posted
In 20 Master plots and how to build them, Ronald Tobias does a darn decent job of describing twenty patterns in fiction and the general form that these plots take. I don't know if the book will help writers come up with new plots, but the book will help shape ones existing work.
Tobias cogently sketches out the parts of an Adventure plot, Revenge plot, Transformation plot, et. al, using classics and popular tales, often plays and fairy tales for their economy of structure.
As books on writing go, this is one of the more practical and informative ones out there.
[This message has been edited by Tanglier (edited August 07, 2003).]
posted
Because when you write it, you put yourself into it. That's the source of your story's value.
Personally, I think the word "plot" ought to be substituted with "theme" or something else less specific in this case. I've seen what he calls plots and I'm not exactly convinced. The whole list is on this page:
At any rate, it annoys me that people toss stories because "I've seen it before," or "he's just copying this other guy." Even mature critics and authors who ought to know better do it. We all know that it's almost impossible to come up with a truly original plot. Duh. That's not the point of writing, though, is it?
And I looked at the list. I do think plot is a good word for it, because I've always been taught that themes are more like "Wealth corrupts," or something similar--whatever the story was communicating through the plot, not just a really vague two or three word summary.
posted
This may be a great book, but I don't think I'll read it.
It may be closed minded, but I want to believe my story is new and original at the time I'm writing it. Even if it's not.
If I'm thinking "This story is a Number 8!" I'm going to seriously question why I'm bothering to write it. I'd probably become obsessed with finding a Number 21 to write and probably pass over tons of good story ideas in favor of crappy ones because "it's already been done."
I'll keep lying to myself about my brilliance. Thank you very much!
Thank you for submitting your play, "The Tragedy of Julius Ceasar," for our consideration.
Your writing shows some good qualities, but basing your story on such well-known historical events shows a lack of original, creative thinking. We receive a lot of plays about royal assasinations and vengeance, and I'm afraid we really don't need another one.
However, you do appear to have some writing talent, so please submit to us again when you have something with a more original plot.
Sincerely, The Editor
------------------------
Dear Mr. Shakespeare,
Thank you for submitting your play, "Hamlet, Prince of Denmark," for our consideration.
There's some good writing here, but I'm afraid the plot isn't very original. As I mentioned after your previous submission, we get too many plays concerning royal assasinations and vengeance.
In this particular case, I won't use the term "copyright infringement," because no true Englishman cares about the rights of Frenchmen, but this plot seems very close to one found in Histoires Tragiques de François de Belleforest.
As I said, the quality of your writing is very good, so when you have a play with a more original plot, please send it to us.
Sincerely, The Editor
------------------------
Dear Mr. Shakespeare,
Thank you for submitting your play, "Macbeth," for our consideration.
I regret to inform you that this play does not meet our needs. I believe I have made it clear that we have no use for stories of royal assasinations and vengeance. They are cliched.
Do not send any more plays that involve royal assasinations or vengeance. Please try to use your obvious writing talents for something more original.
Sincerely, The Editor
[This message has been edited by EricJamesStone (edited August 06, 2003).]
posted
There are reasons that Tobias proposes these twenty plots:
quote: Quest Adventure Pursuit Rescue Escape Revenge The Riddle Rivalry Underdog Temptation Metamorphosis Transformation Maturation Love Forbidden Love Sacrifice Discovery Wretched Excess Ascension Descension
And I think that knowing the pattern for each of them will help give shape to anyone's tale.
He uses a three act format to describe each plot, and what makes it the case that the characters and the plot are compelling.
He also argues that each story can incorporate as many of the plots as the writer can handle, but there are many pitfalls that can be avoided if one is aware of traps.
