How important is the three act structure?

MisterFrancis · Jul 11, 2017

I'm sure this gets posted whenever this subject comes up, but I think this is a very good article on the uses of the three act structure:

http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2013/12/11/hulks-screenwriting-101-excerpt-the-myth-of-3-act-structure

Twick already explained the main problem with it above: it's such a reductive system that it becomes "THE MOST ABOMINABLE WAY TO BOTH EXPLAIN AND INSTRUCT STORYTELLING".

Not that you can't have a succesful three-act structure (or one act, or two act, or four act, or twelve act), but most of the time people talk about three-act structure just isn't helpful.

Canislupus54 · Jul 11, 2017

Thanks all, you've given me a lot to think about and some new perspectives.

Harlequin · Jul 11, 2017

Hero's journey and three/four/five act structure aren't things you adhere to, per se. They're natural occurrences in the course of storytelling.

I'm the extremely end of pantser, and still find that my stories (after a certain number of revisions) conform to these parameters without trying.

Ticking every hero's journey box would be an exhaustive novel indeed! I imagine most people tweak, but broadly fall into that template.

Canislupus54 · Jul 11, 2017

Old Hack said:
Bearing in mind you said this earlier:

then no, don't put it on Reddit or anything if you want to seek a trade publishing deal. Publishers want unpublished works, not books which are available for free online. However, I'm not sure you'll have any input into how this work is published:

You're working with two other people, or just one? That means they have some say over where the work goes and how it's published. Don't put it up anywhere without the clear written approval of your collaborator(s), of you might find you're in a lot of trouble.

Also, don't worry about the three-act structure. If the book works, it works. No matter where all the plot points fall.

Thanks for he advice. Is posting here different somehow or should I just keep it to myself until I'm ready for a beta?

Brightdreamer · Jul 11, 2017

Canislupus54 said:
Thanks for he advice. Is posting here different somehow or should I just keep it to myself until I'm ready for a beta?

The SYW section is password-protected, so it won't pop up in Google searches (making it more secure.) You can post things for feedback there without fearing it'll spread across the internet by 'bot.

If you have co-writers, though, it may not just be up to you to seek feedback and edit. Likewise, advice we give to you would have to be relayed to other parties, then their answers relayed back - unless they got their own accounts. Any time you add an extra link in the telephone line, you increase the risk of words and tone being misconstrued... It might also be considered "going behind their backs" if you post here without asking them, whether you mean it that way or not.

This is one of those things you need to nail down with your co-writers; whether each individual is allowed to seek feedback, ensuring that none of the others are posting pieces on open internet sites (which, as mentioned, could mess up publication opportunities), when it can be shown to outsiders, how suggestions on rewrites are handled, etc. If it's shared custody, all "parents" must be involved with these decisions, or at least have a clear understanding of who is delegated what responsibilities.

Harlequin · Jul 11, 2017

SYW is also just short excerpts. There's no set limit but most people post 200 words in the 200 word thread, or else 300-2.5k from what I've seen. Snippets, basically--no more than you might put as a teaser on your own site, or in a Look Inside on amazon.

VeryBigBeard · Jul 11, 2017

Most of what I'd say is in the HULK link MisterFrancis posted.

A lot of film schools teach certain structures either as a kind of shorthand or just to give students an overview of comparative literature, because some of this stuff is interesting but fairly academic. Hero's Journey, for instance, is not a story structure at all but rather a (debatably very flawed) ethnographic comparison of major cultural mythologies by Joseph Campbell, who wasn't a writer and had absolutely no intention for the model to be used by writers. It's about as useful to storytelling as observing that Red Riding Hood and Snow White both have female leads in similar roles. It's intentionally broad in order for its thesis to work.

Some profs and students end up as devotees to these shorthands and, rather than reading them as comparative analyses they try to hammer every story to fit. Novels as a form don't work like movies do. For starters, novels are long-contact media. You don't have to worry about the need for an audience to use the bathroom because, chances are, your audience is reading your book while going to the bathroom.

Most novelists would do better to read The Iliad and other epic poetry, because the forms share, IMO, a tendency towards episodic scene-based storytelling as well as a need to summarize and occasionally repeat/recontextualize events that happened awhile back in the telling. More recent TV, especially that written for streaming/binge-watching format, shares a lot of those tropes, too.

