Three-Act Structure

 When I decided to take fiction writing seriously again, I did so with the knowledge of my ignorance. I worried about technical matters like plot as well as the lack of reading I had done between 1982 and 2011. I still worry about both, albeit it is the technical matters that trouble me the most.

So, I keep reading articles like 3-Act Structure – Is It Really a Must? from C.S. Lakin's Live Write Thrive blog. I have never formally studied the 3-Act Structure.

The 3-act structure has been around a long time. Screenwriters rely heavily on it, but it’s not found in myths, legends, or other great stories of the past. Breaking stories up into acts is really an arbitrary choice.

Some research claims it originated with theater and television’s need to have breaks in the programming. Sponsors have to plug their products via commercials, right? Times may have changed and cable is all the rage, but commercial breaks are still a norm in our lives.

I am not sure I have intuited it even now. I would break down my "Aftermath" as prelude, party at the pits, the drive back to Jackson, and a coda. That's not three acts. But it seems the story works for everyone who has read it.

Back to Lakin:

Well, why do you even need to do that—break it up? Because it helps you see the primary sections of your story so that you can set things up, build to those key plot developments, and create resolutions to these developments.

It doesn’t have to be complicated. And you don’t have to break things up if you don’t want to. But I think you’ll find it helpful to look at your story in terms of large generalized sections each with a key purpose.

I love Michael Hauge’s six-act story structure, and I often use that. Why? Because to me it’s the most natural and intuitive. It basically works for any story, and it can be adjusted as needed. (You can learn more about his structure here on his website). 

Okay, that makes me feel better. How about you?

sch 3/29