[Writingworkshop] Stories
Samantha Weiss
samweiss at MIT.EDU
Sun Mar 2 03:51:14 EST 2008
Hey Antony,
Sorry, yes. I had read your e-mail too quickly, responded only to
"trilogy" in the broad sense, not to your LoTR question. My bad.
I entirely trust everything you are saying about LoTR; I never liked it
and don't know it well enough to respond without having it with me. I
did jot down notes for LoTR while at Odyssey, so they would be in Rhode
Island (my permanent, non college address) somewhere.
Sorry I can't respond to LoTR, because now I'm curious. Just reading
what you'd written though, Bilbo passing the ring to Frodo wouldn't
count as an act because the main character, Frodo, isn't the one who is
taking action. Whereas, yes, definitely, Frodo taking up the quest would
totally be an act. Only when the main character takes action/makes a
decision is it an act. (*Doesn't count if they are forced to do it*) If
it's okay, I'm just gonna jot down the 3 act structure as I see it for
Star Wars (IV), becuase there are 3 places that I see Luke taking
definitive action.
-S.
Inciting incident: Luke gets holographic message, “help me Obi-Wan.”
Character goal then becomes: to help Princess Leia fight Empire
First attempt: Luke seeks out Obi-Wan they go to Aldaarran.
Consequences: Aldaraan is no longer there and they are captured by Death
Star.
Second attempt: Luke saves Leia. Consequences: he finally becomes
formally involved in the resistance movement, including the assault team.
Third attempt: Luke fights in combat, uses his training to destroy the
Death Star. Resolution: Luke and Han-Solo get rewarded.
> Samantha,
>
> Your definition for act is so broad as to encompass almost anything in a
> story of any length. Therefore, longer stories have more acts and the
> relationship to three or odd is imposed only from without.
>
>
>
> You use The Lord of the Rings again, but don't address the issues I
> raised against three acts for that work: viz, one novel of six books (as
> defined by the author) published in three volumes. If you're equating
> volumes published with acts, I'd have to say that that makes your
> argument extremely week. In no sense is this work a trilogy. Since you
> call it one, I doubt even more your argument that this work has a three
> act structure.
>
> Since you claim the structure for it, I'd like to know how the events of
> The Fellowship of the Ring fits into three acts. I certainly cannot see
> it. I count at least four acts in the first book of The Lord of the
> Rings (first half of the volume The Fellowship of the Ring): The
> passing of the ring from Bilbo to Frodo; Frodo taking up the quest with
> his friends; Frodo and company facing danger and finding allies; the
> success and failure of the black riders. And at least four in the
> second book (second half of the volume The Fellowship of the Ring): The
> fellowship forms and begins the new quest; Moria; Lorien; the breaking
> of the fellowship.
>
> Now, I believe that an argument could be made that either of these two
> books in The Fellowship of the Ring is really three acts. Book one:
> the passing of the ring; the quest begins; the quest ends in near
> tragedy. Book two: The formation of the fellowship; the new quest;
> the fellowship is broken. But, even if I do that, it's still not three
> acts. It's six.
>
> This is how I perceive our discussion of The Lord of the Rings:
>
> Me: Six isn't three (fact). Published volumes don't make acts (fact).
>
> You: Six is a trilogy and therefore three acts (apparently ignoring
> previously stated fact). The first book of the trilogy is also three
> acts (unsubstantiated claim).
>
> Me: (Repeats previous facts). Also, two isn't three (fact). Two might
> be eight or six, but not three (claim with a (perhaps weak)
> justification).
>
> You: ?
>
> If what you put into that question mark indicates that we can't agree on
> the facts, then I will not be able to continue to discuss this topic
> with you. I'm not asking you to concede my points, but no rational
> discussion can be had when the facts are in dispute.
>
> If you can show me how you would graft three acts onto the two books
> that make up The Fellowship of the Ring I might very well concede your
> point that it has a three act structure (you would have to lay out a
> mapping as I did). If you show me how you would produce three acts out
> of the six books of The Lord of the Rings, I probably wouldn't accept
> your argument, but I'd be willing to consider it and see if I could make
> sense of it (I don't think it's possible given the structure of the book
> and how it ends with a coda, but I'd be willing to listen - but only if
> you actually presented some sort of argument/mapping of action in the
> books to a three act structure). If you continue to argue that The Lord
> of the Rings is a trilogy, then we'll never be able to discuss this
> because we can't agree on the facts.
>
> Antony
>
>
> On Sat, 2008-03-01 at 15:26 -0500, Samantha Weiss wrote:
>
>> Here, Antony--
>>
>> An act is an attempt to achieve a goal. It can happen in a sentence, or
>> in a paragraph, or in ten chapters. (So when Chris's narrator got the
>> escort/tux, that was an act). The act ends once we see the resolution
>> of the act. (The narrators attempt was ineffective, because the other
>> characters knew the escort. Which leads to the next act, or the next
>> attempt.)