Tobias makes a compelling case, and the topics are just general enough that any good story I can think of fits well within the confines that Tobias describes. The man takes classics. Here is an excerpt from the first page of the rivalry chapter:
quote: An unlearned carpenter of my acquantance once said, 'There is very little difference betwen one man and another; but what little there is, is very important.' This distinction seems to me to go to the root of the matter. - Henry James
What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? No question captures the spirit of a plot better than this one. A rival is a person who competes for the same object or goal as another. A rival is a person who disputees the prominence or superiority of another. Nowhere else is the concept of deep structure[talked about earlier] more apparent than in rivalry. Two people have the same goal- whether it is to win the hand of another or to conquer each other's armies or to win a chess gamme-- and each has her own motivation. The possibilites are endless. Whenever two people compete for a common goal, you have rivalry.
Rivalry existed before humanity (at least as presented in certain literary accounts). The struggle for power between God and Satan is a story of rivalry, chronicled best in Milton's Paradise Lost. The saga of the gods, Greek and Roman, are stories of rivalry for power on Mount Olympus. And with the arrival of humans, the tradition continued. Rivalry existed in the Garden of Eden in the guise of a serpent. It existed between the children of Adam and Eve: Cain killed his brother Abel out of jealousy when God preferred Abel's sacrifice...
He goes on to talk about Moby Dick, Lord of the Flies, The Virginian, The Odd Couple, The classic love triangle, then uses Ben Hur as the primary example as he walks us through the three acts to show structure.
I wouldn't be so cavalier as to dismiss the book out right because of a suspicious title. He doesn't say that these are all there are, but he makes it the case that these 20 encompass most everything.
Edit:
Eric,
Yeah, Tobias does an impressive job breaking down Hamlet, Medea, and Death Wish(The Charles Bronson film), as primary examples in the Revenge section.
[This message has been edited by Tanglier (edited August 06, 2003).]
posted
I'm not saying plots are original and that it doesn't matter how you write things, etc. etc. Yes, there are only so many basic stories you can write about--but why do you need a book to tell you how to do it? It just seems boring, but if it's your style to have every bit of structure for every little plot analyzed and laid out for you where all you have to do is throw in some metaphors, fine . . . Just doesn't seem very creative to me, is all.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted
I'm taking an online creative writing class. There are some students in the class who are much better then I am at characterization, at showing details of the setting, etc. And the have a terrible time with stringing a plot together. I think such a book would be very helpful to people with that problem.
I like to think I'm pretty good at plot. (It's character and description I have trouble with.) And yet, I think I may read this book; not as a way to copy a plot for a story, but as a way to better understand the concept of plot so I can see why certain things work and other things don't.
If you want to leave your creativity unsullied by other people's plots, you'd better not read anybody else's fiction. Of course, that means you'll probably write cliched plots that you don't realize are cliched because you don't know what the cliches are.
posted
Reading fiction is a far better way to learn than reading how-to's, because then you'd get the cliches and all different kinds of styles to go with the plot. I just don't see why how-to books are needed for writing, other than a grammar book. It seems fake to me. Every second you read one you could be writing or reading a real book.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted
The problem I had with too many of my early stories is that when someone asked me what they were about, it took me too long to explain. And then when I was finished explaining, it turned out that the topic wasn't all that interesting. Then I rephased my explanation to a more compelling aspect of the story, but when I went home, it turned out that the story wasn't about that. These are twenty good "abouts" that any story can dwell in.
Personally, at least at the beginning of my career, I think the story idea should come out in full form before I try to shift the flow of action into these paradigms.
quote:Reading fiction is a far better way to learn than reading how-to's, because then you'd get the cliches and all different kinds of styles to go with the plot. I just don't see why how-to books are needed for writing, other than a grammar book. It seems fake to me. Every second you read one you could be writing or reading a real book.
A really bad book. Good How-to books increase your understanding of what's going on in everyone's plot.
I read philosophical and theological texts because they point me out everyday occurances in human behavior that I may not have noticed without their help. I believe that there is a time and a place for studying theory, and if more people did it in school and in life the world would run more efficiently, with less sorrow and more joy.
