Context of three act structure:
- Most of us probably do need a structure or framework to write fiction
- Don’t worry too much about how objectively correct this idea is
- Solves two problems:
-
- Why should I care what happens next?
-
- So What?
- Three act structure and analysis of it are quite old ideas
- Interesting point that novel writers use a lot of guidance work written by screen writers, or from drama more generally
- Beware key difference between drama and novel: drama is single-sitting, at least traditionally
- Important point that the three act structure is for one story arc; a novel may contain several such story arcs
- Use a spreadsheet to track!
Overview:
- Why should I care what happens next? -> Dramatic question
- e.g. “will the hero live?”
- Act I: set up the question
- Act II: increase tension about the question
- Act III: resolve the question
- So what? -> there must be change
- Journey and not a round trip
- Any change valid, metaphysical etc, internal character change often perceived as superior
- Act I: inciting incident, reluctance, perhaps preparation; Act I Game Changer
- In Act I characters initially respond to things in the old way and fail
- Then Response – characters’ agency, bringing about Act I Game Changer
- Game Changer because it must be impossible to go back; irreversible
- Act I should make the Dramatic Question and the need for Change very clear
- Act II begins with hero’s attempts to deal with the problem: Attempts
- Leads to Midpoint within Act II – level up
- Act II Game Changer: ultimate low point, despair and danger
- Act II Game Changer can potentially answer the Dramatic Question but with a Caveat or Unexpected Consequence.
- Act III: Changed Attempts, Resolution, Coda
- Resolution can define comedy vs tragedy etc
- Coda can showcase the final state after Change
Act I:
- Ordinary World, Inciting Incident, Reluctance, Preparation, Act I Game Changer
- Dramatic Question: Fundamental Need, Promise of Cool
- Fundamental Need can come from Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
- Different levels on the hierachy might lead to different genres, e.g. thriller vs emotional drama vs romance vs psychological portrait etc
- Change should be a fundamental need or allow character to secure fundamental need
- Promise of Cool can be alternative to Fundamental Need (why not have both?)
- Promise of Cool as name suggests tantalises reader with expectation of cool shit happening (more common in sci-fi and fantasy)
- Likeability of hero and dislikeability of antagonist not essential; always at least mix it up
- More important: Agency, Motivation
- Agency: characters with no decision making are boring;
- Characters should take Meaningful Risks
- If X Then Y: make Agency and Stakes clear with this.
- Make impact of Stakes explicit and again meaningful
- Be specific to be interesting
- Vulnerability is effective
- Remember that Fundamental Need might not be clear to characters
Act II:
- Act II is where writers and readers famously give up!
- Act II is also theoretically most ambiguous / controversial
- Act II focused on Problems, which should impact the Dramatic Question
- Narrow down Problems to relate closely to Dramatic Question
- Clarity better than confusion!
- E.g. DQ “Can hero keep dark secret from fiance?” -> X->Y -> “if not, no marriage”
- ^ then e.g. Problems: cover-ups lead to misunderstandings; MIL tries to sabotage
- E.g. DQ “Can hero enter and disable enemy spacecraft?” -> X->Y -> “if not, expelled from military”
- ^ then e.g. Problems: tech problems (lol); vengeful aliens
- Problems must have Consequences (and Stakes?)
- Defeat of monster and then moving on as before is pointless (this is one of my issues with The Hobbit and LOTR to some extent!)
- Attempts, Mid-point, and Act II Game Changer distinguished by their Consequences
- Attempts: Problems change course of events
- Midpoint: Problems change Stakes
- Act II Game Changer: central Change
- Example of Problem changing course of events: a cover-up lie that must be maintained by the character in subsequent scenes (so Problem concern should be checked through following scenes).
- Another example of Problem changing course of events: can lead to meeting new character who is then impactful in rest of story.
- Note neither of above changes the Stakes.
- Mid-point Stakes change should significantly reduce changes of success, make consequences much graver, or both (need to clearly distinguish Consequences and Stakes concerns here)
- E.g. Stakes change: other character makes major sacrifice as result of misunderstanding or lie, which massively amplifies consequences of the lie
- E.g. Stakes change: other character is going to discover the dark secret, massively diminishing the chances of success
- Could have concerns of Amplified Consequences, Reduced Chance of Success
- (Can even see how this maps to something like Normal People, which is cool)
- E.g. YesBut for AIIGC: the dark secret is successfully concealed, but now the hero has realised she wants someone else and now needs to untangle the mess.
- E.g. YesBut for AIIGC: hero captured and only choice is to cooperate with a fellow prisoner who is a sworn enemy (coincidentally similar to The Tiger and The Wolf which I just finished).
- E.g. NoBut for AIIGC: hero fails to infiltrate enemy, but realises they are actually the good guys and has been working for the wrong side.
- Key point for AIIGC is that it’s the turning point to enter a different story.
- “Inversion” concern – generic list of such swaps that invert the story for major pivot at AIIGC.
- Remember that Midpoint and AIIGC are distinct!
- To reiterate:
- Attempts -> change the course of events
- Midpoint -> change the stakes
- AIIGC -> force the central change
- Remember to apply instincts and re-arrange Attempts / Midpoint in the way that feels best.
Act III:
- Rough Act III structure is Changed Attempts, Resolution, Coda.
- One difficulty is maintaining suspense / surprise in Act III after the AIIGC has indicated quite an obvious path to the end.
- Difficult balance between surprise and avoiding randomness – ending should feel like it had to happen (yes! – fatalist)
- Hero’s actions should be at the heart of the moment
- Key Action belongs to hero
- Important question: why didn’t they do this in the first place?
- The above question does seem to ruin a lot of fiction!
- I think a Why Not Before concern would be handy.
- Avoid Deus Ex Machina
- Nothing new should suddenly appear in Act III
- Inverse of Chekhov’s Gun – anything in Act III should have appeared earlier
- Tip: list out everything from Act I and Act II (fatalist!)
- The mind can’t help but try to draw connections between things; both writer and reader do this; take advantage of it
- Something seen before having implications later will not seem random due to this tendency
- Nice point about budgeting subconscious thinking time; don’t use the first solution you think of for Act III
- “Leaving a story to brew”
Breaking the structure:
- Novels are composed of multiple story arcs built around Three Act Structures; after interweaving, the scaffolding is not obvious
- Everyone who consumes fiction is familiar with Three Act Structure either through accumulated intuition or perhaps innateness
- We can all “feel when it goes wrong”
- Can consider intentionally breaking the structure for effect
- I think I’m less interested in this for now; I’d be more than happy to mimic existing art!