>>
>> In trilogies, it is typical for each separate book to have a three act
>> structure, and then for the overall trilogy to be, in and of itself, a
>> sort of larger three act structure. Each separate book in the Lord of
>> the Rings can be broken down into a three act structure, though we only
>> talked about the first book, and then of course, all three books can be
>> put together as a three act structure about an attempt to destroy the
>> ring. Same with Star Wars, although again, we only tackled the first
>> movie.
>>
>> And you are right. You can actually have a five act structure or a
>> seven act structure, too. There's more of an odd number rule.
>>
>> -S.
>>
>>
>>> Thank you, Samantha. I think this is a wonderful topic. Not least,
>>> because it's sure to generate some controversy :-)
>>>
>>> Two points for now:
>>>
>>> First, we need a definition. What is an act? What can/should/must
>>> happen for a piece of a story to be an act? At what point does a scene
>>> become an act? At what point does an act become something larger still?
>>> Is the three "act" structure recursive down to a scene? A paragraph? A
>>> sentence?
>>>
>>> In your examples you include The Lord of the Rings. To me, that's very
>>> interesting because I do not see how you could possible tack a three act
>>> structure onto that book. It is a novel composed of six books. That it
>>> was published in three volumes was an artifact of the publishing
>>> industry of the time. The individual books were too small to be
>>> published that way, and the complete novel was too large to be published
>>> as a single volume. The three volumes are not three acts (or three
>>> novels, or three anything).
>>>
>>> This leads to the second point. We're pattern seeking creatures. And
>>> we frequently find patterns even when they don't exist.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Why do bad things always happen in threes?"
>>>
>>> "Because we start counting again after three."
>>>
>>>
>>> So, I'm wondering if some of the three act structures that are found are
>>> found because three constitutes some sort of pattern grouping thing
>>> inherent in the way we think.
>>>
>>> Antony
>>>
>>> On Sat, 2008-03-01 at 13:39 -0500, Samantha Weiss wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thank you Antony--it's a meaningful discussion topic.
>>>>
>>>> I wanted to share thoughts on this, as I learned it at Odyssey, and as
>>>> it is the most useful thing I've learned as a writer. It was the
>>>> turning point for me, when my stories started getting feedback (from Joe
>>>> H. this fall, for example), that is "this is saleable."
>>>>
>>>> Definitely, as Antony pointed out, a story is about principals, not
>>>> about rules. The rule being the, "you must do it this way," and the
>>>> principal being the "this has worked through all remembered time."
>>>>
>>>> There are all these competing theories about plot. You hear: "There
>>>> are only 7 types of quintessential plots in the world" or "There are
>>>> only 21 types of plot in the world." These papers are published all
>>>> over the place. While I was at Odyssey, we studied piles of these
>>>> theories, and most types of plots have this three act try/fail,
>>>> try/fail, try/resolution structure. Then we looked at those stories
>>>> that have "made it." We talked about some fifteen different stories
>>>> from different cultures, stories older than the Bible, modern stories
>>>> (Star Wars movie, Lord of the Ring)... and broke them down. To my
>>>> absolute shock, all but one of them fit three act structure to the tee.
>>>> They were stories chosen at random by students.
>>>>
>>>> So it isn't really a hollywood invention. It's a quintessential human
>>>> form that has been passed down from the dawn of time. Which isn't to
>>>> say that you can't break it, but that you should have *reason* for
>>>> doing so. ("Anxious, inexperienced writers obey rules. Rebellious,
>>>> unschooled writers break rules. Artists master the form" -McKee)
>>>>
>>>> So had done a piece about a student killing his teacher, and
>>>> purposefully broke the three act structure, and did so because I needed
>>>> to to deepen character. And for that piece, I think it worked. So I'm
>>>> not set on three act structure, but I dont' see anything in Chris's work
>>>> that makes me think it *shouldn't* be a three act structure. He's
>>>> trying to tell a story about a sick man who wants to get rid of the
>>>> fever--that he has that goal means that as the reader, we are invested
>>>> in him pursuing it. Then, to be satisfied, we must see that there is a
>>>> struggle, that he tries to pursue the goal and there are obstacles. In
>>>> the second story, we are invested in the narrator's struggle against
>>>> McGrath, and when the story ceases being about that, the story feels
>>>> diffuse and unfocused, at least to me.
>>>>
>>>> Hoping that that might be useful.
>>>>
>>>> -S.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> So, I'll start with the agreements this time.
>>>>>
>>>>> The opening is very strong.
>>>>>
>>>>> That Erica knows McGrath must be foreshadowed, or it seems like a cheat.
>>>>> I think I mentioned it the first time I read this story: Erica needs to
>>>>> be trying to get to that party. How you accomplish that, I'm not sure.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure why three is so important to Samantha, but I must disagree
>>>>> again. A short story is not, nor should it be, a screen play. Except
>>>>> for Erica knowing the Dean, I never had a moment were I didn't want to
>>>>> keep reading.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, this is a genre story. Dean McGrath is a monster, figuratively
>>>>> speaking, from the first page. On page nine, we're told this is a
>>>>> horror story, even if we don't realize it. What follows makes sense
>>>>> (except that Erica knows McGrath).
