Variations on the story structure

[TitaniumTi]

Recently, I've read three books (actually, 2 1/2 books) that have left me feeling unsatisfied, because of issues with the plot.

In the first, the protagonist was swept along by circumstance through much of the story. He acted at last, then the story petered out into a bad outcome for the protagonist, followed by a glimmer of hope. By then, I didn't care.

In the second, the protagonists were in trouble. They put out a lot of (metaphorical) spot-fires, in some interesting story-telling. In the end, however, they were rescued from their situation by a third party.

The third story hooked me with some evocative description and an intriguing premise, so I bought it without looking at reviews. Half way through, the story seemed to be drifting, so I looked at Goodreads and found a lot of one-star reviews that basically said, "pompous git" and made it clear that nothing much happened later in the story.

None of these books followed my preferred story arc, in which the protagonists are faced with a problem and take action, overcoming obstacles along the way, before clearly succeeding or failing to overcome the problem at the end of the story... possibly with some hints that circumstances may change in the next book of the series

Obviously, this is not the only effective story structure, so what are some alternatives?

 

[Alexander2]

At least the first two of these can be effective story structures if used in the right way. For example, the first one could be used in a more comedic narrative, where the main character is an unwilling and incompetent hero. The second one sounds like what was used in the Hobbit. In the Hobbit the dragon wasn't killed by any of Bilbo's party, but a relatively minor character from a small town. Even if the Battle of the Five Armies, the day wasn't saved by Bilbo or the dwarfs but by the Eagles and a shapeshifter. Story telling is effective enough, and the third parties are involved before they save the day, it can make for a great novel.

 

[Brian G Turner]

You may find that the story structure itself was entirely normal - the four act structure - but that the execution was poorly done, not least in conjunction with weak character arcs.

But yes - active characters and conflict are key elements in a good story, but it's easy for a writer to over-estimate how active those characters are, the strength of the conflict - and also where deus ex machina comes into play.

It's so easy to see it in other people's stories, but feedback has shown me where I've over-looked it myself.

Simply put, there are so many things to juggle with that, unless you have good editors and/or beta readers, balls can be dropped without being noticed.

 

[Ihe]

How about the one that starts with the end and then it slowly unravels? The fact that the ending/near-ending is given away influences the structure, clearly picking up the pace in unrelenting increments toward the conclusion. Fight Club style.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Robertson Davies plays with story structure, including three act tales with shifting protagonists. The Deptford Trilogy is well worth a look at.

 

[tinkerdan]

Are these all three part of a series or just three separate books.

It is possible as mentioned that they did not tell their story well enough for you to follow it.

It's, in fact, possible you followed some threads that were minor and missed the real story being told. Which again indicates a failure to get all the ducks in a row. It would be difficult in this case however, to answer the question in relation to the three novels, which could have no structure what so ever. Or could be stories that were more character developed and less action and not necessarily what you were looking for. But that doesn't excuse that you walked away with the notion that the structure might be missing or poor or at least have come unraveled.

 

[Phyrebrat]

This worries me a little. My WIP doesn't have a particularly happy ending for any of the 'good' characters and the character who is a 'friend' of them turns out to be a bad piece of work and ends up 'inheriting' the house in question - which is part his right, but only because hundreds of years ago his family stole the land.

There's a kind of poetry to it but there is an element of nihilism to the whole thing. But it's horror so...

pH

 

[TitaniumTi]

Comments by Brian and Alexander have prompted me to review the stories in the context of the 3 or 4 act story structure. The first book had two major parallel stories. The first story in that book, the development of society, was a clever idea, but told rather than experienced. The second story in that book, the primary protagonist's story, had most of the development in the last third of the book. In the first two-thirds of the book, the protagonist was too passive to make me care.

The second book probably followed a 3 act structure, with a long middle act. The rescue of the protagonists was not quite deus ex machina, but it could have happened equally plausibly at any time during the story.

Are these all three part of a series or just three separate books.

It's, in fact, possible you followed some threads that were minor and missed the real story being told.

These were three separate books.

I did in fact, miss a major thread in the third book. I'm told that the author intended it as a satire of two well known books. I've read both books that he was satirising, and I could see the similarities and differences, but I thought he was using the tropes, with a cynical twist, rather than satirising them.

The first book was very complex, and probably warrants a leisurely re-reading. I think I saw the major threads, but may have missed some others.

The second book was a simple adventure story and may have been intended as a prequel for more conflict-driven books to come. I don't think there were any hidden threads.

Thanks, Jo and Ihe, for the suggestions. I'll definitely look them up. The idea of revealing the end, then gradually showing the events leading up to it, sounds fascinating.

I like stories with shifting protagonists -- there are too few of them in science fiction. I would love to write a story with overlapping narratives: the same events described through different eyes.

