4 ms·

Kind of pretentious to call it "Story Structure 101" unless we're qualifying this as the author's types of stories. In which case, fine. What about stories whe

Kind of pretentious to call it "Story Structure 101" unless we're qualifying this as the author's types of stories. In which case, fine. What about stories where the hero gets what they wanted, it's a net good for everyone, and the only heavy price is a newfound responsibility to maintain this good rather than "returning to a familiar situation"? To me, that's an actual hero.

wodenokoto 4y ago
Any examples?
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  Aragorn
  - analognoise 4y ago
    Aragorn was totally changed though; he had to watch Frodo leave on the elven ships to the land of the Maiar (iirc) because he couldn't deal with the pain of having been the ring bearer; the love of his life was immortal and she gave up her place in the Undying Lands for him, he watched the collapse of the Dwarves, and the light of magic leave the land - and because of his Numenorian blood he was to stand at this precipice, knowing everything the world had lost, and he'd have nobody to share it with - it would quickly become legend/myth. Aragorn was mighty - but he was absolutely changed. Beautiful but tragic.
    - tsimionescu 4y ago
      The point is that Aragorn has not had to sacrifice any major thing. Of course he is changed in many ways, and he does feel the weight of the events, and his invreased responsibility. But this is really not comparable to Luke losing his hand, or Frodo taking on the taint of evil (and losing a finger), or Iron Man losing his hear, or Gilgamesh losing Enkidu. Stretching the hero's journey so far would only show it to be a shallow trick.
      - tinco 4y ago
        Aragorn is also not really the hero of the story, he's just a side character who adds flavour to the story which is really about the hobbits. I don't think side characters need any specific story arc to make them interesting, they just need to be unique in some way.
        tsimionescu 4y ago
        There are numerous chapters dedicated entirely to Aragorn's story (as there are for Sam and Frodo, for Merry and Pippin). I very very much disagree that he is just a side character. The Lord of the Rings is of an "ensemble cast", with no single protagonist. So while Aragorn is not The Hero, neither is Frodo, nor Sam.
        chipotle_coyote 4y ago
        I would absolutely argue that Frodo is the protagonist/hero of The Lord of the Rings. ("Protagonist" and "hero" aren't always interchangeable, but they are in this case.) Yes, other characters in LotR have their own stories and even their own arcs -- but that's true for many, even most, novels over a certain length. Many characters in LotR have their own stories with beginnings and endings, but the epic's overarching plot is that of the journey to destroy the One Ring and end Sauron's threat once and for all -- and that journey is the journey of the Ringbearer. One of the most trenchant pieces of advice I got from a workshop instructor -- an award-winning fantasy novelist -- when I was struggling with a novel outline was "come up with an arc for all of your major characters, not just Gail [the protagonist]." Every major character in a story has something they want, has a place they start and a place they end up. Obviously stories can have multiple protagonists, but not every character who has a discernible arc is a protagonist, and not every story with an "ensemble cast" is one with multiple protagonists. (e.g., Ocean's Eleven is about an ensemble, but structurally, Danny Ocean is absolutely the protagonist.) Story structure tools don't work particularly well as blueprints -- the major failing of the (in)famous Save the Cat! is its relentless prescriptiveness in this regard -- but they can work well as lenses and, before writing, as brainstorming tools. You need to be able to tell who your protagonist is -- and, yes, there may be more than one, but you need to understand your story structure well enough to know whether you really do have a story with multiple protagonists. And if your answer to "what does your main character want" is "oh, nothing, really, they're just fine," then you need to at least consider the possibility that there is a problem with your story, not with the general principle that stories are about characters trying to resolve problems.
Promyvion 4y ago
What about them? The scenario you provided sounds like a perfectly valid fit for the circle he’s describing. In the end, your hero now has a newfound responsibility to maintain the good. That’s huge. How did she come to that realization? The “Return” phase is precisely where she would process that discovery. “For some characters, [7. Return] is as easy as hugging the scarecrow goodbye and waking up. […] or in a love story, having realized what’s important.” Based off your description, I’m imagining a heartwarming and simple story about a scientist who wants to find a cure for cancer: 1. ESTABLISH A PROTAGONIST: We meet her in college. 2. SOMETHING AIN'T QUITE RIGHT: We learn that her brother has cancer, and that she wants to cure it. 3. CROSSING THE THRESHOLD: She gets hired at a prestigious cancer research lab. 4. THE ROAD OF TRIALS: Night after night, she stays up late pouring over data. 5. MEETING WITH THE GODDESS: She finally discovers a cure for cancer. 6. MEET YOUR MAKER; The late nights have taken their toll and she’s exhausted, but she’s overwhelmed with happiness that her hard work has paid off. 7. BRINGING IT HOME: She begins to feel the weight of how important her work will be for both her brother and humanity at large. 8. MASTER OF BOTH WORLDS: She accomplishes what she set out to do; cure her brother’s cancer. She also sends the entirety of her research to universities, science journals, and news outlets the world over, ensuring that no single company can own the manufacturing process of this cure.
- dsr_ 4y ago
  You can do anything with story as long as you write it well. If you know you're not going to be writing it especially well, use the tropes. One of the problems with US television in the broadcast and early cable age was that all television series were 22-26 episodes long. Another was that after the first air date, viewers would be likely to encounter them out of order. As a direct result, television series avoided having one episode refer to another. The major exception were soap operas, which often ran 4-6 episodes every week and specifically maintained continuity -- there are/were digest magazines devoted to catching watchers up on current storylines.

