Does every story really represent a life-story, as McKee advises?
In Robert McKee's book STORY, he says that a whole life story of a character must become a story well-told.
So, it seems that the concept of "story told" is a representation of a "life story" that fits in a finite amount of time (i.e. a book or a movie) compared to the whole lifetime of the character. Also, he says that the story told is a concept that expresses everything that the writer has left out from the whole life story.
Well, consider the short text of Philip Dick, "We Can Remember It for You Wholesale". In that text we encounter an adult main character, without references to early days of his life.
Now, Assuming that Dick wrote an entire life story for Douglas Quail (the main character of the short text) and then Dick chose just a little part of Douglas Quail's lifetime to write the short text: According to McKee, this fits well inside the structure of transforming a life story into a story told.
But, that doesn't fit into the other aim of the concept of "story told" which is to try and express the other parts that the writer left out from the whole life story of Douglas Quail.
So my question is: How precise is McKee's advice in STORY, in order to write a book?
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/40900. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
1 answer
I haven't read his book, but I suspect he is wrong. A character should have some story arc, which will have some shape.
I suppose every story arc, even one that lasts only a few hours, could somehow be crow-barred into a metaphor for a life's journey, but I don't see that as useful.
The existing 3 Act Structure (3AS), or its equivalents (4-Act which breaks Act II into two equal part, or Shakespeare's 5-Act) and their "landmarks" are sufficient, and non-specific enough to be more useful.
Again, I did not read the book, but the 3AS opens on the MC's normal world, and about 10%-15% of the way into the story, some inciting incident occurs, that will escalate and cause the MC, by the end of Act I (about 25% of the way into the story) to leave their normal world. In a romance, for example, the inciting incident will often be the first meeting (or contact) of the future lovers. (In both Sleepless In Seattle and You've Got Mail the lovers are communicative but do not physically meet or see each other for quite some time.)
Now I could say that the "normal world" is a metaphor for "childhood", and the "inciting incident" is a metaphor for beginning puberty, that escalates so by the end of Act I the MC "leaves childhood" and becomes a sexually active new adult, but there are romantic complications, until the MC figures out who she is and what she wants, etc.
I could continue with that metaphor (off the top of my head) I just don't find this kind of metaphor useful!
An "inciting incident" is general but accurate, and represents anything from a discovery to a terrorist attack, a minor inconvenience (like the power going out) to a major trauma (an extinction level event).
A story is simple, a problem appears and one or more characters struggle with it. Perhaps to resolve it, perhaps to survive it. The 3AS is the result of studying successful stories, and finding the commonality in how the author's structured them and introduced story elements, which led to us better understanding the human psychology of hearing stories and what works for presenting them.
If Robert McKee's analysis of story appeals to you, go with it, but it doesn't trump the 3AS. It might inform the 3AS and how you want to interpret it; but if you get confused, use the 3AS as a touchstone and figure out how McKee's advice fits into that. Because the majority of agents and publishers are familiar with the 3AS and its elements, so along with your writing ability, the 3AS is what they will be looking for to see if you have written what they consider a publishable story.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads