Three Act Structure and the point of disaster

[Toby Frost]

For the first time, I'm looking (somewhat vaguely) at the three-act structure in terms of plotting a novel. There's a point at the end of Act 2, usually called "disaster" or the like, where the hero's situation reaches its lowest point. Then there comes some kind of regrouping, crisis of confidence, gathering of strength etc before the hero returns for a final, highest-stakes conflict that he wins (generally).

Because of the soul-searching that can follow "disaster", this can be the hero learning a moral lesson that makes them more powerful ("I had the magic inside me all along!"), or a descent into some kind of underworld to get power and/or learn truths. In my case, this will involve the hero gathering allies using the classic "this evil affects you too" argument. This might involve passing tests to impress the allies, which is a subplot in itself. The concern is that this "impress the allies" bit might become a story in itself unless it's trimmed down.

(Then you've got the "gather allies to defeat a great enemy" plot. This feels different to the plot in the Seven Samurai/Magnificent Seven, where the allies are gathered quite quickly and what matters is the effect on them of going to a new place and facing challenges particular to them there (the young man has a romance with a local girl, the coward must face battle etc). I suspect some haunted house stories have a similar plot, where the house tempts the investigators according to their personalities once they arrive.)

Or maybe I'm just overthinking the entire thing. Has anyone else tried to squash a novel into the three-act structure?

 

[Swank]

Seven Samurai are, kind of, the collective MC of that story.

Aragorn gathers the Army of the Dead late in the story, but it really isn't a big change in the cast of the novel any more than finding a secret weapon would be, so it doesn't take much story to happen.

I would imagine that you can hold this template up to most any story if you want to find that low point, and you may or may not be satisfied with the level of post-disaster soul searching, regardless of whether it is there to any extent. The Hero's Journey contains all the same basic elements, as does the 'classic story pyramid' where you have Climax and Falling Action as your "disaster" and "regroup". I think these points are so ingrained in how we tell all stories that they are hard to avoid. And when they aren't there the action in the story just reads like a list.

But just because we might be able to detect this kind of macro structure in a novel doesn't mean that the novel is simple, just that you can choose to view overall story this way while fleshing it out with what amounts to subplots. Or that you can have multiple plot strings that are mirroring each other - LOTRs has three groups of characters, and all hit a kind of 'disaster' at a similar point in the book, keeping that macro structure despite a lack of interaction between them. Though the 'regrouping" might be more literal, as those plot strings re-merge into one.

 

[Yozh]

I think a three-act structure for a novel is pretty common. Is your concern than the need to engage in multiple “trials” to impress multiple allies will dilute or obscure the disaster point?

The “disaster” point can be seen as the point at which plan A fails and hero must find a plan B. In a “gather the allies” that point could be a realization that hero will not get all the allies, or that he will have to do something against beliefs/principles to get a key ally, or that even with the allies will not be powerful enough to prevail.

 

[The Big Peat]

For the first time, I'm looking (somewhat vaguely) at the three-act structure in terms of plotting a novel. There's a point at the end of Act 2, usually called "disaster" or the like, where the hero's situation reaches its lowest point. Then there comes some kind of regrouping, crisis of confidence, gathering of strength etc before the hero returns for a final, highest-stakes conflict that he wins (generally).

Because of the soul-searching that can follow "disaster", this can be the hero learning a moral lesson that makes them more powerful ("I had the magic inside me all along!"), or a descent into some kind of underworld to get power and/or learn truths. In my case, this will involve the hero gathering allies using the classic "this evil affects you too" argument. This might involve passing tests to impress the allies, which is a subplot in itself. The concern is that this "impress the allies" bit might become a story in itself unless it's trimmed down.

(Then you've got the "gather allies to defeat a great enemy" plot. This feels different to the plot in the Seven Samurai/Magnificent Seven, where the allies are gathered quite quickly and what matters is the effect on them of going to a new place and facing challenges particular to them there (the young man has a romance with a local girl, the coward must face battle etc). I suspect some haunted house stories have a similar plot, where the house tempts the investigators according to their personalities once they arrive.)

Or maybe I'm just overthinking the entire thing. Has anyone else tried to squash a novel into the three-act structure?

No, but I have squashed a plot into a 12 chapter mystery formula, which isn't all that different.

My best instant thought is that if you're worried about it taking too long to impress allies, have the major actions have already taken place before, and the hero just needing to trigger a reminder of them.

An example from Curse of Chalion

Spoiler

Caz, our hero, is a noble who's just been released from being a galley slave. He becomes tutor to the princess and embroiled in royal intrigues and curse breaking. As part of this, he must persuade a neighbouring royal family... which becomes a ton easier when it turns out he saved the prince there when a galley slave - which might seem super easy barely an inconvenience except for the fact he's been struggling with everything about the galley slave stuff so it feels earned

You could also invert it somewhat. He was trying to get allies. That led him into doing the thing that was a disaster. He is then able to use the fact he cares to get the allies to come join him (even though at his darkest, he thinks his disaster has blown it).

 

[paranoid marvin]

Rather than 'impress' his would-be companions, the MC would simply have to assume command. Most will accept his authority (until/unless he really screws up), one or two may question it. Those are the ones he needs to impress/earn their respect.