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm really glad you're thinking of submitting this for publication. I
>>>>> know you had some concerns about identities. On that note, R___ is
>>>>> fine, but maybe Hogwart's should go (I can't think of a fictional
>>>>> graduate school of Alchemy, but that would be a better reference here).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 2008-03-01 at 02:00 -0500, Samantha Weiss wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pages 1 through 9 of your second story have me locked in. It is
>>>>>> marvelous, professional level writing, and the voice make it a joy to
>>>>>> read. The situation with the e-mail and the n=1 walks that line between
>>>>>> being believable and absolutely fucking hilarious over the top, and I'm
>>>>>> just loving it. I love that your character has this clear goal, and
>>>>>> then he goes and spends $2000 (first attempt) on the most amazing attire
>>>>>> and an escort besides. The dress and the geometry comments were
>>>>>> particularly wonderful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When I start to sense malevolence, the storytelling tone changes. Then
>>>>>> all of this stuff happens in rapid succession for no reason that I can
>>>>>> tell. It happens that he had called upon a werewolf to bring to the
>>>>>> ball... unforgivable author manipulation in a world where we assume that
>>>>>> most people are just people. I wish there were some reason that he had
>>>>>> to have contacted a monster, though I can't think of one offhand. It
>>>>>> happens that he sees McGrath at the same time as Erica starts to
>>>>>> change. It happens that everyone knows who she is (this I think, must
>>>>>> be cut from the story). It happens that McGrath and Erica are not only
>>>>>> involved but that she hates him so much that she's willing to try to
>>>>>> kill him. (This would only make sense if we see, in the phone
>>>>>> conversation, your narrator explicitly tell her that he is using her for
>>>>>> a tool of revenge against McGrath, and that that should be the focus of
>>>>>> her evening. If you go that route, then McGrath and Erica can't know
>>>>>> each other before hand). It happens that your narrrator is apparently
>>>>>> the ONLY non-monster in a school where even the graduate students are
>>>>>> monsters (if they aren't, then there is no way other faculty will turn
>>>>>> into mosnters around him), but there isn't anything aprticular special
>>>>>> about him to make that be the case. You also slip into inappropriate
>>>>>> exposition (Even MIranda treated us with a coolness quite unlike her,
>>>>>> for example) instead of realized scenes (as when Erica and your narrator
>>>>>> interact)--which is fine for unimportant scenes only. That that moment
>>>>>> that Miranda pushes him aside is a really important moment, though and
>>>>>> we should see it. (And other important scenes). I would like to see a
>>>>>> bit of the small talk between Erica and your narrator.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I have two thoughts. 1) My issue with structure is that the
>>>>>> narrator has one attempt: when he gets the prostitute and the nice
>>>>>> tux. Then everything else plays out around him like a movie
>>>>>> sequence--he takes no part in it--and we see a resolution. This is not
>>>>>> good. We need three attempts. So if this were a nongenre story, for
>>>>>> example, (I am completely making this up, just trying to explain plot
>>>>>> structure--this isn't even a suggestion) Miranda and McGrath know each
>>>>>> other, clearly have had a thing for eachother, and your narrator is like
>>>>>> WHAT THE FUCK I paid 2000 for this to not work, and then he kisses her
>>>>>> or something (2nd attempt) to piss McGrath off... See where I'm going
>>>>>> with that? There's a second attempt, brought about by a strong causal
>>>>>> chain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) I really think this is a non-genre story. The genre element doesn't
>>>>>> come in until the last line of page 12, in a story that only has five
>>>>>> pages left. That is way, way, way too late. The genre elements either
>>>>>> need to be there from beginning to end, or be hinted at much, much, much
>>>>>> more strongly than just the comment about the period. I also think you
>>>>>> have two different stories. A story about a man who brings a prostitute
>>>>>> to a school ball, and a story about a monster ball.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Okay. Attaching the manuscript so you can see my thoughts throughout.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Samantha
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Writingworkshop mailing list
>>>>>> Writingworkshop at nealemorison.org
>>>>>> http://nealemorison.org/mailman/listinfo/writingworkshop_nealemorison.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Writingworkshop mailing list
>>>>> Writingworkshop at nealemorison.org
>>>>> http://nealemorison.org/mailman/listinfo/writingworkshop_nealemorison.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Writingworkshop mailing list
>>>> Writingworkshop at nealemorison.org
>>>> http://nealemorison.org/mailman/listinfo/writingworkshop_nealemorison.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Writingworkshop mailing list
>>> Writingworkshop at nealemorison.org
>>> http://nealemorison.org/mailman/listinfo/writingworkshop_nealemorison.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Writingworkshop mailing list
>> Writingworkshop at nealemorison.org
>> http://nealemorison.org/mailman/listinfo/writingworkshop_nealemorison.org
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Writingworkshop mailing list
> Writingworkshop at nealemorison.org
> http://nealemorison.org/mailman/listinfo/writingworkshop_nealemorison.org
>
More information about the Writingworkshop
mailing list