Three Act Structure and the point of disaster

[HareBrain]

Those things can exist in a story without changing the fact that the story still has the basic shape all plots share.

Sure. And some Ghibli films have strong conflict with human antagonists (say, Princess Mononoke) that seem more familiar. I just thought that the fact that there's apparently this other cultural model with a difference in emphasis (not necessarily raw ingredients) was interesting.

 

[Swank]

Sure. And some Ghibli films have strong conflict with human antagonists (say, Princess Mononoke) that seem more familiar. I just thought that the fact that there's apparently this other cultural model with a difference in emphasis (not necessarily raw ingredients) was interesting.

Plenty of Western plots also lack antagonists.

 

[Paul Meccano]

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.

This style of story telling then (if I may quote Robert M Persig), looks to be pointing to the moment before the A priory moment where judgement takes place. Judgement being the a priory moment itself, where ideas are formed and conflict may arise.
It’s asking us to take in the moment fully before making our mind up.

Love it.

 

[Paul Meccano]

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.

Conflict is simply perception. If the writer chooses to focus on right and wrong then conflict it is. Otherwise the reader gets to make their own mind up?

 

[Swank]

Conflict is simply perception. If the writer chooses to focus on right and wrong then conflict it is. Otherwise the reader gets to make their own mind up?

'Conflict' does not mean 'fight'. It only means that there is an incompatibility between some things. Think "scheduling conflict". That's all the word means in this context.

And not being able to be two places at once is not a perception but a fact.

 

[Paul Meccano]

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.

I understand you see it that way. I can’t change your mind and don’t want to. But when nothing in this work exists without a polar opposite, personally I find it hard to see how conflict stands alone in storytelling, it’s just not human.
It’s more human to have a world view that negates certain possibilities because it fits the minds eye better.
I remain open on this, while respecting your viewpoint.

 

[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.

I’ve spent some time to recall some of the stories I’ve read, and Philip K Dick sprang to mind - The man in the High Castle. It occurs to me, that although there are indeed elements of conflict in this story they are not the driver. In fact, any conflict stands to contrast the ways of the governing Japanese, who, in this alternate reality along with the Germans, won WW2.
The main characters and the alternate fiction included within it are designed to weigh judgement calls that, from each perspective are shown to lack any evidence. Motive becomes the theme rather than conflict itself.

 

[Swank]

I understand you see it that way. I can’t change your mind and don’t want to. But when nothing in this work exists without a polar opposite, personally I find it hard to see how conflict stands alone in storytelling, it’s just not human.
It’s more human to have a world view that negates certain possibilities because it fits the minds eye better.
I remain open on this, while respecting your viewpoint.

I really don't understand your objection. Before it seemed like you were conflating conflict and fight, but now...


Conflicts create the inflection points where characters must make choices, and the choices of consequence are plot points. The stairway or the tunnel. The wizard or the knight. Love or safety. Not chicken vs beef or pie vs cake.

 

[Paul Meccano]

I really don't understand your objection. Before it seemed like you were conflating conflict and fight, but now...


Conflicts create the inflection points where characters must make choices, and the choices of consequence are plot points. The stairway or the tunnel. The wizard or the knight. Love or safety. Not chicken vs beef or pie vs cake.

Mind view creates introspection point where characters can come together, put ideas to trial or simply discuss. When people and reality prove to be more inclusive than initially portrayed judgment is changed and the world looks different.

 

[Paul Meccano]

'Conflict' does not mean 'fight'. It only means that there is an incompatibility between some things. Think "scheduling conflict". That's all the word means in this context.

And not being able to be two places at once is not a perception but a fact.

I didn’t say it was.

You’ve turned my comment to nonsense to create separation and conflict with me.
I’m out.
It was a pleasure, and like I say, I do respect your viewpoint.

 

[Swank]

I didn’t say it was.

You’ve turned my comment to nonsense to create separation and conflict with me.
I’m out.
It was a pleasure, and like I say, I do respect your viewpoint.

Honestly, I think we are using English in ways so different that there is no way of understanding each other.

 

[Brian G Turner]

the three-act structure in terms of plotting a novel

Save the Cat by Blake Snyder is a great short and easy read on how to write to a 3 act structure for films, but is equally applicable for novels.

I'm not sure how closely you'll be able to write to it, but I figure a key quality for any artist is to know when to be flexible.

 

[Cthulhu.Science]

Save the Cat by Blake Snyder is a great short and easy read on how to write to a 3 act structure for films, but is equally applicable for novels.

