Bishop Practical Fiction Writing Plot

1190 words

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:
• 1. Why should I care what happens next?
• 2. 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!