Three Act Structure and the point of disaster

[Paul Meccano]

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.

My current WIP is aligned with this pattern of water torture (for me, that drip drip of constant rewrite and editing). I’m hoping the reader won’t know or care about the pains I suffer by the time I finish.
And yes, I agree the trick is feeding the readers without getting gnawed in the process.
Nice spot;0)

 

[Paul Meccano]

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?

Even labelled a three act structure, I feel, the permeations are infinite and therefore debatable at every level — all of which infinite.
️

 

[Swank]

I think that’s Darth Buddha’s point.
A protagonist in my own life I suffered crook knees climbing a cliff near our house today. And that’s a short story that won’t win any award. any longer, I’d expect to be pushed when reaching the top.
Falling rocks or buried mines, ancient magik or sleeping dragons might well have made my climb a tragedy or a curse, a trial or at worst, finding the chip shop at the top closed…ohh, wait, I’ve called “tragedy” already….

But it isn't an innovation to note that fiction ONLY works when the MC has something to overcome. That's what fiction is.

 

[HareBrain]

But it isn't an innovation to note that fiction ONLY works when the MC has something to overcome. That's what fiction is.

In the west, yes, but the below Tumblr post contrasts the conflict-based approach with the Chinese/Japanese story structure called Kishotenketsu, in which obstacles are unnecessary, the "drama" being provided by a "twist".

(Other Tumblr posts without a "Jacques Derrida" hashtag are available.)

https://stilleatingoranges.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F25153960313

 

[THX1138]

That's worth looking into.

 

[Paul Meccano]

But it isn't an innovation to note that fiction ONLY works when the MC has something to overcome. That's what fiction is.

As humans we are asked to consider the question: when we are faced with something that stands in our way, to what extent is it outside of our control?
The path to light is always through the obstacle not around. That doesn’t necessarily mean conflict.

 

[paranoid marvin]

As humans we are asked to consider the question: when we are faced with something that stands in our way, to what extent is it outside of our control?
The path to light is always through the obstacle not around. That doesn’t necessarily mean conflict.

Although the obstacle itself is conflict; something incompatible with our viewpoint or that affects our plans, standing in our way. Whether we embrace the obstacle or reject it, it is still conflict.

 

[Swank]

As humans we are asked to consider the question: when we are faced with something that stands in our way, to what extent is it outside of our control?
The path to light is always through the obstacle not around. That doesn’t necessarily mean conflict.

I'm sorry I didn't use the word you prefer for the obstacle/jeopardy/difficulty/opposition that the MC faces as the only reason for this to be a story.

 

[Paul Meccano]

I'm sorry I didn't use the word you prefer for the obstacle/jeopardy/difficulty/opposition that the MC faces as the only reason for this to be a story.

Well, I hear you. But obstacle is also of the mind, so yes it can be a realisation, or a new way of thinking, in HairBrain’s share, and although it is a different structure the whole it still revolves around change of view, in that case the shift that comes from acceptance.

 

[Paul Meccano]

Although the obstacle itself is conflict; something incompatible with our viewpoint or that affects our plans, standing in our way. Whether we embrace the obstacle or reject it, it is still conflict.

I think this is the point we’re converging around. For a story to be a journey (a shift in self) one has to have a change in viewpoint, however we wish to structure it. Like I’ve said to Swank, acceptance is a huge shift yet it requires no conflict. the telling of that can be done over two three or four acts, and those lines are particularly blurry.

 

[Toby Frost]

I'd like to see some good concrete examples of what a plot without conflict would look like. Is a story about a man climbing a mountain a plot without conflict? He's obviously carrying out a difficult task, but is the difficulty that task the conflict? I suspect it would be, if you're willing to stretch the words that far.

Something like My Friend Totoro doesn't have conflict in the sense of a villain, just events that have to be dealt with. I wonder about the classic Lovecraft or ghost story plot, which is basically someone investigating something until they discover a truth that ends the story.

 

[HareBrain]

I'd like to see some good concrete examples of what a plot without conflict would look like.

Something like My Friend Totoro doesn't have conflict in the sense of a villain, just events that have to be dealt with.

The video from which I picked up that Kishotenketsu concept (which referenced that tumblr post) was about Ghibli films, and gave Kiki's Delivery Service as a good example. You could argue that it still contains conflict, as there are obstacles to overcome (the weather, despondency), but it doesn't feature an antagonist.

Is a story about a man climbing a mountain a plot without conflict? He's obviously carrying out a difficult task, but is the difficulty that task the conflict?

Obviously this wouldn't have a human antagonist either, but I think in a Western story the mountain would kind of be framed as an antagonist, to a degree that isn't present with the fairly mild obstacles in say KDS.

My understanding is that Kishotenketsu is about change, whereas Western stories tend to be about victory over something.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I suppose some road-trip movies would come under the heading of non-conflict movies.

Would Nebraska (which is a wonderful movie), The Straight Story and perhaps even Easy Rider come under that heading?

 

[Paul Meccano]

I suppose some road-trip movies would come under the heading of non-conflict movies.

Would Nebraska (which is a wonderful movie), The Straight Story and perhaps even Easy Rider come under that heading?

Yes, I think this nails it.
As we move through time, we each change as a person, conflict or not. Once changed, it becomes hard to see who we once were, and we might also struggle to define who we are now without some type of comparison.