Edit:
What made this book exceptional is not so much the explanation of the Twenty master plots, but the details in the "How to build them" sections of the chapters. Sure, I would have thought of most or all of them myself over the next two decades, but I think it saved me an incredible amount of time. And I know this because the approaches he articulates feel right, as if I knew them all along but hadn't been paying attention.
As it stands, my stories are hit and miss, but now I have a greater knowledge of why some stories work and some just miss the mark.
[This message has been edited by Tanglier (edited August 06, 2003).]
I'm so bored with those kind of books, as bored as I am with life. I don't think Steinbeck sat there wondering if he was following a three-act structure in East of Eden. I doubt Salinger worried about whether he had described Holden's physical appearance enough.
Where is writing that means something, that isn't all prepackaged? Where are the books that were written with more than publication or proper archetypes in mind? I'm guessing someone will answer "they're not published, because they're bad." I think that's a shame. Life doesn't work in a three act structure. Realistic characters can't be constructed with templates. Tell me, what does eye color really mean about a person? Does it matter at all?
I miss emotion, the joy and surprise I used to find opening books. Chuck Palahniuk gave me some of that back, but now even his books feel repetitive. When life is too frustrating and boring at least I can turn to books, but now they are the same way.
If I have to read "He stared forcefully" one more time I'll just gouge out my eyes.
posted
There is no one best solution for everyone on any given writing problem. Some people get something out of how to's. If plot is your problem, then a how to with some basic ways to write various types of stories is a good guide, always assuming that the author realizes that these are suggestions and sketchy outlines. I don't think it would detract from the originality at all. Each author adds his own touch and personality to his or her own story.
Some people get what they need out of reading fiction, but I tell you for me this has been a mixed bag. Sometimes I know that I am reacting favorably or unfavorably to a story but I don't know why. At the boot camp this summer I learned a couple of clear reasons why I felt certain ways that I never even realized. I've adjusted my writing accordingly. I just never saw it before, though I knew it was present in other's writing and not in my own.
As to originality, having an original story probably does not mean that every single piece of the story is completely new from plot to names to themes. Not only is it impossible to do, but it is not desirable to do. People need some kind of grounding in reality to even understand your story. A lot of discussion goes on in this forum about originality, but the truth is that the most original piece of any story you write is you. No two people will write anything the same way. Most twists and turns have been done before, most character, most situations. Certainly most basic storylines have been done before. Mixing these together in different ways and adding yourself to the pot is what makes a good, original story.
quote:Reading fiction is a far better way to learn than reading how-to's...
While I agree that you should read far more fiction than how-to books, that doesn't mean that the how-to's don't have their place.
The good how-to books help explain why some things work and some things don't. They can help you understand what you need to do to achieve certain effects. For example, explaining why you might choose to use one point of view instead of another.
That kind of stuff isn't in grammar books. First-person present tense is good grammar, as are third-person past tense and second-person future tense. While that last one isn't used much in fiction (Whew!), the first two are. Without understanding why one or the other might be better for your story, you'll probably just choose the one that is most common in the fiction you read.
Reading books about how to play chess won't make you a great chess player. Watching lots of chess games and playing a lot of games will teach you a lot. But I'd still recommend reading the chess books so you gain a greater understanding of the game.
quote: I don't think Steinbeck sat there wondering if he was following a three-act structure in East of Eden. I doubt Salinger worried about whether he had described Holden's physical appearance enough.
Actually, I suspect they did. Most great writers spend a lot more time considering the technicalities of writing than you'd expect.
Of course there are other things that are more important than these things. But that doesn't mean that a good author doesn't think about them - getting the plot structured _just right_ is hard. Its one of the hardest things that a writer has to do in fact. Anyone can invent a plot, but most of them just aren't very good... seeing examples of how classic plots were built up analysed in depth can help you understand why they are so good. Which is difficult to do just by reading them.
I suspect I will get a copy of the book at some point. It sounds useful.
posted
Christine: "A lot of discussion goes on in this forum about originality, but the truth is that the most original piece of any story you write is you."