Brian, the excerpts you've posted in the critiques have had really interesting protagonists. I remember one that you posted, in which you're protagonist was a countryman arrived in town. I could really see the crowded town, then ale-house, from his perspective.

Phyrebrat, that sounds like a précis of an interesting story, with a strong protagonist. I don't expect a happy ending, but I do like protagonists (and antagonists) that act upon the world.

 

[Ihe]

I like stories with shifting protagonists -- there are too few of them in science fiction.

That's an interesting point deserving a thread all of its own, but it is a very relevant issue to this thread as well, since the number of protagonists can alter structure a great deal, even more so if the use of their respective POVs is non-standard.

Is it the way SF is structured? Is it because the content itself somehow calls for one protagonist? Or can it easily be done and writers simply don't get around to do it because of a cultural thing?

On the other hand, SF can have VERY strong single protagonists (I'm thinking Miles Vorkosigan, ie), and as far as single-protagonist-stories go, I think it bests the fantasy genre, fantasy besting SF in multiple-protagonist stories in return, IMO (Fire and Ice anyone?) Why is that?.

And ofc, for full disclosure, I'll admit I'm shamelessly generalizing, as I usually do.

 

[TitaniumTi]

For me, one surprising element has been that these books were all written by very experienced award-winning or award-nominee authors. This month, for contrast, I have also read three books by newer authors that just grabbed and kept my interest. These much more satisfying books are Timebomb by Scott K Andrews, When We Have Wings by Claire Corbett (although I haben't quite finished that one yet) and Abendau's Heir by Jo Zebedee.

Edited to add: I don't want to name the books with (in my opinion) problematic plots because each of them was excellent in other ways. (In fact, I thought one book was based on a brilliant concept.) If they had been poorer books, I would have shelved them and thought no more of it.

 

[Toby Frost]

I’ve just finished a crime novel that did exactly this. Its twist was simply that the villain escaped: then the novel ended. That’s fine where there is sufficient other story, and other story threads, to be concluded for the book to feel satisfying. The fact that Lecter escapes in The Silence of the Lambs is balanced out by the killing of Buffalo Bill and the changes for the better that Clarice experiences. But in this case, there was no other factor, and it felt as if I’d read the first half of a longer novel. I felt cheated.

I think there has to be a payout equal to the investment in the character (whether that payout is sad or happy) or else a very good reason for not providing it. The bloodbath at the end of The Wild Bunch isn’t happy, but it’s a suitably epic and dirty ending to an epic and dirty story. A story in which characters die pointlessly – like the ending of The Mist or Cross of Iron – is making a point in itself: namely that pointless death happens. But even that has to be done well. I can think of one novel whose ending seems to be saying to the reader “And you wanted a happy ending, did you? Haha! Life is tough!” The problem is that everyone knows this already. The exception seems to be the multi-POV style of A Song of Ice and Fire, and even that gets criticism for Martin introducing characters and bumping them off very shortly afterwards.

One thing that’s interested me about writing recently is the function in the story of different characters, and the idea surprising the reader by changing their function or not following it in the obvious direction. So if it is set up that X will die beautifully in order to be avenged, you keep her alive and in the plot to either help or hinder in interesting ways. Or Comedy Sidekick Person becomes a point of view character, and suddenly the world is told from their viewpoint, so that their apparent wackiness becomes normality. This keeps things interesting and stops the supporting characters becoming stock figures. It also helps give the impression that anything could happen to anyone, without throwing the story into confusion.

EDIT: As an afterthought, and not wanting to push this thread toward old and tried territory, I think this is why it is healthy for SFF to include a wide range of characters doing a wide range of things. If a character is set up quite clearly as a damsel in distress, there’s really only two things that can happen to them: they’re either in distress or (as a surprise) they’re not. And you can only do either of those a certain number of times. I think the trick is probably to play the surprises off against the expectations of the reader, and somehow steer between being obvious and bewildering. Easier said than done, though!

 

[Nick B]

I worry a bit about this 3 and 4 act structure stuff. I understand it, don't get me wrong - I just can't seem to write like it. For instance, Liberator, our main work currently in rewrite/edit is in 5 quite distinct sections. We also have multiple important protagonists and the pov is multiple third.
Does this sound as though it will be confusing? The sections, or acts if you prefer, are quite distinct, with solid starts, middles and outcomes, but I worry about the amount going on.

The closest I can compare it to is GoT, with the pov changes and multiple acts. It is the beginning of an epic arc over multiple novels so has a fair amount of stuff to bring in to play, though the novel's plot is simple in its way.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Does this sound as though it will be confusing?

No - while the Three (four) Act structure is a common tool, Shakespeare often wrote in five acts.

IMO the bigger problem would be a lack of structure in the first place.