Post History
Let's take for granted that the 3 acts structure is relevant and exists. This, of course, is an assumption. How the three acts relate with the length of the novel? In a standard book - let's say 5...
#4: Attribution notice removed
by
System
·
2019-12-13T11:56:50Z (almost 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/43940 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#3: Attribution notice added
by
System
·
2019-12-08T11:29:11Z (almost 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/43940 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#2: Initial revision
Let's take for granted that the 3 acts structure is relevant and exists. This, of course, is an assumption. **How the three acts relate with the length of the novel?** In a standard book - let's say 50k words, _by rule of thumb_ the first act should be somewhat less that one third, with the second and the third splitting the remaining 33-37k words. But what happens if the book becomes longer? What if the total is 100k words? What if it becomes a 200k-words worth beast of a manuscript? Again, by rule of thumb, I'd be tempted to say that acts should grow accordingly. On the other hands, though, I think that a longer lifespan would allow more space for variety. For example, one could keep his first act close to the 20k words, giving breath to longer second and third. Yet I've read wildly different opinion on this point. For example, a lot of guides and seasoned writers actually warn _against_ a longer second act, saying that you risk the plot "dragging out" and the tension lower. ## Should the relative lengths of the three acts be fixed when increasing book size?
#1: Imported from external source
by
System
·
2019-03-22T18:19:39Z (over 5 years ago)
Original score: 3