So out of a group of say 7, he has 4 who follow him, 1 who needs a bit of convincing, and 1 who not only questions his authority, but wants to take command themselves.

This should shorten that stage of your story somewhat.

 

[Cthulhu.Science]

You might also use the "success begets success" model. Your hero must do a great heroic feat to impress the first ally, but the mere fact that the first ally is on board helps attract the second, and having two important allies helps attract the third and so forth. Each trial could become less extreme (and page intensive) as allies are collected.

Second variant:
As he decides to gain allies he must decide whether he chooses to collect minor allies and work up to the most important ally in the land or go to the biggest dog on the block first. If some people know your protagonist's plight and mission and goals and are simply skeptical about joining, then they may watch to see what he decides. [perhaps everyone has enough spies and observers around to keep up with important events across the entire land] Perhaps the minor allies are themselves impressed that Protagonist went straight for the biggest baddest hero/ally on the block for an alliance - and succeeded!

This all depends on the world-building structure.

Good Luck

 

[paranoid marvin]

Of course, you always have the 'Rob Stark' option of starting off with lots of allies that follow you, then losing them one by one.

 

[Toby Frost]

Seven Samurai are, kind of, the collective MC of that story.

Good point: they become almost like a D&D "party" of adventurers. That's not really the sort of story that I'm writing, but it's good to be able to identify that it isn't. Being able to rule things out is very helpful. A lot of suggestions here are ways that I wouldn't go, but I know why I wouldn't, which assists a lot.

The whole gathering of allies aspect reminds me of the plots of some computer games, where you must go and do various missions to win over different factions. The difference, though, is that games are there to give you interesting stuff to do, while books have a greater need for plot. If you do have quests to win over the allies, you're introducing a new portion of the story that doesn't neatly fit into the three-act structure, and could be an entire story in itself (or set of short stories).

Anyhow, while the three-act structure definitely works, it's also something of a guideline, so could be stretched. Interesting stuff.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Good point: they become almost like a D&D "party" of adventurers. That's not really the sort of story that I'm writing, but it's good to be able to identify that it isn't. Being able to rule things out is very helpful. A lot of suggestions here are ways that I wouldn't go, but I know why I wouldn't, which assists a lot.

The whole gathering of allies aspect reminds me of the plots of some computer games, where you must go and do various missions to win over different factions. The difference, though, is that games are there to give you interesting stuff to do, while books have a greater need for plot. If you do have quests to win over the allies, you're introducing a new portion of the story that doesn't neatly fit into the three-act structure, and could be an entire story in itself (or set of short stories).

Anyhow, while the three-act structure definitely works, it's also something of a guideline, so could be stretched. Interesting stuff.

Often the quests aren't as much to win over friends - if you have to carry out tasks in order for others to help you defeat a mutual enemy, they aren't exactly 'friends' - but in order to build the character of your MC (or in the case of RPGs, gain XP, gold and equipment).

We saw in the movie trilogy of The Hobbit how sidequests can destroy a story.

 

[Swank]

Good point: they become almost like a D&D "party" of adventurers. That's not really the sort of story that I'm writing, but it's good to be able to identify that it isn't. Being able to rule things out is very helpful. A lot of suggestions here are ways that I wouldn't go, but I know why I wouldn't, which assists a lot.

The whole gathering of allies aspect reminds me of the plots of some computer games, where you must go and do various missions to win over different factions. The difference, though, is that games are there to give you interesting stuff to do, while books have a greater need for plot. If you do have quests to win over the allies, you're introducing a new portion of the story that doesn't neatly fit into the three-act structure, and could be an entire story in itself (or set of short stories).

Anyhow, while the three-act structure definitely works, it's also something of a guideline, so could be stretched. Interesting stuff.

I guess I'm unsure where the conflict for you lies. Do you need to nail three act structure? Are you worried that if you depart from it too far the story will lack cohesiveness? Why would you gather your characters late in the story? They don't get much time to develop that way.

 

[Toby Frost]

Do you need to nail three act structure? Are you worried that if you depart from it too far the story will lack cohesiveness?

I think that's the issue. I don't really need to stick strictly to the structure: it's more that I've not tried to formally plot a novel before (in this way, anyhow) and it's not how I instinctively work. And yes, I'm wondering whether it will seem to spiral off if I don't stick to it.

I suspect the answer is "we'll see" and by the time the gathering of allies bit arises the book will have changed to either accommodate it or not make it necessary.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

I very much think this "disaster near the end of Act 2" thing is valid. I've used it myself on various occasions. It crops up in all sorts of analyses. I particularly remember reading an analysis of Dan Brown's plot structures, in which the position of relative highs and lows through a novel were ascertained. It's remarkably precise for Brown. I used this template for my King Alfred novel last summer. My advice would be: Brown wrote mostly trite hackwork, but he certainly knew how to tell a story.

 

[The Big Peat]

For me the most attractive part of story structure - and where Dan Brown made his fortune with it - is it keeps the drip-drip-drip of new story details and twists very regular. You don't get caught up in bits of story where nothing bloody happens forever and ever.

You can also get some mileage out of playing with reader expectations if you really know what you're doing there, which I don't but the whole disaster near the end of Act 2 thing is very good for that.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Usually the most compelling stories are those where the protagonist wins through from a position of relative weakness.