.Vogler, a motion picture producer and a story consultant to major movie companies, lists 12 steps in his book to structure a good novel/movie. He gives examples from different movies. (While I know many like to illustrate literary issues through movies, I still think it is a strained relation-ship given the two media are so different.)
In any event, I thought I'd bring the 12 steps here. Vogler takes a whole book explaining them, I think they're pretty self-explanatory.
1. Ordinary World
2. Call to Adventure
3. Refusal of the Call
4. Meeting with the Mentor
5. Crossing the First Threshold
6. Tests, Allies, Enemies
7. Approach to the Inmost Cave
8. Ordeal
9. Reward (Seizing the Sword)
10. The Road Back
11. Resurrection
12. Return with the Elixir
This is not a formula, but a form, Vogler is quick to point out.
I'm not a big fan of 'writing books'. I prefer to learn by assimilation. That is, I prefer to read and learn from these fine examples (or not). But of course, each of us is different. Among those who read 'writing books,' the views range from the best book ever written on the craft to the worst one yet. Quite a range, although many think it is an improtant resource for writers.
To me, this 12 step program seems to apply more to adventure/fantasy movies/novels but Vogler gives examples even from The Full Monty. I guess one can tweak the meaning to apply it to other genres as well.
It is important to learn the 'craft' and to pay attention to what's going on, but it is also very important, in my opinion, to maintain a personality-uniqueness-originality.
Categories: writing, plot, process
19 comments:
Okay Eric. I am smiling now.
I tend to be too harsh on things that have a whif of cookie cutter from them.
No, obviously you're right. Most of us, for example, maintain the basic plot structure (call it 3 or 6 part) and not necessarily in a linear fashion either.
And obviously if you look at these particular 12 steps in the broader sense then sure, one can maintain creativity and originality while using this 12 steps. But I'm afraid many writers would not look at it as a form, but as a formula. And these (while probably becoming bestsellers :) will sound like the same story.
It's important to remember that these books are not how-to books, but advice books and the writer should only take what s/he needs, deems fitting for h(im)er.
[[We should so totally invent words for s/he him/her - I feel a post coming up :)]]
This is great advice (comments included). I am a self-professed writing book addict. It's a great way to actually avoid writing.
I agree with Red Church. I routinely set up Parameter Quicks: rule-based flash fiction. Form needs power to live, power needs form to effect. Utility must meet Sense somewhere along the line, and they should fall in love.
I really like Red Church's graph of structure. It is concise. I'm going to use it for a short story, and for a 500 word explosion piece that covers all 3 acts. Should be fun - moo hoo ha ha ha! Thanks Red Church.
Another method: Elaboration. You begin with a seed (write out Red Church's three acts in sentence form, filling in the blanks), then elaborate each part of the seed. It's good times guaranteed. You can create ten or so seeds in half an hour, and then have a LOT of material to expand on.
Anywhowhatwhere. Happy writing.
Eric, perhaps I shouldn't have assumed you knew what I was talking about (I always do that - what? can't anybody read my mind???).
Anyways, when I said "basic plot structure (call it 3 or 6 part)" (and you can find and explanation of it here), I meant the usual: [Exposition, Conflict], [Rising Action, Climax], [Fallling Action, Denouement]. 6 or 3 parts, it doesn't matter.
What you did in the link you posted is follow this basic structure and give it more meat. Which is what I do too, only not as structured as yours.
However, following your particular 3 act story over and over would be following a formula. Writing each stroy to begin, continue and end the same, is, IMHO, a formula.
Now. There's nothing wrong with a formula. Most bestseller writers follow a formula. So by all means, I can't argue with success, but I can argue as for the name :)
Gosh, I can't stop laughing at myself.
Oh, and Eric, as for backbeat, I'd say to each his own. What works well for one writer isn't necessarily the best for another.
Just like with outlines, some swear by it, others can't do them to save their lives.
So if that is what works for you, that is what works for you and no one (hell, not even me :) can argue with that (even though I really want to :) Just kiddin'
Nienke, oh, you definitely hit a nerver there. Don't we all find something to help us procratinate. Which is really weird since when we write we love it so much, so why procrastinate??? :) One of the wrold's seven mysteries in my eyes...
Jonathan, first, I'll send you to the same place I sent Eric (redchurch) - plot's basic parts. Then I'll repeat what I told him. Structures, formulas, forms, it doesn't matter how you call it, it is still the same. But there's nothing wrong with that and if that's what works for you then that's what works for you and all the power to you :)
Oh, ouch Eric, stop it :)
My tummy's hurting... can't stop laughing. I like your style...
