Unless this site is the first thing you've ever read on writing theory, you've probably heard of three act story structure.
Three act structure has been around a long time for very good reason: it does a good job of creating that path of least resistance that readers are looking for. There have been many refinements and adjustments to this structure, but the basic idea has always been the same:
- Act One is setup,
- Act Two is the meat of the story,
- Act Three is the final confrontation.
In most theories, the proportions of each act are as follows:
- Act One = the first quarter of the story (from the beginning to the 25% mark)
- Act Two = the middle half of the story (from the 25% to the 75% mark)
- Act Three = the last quarter of the story (from the 75% mark to the end)
The reason why Act Two is so large is that it surrounds a crucial moment in the story, the Midpoint. The Midpoint is a concept that has arisen in the last half-century or so, and the basic gist is that the Midpoint shows the audience what the story is really about. It's not just the physical center of the story, it's the emotional and thematic center as well.
The transitions between Acts One and Two, and between Acts Two and Three are also marked by Turning Points, which are usually characterized as events that drastically change the direction and momentum of the story.
So basically, three act structure looks like this:
- Beginning
- Act One
- Turning Point
- Act Two, Part One
- Midpoint
- Act Two, Part Two
- Turning Point
- Act Three
- End
Because the Midpoint is such an important step in the character's development, the two halves of Act Two serve very different purposes, and entail very different goals. So that got me thinking, what holds Act Two together as a single act?
And in all my research, I cannot find a clear and compelling answer.
It was about this time that I discovered the Dramatica theory of story. Many (though not all) of Dramatica's proponents advocate a four act structure. This article does a good job of explaining the advantages of thinking in four acts, and after some additional research, I started to adjust my thinking. I like the symmetry of four, and I like the idea that one act equals one purpose.
But when I first wrote out my Writing Bible, I decided to include an overview of the Four Stages of Competence, a concept I've known about since my dad used it to explain why I was having trouble learning to drive a stick.
The Four Stages of Competence rub some people wrong, because it describes beginners as "unconsciously incompetent", and most people are used to being coddled when it comes to learning something new. Personally, I prefer The Duke's teaching methods:
Face it: Everyone in every skill or trade starts off having no clue what they're doing. Especially...
Characters in Stories
I'm not sure what made this connection for me, or when I made it, but to me, it's undeniable. In storytelling, we think of competence not relative to a skill (though that is possible, if you're writing a story about someone learning a trade or skill), but competence relative to a belief or an emotion.
The first stage, which occurs during Act One, shows the character in a state of unconscious emotional incompetence. They are unaware that something is wrong. Either by repression, or simple ignorance, they do not know that their status quo is unsatisfactory. But the audience knows something is wrong, so this sets up the main conflict of the story.
But the first Turning Point changes all that. It makes the character aware that something in their world is not right--even if they can't say what--and they enter conscious emotional incompetence. Act Two shows the character grappling with this knowledge, reacting to it, and trying to reclaim the feeling of normalcy. Often, the character will think they can reclaim normalcy by returning to the flawed status quo, but we the audience know that in order to be happy, the character needs to change.
The Midpoint is where the character learns that they need to change. In most conceptions, the Midpoint is characterized as either a "mirror scene" or a "moment of grace", where the character takes a hard look at their goals and motivations, and realizes what the problem is. I find that realization is the crucial element. Midpoints are often spoken of as quieter, more character-oriented scenes, but I find that the realization can come just as easily as a result of action. Either way, the whole story hinges on this moment, because after this, the character quits reacting and starts acting.
Ergo, Act Three (called Act Two, Part Two by most--see, isn't "Act Three" easier?) shows the character in a state of conscious emotional competence. They are now aware of what needs to change in order for them to build a new sense of normalcy. And they take deliberate action toward this change.
But this is a story after all, and we can't make it easy on our frail protagonist, so the next Turning Point must be an Earth-shattering setback of some kind. Something that drives them back to their belief in their original, flawed status quo. Act Four (called Act Three by most) deals with the character's final confrontation with their incompetence. Throughout Act Four, the character must push even harder to maintain their conscious emotional competence, because the antagonist is pushing them back toward their old status quo.
In the Final Showdown, the character either fails or succeeds in this effort. In the Denouement, we see a glimpse of the character's life after the Final Showdown, and their failure or success demonstrates the conclusion of the story argument. Either they have reached a state of unconscious emotional competence, or they haven't.
So my model of story structure looks like this:
- Beginning: Flawed Status Quo
- Act One: Setup, Unconscious Incompetence
- Turning Point: Status Quo Upset
- Act Two: Conscious Incompetence
- Midpoint: Realization
- Act Three: Conscious Competence
- Turning Point: Grievous Setback
- Act Four: Confrontation
- Final Showdown: Success or Failure
- Denouement: Unconscious Competence, Conclusion of Story Argument
We'll begin our in-depth examination of all these points with Four Approaches to Beginnings.
No comments:
Post a Comment