Guillermo Del Toro's "style".....

I have not read this, but I absolutely will. Keep in mind he's a visual artist first and that formulas are tools, not laws of any artform.

There are so many different structures people have created for novels and film, he could just be using one of the other ones. It's a pretty interesting thing to look at, actually

I also haven't read the book, but I'm a big fan of his films, so I'll try to pick it up soon!

Just noting that del Toro has a co-author on the Strain series: Chuck Hogan. I have no idea how they split up the writing, whether Hogan was writing strictly from del Toro's outlines or whether he had a voice in the story structure. I found most of the prose pedestrian, but certain sections stand out -- I speculate that del Toro wrote these sections himself.

As for structural "dictates" in general, my belief is that story should determine structure, not the other way around. The scene-sequel technique is useful, but an experienced writer is hardly tied to it.

The Strain novels are written in third person, with many POV characters and the occasional flashback to Setrakian's history with the master vampire. With the plethora of POVs and the quick switching from one to another to another, it's not surprising that scenes and sequels wouldn't follow each other in march step, that they might instead be separated by several scenes.

I haven't analyzed these books, but my overall impression is that their structure isn't unusual for the thriller genre (supernatural, apocalyptic subgenres here.)

If you've read Dracula and 'Salem's Lot, you've read The Strain.

seun said:

If you've read Dracula and 'Salem's Lot, you've read The Strain.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say so. There are similarities and borrowed tropes, like the Van Helsing stand-in Abraham Setrakian, but the scope of the Strain trilogy is global, even cosmic -- world-wide apocalypse and heavenly conflict. In comparison, both Dracula and 'Salem's Lot are intimate tales, especially the Lot.

Apart from the ill-conceived angelic gobbledygook, the Strain trilogy mimics science fiction in its attention to the parasitic cause of vampirism. Whereas the vampires in Dracula and the Lot are definitely supernatural beings, no apologies made or needed.

Spell-it-out said:

Am I wrong in expecting most scenes in a novel to adhere to the 3(6) point plan laid out above?

Click to expand...

Yes. Anytime someone lays down a 'rule', anyone can immediately come up with a hundred counterexamples.

My own style is to just write the damn scenes. Later, in rewrite, I scan them for two qualities:
- do they move the story forward?
- will they hold the interest of a reader?

If a scene fails either test, I either rewrite or junk it. Those 3-point rules are guidelines which tend to help a scene accomplish the two main tasks. But they aren't iron-bound laws of nature.

dangerousbill said:

Yes. Anytime someone lays down a 'rule', anyone can immediately come up with a hundred counterexamples.

My own style is to just write the damn scenes. Later, in rewrite, I scan them for two qualities:
- do they move the story forward?
- will they hold the interest of a reader?

If a scene fails either test, I either rewrite or junk it. Those 3-point rules are guidelines which tend to help a scene accomplish the two main tasks. But they aren't iron-bound laws of nature.

Click to expand...

I see this idea a lot, especially around here and I'm not sure I agree with it. When I'm going over my scene I asked:

What is the goal of the scene? Was it reached?
Was it in the right tone/mood?

I don't think about moving the story forward as much. That seems inherent in the story itself. As for keeping the reader interested, well that also seems inherent with the purpose of scenes. Why write a scene if not to show something interesting? The structure of the scene is determine by its purpose. Perhaps that's my lack of formal training right there, but that's what works for me.

Phaeal said:

I wouldn't say so. There are similarities and borrowed tropes, like the Van Helsing stand-in Abraham Setrakian, but the scope of the Strain trilogy is global, even cosmic -- world-wide apocalypse and heavenly conflict. In comparison, both Dracula and 'Salem's Lot are intimate tales, especially the Lot.

Apart from the ill-conceived angelic gobbledygook, the Strain trilogy mimics science fiction in its attention to the parasitic cause of vampirism. Whereas the vampires in Dracula and the Lot are definitely supernatural beings, no apologies made or needed.

Click to expand...

I can't say what the overall trilogy is like, but I definitely found myself thinking of Dracula and 'Salem's Lot as I read the first book. Not a winner for me, sadly. I had high hopes for it.

I can only say how I work.

Again, story determines structure. I write highly detailed outlines, really very rough first drafts. In the beginning, I usually know the opening and the ending of the story. I come up with an opening scene*, which suggests a second scene, which suggests a third scene, and so forth. The ending is always in the back of my mind, "bending" the progression of scenes. However, the scenes may also "bend" the ending. At this point, things are fluid and mutable, thus fertile. Once I have a finished outline, I go over it a few times, changing and fine-tuning things until I have a sturdy framework.

At no point do I worry about scene/sequel or three acts or any other structural scheme. They will probably show up in the finished work, but that's because heavy reading and film-watching has over many years etched fictional patterns into my brain.


* I use "scene" loosely, meaning any discrete section of the work, whether an actual scene, a sequel, narrative exposition, whatever.