've never paid much attention to structuring my stories into Acts. They seem to work themselves out with a beginning, middle and an end, but the "Acts" are definitely not the same size, and I don't believe they should be.

When you get down to number 3 in you list, I've never heard anyone say "Put your best dramatic event at the very beginning..." The advice I've heard is "Start with action to hook the reader. This is similar to what you heard in number 4.

I believe what number 4 is trying to tell you, is don't start with a lot of backstory and description. Start with some action or at least some intrigue.

Number 2 could be true, but again, I don't pay a lot of attention to Acts and where they start and stop.

Just curious - what text did that advice come from? It sounds very structured and most fiction writing is more loosely constructed these days. Not saying you shouldn't know the "rules" per se, but I don't exactly follow Jack Bickham (or others) advice as to the way I structure every scene in a book. For me, pacing is key. If setup or backstory kill pacing, then figure out a way to make it stop. As for hooks, if each scene is doing its job, which is promoting more than one aspect of the book - say providing a clue, introducing a new character, etc. - then the reader is hooked because the motion is forward. It's when scene seems to do little or nothing that you have to give the reader a reason to want to continue.

Your story can be made up of any number of scenes.

Your scenes can stand alone as chapters or scenes can be combined to form chapters.

There is no minimum or maximum number of chapters.

There is no minimum or maximum length for scenes or chapters.

Scenes and chapters can be organized into "acts" but there is no requirement to do so, or to have a specific number of them or to have them about the same length. Tell the story in the best way possible for the reader.

The beginning of the story should make the reader care about the main character, or characters, and have enough intrigue or interest to make the reader want to keep reading. It doesn't have to involve explosions, car chases, emotional melt-downs, sex, or any other overt smack-the-reader-in-the-face action.

Backstory and info dumps, or other ways to get the reader up to speed for what is going to happen, are generally poor ways to start a story (but can work for some writers).

Pacing and hooks are two very different things although they can play off one another or contribute to one another.

An author should write for the readers, not for him/herself.

I don't agree with any of those. I'm closest to agreeing with 4.

Given that your best dramatic event is (you should hope) something that arises from the characters, world and story you've built, how could it ever come first? You need a sharp opening, but that bit of advice seems to take it to an extreme. And, like others have said, I've never even heard of structuring a novel in acts -- not to say you couldn't, but that sounds more Syd Field/screenwriting to me.

NeuroFizz said:

Your story can be made up of any number of scenes.

Your scenes can stand alone as chapters or scenes can be combined to form chapters.

There is no minimum or maximum number of chapters.

There is no minimum or maximum length for scenes or chapters.

Scenes and chapters can be organized into "acts" but there is no requirement to do so, or to have a specific number of them or to have them about the same length. Tell the story in the best way possible for the reader.

The beginning of the story should make the reader care about the main character, or characters, and have enough intrigue or interest to make the reader want to keep reading. It doesn't have to involve explosions, car chases, emotional melt-downs, sex, or any other overt smack-the-reader-in-the-face action.

Backstory and info dumps, or other ways to get the reader up to speed for what is going to happen, are generally poor ways to start a story (but can work for some writers).

Pacing and hooks are two very different things although they can play off one another or contribute to one another.

An author should write for the readers, not for him/herself.

Click to expand...

Quoting it to make sure everyone sees. Perfect advice.

Ideally, your "most exciting event" is the most exciting event in the character's life thus far. It's the day everything changes for the character.

His or her attempt to resolve the fallout of that event is why the novel exists. Think of a novel as a record of a conflict, i.e., the character's attempt to settle an internal and external disturbance. You can use plot formulas to guide you, but as a writer and editor, I recommend keeping your focus on the character. The character has the biggest stake in fixing the problem that starts the story, and his or her actions should naturally push the narrative along.

RemusShepherd said:

I've been thinking about advice, lately, and how much of it is contradictory. Nothing wrong with that -- all advice is subjective, and how well it applies depends on the situation and person.

But there's one specific series of contradictions that are relevant to my current WIP, and I'm wondering if there's a simple way to look at them that resolves the problem. Consider these pieces of advice:

• Write in Acts, typically three, each of about the same size.
• An Act break is when something dramatic happens that changes the narrative forever.
• Put your best dramatic event at the very beginning to hook the reader.
• Find the first exciting thing in your story and cut everything before it.

Do you see the contradiction here? For a proper story narrative, you want some setup to a dramatic event in the first Act. But to 'hook' readers (and agents and publishers) you want to frontload dramatic events -- at the cost of setup -- to the very beginning of the story.

If you try to take both pieces of advice, you are led to a story structure where your first Act will be less than 5,000 words, so that you can have an early event hook and still use it as an Act break. But that ruins the pacing of the story, which is the entire purpose behind the advice to write in equal sized Acts.

Pacing or hook -- choose only one.

I know, there are obvious ways around this. You can have an early event serve as a hook, then settle down with some setup and have an Act break event at the appropriate time. That distorts the pacing some -- the story starts out tense then calms before the tension ratchets up again. Or you can have a story of many mini-Acts, so that each one is about 5,000 words and the pauses between them are well-paced. This is how you create a serial; I'm not sure how well a novel built that way would work. I can see a few other literary gymnastics that can resolve these contradictory directives, in more or less satisfactory ways.

I'm interested, though, in hearing other people's thoughts. How would you resolve this problem?

Click to expand...

Unless you're writing a play, I'd ignore all this advice completely. I've never heard it interpreted this way, anyway, but for a novel, it's largely irrelevant, no matter how the advice is worded.

RemusShepherd said:

I've been thinking about advice, lately, and how much of it is contradictory. Nothing wrong with that -- all advice is subjective, and how well it applies depends on the situation and person.

But there's one specific series of contradictions that are relevant to my current WIP, and I'm wondering if there's a simple way to look at them that resolves the problem. Consider these pieces of advice:

• Write in Acts, typically three, each of about the same size.
• An Act break is when something dramatic happens that changes the narrative forever.
• Put your best dramatic event at the very beginning to hook the reader.
• Find the first exciting thing in your story and cut everything before it.

Do you see the contradiction here? For a proper story narrative, you want some setup to a dramatic event in the first Act. But to 'hook' readers (and agents and publishers) you want to frontload dramatic events -- at the cost of setup -- to the very beginning of the story.

If you try to take both pieces of advice, you are led to a story structure where your first Act will be less than 5,000 words, so that you can have an early event hook and still use it as an Act break. But that ruins the pacing of the story, which is the entire purpose behind the advice to write in equal sized Acts.

Pacing or hook -- choose only one.

I know, there are obvious ways around this. You can have an early event serve as a hook, then settle down with some setup and have an Act break event at the appropriate time. That distorts the pacing some -- the story starts out tense then calms before the tension ratchets up again. Or you can have a story of many mini-Acts, so that each one is about 5,000 words and the pauses between them are well-paced. This is how you create a serial; I'm not sure how well a novel built that way would work. I can see a few other literary gymnastics that can resolve these contradictory directives, in more or less satisfactory ways.

I'm interested, though, in hearing other people's thoughts. How would you resolve this problem?

Click to expand...

I think you are mistaking drama with plot.

I write using the three act structure, and my first "plot point" comes at the end of act 1, well into the story. I can use my own novel 'Council brats to illustrate'. The thing that changes my MC Michael's life is that he gets into a fight, and that fight results in him being charged with assault. The charge makes his ambition of getting out of his neighbourhood nigh impossible.

The fight occurs at the end of chapter 3, and is about 20k words into the story. Does that mean that Chapters one and two are without drama or incident, or that they are without a hook?

No. Chapters one and two are setups to show why it is important for Michael to get out of his neighbourhood, what lengths he is willing to go to achieve his goal, and makes the denial of his ambition a lot richer and more visceral for the reader - i hope.

Chapters One and Two are dramatic, and they draw - hopefully - the reader into Michael's life.

So, you're confusing drama with plot, i think. The setup can be as dramatic and exciting as you want, as long as it pertains to the story. But it needn't be the main story conflict, not right away. In fact, I would suggest building up to it.

Write in Acts, typically three, each of about the same size.
I like three acts, but mine aren't the same size. Act two is half the book. Acts one and three are much smaller, because they setup and then resolve what happens in act two.

An Act break is when something dramatic happens that changes the narrative forever.
I strive for this, though it can be done is any number of ways.

Put your best dramatic event at the very beginning to hook the reader.
Hook the reader is a yes, but that doesn't mean your best dramatic event has to go first.

Find the first exciting thing in your story and cut everything before it.
This is open to all kinds of interpretation. Start with something interesting, yes. How you define exciting is up to you.

Do you see the contradiction here? For a proper story narrative, you want some setup to a dramatic event in the first Act. But to 'hook' readers (and agents and publishers) you want to frontload dramatic events -- at the cost of setup -- to the very beginning of the story.
I think you're confusing hook with dramatic events. A hook doesn't have to be dramatic. It just has to be something that grabs interest and makes readers want to know more about it. You can setup a story so that it grabs readers without making it dramatic. Heck, I open my novel with a gal stealing eggs. Hardly dramatic, but it works. And you don't want to "set up" your novel in a way that "sets it up" if that makes sense. You aren't explaining things to your readers to get them ready for when the story starts. You just start the story, which is usually when things start happening for your protag.

If you try to take both pieces of advice, you are led to a story structure where your first Act will be less than 5,000 words, so that you can have an early event hook and still use it as an Act break. But that ruins the pacing of the story, which is the entire purpose behind the advice to write in equal sized Acts.
Although my act one is smaller (about 25% of the book, or roughly 10-15K words), I don't think these things are mutually exclusive. Pacing is more than getting the book to three particular parts in a story. Pacing is every line, every paragraph, every page. Even with three acts, you can still build up to each act and have something climatic happen that drives the story into the next act.

Pacing or hook -- choose only one.
Flat out disagree here. You need both. And you don't stop hooking with the opener. You have to keep hooking the reader and keep drawing them in, and that requires good pacing. If you don't keep giving the reader reason to keep reading they don't. Bad pacing and no hooks will kill a book every time.

I know, there are obvious ways around this. You can have an early event serve as a hook, then settle down with some setup and have an Act break event at the appropriate time. That distorts the pacing some -- the story starts out tense then calms before the tension ratchets up again.
Only if you write it that way. Don't confuse pacing with action or tension. You can be fast-paced and tense without action and active without it being fast-paced or tense. And setup can be tense and active. It should be or you're going to lose the reader. You should be raising the tension all along, not just at the beginning or the end of every act.

Or you can have a story of many mini-Acts, so that each one is about 5,000 words and the pauses between them are well-paced. This is how you create a serial; I'm not sure how well a novel built that way would work. I can see a few other literary gymnastics that can resolve these contradictory directives, in more or less satisfactory ways.
In one sense, you do this with every chapter you write. You start out with something that hooks and then builds in tension and then have a dramatic conclusion and start all over. Ideally, the stakes are higher every time so the novel keeps getting more gripping as it goes along. Every scene also follows this structure. Even a paragraph follows this to a certain extent. A novel is made of of lots of mini arcs inside a larger story arc, all building upon one another to a resolution.

I'm interested, though, in hearing other people's thoughts. How would you resolve this problem?
Listen to the advice that works for you and ignore the stuff that doesn't. Writing is subjective and everyone's idea of a perfect story is different. But I think everyone can agree that a good story is one where the reader cares what happens next and keeps reading. How you choose to do that is entirely up to you.

Not all advice is good advice. You have to trust your instincts and do what feels right for you and your story.

RemusShepherd said:

But...from this brief glimpse of your writing that you've just given me, it seems you fell into the contradiction trap. Your first Act ends at 20k words. If you use the three Act structure, your novel is going to be around 60k words long. Maybe that's the size you were aiming for...but if you were planning on a longer book, then you appear to have compromised your pacing in service to the early hook.

Click to expand...

Not really, because the act system in novels is only a guideline, not a rigid set of rules. So, generally, I use the three act structure. Actually, you could say I use four acts.

But it's only a thought model to help me shape the story when I dig into it at first. If the story requires me to abuse the model, I will do so without a heart beat of hesitation.

Therefore, my first act might be short, but act two and three (and four) will be wildly diverging in length and scope to fit the required subplots and arcs.

But...from this brief glimpse of your writing that you've just given me, it seems you fell into the contradiction trap. Your first Act ends at 20k words. If you use the three Act structure, your novel is going to be around 60k words long. Maybe that's the size you were aiming for...but if you were planning on a longer book, then you appear to have compromised your pacing in service to the early hook.

Click to expand...

As stated above - the three acts aren't usually the same size. Act I is your inciting incident/ setup - end of Act I is the Initial Point of No Return ( your hero can't back out / things have changed irretrievably). They aren't usually as far in as 35% ( in fact Act I (set up) is usually about 20 -25% ish, Act II ( confrontation) is 50% ish and Act III ( resolution) is 25% ish - but this changes depending on the story told) SO Max is pretty much on target for 80-90k

So in Star Wars for example, Luke refuses 'the call' but is pushed into action by the murder of his family and he leaves the planet to confront his Destiny! *strikes pose* This is by no means one third of the way in - in fact it's quite close to the start.

Try looking for this in your favourite books / films. How long did they leave it? A third of the way through? I doubt it

If you leave it too late to go through the first doorway ( from act I to act II) there's a good chance the reader may get bored. However, again, it depends on the story.

Ignore entirely the thing about Acts being the same length. That's not true, even in plays. If you were going to loosely divide it into Acts, the middle would be the longest, and the start and end shorter.

The first Act is Exposition. Some people love setting up the world and its characters- some people just want to get down to it.
Shakespeare was a master at Exposition. Start with a dramatic or intriguing scene- the fact that there's a ghost at the beginning of Hamlet is interesting, even though we don't know anything about it.
Or at the beginning of Othello, Roderigo and Iago are in the middle of a conversation, which Iago dominates. We learn that seemingly less worthy men have been promoted over Iago. Not only has the scene established the background and suggested the conflict to come, he's shown us the dynamic between Roderigo and Iago.
Always keep the reader in the present. If they flashback or refer to the past, it must still link and highlight the current situation. Otherwise the story will never get anywhere.

The second act is Conflict. Basically, the story.

The third act is Resolution, when plot threads are tied together- perhaps some are left hanging, who knows?- and basically you're cooling them down.

RemusShepherd said:

It sounds as if most people just ignore the advice that they don't like, rather than try to find a middle compromise.

Click to expand...

This is a common misconception around here. Among the many posters here, there are people at all levels of writing experience, including several who are full-time writers and who have been making a living in the writing business for some time. The people who have significant writing experience typically reject advice because it goes against that experience, not because they don't like it (there is a huge difference). There is no value in taking that experience and adapting it to compromise with advice that contradicts that experience. If someone like Uncle Jim tells you something is not a good idea, chances are he has found that out directly or indirectly in his writing life. If an inexperienced writer isn't happy with that, he/she is free to give it a go against that experience-based advice. And perhaps it will work. I'll not bet on it, though.

Experiences aren't foolproof, and those of two writers may be somewhat different. But please realize many people here don't just reject ideas because they don't like them. They frequently are rejected because they either have been found to not work or the posters have found alternate ideas that do work and work well.

i like to follow a 3 act story structure (well actually 3 acts and an ending or wrap up) but this is the first time i've ever heard that the acts should all be the same length. That seems counter intuitive to me...

