comment

Banes at 11:46AM, Jan. 9, 2025

@marcorossi - And we need a title for your sci fi adventure/romance - "Love and Fungus" doesn't seem quite right...

Banes at 11:46AM, Jan. 9, 2025

@marcorossi - I love the Save the Cat method - so useful and digestible. Nothing at all like cats themselves, which are not useful and difficult to digest, I find. I know one of the books describes the "Catalyst-Debate-Break Into 2" as a "something happens to the Hero - Hero uncertain what to do - Hero makes an active choice" (or something like that, probably with fewer words). And it has a mirror later in the story with the "All Is Lost-Dark Night of the Soul-Break Into 3" section of the story. All is Lost - something happens to the Hero - Dark Night of the Soul - wandering and confused and hopeless - Break Into 3 - the active choice and resolution to keep going. Okay, this will be my next Newspost probably, haha. Love it!

Banes at 11:39AM, Jan. 9, 2025

@Paul - fascinating stuff, and I can't get enough of talking about it/reading or hearing about it. The Simpsons structure you go through...very interesting! I've read your outline a couple times...I think I'm gonna need to dig into that (and some classic Simpsons episodes) to really understand that one! x)

PaulEberhardt at 10:16AM, Jan. 9, 2025

Exhibit B: dissecting a classic Simpsons episode plot that way to see if what we said hold up (spoiler: it does, very much so!). Act 1 is a more or less independent little story that you can recognise the first four of the five parts of drama in, which then segues into the actual main story that has more or less nothing to do with the beginning (except for setting, tone, function of the characters and so on) and uses the last four of the five parts of drama as its underlying structure, and as a whole is an extended part five of the introductory story so to speak. Doubling the old structure and interweaving the two plots at a crucial joint point neatly creates the chaotic atmosphere we love the Simpsons for, while ensuring you have a framework that keeps it all safely together and is easy to follow. It's a cool trick I came to like very much.

PaulEberhardt at 9:54AM, Jan. 9, 2025

Anyway, as I said, I prefer to think of these classic plot parts mostly as joint points to be filled with creative content in between. That works quite well as it saves you the trouble to worrying so much about them that they end up getting in the way by making everything look formulaic, if you know what I mean.

PaulEberhardt at 9:51AM, Jan. 9, 2025

only that you keep the basic structure underneath and put the seques / bridges / breaks into the next part at the right (satisfying) points. Point in case: even when trying your hand as an unusual structure, like a Tarantino-esque jigsaw puzzle slowly clicking into place, you kind of need to pay heed to this to get a satisfying story. Even with one of those you start by setting the scene and at least hint at what the status quo may be like, continue by introducing conflict, have a lot of interconnected middle parts and a conclusion. Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill and so on are actually great examples that show how the chronological order doesn't matter, like at all, nor does the actual information flow and how you organise it, but the basic structure that goes straight back to Aristotle - establishing the status quo, introducing conflict, is needed to make it work, and it's there, in exactly that order. Rewatch them carefully if you don't believe me.

PaulEberhardt at 9:48AM, Jan. 9, 2025

I've always found these breaks or segues into the next act the hardest. They have to come at exactly the right time. @marcorossi: This very much resonates with how I'd explain a classic plot structure, too. Being one of these dreaded English teachers whose job it is to hammer this kind of thing home (😉), let me also add that I very much approve of calling it a three-part plot consisting of act 1, bridge 1a, act 2, bridge 2a, act 3 - actually making it the five parts of drama suggested by Aristotle thousands of years ago: I setting the scene, II introducing conflict, III building up tension to breaking point, IV climax, V resolution/denouement (comedy: everyone marries or turns out to be a lost relative / tragedy: everyone dies / modern teleplay: evil catnappers get their just desserts by having to clean litter boxes in a chain gang for life / etc.). I approve, and Aristotle would have too, because the how and how quickly you do away with these necessary parts does not really matter,

marcorossi at 9:33AM, Jan. 9, 2025

On further reflection: suppose that in my story, at some point, Joe realizes that he is the only one who can save the Earth from the space fungus, and says: "yeah I'm a wimp and a loser, but I have to go, the whole world depends on me!". This would be the "debate" step in stc, but since Joe is making a choice, I would say that this is the real "crossing the treshold". Then in the next scene, we see Joe and Amy in a rocket towards the asteroid: in material terms this is the actual crossing of the treshold, and is the break into two. So it depends if you think of the psychological or the external treshold, but anyway they are one after the other.

marcorossi at 8:29AM, Jan. 9, 2025

@Banes yes, although I tend to think of the "crossing" as the end of act 1 and "break into two" as the first scene of act 2b immediately after. But STC uses the term as synonimous with "the crossing of the threshold", I think.

Banes at 8:20AM, Jan. 9, 2025

@marcorossi - yeah, agreed with a lot of that. I’ve been a big fan of save the cat too. The “Break into 2” is a STC phrase, even… I think it’s called “crossing the threshold” in the Hero’s Journey model?

marcorossi at 1:57AM, Jan. 9, 2025

[continues] but one could tell the same story in a different order: ACT 1: we have an "in medias res" beginning with Joe and Amy on the asteroid shooting lasers at the space fungus, Joe says something about his wife who dumped him, it is obvious that there is something going on between Joe and Amy. All this is explained clearly through the "in medias res" beginning. At some point the two hide in a cave and joe start reminishing with a flashback: BREAK INTO TWO: we now see the story from the point of view of Joe on Earth, he discovers the mysteries of the space fungus but nobody believes him, at some point he is paired with Amy (that he perceives as very sexy) etc. ...; this act 2a is seen from the point of view of Joe because the reader already know the narrative world (introduced in the "in medias res" act 1). So basically the ACT 1 infodumps the world, the characters and the setup, while the ACT 2B is more like seeing the same things from the POW of the lead (or the other characters)

marcorossi at 1:50AM, Jan. 9, 2025

[continues] for example, take this story: Our hero Joe is a space scientist who was just dumped by his wife, but he realizes that a space fungus is coming to destroy the Earth, so he is teamed up with mercenary girl Amy (who every reader understands will be the love interest but Joe doesn't know this), and they are sent with a rocket towards the space fungus. BREAK INTO TWO: they are now on the space fungus asteroid, they start exploring the space fungus, and also flirting a bit when Amy saves Joe from a fall [continues]

marcorossi at 1:46AM, Jan. 9, 2025

[continues] In term of a 4 act structure, the 4 acts have these roles: act 1: introduction and setup; act 2a: we explore the world through the lead; act 2b: the big crisis happens; act 3: climax and resolution (at the end, most of the act 3 is the climax of the lead fighting his way towards the resolution). So the difference between act 1 and act 2b is mostly a difference in point of view, not about what happens: in act 1, the reader doesn't actually know our heroes, so we have to introduce them from the outside (together with enemies, love interests etc.), in act 2b the reader already knows them and so can start to immedesimate in them while they explore their new world. This most often also means that in terms of plot, there is a movement from the known world to the unknown one, but it is not necessary.

marcorossi at 1:40AM, Jan. 9, 2025

My two cents about the "break into two" point, in more or less the classical "save the cat" structure. First of all, although the STC structure is called, traditionally, a three act structure, the second act is twice as long as the other two and is broken in the middle by the so-called "midpoint" plot point, so in some sense it is a 4 act sctructure (act 1, act 2a, act 2b, act 3). There might be reasons to call it a 3 act structures, and other reason s to call it a 4 act structure, but for the sake of this argument, I think it is better to think in terms of a 4 act structure and that the "break into two" only introduces the first half of the second act, and is thus roughly on the same level of the midpoint.