 

[Paul Meccano]

I'd like to see some good concrete examples of what a plot without conflict would look like. Is a story about a man climbing a mountain a plot without conflict? He's obviously carrying out a difficult task, but is the difficulty that task the conflict? I suspect it would be, if you're willing to stretch the words that far.

Something like My Friend Totoro doesn't have conflict in the sense of a villain, just events that have to be dealt with. I wonder about the classic Lovecraft or ghost story plot, which is basically someone investigating something until they discover a truth that ends the story.

Conflict is the clashing of minds, or ideas, with self conflict the clashing of personal belief. When it comes to climbing a mountain there is only conflict IF the mountain is perceived to be a challenge. In other words we create conflict wherever we can’t accept the outside world and our inner landscape exactly as they are in the now (after all, that’s all we have) This is how abundance is perceived, although enlightenment is quite the trick.
I guess our point of reference plays a role, meaning also the society we each come from. Where eastern philosophy sees acceptance, our western sees only conflict. And truly, I don’t think our western approach has it nailed as yet, so I wish you happy hunting.

 

[Swank]

Conflict is the clashing of minds, or ideas, with self conflict the clashing of personal belief. When it comes to climbing a mountain there is only conflict IF the mountain is perceived to be a challenge. In other words we create conflict wherever we can’t accept the outside world and our inner landscape exactly as they are in the now (after all, that’s all we have) This is how abundance is perceived, although enlightenment is quite the trick.
I guess our point of reference plays a role, meaning also the society we each come from. Where eastern philosophy sees acceptance, our western sees only conflict. And truly, I don’t think our western approach has it nailed as yet, so I wish you happy hunting.

You are making a word salad of a simple concept: Stories offer a challenge to the forward movement of protagonist.

Making this about Western viewpoints is a canard because the word "conflict" is simply a label for wide range of impediments that provide the tension that make it interesting to read a story.


Here's the plot of Kiki's Delivery Service. It is absolutely loaded with challenges and impediments that the MC must overcome, so I can't fathom why anyone would suggest that it is a counterexample to the basic model of plot:

Kiki's Delivery Service - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Conflict" simply means that two things are in opposition. MC is afraid of the dark - something needs to happen in the dark - MC overcomes fear to make it happen - MC benefits from change of mind/show of bravery/thing that needed to happen. That's a plot.

 

[Paul Meccano]

You are making a word salad of a simple concept: Stories offer a challenge to the forward movement of protagonist.

Making this about Western viewpoints is a canard because the word "conflict" is simply a label for wide range of impediments that provide the tension that make it interesting to read a story.


Here's the plot of Kiki's Delivery Service. It is absolutely loaded with challenges and impediments that the MC must overcome, so I can't fathom why anyone would suggest that it is a counterexample to the basic model of plot:

Kiki's Delivery Service - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Conflict" simply means that two things are in opposition. MC is afraid of the dark - something needs to happen in the dark - MC overcomes fear to make it happen - MC benefits from change of mind/show of bravery/thing that needed to happen. That's a plot.

And too simplistic a view can sometimes stop us moving forward.
A person may well be scared of the dark one minute and not the next, nothing needs to happen other than a change in perception. That’s not conflict.
To tell that story one only needs to present the fore and after.

 

[HareBrain]

EM Forster made the classic distinction between story and plot. "The king died, and then the queen died" is a story. "The king died, and then the queen died of grief" is a plot. Causation becomes the crucial difference.

In Kiki's Delivery Service (say) the importance of cause-and-effect feels weaker than we are used to. For example, at one point Kiki has a negative experience with a girl in a sour mood who is having a birthday party and doesn't like the fish pie her gran has sent her (which Kiki has delivered). We are trained to view the girl as some kind of antagonist, as this episode brings on Kiki's crisis of confidence, but in fact the girl isn't seen again until she appears as part of the general friends group (of which Kiki is also now part) at the very end. I think this is typical of the difference in emphasis. The girl didn't need to be shown the error of her ways, nor did Kiki need to realise that she needn't be affected by her.

 

[Swank]

And too simplistic a view can sometimes stop us moving forward.
A person may well be scared of the dark one minute and not the next, nothing needs to happen other than a change in perception. That’s not conflict.
To tell that story one only needs to present the fore and after.

Stories are about the conflicts, whether you have 'perception changes' added in as well.

It isn't that everything in a plot has to be simple, but what qualifies as the conflict that drives plot isn't mysterious like you are attempting to make it.

 

[Swank]

EM Forster made the classic distinction between story and plot. "The king died, and then the queen died" is a story. "The king died, and then the queen died of grief" is a plot. Causation becomes the crucial difference.

In Kiki's Delivery Service (say) the importance of cause-and-effect feels weaker than we are used to. For example, at one point Kiki has a negative experience with a girl in a sour mood who is having a birthday party and doesn't like the fish pie her gran has sent her (which Kiki has delivered). We are trained to view the girl as some kind of antagonist, as this episode brings on Kiki's crisis of confidence, but in fact the girl isn't seen again until she appears as part of the general friends group (of which Kiki is also now part) at the very end. I think this is typical of the difference in emphasis. The girl didn't need to be shown the error of her ways, nor did Kiki need to realise that she needn't be affected by her.

The little girl isn't the antagonist, and you don't need a human antagonist to have a conflict to resolve in a plot.

I think this discussion obscures and mystifies something very straightforward about what plot arc is with these tangents about things that aren't conflict or aren't antagonists. Those things can exist in a story without changing the fact that the story still has the basic shape all plots share.