Story Structure Database

[crich70]

Author K.M. Weiland put this together. Basically she maps out the plot points of well known books and movies for others to be able to see the basic structure on which stories are built. Click

[MacEachaidh]

Thanks for this link -- I have just started reading her book, so a very timely find.

[gmw]

Thanks for the link. A curious site, shame so much of it is movies rather than books. What I think it demonstrates is how widely the same plot may be interpreted by different people.

Take the Chicken Run entry for example. Ginger doesn't get a mention until the "Midpoint". For me, the entire thing hangs off Ginger. Is a story event driven or character driven? Is the story really about escaping the chop, or is it about the desire for "freeeeedooooom" (as I hear Rocky calling)? Your answers may be different to mine, and neither may match that of the author.

It is this variance that highlights the danger of trying to squeeze every story into the same mould. There are many such moulds, and if they are even vaguely story shaped it is generally possible squeeze almost any story into them (the more simplistic the mould the easier the job), you've just to push a bit harder in some places, and cut away the pieces that don't fit.

Aspiring writers may go to such a site to see how stories are constructed, but what they're really seeing is just one of many ways that stories can be deconstructed. Which is still interesting, but not necessarily that helpful.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by gmw

Thanks for the link. A curious site, shame so much of it is movies rather than books. What I think it demonstrates is how widely the same plot may be interpreted by different people.

Take the Chicken Run entry for example. Ginger doesn't get a mention until the "Midpoint". For me, the entire thing hangs off Ginger. Is a story event driven or character driven? Is the story really about escaping the chop, or is it about the desire for "freeeeedooooom" (as I hear Rocky calling)? Your answers may be different to mine, and neither may match that of the author.

It is this variance that highlights the danger of trying to squeeze every story into the same mould. There are many such moulds, and if they are even vaguely story shaped it is generally possible squeeze almost any story into them (the more simplistic the mould the easier the job), you've just to push a bit harder in some places, and cut away the pieces that don't fit.

Aspiring writers may go to such a site to see how stories are constructed, but what they're really seeing is just one of many ways that stories can be deconstructed. Which is still interesting, but not necessarily that helpful.

But seeing disconstructed stories may help in constructing future ones. Doctors disect corpses to learn how to properly operate on the living after all.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by crich70

But seeing disconstructed stories may help in constructing future ones. Doctors disect corpses to learn how to properly operate on the living after all.

A good thought if you want to write horror.

I tend to think that what you learn from the many theories of story construction is best applied to reviewing your work, than to trying to construct a new story. Write it first, don't get distracted on the technical detail (much easier said than done). Then, when you have your story, come back and look at it again with an appraiser's eye - does it have the shape it needs to work? If not, start prodding it into shape.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by gmw

A good thought if you want to write horror.

I tend to think that what you learn from the many theories of story construction is best applied to reviewing your work, than to trying to construct a new story. Write it first, don't get distracted on the technical detail (much easier said than done). Then, when you have your story, come back and look at it again with an appraiser's eye - does it have the shape it needs to work? If not, start prodding it into shape.

I don't doubt that following structure does help in revision, but if you have at least a basic idea of what structure is before you begin to write the story I'd guess you can save a lot of time that would be wasted revising stuff that would already be in some semblance of shape if you only had taken the time to sketch out at least a rough outline before hand. I read an article by a writer (Ivan Izo) online where he discussed how he does it.
1. First there is the story idea in 1-2 sentences.
2. A synopsis which lists the major events in the novel in several paragraphs.
3. A bullet outline where he writes down chapter by chapter what he expects will happen (1-2 sentences per chapter)
4. The full outline with each paragraph being equal to one scene. Or one paragraph per chapter if it's a fast paced story line.
He figures a full outline should be one 10th of the finished novel in length. So if you shoot for a 50k (200 page) novel that would be about 5k words (20 pages). He also suggests if you revise the outline (which you may well do) that you put the revisions in red so they stand out from the original (un-revised) parts of your outline.

[gmw]

I'd like to think that most people sitting down to write a novel would have some feel for what makes a story work. This is one of the reasons for the common advice that the best thing writers can do is read, read lots and read widely.

But my perspective (and so my suggestions and opinions as seen here) are heavily influenced by the fact that I don't plan in any great detail. I just can't work like that. Hence I fall heavily on the advice: write. That's the only thing I've found that works for me. Write. And sort it out later.

What you show from Ivan Izo is to similar to what I've seen from other authors that do plan. What I've always wondered is whether authors that use this method successfully started out that way, because it always seems to me that chapter and scene plans would take considerable experience to be accurate enough to be useful.

We are all different, so we must each tackle this however it works best for us, but I get a strong impression that many get bogged down in the technical stuff without ever getting to the point of actually writing - and finding out if they like it.

[crich70]

True. Everyone has their own way of doing things. randy Ingermanson's Snowflake also comes to mind when I think of Mr. Izo's method. I.e. add more detail as you build the thing up. I doubt anyone who does write with an outline does stick exactly to what they originally came up with either.