Post History
All these analytical schemas are interesting, but I don't think you can rely on them for building a story. It is like dissecting a body. An autopsy may tell you what killed them, but it won't bring...
Answer
#4: Attribution notice removed
by
System
·
2020-01-03T20:41:49Z (almost 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/20937 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#3: Attribution notice added
by
System
·
2019-12-08T05:02:43Z (almost 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/20937 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#2: Initial revision
by
System
·
2019-12-08T05:02:43Z (almost 5 years ago)
All these analytical schemas are interesting, but I don't think you can rely on them for building a story. It is like dissecting a body. An autopsy may tell you what killed them, but it won't bring them back to life. I think they can be great tools to figure out why a story is not working. But I don't think they are a scaffolding for building a story. If they were, everybody who read a writing book would be turning out best sellers. I think the way you write a story is this: You invent a set of characters. You spend time with them until you know them and eventually fall in love with them. Then you torture them until either they break or triumph. It is a cruel business, and emotionally exhausting. I think most stories fail because the writer is not patient enough to fall in love, or not cruel enough to torture, or not tireless enough to see it through. And when it is all done, if the story works, an analysis may reveal that it fits the common pattern, or, if it fails, that it fails to meet the pattern. But the patterns means nothing without the falling in love and the torturing and the patience unto death.
#1: Imported from external source
by
System
·
2016-02-16T04:14:02Z (almost 9 years ago)
Original score: 5