I'm not sure how closely you'll be able to write to it, but I figure a key quality for any artist is to know when to be flexible.

Just found and read the essay -- awesome.

I guess I'll stick with my day job. I don't think I want to write Howard the Duck meets Furiosa. (see what I did there?)

 

[Cthulhu.Science]

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.

Lovecraft is particularly curious since the protagonist (and the reader) often doesn't get a complete answer. Lovecraft often puts the hero's journey on its head. Starting with The Cave many protagonists are experts with all the latest equipment investigating something and ultimately fail to overcome -- often ending up in an asylum.

 

[paranoid marvin]

And M R James often kills (or seriously affects) his characters simply for being curious. No warnings given, no explanation of what the entity is. You do this or go there, and suddenly you are in deadly peril. Which makes it all feel more realistic and believable - therefore scarier.

 

[Toby Frost]

It seems pretty clear that we can define and redefine "conflict" until it fits whatever meaning we think the story needs.

I've sometimes found myself instinctively moving towards a sort of two-act structure, that basically divides into "approaching a crisis" and "resolving the crisis". Something like this: Bob agrees to buy something from a man on the internet. Events build towards the deal being done: they argue over the price, make an agreement, Bob goes to see the man. Maybe tension is added by a friend advising Bob not to go. At the midpoint, the man robs Bob. The second act is Bob responding (probably by taking some kind of revenge, finding the man, ensuring justice is done, etc).

If Bob was robbed a quarter of the way into the story, it could be a conventional revenge drama. But if the robbery occurs halfway, that feels like a different structure.

 

[Swank]

It seems pretty clear that we can define and redefine "conflict" until it fits whatever meaning we think the story needs.

I've sometimes found myself instinctively moving towards a sort of two-act structure, that basically divides into "approaching a crisis" and "resolving the crisis". Something like this: Bob agrees to buy something from a man on the internet. Events build towards the deal being done: they argue over the price, make an agreement, Bob goes to see the man. Maybe tension is added by some advising Bob not to go. At the midpoint, the man robs Bob. The second act is Bob responding (probably by taking some kind of revenge, finding the man, ensuring justice is done, etc).

If Bob was robbed a quarter of the way into the story, it could be a conventional revenge drama. But if the robbery occurs halfway, that feels like a different structure.

The first of three acts is generally the set up to the conflict. Is there something you do that clumps 1 and 2 together in some inseparable way?

 

[Toby Frost]

In this two-act structure? Only that the response to the crisis needs to reflect the buildup to the crisis. So Bob going to live abroad after being robbed wouldn't work, although it might make sense to him as a response. I suppose it boils down to "man gets wronged, man avenges wrong".

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Robert Heinlein (boo! boo!) pointed out that the three traditional stories, boy meets girl, the little tailor and the lucky Prince - I'm paraphrasing that last one as I can't remember it exactly - are all variations on The Success Story. So, it's all about success!

 

[KGeo777]

I would use the term "contrast" instead of conflict to confuse things even more.
Stories that have character contrast can be more dynamic. To have conflict you need contrasting characters, views, ideologies.

I.e. Ahab will do anything to kill the whale. The whale will do anything to survive. Ahab is a man on a boat-a technological construction, the whale is naked (scandalous) in the water--pure natural.
Contrast.
That doesn't mean you want a mouse to have a fight with a moon to maximize contrast, but sometimes stories get bogged down because the characters may both be formidable--but they aren't that far apart in desire or goals. You know the stories where the villain might be a former good guy and the good guy is someone bitter about the establishment and so doesn't necessarily disagree with the villain in goals.

Or take Nosferatu
in the original movie, Orlok wanted to conquer another land. He sees this woman's picture and decides he is going to have a snack when he gets to his new home. The snack doesn't want to be his snack. Contrasting goals and desires.

The new movie BTW--waters that down--since it doesn't establish that the two main characters are really on opposite pages. Much like the Coppola Dracula--since that version has Dracula looking for his wife and she --Harker's wife--isn't all that antagonistic to it--so there's less contrast.
But then it is more of a romance so how much contrast can you have. But I don't feel Dracula's goals are all that clear--he wants his wife back more than anything else--he is not seeking to conquer England, so the hero characters are kind of standing around not doing that much--or their actions seem kind of dull since the contrast (my favorite word) between them and Dracula is rather vague.

Anyway, my contribution.