If you're genuinely curious about this kind of stuff, do the reading. Think critically about it. And the second the theory stops you from actually writing or writing what feels right is the second you've taken it too far. I love this stuff, I've read a lot of this stuff, but I can't say I think about it at all when I'm writing.

Twick said:
I suspect if you consider the three acts simply Beginning (where you're laying out the problem for the characters), Middle (where they're working it through) and End (where it, um, ends), most things have a three-act structure by necessity. Leaving out any of them would lead to a very frustrating story, and only the most avant-garde of writers could make a success of it. (Heaven help us when the writer decides that the End is dispensable, and leaves us hanging at the conclusion of the Middle. "It's ambiguous and multi-layered!" No, it's unfinished, like ungrouted tile.)

I broadly agree with this, but what also ends up happening is that the Middle ends up baggy either because the writer is trying to insert all the various unnecessary "steps" of the Hero's Journey or because the writer is trying to create a "Middle" or a second act without actually needing to, resulting in a lot of unmotivated, directionless action or a sub-plot simply for a sub-plot's sake. It really comes back, IMO, to the needs of one's specific characters and plot. The drama, basically. The best read for that is probably Aristotle, but the real point of Hero's Journey is that so much of this stuff is ingrained in us just by reading that I really think the best way to go about learning story structure is simply to read a lot of books.

Harlequin · Jul 11, 2017

VBB, what do you think of Book of the New Sun (going out on a limb here and assuming you've read it, apolgoies if not) which has cohesive structure for each chapter, almost like a mini story, but very obscured structure overall? Both across each book of the tetralogy and over the tetralogy as a whole.

Aggy B. · Jul 11, 2017

I think most folks would struggle to write a story that doesn't have a beginning, middle and an end.

Most times when I have read something for folks and it's just not worked as a book/story/plot it's because they either have no knowledge of three act structure or they have ignored it. That said, Snyder's book, Field's book, even Aristotle's Poetics are great tools for analysis but can be very overwhelming if you are writing something novel length for the first time (or are still fairly close to the beginning of your writing journey). And all of the structures should be broken down as percentages, not pages. (Because, although those beats in Save the Cat are pretty damn effective, where they occur will be vastly different between a 500 page book and a 300 page book. And the longer the book, the more interim beats you will need to carry you between larger plot points.)

I always tell folks to study structure, but when I write, I just write the book and look at the structure when I head into revisions. (Because by that point I can already start to feel where things happen too close together or where the action/progression is lagging so then it's a question of figuring out what sort of action a reader might expect to find at that point in the book.)

Canislupus54 · Jul 11, 2017

Brightdreamer said:
The SYW section is password-protected, so it won't pop up in Google searches (making it more secure.) You can post things for feedback there without fearing it'll spread across the internet by 'bot.

If you have co-writers, though, it may not just be up to you to seek feedback and edit. Likewise, advice we give to you would have to be relayed to other parties, then their answers relayed back - unless they got their own accounts. Any time you add an extra link in the telephone line, you increase the risk of words and tone being misconstrued... It might also be considered "going behind their backs" if you post here without asking them, whether you mean it that way or not.

This is one of those things you need to nail down with your co-writers; whether each individual is allowed to seek feedback, ensuring that none of the others are posting pieces on open internet sites (which, as mentioned, could mess up publication opportunities), when it can be shown to outsiders, how suggestions on rewrites are handled, etc. If it's shared custody, all "parents" must be involved with these decisions, or at least have a clear understanding of who is delegated what responsibilities.

Ah, I see. Thanks for the advice.

edutton · Jul 11, 2017

Aggy B. said:
I always tell folks to study structure, but when I write, I just write the book and look at the structure when I head into revisions. (Because by that point I can already start to feel where things happen too close together or where the action/progression is lagging so then it's a question of figuring out what sort of action a reader might expect to find at that point in the book.)

^THIS. This. this.^

Canislupus54 · Jul 11, 2017

Aggy B. said:
I think most folks would struggle to write a story that doesn't have a beginning, middle and an end.

Most times when I have read something for folks and it's just not worked as a book/story/plot it's because they either have no knowledge of three act structure or they have ignored it. That said, Snyder's book, Field's book, even Aristotle's Poetics are great tools for analysis but can be very overwhelming if you are writing something novel length for the first time (or are still fairly close to the beginning of your writing journey). And all of the structures should be broken down as percentages, not pages. (Because, although those beats in Save the Cat are pretty damn effective, where they occur will be vastly different between a 500 page book and a 300 page book. And the longer the book, the more interim beats you will need to carry you between larger plot points.)