Very well-put.
I have an analogy to add to this discussion. I expect some of you won't understand, but that's not going to stop me.
Writing is an awful lot like programming a computer.
(Wow! I can hear sniggering already!)
I can tell you this with a straight face because I do both myself, and I believe it.
When you write a program, there's an awful lot of design work that has to be done first. Sure, you can start the program immediately, but you usually can't get very far. (Sometimes I do it to help the design along because it helps me discover what needs to be done. Sound familiar?) You draw charts. You develop base objects that define behavior. You list your requirements, and decide how to meet them. (What do I want to accomplish? How do I do it? What environment will it be in? What role should this piece have, and this piece, and this piece...? How do they communicate? Can I do it better another way? Etc., etc., etc.)
Much of this part is mechanical. You just want to get the information down. Then you can start to write. If you've never done it before, you might not understand (or, since you're writers, you might), but this is how it is: programming, after the design is in a state you can use it, is an extremely creative thing. (Most of us wish our higher-ups understood this better.) There's a certain intuition in it that is absolutely vital to doing it right. And as your program evolves, so does your design and your understanding of the system you're creating and operating inside of.
And when it's all done, you can tell who wrote a piece of code just by looking at it. It's as individual as the person who made it.
My analogy continues. There are two types of bad programmers:
1) Those who don't bother to learn how to do things well 2) Those who lack the natural creative talent
The first group can write great programs which may function properly (more often than not, even though they get the job done they're a little messy here and there when used), but which are ugly as sin on the inside. The flow is wrong, they're hard to understand, and you'd rather toss it and rewrite it than try to make changes. Parts of it may be brilliant, but they can't make up for the overall clumsiness.
The second group generally drops out of the profession after they produce a lot of well-structured garbage.
It was the strangest feeling for me when I picked up "How to Write a Damn Good Novel" and "How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy." I felt like I had just picked up "Thinking in Java" and "Design Patterns" again. Initial reactions: "Oh, so that's why!" and "Ah ha!" were pretty common. So was realizing why things I had written in the past worked or didn't, and what things I was currently doing were woefully broken.
Of course, with programming and programming design, you can break the rules - but you have to know what the results are so you can decide whether or not it'll still work right. The rules and constraints exist to help you write extendable, maintainable, understandable code. Within them you still have a lot of creative leeway, but you have to respect them.
The part where the analogy breaks down is here: the constraints on the programmer's creativity exist because of constraints on the system it'll run in and in his coworkers who will have to maintain it later. The constraints on the writer exist because of the psychological makeup of his readers.
Within them you still have a lot of creative leeway, but you have to respect them. If you don't - in my opinion - you write bad fiction.
</analogy>
[This message has been edited by pickled shuttlecock (edited August 07, 2003).]
posted
I've been greatly outnumbered by the robots, but it's that way everywhere. All the people who want to dress and talk alike and follow all the current trends, who read magazines to learn how to act, now they are in the writing world, too. No longer is art art unless it's been blueprinted and fits precisely into all these preconceived notions and molds.
Jules, I read Journal of a Novel: East of Eden and what Steinbeck worried about was giving the book's language the right feeling. He did not say "Masterpieces Made Easy tells me the climactic seen between Kathy and Adam ought to be three-quarters through," blah blah blah. Constantly in his column Card talks about pretentious people thinking Average Joes can't be writers (or appreciate films, or whatever example you'd like to use). Now instead of thinking they're too high, people think the fix is free for everyone. There's books on how to raise kids, how to understand religions, and how to use other people's standards to make the one thing that still has the chance to be unique--art.
Don't you understand that all self help books make money and there are more of them all the time? If any book could tell you how to live well and make it easy, then everyone would be doing that. If there was some book on how to write that actually did everything for you, and all you had to do was put in names and a few plot points, everyone would have published by now. Don't you think publishers are bored by the same formulas? When was the last time you heard a book advertised as "Conventional. Simply everything you'd expect from this genre. No unique twists--you'll love it!" No!
And good point about the programming. That's precisely where writing's headed. With programs like Dramatica Pro and automatic story generators, next there will just be automatic writing. Answer some questions and the story pops out, query letter and everything, e-mailed to the publisher and they can just send it directly to the presses. And then the readers will come in a swarm to the shelves dressed in gray jumpsuits and say in unison, "This book looks great." Pause as they flip pages. And then, "Boy, I'm sure happy I knew the story type this was and could predict it's resolution." Next they will all swarm back home and stare at the TV while the world falls apart outside, and no one has any dreams anymore, but at least everyone is making money and has enough stuff to label themselves happy. Because, after all, that's the way to happiness--just check "How To Be Happy," I'm positive it will be published, probably by the same people that brought you "Making Characters," "Using Details," "Writing Sentences," "Choosing Words," and other bestsellers.
Yay tolerance, global community, pretty soon we'll all be the same--no races or genders or religons, everyone a big unhappy family.
[This message has been edited by writerPTL (edited August 07, 2003).]
[This message has been edited by writerPTL (edited August 07, 2003).]
I think perhaps you're misunderstanding the point some of us have been trying to make.
We're not (at least, I'm not) saying that all fiction must follow certain formulas or else it's no good.
What we are saying is that writing consists of more that just unbounded creativity. Yes, it's art -- just like painting is an art. Now, there may be occasional prodigies who innately know how to paint a perfect landscape or portrait, and don't need to learn from other artists how to do shadows, or how to use perspective, or the best way to mix pigments to get the right color.
And maybe you're a writing prodigy who instinctively knows how to write good fiction. That doesn't mean the rest of us are robots who are unable to think creatively, and who slavishly churn out fiction according to formulas written by others.
OSC talks about the "rules" of writing fiction. But he doesn't say you should never break the rules. He says you should go ahead and break any rule, as long as you're willing to pay the price.
For those of us who consider writing a craft that has aspects that can be learned, reading books about writing can be helpful. I may not be the best writer on earth when it comes to details and character, but I'm a better writer than I was a year ago because I've learned to improve my writing. Part of that improvement came from just writing and having it critiqued, learning from my own mistakes. Part of it came from reading what others had written, and learning from their mistakes. And part of it came from reading books about writing, learning the craft of writing.
posted
I'm not entirely talking about writing anymore, but this is the wrong place to discuss anything else, so I surrender.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted
...written like someone who is utterly unfamiliar with programming.
The quicksort algorithm, to me, is almost poetry. (Ditto Floyd's and Dijkstra's shortest-paths.) When someone showed me a very clear and elegant implementation, I finally understood it, and I got goosebumps.
Seriously.
Anyway, I appreciated Card telling me about viewpoint and exposition. Until then, I hadn't realized what was making my stories so klunky. Where else would I learn that?
Why would I want to break from those guidelines?
Should I have picked up those fairly technical aspects on my own? Is it fair to require a stroke of inspiration on a subject like that?
I concede that you have a good point, though. Programming was inundated with people who thought they could do it during the tech boom (now a bust), who weren't in it for the joy of it - just the money. Tech schools popped up by the dozen promising to sell you a million certifications and teach you Everything You Need to Know - not realizing that much of it you're pretty much born with.
Still, most of us Good Ones (tm) who Get It (tm), appreciate how-to and why-do literature on programming. We copy for a bit, and then write our own, unique stuff. That's a major distinction between us and the clones.
Is there any reason writing can't end up the same way?
EDIT: writerPTL needs backup; this is 3 on 1. Who wants to volunteer?
[This message has been edited by pickled shuttlecock (edited August 07, 2003).]
posted
I'm very sorry for the name confusion, and you are absolutely right, but I stand by everything else. And hey this is a forum with lots of sci-fi writers, so who said robots are bad?
