We don't need to do that in movies, novels, and short stories or even, for that matter, in many contemporary plays. The idea of an act break comes from the conventions of traditional theater, where we close the curtain to signal the end of an act. But what's worse is that it promotes a view of story that is mechanical. It should be obvious that such an elementary approach has even less practical value than Aristotle. I'm simplifying this theory of story, but not by much. And this three-act story supposedly has two or three "plot points" (whatever those are). And the second act runs to around sixty pages. The third act is also about thirty pages long. The first act is about thirty pages long. Three-act theory says that every story for the screen has three "acts": the first act is the beginning, the second is the middle, and the third is the end. If you are a screenwriter, you probably moved from Aristotle to a much simpler understanding of story called "three-act structure." This is also problematic, because three-act structure, albeit a lot easier to understand than Aristotle, is hopelessly simplistic and in many ways just plain wrong. It is also extremely theoretical and difficult to put into actual practice, which is why most storytellers trying to learn the practical techniques of their craft from Aristotle leave empty-handed. But his thinking about story, while powerful, is surprisingly narrow, focused on a limited number of plots and genres. I believe Aristotle was the greatest philosopher in history. As a storyteller in training, the first thing you probably did was read Aristotle's Poetics. The classic story terms suggest an even bigger obstacle to good technique: the very idea of what story is and how it works.
JOHN TRUBY WRITER HOW TO
Is that a progressive complication, a rising action, a denouement, or the opening scene of thestory? It may be none of them or all of them, but in any event, these terms don't tell you how to write the scene or whether to write it at all. Say you are writing a scene where your hero is hanging by his fingertips, seconds from falling to his death. Let's be honest: they have no practical value for storytellers. Terms like "rising action," "climax," "progressive complication," and "denouement," terms that go as far back as Aristotle, are so broad and theoretical as to be almost meaningless. The first obstacle is the common terminology most writers use to think about story. I want to be specific about the obstacles of story technique because that's the only way a writer can hope to overcome them.
For most writers, that may be the biggest challenge of all. And then you have to be able to translate your understanding into a story. You have to have a deep and precise understanding of the biggest, most complex subject there is. For one thing, showing the how and why of human life is a monumental job.
If you want to become a master storyteller, and maybe even get paid to be one, you run up against tremendous obstacles. The problem comes in telling a great story. " We see, hear, read, and tell thousands of stories in our lives. "You won't believe what happened at work." Or "Guess what I just did!" Or "A guy goes into a bar.
0 kommentar(er)