wodenokoto 4y ago

Any examples?

tsimionescu 4y ago
Aragorn
- analognoise 4y ago
  Aragorn was totally changed though; he had to watch Frodo leave on the elven ships to the land of the Maiar (iirc) because he couldn't deal with the pain of having been the ring bearer; the love of his life was immortal and she gave up her place in the Undying Lands for him, he watched the collapse of the Dwarves, and the light of magic leave the land - and because of his Numenorian blood he was to stand at this precipice, knowing everything the world had lost, and he'd have nobody to share it with - it would quickly become legend/myth. Aragorn was mighty - but he was absolutely changed. Beautiful but tragic.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    The point is that Aragorn has not had to sacrifice any major thing. Of course he is changed in many ways, and he does feel the weight of the events, and his invreased responsibility. But this is really not comparable to Luke losing his hand, or Frodo taking on the taint of evil (and losing a finger), or Iron Man losing his hear, or Gilgamesh losing Enkidu. Stretching the hero's journey so far would only show it to be a shallow trick.
    - tinco 4y ago
      Aragorn is also not really the hero of the story, he's just a side character who adds flavour to the story which is really about the hobbits. I don't think side characters need any specific story arc to make them interesting, they just need to be unique in some way.
      - tsimionescu 4y ago
        There are numerous chapters dedicated entirely to Aragorn's story (as there are for Sam and Frodo, for Merry and Pippin). I very very much disagree that he is just a side character. The Lord of the Rings is of an "ensemble cast", with no single protagonist. So while Aragorn is not The Hero, neither is Frodo, nor Sam.
        chipotle_coyote 4y ago
        I would absolutely argue that Frodo is the protagonist/hero of The Lord of the Rings. ("Protagonist" and "hero" aren't always interchangeable, but they are in this case.) Yes, other characters in LotR have their own stories and even their own arcs -- but that's true for many, even most, novels over a certain length. Many characters in LotR have their own stories with beginnings and endings, but the epic's overarching plot is that of the journey to destroy the One Ring and end Sauron's threat once and for all -- and that journey is the journey of the Ringbearer. One of the most trenchant pieces of advice I got from a workshop instructor -- an award-winning fantasy novelist -- when I was struggling with a novel outline was "come up with an arc for all of your major characters, not just Gail [the protagonist]." Every major character in a story has something they want, has a place they start and a place they end up. Obviously stories can have multiple protagonists, but not every character who has a discernible arc is a protagonist, and not every story with an "ensemble cast" is one with multiple protagonists. (e.g., Ocean's Eleven is about an ensemble, but structurally, Danny Ocean is absolutely the protagonist.) Story structure tools don't work particularly well as blueprints -- the major failing of the (in)famous Save the Cat! is its relentless prescriptiveness in this regard -- but they can work well as lenses and, before writing, as brainstorming tools. You need to be able to tell who your protagonist is -- and, yes, there may be more than one, but you need to understand your story structure well enough to know whether you really do have a story with multiple protagonists. And if your answer to "what does your main character want" is "oh, nothing, really, they're just fine," then you need to at least consider the possibility that there is a problem with your story, not with the general principle that stories are about characters trying to resolve problems.

Promyvion 4y ago

What about them? The scenario you provided sounds like a perfectly valid fit for the circle he’s describing. In the end, your hero now has a newfound responsibility to maintain the good. That’s huge. How did she come to that realization? The “Return” phase is precisely where she would process that discovery. “For some characters, [7. Return] is as easy as hugging the scarecrow goodbye and waking up. […] or in a love story, having realized what’s important.” Based off your description, I’m imagining a heartwarming and simple story about a scientist who wants to find a cure for cancer: 1. ESTABLISH A PROTAGONIST: We meet her in college. 2. SOMETHING AIN'T QUITE RIGHT: We learn that her brother has cancer, and that she wants to cure it. 3. CROSSING THE THRESHOLD: She gets hired at a prestigious cancer research lab. 4. THE ROAD OF TRIALS: Night after night, she stays up late pouring over data. 5. MEETING WITH THE GODDESS: She finally discovers a cure for cancer. 6. MEET YOUR MAKER; The late nights have taken their toll and she’s exhausted, but she’s overwhelmed with happiness that her hard work has paid off. 7. BRINGING IT HOME: She begins to feel the weight of how important her work will be for both her brother and humanity at large. 8. MASTER OF BOTH WORLDS: She accomplishes what she set out to do; cure her brother’s cancer. She also sends the entirety of her research to universities, science journals, and news outlets the world over, ensuring that no single company can own the manufacturing process of this cure.

dsr_ 4y ago
You can do anything with story as long as you write it well. If you know you're not going to be writing it especially well, use the tropes. One of the problems with US television in the broadcast and early cable age was that all television series were 22-26 episodes long. Another was that after the first air date, viewers would be likely to encounter them out of order. As a direct result, television series avoided having one episode refer to another. The major exception were soap operas, which often ran 4-6 episodes every week and specifically maintained continuity -- there are/were digest magazines devoted to catching watchers up on current storylines.