Story Structure

As a followup to yesterday's discussion of outlining vs. organic writing, basic story structure deserves a few words. The relationship is fundamental. If you're a planning writer, the act of outlining your story gives it structure by default. Even if you write organically your narrative will have to adopt some logical order so readers can relate to it.

What are a writer's options for structuring a story? Here are some of the most common options.

Three act structure organizes the story into three sections. Generally act one deals with introductions and setup. Act two confronts the protagonist with challenges. Act three shows how these obstacles are overcome. Western literature and cinema strongly emphasize raising and resolving tension in a conflict bell curve.

The original Star Wars trilogy represents the epitome of three act structure.

The Hero's Journey is often cited as a structural template for storytelling. It's actually an observation by Professor Joseph Campbell about recurring plots points, characters, and themes in western myths. I'm discussing Campbell's monomyth here to caution writers against following it too slavishly. The hero's journey isn't a one size fits all story mold. It's a set of norms against which a story can be measured after it's written (i.e. it's an interpretive tool, not a composition tool).

Boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy finds girl again is the basic plot of almost every romance novel and romantic comedy film. However, invoking TV trope rule zero, Shakespeare did it first. Boy meets girl, etc. is also called the idiot plot due to how often it's used to drive characters instead of the characters driving the plot. As the Bard of Avon proves, it can be done well as long as characterization isn't neglected.

Other types of plot structure exist, and all are capable of framing successful narratives. The most important caveat to using established plot structures is to regard them as guidelines; not laws. Choose the structure that will best fit your story. Don't contort your story to fit a specific mold.

Watch More TV

My search for the new home of compelling narrative may have turned up an answer that I initially overlooked: TV.

Long regarded as a cultural wasteland, television has recently experienced a creative Renaissance. The movement toward superior writing, acting, and production value is being led by cable networks. By lavishing Hollywood blockbuster-sized budgets on their major projects, the likes of HBO, AMC, FX, and Showtime have managed to attract first rate talent.

Every novelist used to dream of getting a movie deal from a major studio. While that aspiration is still valid, TV has emerged as a medium capable of handling the intricacies of more complex narratives. Game of Thrones and Justified have proven that major cable networks can treat an author's work with greater respect and fidelity than the big studios.

A good friend once suggested that a hypothetical live action interpretation of my own fledgling fantasy universe could only be realized on cable. Recognizing the highly premature timing of such considerations (being as yet unpublished, much less having racked up enough sales to justify attention from other media), I will say that writing for TV has long held a certain appeal for me. I'm primarily a visual thinker: a trait that lends itself better to film and TV scripts than novels.

On the other hand, I've heard it said more than once from people who know what they're talking about that you really should have at least one novel under your belt before they'll let you have a shot at TV.

Is television the new home of challenging fiction? What's your opinion?

I Don't Need Your Life Story

A common mistake among  beginning novelists is to front-load the narrative with the main character's back story. I've been guilty of this rookie error myself.

There's a sort of flawed logic behind a new writer's tendency to deliver the protagonist's full personality profile, family background, and job history up front. These details are foremost in an author's mind when writing about any character (or they should be). Thus, withholding this information takes considerable discipline.

Some writers are adamant about making formal introductions right away. They worry that readers will have difficulty relating to the characters if their back stories are withheld. This fear is largely unfounded because it projects the author's inverted character priorities onto the reader.

Authors grow attached to their characters' personal histories because they spend copious amounts of time intricately constructing those characters' imaginary lives. Readers, on the other hand, engage with characters based on their responses to conflict.

One might object that foreknowledge of a character's past is required for truly gripping conflict since that's what determines how a character deals with challenges. I reply that this objection is, again, backwards. Detailed background isn't needed to enhance conflict. Conflict reveals background. Dumping half a page of character exposition into the narrative dilutes conflict and diverts reader interest.

When should character background be revealed? Later. After the story's central conflict has clearly emerged, authors can address the cast's back stories at leisure--preferably spread out over the rest of the novel like seed in a tilled field.

I learned that I'd fallen into this trap when several Nethereal beta readers reported difficulty getting past chapter two. When questioned they all agreed that the book's opening was strong, but the second chapter read like a text book. I looked again and saw that they were right. The narrative was bogged down with background minutiae that fascinated me but distracted my readers. Since I was establishing the first novel in a series I couldn't cut all of the exposition, but I did minimize it to the point of readability.

Any other thoughts on handling character background?

The State of the Art

I recently addressed creative stagnation in genre novels. That post led to speculation on where to find cutting edge science fiction and fantasy. Several interested parties identified video games as the new medium for visionary storytelling. I agree that games have inherited a large swath of the cultural real estate once dominated by novels. But is this a positive development?

One fact that tends to be overlooked in a given "video games are the new novels" discussion is that the medium a story is told through matters. That's why artists use different media to tell their stories. One of the most common mistakes made by first time novelists is to write like they're dictating the action of a movie. Similarly, a film shot at the relentless pace of a novel would be an exhausting visual jackhammer.

As is rightly said, film is primarily a visual medium. Directors can include pages of expository dialogue and whole reels of establishing scenes because the visuals keep the audience entertained. A novelist who writes two consecutive paragraphs of description or whose characters spout exposition for more than half a page will quickly find his book set aside. Words are all writers have, so each one needs to be important.

Video games are something of a chimera. They too rely mostly on images. However, it's not uncommon to find blocks of text, audio snippets, and non-interactive video in the mix. Your mileage will vary by genre, but the one feature that all games must have in order to be games at all is challenge.

It's been said that interactivity is what makes games special and that books and films are passive media. As I point out here, that's an oversimplification. Whether you're immersed in a game or staring at a sculpture, all art is interactive. No artist can force engagement with his work. The audience's personal perspective is always vital to shaping the experience.

Games aren't the only interactive art medium. They are the most prominent art form that calls attention to audience participation. Video game interactivity is so overt that players feel cheated if a game is too linear or arbitrarily limits their choices. That is as it should be since the most fundamental level of engagement with a game comes from meeting and overcoming challenges.

The fundamentally different approaches to narrative in novels and games are why I doubt that video games can truly replace books. They're built for different jobs. Conflict is essential to novels, but only as a narrative device. In contrast, conflict is the whole point of a game. Hence the rising criticism of a certain game that shall remain nameless.

Balancing complex character, engaging narrative, striking scenery, and challenging conflict in a game is a herculean task. Overemphasizing character may impede the player's vicarious experience. Excessive focus on narrative can make players impatient. Visuals that are too lush can be distracting, and we all know how frustrating imbalanced difficulty is.

Novels are far more straightforward. All a writer has to worry about is setting up strong internal and external conflict and arranging the story so that the stakes progressively rise. None of that is simple, but it's far easier without the added burdens of game development.

In short, the natural focus of games is on the overall immersive experience. Novels are entirely about the story.