RemusShepherd said:

• Write in Acts, typically three, each of about the same size.
• An Act break is when something dramatic happens that changes the narrative forever.
• Put your best dramatic event at the very beginning to hook the reader.
• Find the first exciting thing in your story and cut everything before it.

Do you see the contradiction here? For a proper story narrative, you want some setup to a dramatic event in the first Act. But to 'hook' readers (and agents and publishers) you want to frontload dramatic events -- at the cost of setup -- to the very beginning of the story.

If you try to take both pieces of advice, you are led to a story structure where your first Act will be less than 5,000 words, so that you can have an early event hook and still use it as an Act break. But that ruins the pacing of the story, which is the entire purpose behind the advice to write in equal sized Acts.

Click to expand...

I think you're confusing "hook" with climax or even MAJOR plot events. Just because you want to start your book with a hook or "interestingly" doesn't mean you're front-loading everything. You can still set up, but you've got to get as close to your inciting incident as possible, instead of doing the movie-equivalent of a "crane shot" to establish location and characters, etc. There's still plenty of time to do that.

If your story doesn't pick up until Act II, then I think you have it structured all wrong. Act I isn't just all background and character development. There still should be a plot, and things should still happen. There should still be conflict and incidents, etc. to move things along.

And NO, not all acts are of equal size. You can have a shorter Act I, a long Act II, and a relatively brief Act III. Or you can mix them up.

Take the hero's journey for example. You may start with the ordinary world, but this ordinary world is relatively short and you should your hero to cross -- the inciting incident -- and reach the point of no return by the end of Act I. Lots could happen. But to make the complete ACT I the ordinary world would be a mistake, so is, IMO, front-loading the point of no return too soon (but it's been done before).

Pacing or hook -- choose only one.

Click to expand...

It's neither this or that. It's not a multiple choice quiz. You can pace as well as hook at the same time.

I kind of hate the kind of "time-jump" set up -- tell us something about big event first, then flashback to what happened to lead the characters to that point -- even though it can be very effective. The problem is, this has been done so many times it's lost that effective and become coy and manipulative. "Oooh, look, the guy is hanging on the cliff! Who is here? How did he get there?" Then the next 200 pages leads us back to that cliff... When done well, and with the right stories, that could work well. But I've seen so many people do that now (especially on TV), it's getting really cliched.

It's been said a number of times here at AW, just write the story. If you have a beginning, middle and an end, the structure will take care of itself. The length of each act varies with the genre. A mystery has a very short first act, the murder is discovered and the detective is called to the scene. Act 3 contains the climax and denouement, again, this is usually very short. Act 2 can be 80 percent of the novel.
Other than insuring that you have hooked the reader early, obsessing with structure is counter-productive.

I don't think of ANY of that stuff when I'm writing.
I disagree with about all of it, anyhow.

If there's a rule, it's do whatever works for you.

If it helps you to think . . .
"Hook, hook, hook . . . I gotta to have a hook."
"I'm moving toward the end of Act I so I need to close this bit of action up."
"Exciting drama. I have to open with exciting drama."

Then do it that way.

But if worrying about all these theories and mechanics is not helping you sit down and write then I'd stop doing it.

I just wanted to point out what most people are saying about the hook meaning "Be interesting" and not "super climax at the beginning" is completely true, and that I think one of the big mistakes a lot of writers make is not realizing that. The opening doesn't have to be action packed or dramatic, it just needs interestingness (I stole that word from Flikr just because I like it). I personally don't like having major important scenes in the opening. I like a slower build up to the climax/climaxes.*







*Is it just me or does that sound dirty?

Jamesaritchie said:

Unless you're writing a play, I'd ignore all this advice completely. I've never heard it interpreted this way, anyway, but for a novel, it's largely irrelevant, no matter how the advice is worded.

Click to expand...

This.

I think the OP is being too analytical.

Writing is a learned craft, not a science where predictable results follow strict adherence to established laws.