Like I said, I surrender. This isn't about writing anymore, not for me. I'm completely bored with life. This is my problem, I suppose I shouldn't have vented, but it's better than taking a life, don't you think?
posted
Now, in defense of writerPTL he does have one good point. I get that way sometimes, wishing that I could do something truly original, and frustrated when people tell me that I can't because this is how it's done.
It has to do with the box. I think writerPTL has a handle on the box, but by its very nature no one really knows what's outside the box. Outside the box is the realm of originality, the truly undone things, the things that are so alien that we mere mortals can't get our minds around the concepts. That is the box.
We can't write outside the box, no matter how much we'd like to. Even if we think we have an idea that is outside the box. I'm sorry to disappoint, writerPTL, but it's true. I'm frustrated too, because I've had ideas I think are outside that box.
Why, you ask? Because the human race is inside the box. I suppose I should rephrase, you can write them, but no one will ever read them. That's not to say you should always worry about publishing, because if it makes you happy, write that story and maybe in two hundred years people will love it. But you can't relate things outside that box to the people stuck within its walls.
There is something you can do, and this is what good writers strive to do. You can push the edges of the box to the side a bit. That's where I try to write. Some familiar ground so people can relate but some new concepts so that people's minds are enlightened just a little bit.
So, in summary, good writing is not completely outside the box, it is on the edge of the box.
[This message has been edited by Christine (edited August 07, 2003).]
posted
If I could live "outside the box," and I had to drop writing to do it, I'd agree in an instant. Everyone does the same things all the time, including me, and I hate it. School is starting and I did nothing productive this summer. It's entirely my fault. I don't even know what I would have done anyway, though. I'm so sick of being conventional, and I just want to fit in. I believe in God, I disagree with him. On and on . . . I'd like to do something drastic, but what? On and on, all that boring teenage crap. I will never have an original thought. Everyone always wants acceptance from someone. I can't stand it. My parents are complacent in a marriage they don't care about, and I'm the same in relationships I don't enjoy. I've been running on autopilot for who knows how long, and when you've lost control of yourself, how do you ever get it back?
Posts: 262 | Registered: Feb 2001
|
WriterPTL, I don't know how much of your rant is just "teenage stuff" and, yes, this is an SF forum, but if you need a safe place to vent instead of "taking a life," please immediately find one. My email address is above, if you're interested in talking. If you really need something more heavyduty, please call the suicide hotline: 1-800-784-2433. If I'm being alarmist, I apologize.
Painters usually learn about painting before they become professionals, don't they? You wouldn't expect someone who just picked up a brush and drew random strokes with it, even if he did it for several hours a day, to become the next Michelangelo, would you?
I would think the same about writers.
Take Georges Seurat. He learned all about painting in the "normal" way (don't ask me with whom and where he studied), but was still able to do some great new things. It was, nonetheless, very important for him to know how to wield his tools.
You must know how to really use your medium before you can create anything. Seurat knew that this stroke looks like this, and this paint will do that, and he used this knowledge to create some really cool paintings (which you can see in Chicago, and you should). Writers, also, must have this familiarity with their goods.
So, while I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with reading books that try and break down writing into its components, aome of them are a bit like reading a book entitled "The 20 types of paintings," or, "Learn to paint like Van Gogh in 15 minutes a day." Sound rediculous?--nobody would try to learn to paint like that.
I think there's a lot to be said for classes on writing though, just as art classes can be very good; they don't oversimplify, but they do teach the basics, the rules, the techniques that the masters learn to amplify and expand, ignore and break, use and invent.
I believe that all real creativity and all real skill comes from inside, from self development. Like Hesse said, you have to learn all things through experience at some point.
posted
I have to point out that, for thos of us "outside the box" staying "inside the box" is not and never has been an option.
Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999
|
posted
Surely that depends on which box you're talking about? :-)
Regarding the painting analogy above, I don't think comparing this book to one called "the 20 styles of painting" or whatever is really a valid comparison. Maybe "20 styles of painting that are particularly good" would be a better title, and one that even sounds useful...
Printer-friendly view of this topic