So without getting into a philosophical discussion (it's a debate-non-debate according to your rules-non-rules ;), of course each story has a beginning, middle and end. But a plot doesn't have to start at the beginning of the story. Hence the difference between plot and story and herein lie the source of what I would call formula - beginning each story with establishing scene then introducing protagonist and antagonist, for example, sounds too confining to me. And I stress, to me.
But like I said in previous comments, it really is a non-debate because what would sound confining to me, works very well for you, so it is a non-issue.
Just read your next comment and couldn't agree more - it's all good :)
Structures, formulas, forms, it doesn't matter how you call it, it is still the same. But there's nothing wrong with that and if that's what works for you then that's what works for you and all the power to you :)
And,
Another thing to keep in mind; Anti-formula is a formula too! It's a formula that says, "Ok, I'm not going to follow any formulas."
The truth, subjectivity aside, is that even spontaneity is formulaic. Systems are created by any action, whether or not the action is perceived as systematic. When you "just come up with something", you are following the formula of spontaneity. This is not a contradiction of terms. The usefulness of the creative process is just that: it's creative, and it's a process. There is much good to be had from delving into the recipes of imagination, and the methods of inspiration.
Raw energy needs a container, the soul needs a body. The container needs raw energy, the body needs a soul. Otherwise, we've just got ghosts and cadavers. Power demands form, form demands power.
Jonathan, such great comments. This is great :)
I guess I look at spontaneity more as a method than a formula. A method like using an outline. Some writers use outlines (to varying degrees of detail), and some are spontaneous. I, for example, tend to use a rough outline, but my stories aren't told the same way. Some, I start telling at the end and some don't have an antagonist, for example.
I've actually read this book, well read parts skimmed others. It's an interesting book just on it's own, for some of the examples he uses and the way it made me look at things was a bit different than how I'd previously view things.
I'm one who liked to read 'writing books' then as I started writing more and more I realized I didn't always agree with them, thought they were poorly explained, or a person would be better served if they tried writing...
Now I tend to just read (as in novels) and mark good or bad books, passages, plots, dialogue...things I like dislike...I find that more rewarding --learning wise. Of course now I can pick out the afor mentioned points and such other elements of writing...so maybe it's just I don't (feel) I need the writing books anymore...
Jennifer, such wise words, but as you read in my post, I fully agree, so...
Perhaps, as you mentioned so wisely, it's an evolution thing. Nothing, in my eyes, compares to actual writing and reading. Learning from examples and from experience.
I was confused for a moment, because this is exactly the "Hero's journey" as presented by Joseph Campbell--come to think of it, if I remember well, the Star Wars example is also in "The Power of Myth" (I need to read this one again, now, haha). But then, I suppose it has had lots, lots of influence over the past decades, it's not surprising to see it applied to writing.
Indeed, at first it seems more suited for fantasy/adventure stories, but I guess the fun is also in trying to twisting it! :)
Yzabel, Hero's Journey or was it Hero of a 1000 Faces, is indeed the basis of Vogler's book as far as I understand.
Spin doctors can twist almost anything, can't they? :)
I see "12 Steps" and I run screaming.
My man :)
As writers, most of us follow some sort of structure. I, for example, always use letters, words, sentences, paragraphs, and chapters. Does that mean that I have no room for creativity? No, it doesn't. In fact, many writers break even the rules of these structures.
Until we follow a 'formula' where all we change is names, places, etc., all (most?) writing is still unique. I agree with RedChurch's statement, "I guess it's hard for me to see it that way, because *anything* can happen within those acts. The writer literally has the power to do anything they want within that framework. There is no prescription for what gets written or even how it gets written," as it also applies to my example.
Whatever works for you, Nienke, is the right thing for you. It's all good :)
That's right. Campbell and Vogler's structure is too broad.
What one needs is something much more detailed. Because Campbell and Vogler's structure doesn't help you write stories.
Now when you deconstruct hundreds of successful stories, you get that deeper structure. A step-by-step guide.
check out http://www.clickok.co.uk/index4.html
What do you think of young writers? I've found that a lot of teenagers write books, though few get published. I'm into poems, but whenever I get inspired with a "novel idea" I try it out and then eventually drop it...
I don't know when I would write a novel, how I would keep motivated, or what I would write a novel about...but I want to attempt one.
Any advise?
x
Post a Comment