posted
Many things I've read mention the whole Scene and Sequel thing, as well as the whole Motivation-Reaction structure within. It obviously makes sense, but I don't think I've seen it discussed here. Is this because it's simply so basic it is assumed? Or is this one "camp" of writing philosophy and there are others (In which case, POV seems to be more the big stick around here).
From what I've seen, the general idea of scene and sequel only makes sense, and I find that already tend to do it by feel before I ever try to formalize my writing.
posted
The basic idea is that every scene you write is either a Scene or a Sequel, and they should alternate. The Scene consists of a goal, then a conflict, then a disaster. This leads into the Sequel, which is where the POV character deals with his dashed hopes from the previous scene. A Sequel consists of his reaction, a dilemma (he can't figure out what to do next), and then a decision, which introduces a new goal for the next scene and starts the process over again.
posted
I've not seen it structured exactly as Dr. Ingermanson has it, and his structure, while undoubtably workable, seems slightly formulaic and potentally limiting in its execution if taken too far. So I'd hazard the BB doens't talk about Scene and Sequel because it isn't in the books we usually throw around as the must reads. Not that the basic concept isn't there in a lot of writing books. You need active characters that are movtivated and react to story events. You need to create tension by denying the characters what they really want, or giving it to them, and then they realize they didn't want it after all, etc. Really, it all boils down to cause and effect explained through motivation.
Posts: 652 | Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted
It is also explained as a Try/Fail cycle. In which the main character tries then fails several times before reaching his goal at the end of the book. This is just a very basic description of the concept that Dave Wolverton gave out at his workshop last month. It was very informative, well worth the time and money.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted
I think the Scene and Sequel combination works well. Many of my favorite stories and novels use that structure. Perhaps it is formulaic, but then the noun-verb combination is also formulaic and I don't see anyone complaining about it.
Posts: 976 | Registered: May 2001
|
posted
Always do I use it, Doc Brown, but I also like to suround the core noun-verb with a cloud of verbal confusion such that in the end, though the reader may scrunch his or her mind in concentration, the meaning is unclear; and ergo, the sentence structure becames mildly blured, and, in fact, while I do not dare break the truths of writing, it seems like I do; for only a moment, yes, but it's a very important moment.
Posts: 697 | Registered: Mar 2003
|
posted
I wrote a long reply here, but mistyped my password and lost it.
But mostly it was to work out what I wanted to say is this -- I don't use that structure very much. Mostly, my scenes have the elements described as "sequel" embedded within them, with the decision often leading directly to further conflict before a resolution of the problem the scene deals with. I have many scenes where that resolution doesn't lead to a new goal, but rather assists a character in attaining some already explicit goal (each major goal will usually require several minor goals).
I don't see this as a necessarily "better" structure, although I feel it is more appropriate for the action-oriented stories I write.
posted
Eh, I go with this being so basic it's assumed. You have a protagonist trying to achieve some outcome, you have some antagonists that frustrate his efforts, until at the end of the story the protagonist either achieves his desired outcome or stops trying.
The particular terms "Scene" and "Sequel" aren't general, and probably aren't the best, since both already have specific meanings when related to writing. Note that Jules has failed for just this reason to realize that what is conventionally thought of as a "scene" is often supposed to contain both "Scene" and "Sequel" as described in the good doctor's article (others have probably also failed to realize this).
I'll forgive the fellow for this, since he's giving due credit for this idea to a person that influenced his thinking on the matter by writing about this structure using those terms. But that doesn't mean I'm going to start looking for "Scene" and "Sequel" in my scenes or trying to put them there. I'll stick with the elements that compose these somewhat arbitrarily chosen terms "motivation" and "action" and whatnot.
posted
Survivor, FYI the original meaning of the term sequel is any consequence that ensues after some lapse of time. These uses for the terms scene and sequel have been embraced by English speakers for centuries. Shakespeare used the word sequel to mean "consequence" rather than "one work that follows another."
Why do you feel you must forgive those who use these terms correctly?
posted
"Scene" also has a meaning separate from its usual literary sense. Many words we use to talk about writing have other (and usually older) meanings when you talk about somethign other than writing.
If you look at a typical dictionary definition of "scene", the way we use it when we talk of "writing a scene" or what happens "in this scene" and so forth will usually be about fourth or fifth on the list of meanings.
At least the usual writers meaning of "sequel" will usually be second or third rather than fourth or fifth.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
Not that the basic concept isn't there in a lot of writing books. You need active characters that are movtivated and react to story events. You need to create tension by denying the characters what they really want, or giving it to them, and then they realize they didn't want it after all, etc. Really, it all boils down to cause and effect explained through motivation.
