3 ms·

I am really amazed at how much we talk about that 3 act structure. Basically, it says, well, you have a beginning, and then a middle, and then the story ends. N

I am really amazed at how much we talk about that 3 act structure. Basically, it says, well, you have a beginning, and then a middle, and then the story ends. Not very helpful for writers, and it is not even descriptive. If only it told you "well, your first third is the beginning, next third middle, last third ending", but no. Actually, the second act is usually twice longer than each other, as shown in the wikipedia article, and it is usually cut in two parts, as there is a huge event in the middle ("No, I am your father"-kind-of-event). OK, so, basically, you have 4 acts, right? Why not call it a 4-act structure? And you still don't know how to structure them. OTOH, I like Lester Dent's famous master plot formula, written in the 30s for pulp fiction short stories: https://www.paper-dragon.com/1939/dent.html https://www.paper-dragon.com/1939/dent.html . It is written for action-packed short stories, obviously, but describes pretty well the structure of most Hollywood successes, too. And it can help writers, well, write interesting stories (although it must be adapted, obviously, unless you are writing a "must defeat the villain" story).

goto11 8y ago
"Tree act structure" does not just mean that a story is split into three parts. At least as used by screenwriters, it is a term for a tried-and-true narrative structure with a lot of well-defined elements, for example that the protagonist should get a goal in the beginning which transform into a deeper personal goal, that stakes should increase and the protagonist have their deepest core challenged and so on.
thanatropism 8y ago
You seem knowledgeable. I have a strange itch to write a small stage play (one act, two actors) -- even though I will probably live to see it performed. Is there anything like the master plot formula or even Campbell/Vogler/Save the cat style templates for the stage?
- sacado2 8y ago
  Nope, I don't know any equivalent for stage, sorry...
dragonwriter 8y ago
> OK, so, basically, you have 4 acts, right? Why not call it a 4-act structure? Because there's a fairly concrete distinction between acts in stage plays, and that's how plays using the structure are tradition broken up (act divisions in film and novels are often more metaphor than concrete, so, yeah, without the stage precedent, it would make more sense to name it for the four parts, two of which are jammed together in the three-act model.) > And you still don't know how to structure them. Yes, you do; the general “shape” of the structure had been described in detail for a long time; the three-act structure isn't just “a beginning, middle, and end”, it's a very particular shape (the Wikipedia page is a good brief description, but their are good sized books covering it in detail.) > It is written for action-packed short stories, obviously, but describes pretty well the structure of most Hollywood successes, too. Not really; it's got a lot of genre and form specific but, though it's certainly not entirely useless outside of that focus. The Writer's Journey is better for describing the shape of Hollywood successes (Save the Cat does so even more precisely for recent ones, providing very close to a minute-by-minute breakdown.)
- sacado2 8y ago
  > Because there's a fairly concrete distinction between acts in stage plays, and that's how plays using the structure are tradition broken up (act divisions in film and novels are often more metaphor than concrete, so, yeah, without the stage precedent, it would make more sense to name it for the four parts, two of which are jammed together in the three-act model.) I don't know, lots of classical works were written with more than 3 acts, for instance lots of works from Molière, Corneille or Shakespeare consist in 5 acts. The legend says back then acts were as long as the candles lighting the scene lasted, but I don't know if it's true. If it is, it's the old equivalent of five act structure in tv series, mandated by commercials' breaks: the number of acts is determined by external reasons, not narrative ones. > Not really; it's got a lot of genre and form specific but, though it's certainly not entirely useless outside of that focus. The Writer's Journey is better for describing the shape of Hollywood successes (Save the Cat does so even more precisely for recent ones, providing very close to a minute-by-minute breakdown.) Yeah, I forgot about those 2 (I wrote my comment in a hurry). They are way better examples, for sure.

goto11 8y ago

"Tree act structure" does not just mean that a story is split into three parts. At least as used by screenwriters, it is a term for a tried-and-true narrative structure with a lot of well-defined elements, for example that the protagonist should get a goal in the beginning which transform into a deeper personal goal, that stakes should increase and the protagonist have their deepest core challenged and so on.

thanatropism 8y ago

You seem knowledgeable. I have a strange itch to write a small stage play (one act, two actors) -- even though I will probably live to see it performed. Is there anything like the master plot formula or even Campbell/Vogler/Save the cat style templates for the stage?

sacado2 8y ago
Nope, I don't know any equivalent for stage, sorry...

dragonwriter 8y ago

> OK, so, basically, you have 4 acts, right? Why not call it a 4-act structure? Because there's a fairly concrete distinction between acts in stage plays, and that's how plays using the structure are tradition broken up (act divisions in film and novels are often more metaphor than concrete, so, yeah, without the stage precedent, it would make more sense to name it for the four parts, two of which are jammed together in the three-act model.) > And you still don't know how to structure them. Yes, you do; the general “shape” of the structure had been described in detail for a long time; the three-act structure isn't just “a beginning, middle, and end”, it's a very particular shape (the Wikipedia page is a good brief description, but their are good sized books covering it in detail.) > It is written for action-packed short stories, obviously, but describes pretty well the structure of most Hollywood successes, too. Not really; it's got a lot of genre and form specific but, though it's certainly not entirely useless outside of that focus. The Writer's Journey is better for describing the shape of Hollywood successes (Save the Cat does so even more precisely for recent ones, providing very close to a minute-by-minute breakdown.)

sacado2 8y ago
> Because there's a fairly concrete distinction between acts in stage plays, and that's how plays using the structure are tradition broken up (act divisions in film and novels are often more metaphor than concrete, so, yeah, without the stage precedent, it would make more sense to name it for the four parts, two of which are jammed together in the three-act model.) I don't know, lots of classical works were written with more than 3 acts, for instance lots of works from Molière, Corneille or Shakespeare consist in 5 acts. The legend says back then acts were as long as the candles lighting the scene lasted, but I don't know if it's true. If it is, it's the old equivalent of five act structure in tv series, mandated by commercials' breaks: the number of acts is determined by external reasons, not narrative ones. > Not really; it's got a lot of genre and form specific but, though it's certainly not entirely useless outside of that focus. The Writer's Journey is better for describing the shape of Hollywood successes (Save the Cat does so even more precisely for recent ones, providing very close to a minute-by-minute breakdown.) Yeah, I forgot about those 2 (I wrote my comment in a hurry). They are way better examples, for sure.