Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/40904
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/40904
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

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.

Original score: 1