I always tell folks to study structure, but when I write, I just write the book and look at the structure when I head into revisions. (Because by that point I can already start to feel where things happen too close together or where the action/progression is lagging so then it's a question of figuring out what sort of action a reader might expect to find at that point in the book.)

Thanks for your input.

VeryBigBeard · Jul 11, 2017

Harlequin said:
VBB, what do you think of Book of the New Sun (going out on a limb here and assuming you've read it, apolgoies if not) which has cohesive structure for each chapter, almost like a mini story, but very obscured structure overall? Both across each book of the tetralogy and over the tetralogy as a whole.

Haven't read it but have read books like it. I don't really have thoughts exactly except that of course you can take meaning from the way something is structured. If it serves the story, it works.

RightHoJeeves · Jul 11, 2017

I'm no expert (obviously), but I've always figured visual storytelling (TV & movies) tends to adhere much closer to tried and true structure because it's probably easier to pull off, and therefore less risky, than stories of a more esoteric structure. That's important with film and TV because of the gargantuan money involved. You want to minimise risk, and one way to do that is work with a story that has a structure that works. There are obviously film makers who don't use normal structures (like Tarantino, the Coen Bros, etc), but they're weird exceptions.

Having said all that, I think its way easier to work with looser structures in writing. One reason is partly because if you write a draft with an odd structure you can theoretically fix it with one person at a desk. If you make a weirdly structured movie, it's infinitely hard to fix because you'd probably have to remake parts of it.

Stephen Palmer · Jul 12, 2017

Harlequin said:
VBB, what do you think of Book of the New Sun (going out on a limb here and assuming you've read it, apolgoies if not) which has cohesive structure for each chapter, almost like a mini story, but very obscured structure overall? Both across each book of the tetralogy and over the tetralogy as a whole.

Wolfe wrote this in its entirety before it was published, which is one reason it holds together so well.
The brilliance is how he holds the reader's attention with a nest of mysteries, each one leading to more.

Aggy B. · Jul 12, 2017

RightHoJeeves said:
I'm no expert (obviously), but I've always figured visual storytelling (TV & movies) tends to adhere much closer to tried and true structure because it's probably easier to pull off, and therefore less risky, than stories of a more esoteric structure. That's important with film and TV because of the gargantuan money involved. You want to minimise risk, and one way to do that is work with a story that has a structure that works. There are obviously film makers who don't use normal structures (like Tarantino, the Coen Bros, etc), but they're weird exceptions.

Having said all that, I think its way easier to work with looser structures in writing. One reason is partly because if you write a draft with an odd structure you can theoretically fix it with one person at a desk. If you make a weirdly structured movie, it's infinitely hard to fix because you'd probably have to remake parts of it.

That's a misconception about structure. Their films *do* follow structural norms. Even Memento follows structural norms despite the oddness of the chronology presented. Spoiler in white: Imagine if the big twist had come in the middle where it would normally fall if the story were being told in typical beginning to end fashion. One would spend the latter half of the movie bored and frustrated because we would already know the MC is choosing to forget because he likes the hunt for these "villains". The peculiarities of the plot demand a different presentation of the material, but it *still* fits the beats for 3 Act structure. Because that's what stories do - they have a beginning, a middle, and an end.

Also, this idea that 4/5 act structure is somehow different than 3 act structure is... odd. I write with a four act structure in mind. (An abbreviated kind of hero's journey in which the MC transitions from Orphan to Wanderer to Warrior to Martyr. It still fits within 3 act structure though, because they are not mutually exclusive - more like one is a refined version of the other. Even the proportions of that particular 4 act structure still match 3 act structure, with the Wanderer/Warrior sections making up Act 2.)

This is why Synder's book was/is so popular, because it breaks everything down into small bits that satisfy all the larger forms while giving folks bite-sized chunks to craft and analyze. But, again, structure is a tool. Everyone uses it, whether they realize it or not, and if you don't the chances are high that book is failing.

EMaree · Jul 12, 2017

Be sure to check with a mod before putting any of your WIP up in Share Your Work. Pretty sure you can't post work there 'on behalf of' other writers, and your co-writers aren't active members of the forum.

The moderators for each SYW area are listed below the description, and you can click their names to see their profiles and use the 'Send Primate Message' link to contact them directly.

If you have other pieces written solo, though, you could put them up for crit and apply lessons learned from those to your co-written WIP.

edutton · Jul 12, 2017

Aggy B. said:
That's a misconception about structure. Their films *do* follow structural norms.

Yep. Most of the time even the most apparently non-linear works (Memento, Tess Sharpe's "Far From You") are telling a traditionally-structured story; it's just that the presentation of the story elements happens out of linear/chronological order for whatever reason.

RightHoJeeves · Jul 12, 2017

Aggy B. said:
Their films *do* follow structural norms. Even Memento follows structural norms despite the oddness of the chronology presented.

Well, yeah, Memento follows structural norms. But I didn't mention Nolan. I'm talking about films like Fargo, No Country for Old Men, Inglorious Basterds, The Hateful Eight. I'm sure there are arguments to be made about their structural norms, but they certainly don't approach structure in a conventional way.

Aggy B. · Jul 12, 2017

So, story-telling conventions are not the same as structure. Fargo follows three act structure. Reservoir Dogs/Pulp Fiction/Kill Bill follow three act structure despite presenting the content in a box that looks different.

Structure does not equal formula.
Structure does not equal story-telling conventions.

FREX: A stand-up routine has a structure that is similar to knock-knock joke. But the conventions are completely different. Both have a set-up and a punchline, but the stand-up routine may take any number of roads to get to the punchline. It still has to have a punchline or there's no pay-off (no matter how funny the set up for the story is). It doesn't have to include particular words or be a certain number of lines or have a partner to tell it.

blacbird · Jul 12, 2017

A corollary but not unimportant question: How important is the three-act structure in books you've read?

caw

mccardey · Jul 12, 2017

blacbird said:
How important is the three-act structure in books you've read?

caw

Subversive, that

Aggy B. · Jul 13, 2017

blacbird said:
A corollary but not unimportant question: How important is the three-act structure in books you've read?

caw

Since I prefer books that have a beginning, middle and an end, I'd say pretty damn important.

The reason openings that start in media res are so hard to pull off in books is that technically you skip the beginning of the story. Since structure doesn't necessarily mean chronological, it's possible to throw us into the middle of the action and still have that be Act 1. But it still has to be the beginning of the story - i.e. there has to be something integral to the plot and story that requires you to start at that point and not somewhere else. The reason stories that just kind of stop (or conclude with a cliffhanger) tend to not satisfy is because we expect an end to the story, not just a stopping point or a lead in to the next book.

Humans tend to look for structure. We anticipate it. Sure, you can throw it all out the window and be avant garde but the less structured, and the less familiar you make a work, the harder it will be for folks to read because we expect certain things - whether we can name all 27 beats from Save the Cat or not. Stories require sequence. (Not every story requires the same sequence, but they all require sequence in order to make sense.) And sequence is structure.

Ever heard a small child try and tell a joke? Or tell a story about a thing that happened to them? Most times, it's a mess because they don't tell it in a sequence. They tell you the thing they remember first. Then they tell you how it started. Then they fill in details. And then they tell you the end of the story again. It can be hard to follow because it lacks the proper structure to make each piece understandable.

Structure matters to story-telling. No matter what the format is.

[Popular analysis of structure tends to focus on films/screenplays because they are *all* so close in length. It's much easier to say "Look at page 10, look at page 50." Novels have a lot more variation in length which makes it harder to analyze on the fly. It does not mean, as I've seen folks say before, that the structure only applies to screenplays.]

Cindyt · Jul 13, 2017

I got this big idea to change from pantser to plotter and tried the three act--ala the Snowflake plot app--and found it too restraining. I write fancy free and then divide the plot however it wants to be divided. In WIP2 I have 12 acts, you might say. In WIP2 I will have four or five.

Harlequin · Jul 13, 2017

I'm an extreme pantser. I write core conversations first, often without any idea of how to link them up what the plot is supposed to be.

I still use a rigid four act structure, because the narrative falls into those patterns, though usually not till revisions when I try to join up the dots. (Four is just three really, but split differently.)

Edit, I can't think of a single book which doesn't fall into that.

How important is the three act structure?

Eat books, not brains!

Just Another Lazy Perfectionist

Eat books, not brains!

Preparing for winter

Eat books, not brains!

Not as sweet as you think

Ni. Peng. Neee-Wom.

Preparing for winter

Not as sweet as you think

a demon for tea

Ni. Peng. Neee-Wom.

Not as sweet as you think

Not as sweet as you think

Gettin wiggy wit it

Eat books, not brains!