• Café Life is the Colony's main hangout, watering hole and meeting point.

    This is a place where you'll meet and make writing friends, and indulge in stratospherically-elevated wit or barometrically low humour.

    Some Colonists pop in religiously every day before or after work. Others we see here less regularly, but all are equally welcome. Two important grounds rules…

    • Don't give offence
    • Don't take offence

    We now allow political discussion, but strongly suggest it takes place in the Steam Room, which is a private sub-forum within Café Life. It’s only accessible to Full Members.

    You can dismiss this notice by clicking the "x" box

John Yorke on story structure and common mistakes made by writers

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sea-shore

aka Anne Chen
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Location
London, UK
LitBits
0
Here is some excellent advice from John Yorke, author of 'Into the Woods' on story structure and common mistakes made by new writers (and old writers too ;)).



John Yorke's also has an informative interview with the two Marks from the Bestseller Experiment podcast:

Could you write a Bestseller?

I have listened to this about five times and learn something every time. Any good tips you've picked up?
 
I wonder if the 'this scene causes what follows in the next scene' etc. can also be implemented within the scene? This action in this paragraph by this character causes this reaction (or response by?) which then causes this decision which then provokes the next action, and on until the the situation is resolved in some way?
I like it - keep everything motivated, leave no action or event unacknowledged for its need to be there.
Thanks for posting it.:)
 
I wonder if the 'this scene causes what follows in the next scene' etc. can also be implemented within the scene?
I think it does. It think it goes through everything and drives everything. It's like real life. We say something because someone else says something. Or someone else says something to a stimulus we provide. Most of what we do is a reaction to a stimulus. We then decide (we may have several options) and act upon it (or not). I guess our 'character' decides which option we take. Action leads to reaction which causes yet another reaction ... I try to follow that in my writing.
 
Action reaction? See Dwight Swain again with Techniques of a Selling Writer

I was reading Monkeys With Typewriters and Scarlett mentioned comedy has to always end with a wedding, or variation thereof.
 
Weather happens. Things do just happen, but without causality, it is not a story, It's something else.

An old example from somewhere

The queen died and then the king died. History.

The queen died, and the king died of a broken heart. Story.
I've seen this around the traps, but it's never satisfied me in terms of what a story is - because it has nothing to achieve. A story to me is a character (of any size, shape or form) in conflict, who struggles with/through/over obstacles (inner/outer) in order to achieve resolution - in other words, a character has to reach for something so the end of the story will show whether the character achieves anything, answers the question, wins/loses.

Or is there more to the king/queen story than the broken heart? I wonder if she ...?
 
Weather happens. Things do just happen, but without causality, it is not a story, It's something else.

An old example from somewhere

The queen died and then the king died. History.

The queen died, and the king died of a broken heart. Story.
I think the hardest thing is finding a 'trigger' , a simple twig falling from a tree crashes down a hill building up to a full scale land slide...and then you've got a story...my recent appearence on Litopia is a result of looking for a 'trigger' It took me two years and i'm hoping there will be a landslide of creativity at the end of it.

Stories come in all shapes and sizes
 
Yes, of course, it's absurdly reductionist. All it is saying is that a story is recognisable as such because of its form, and what is the essence of the form. Causality implies stasis, trigger, change. If the king died of a broken heart, because the queen died, perhaps there were many efforts to help him, or perhaps he was glad to die.

What is meant by a story achieving something? What if that story set out to show that it is possible to die of a broken heart, even if you are a king, with great power, many responsibilities, and the means to marry again and love again?
 
Yes, of course, it's absurdly reductionist. All it is saying is that a story is recognisable as such because of its form, and what is the essence of the form. Causality implies stasis, trigger, change. If the king died of a broken heart, because the queen died, perhaps there were many efforts to help him, or perhaps he was glad to die.

What is meant by a story achieving something? What if that story set out to show that it is possible to die of a broken heart, even if you are a king, with great power, many responsibilities, and the means to marry again and love again?

maybe I used the wrong word in 'achieve' - but an arc? an event? a happening? What you added makes a story because it sets out to show - which to me is an achievement of the resolution (whether pos or neg or neutral, it 'sets out to' do something).

For me, when attempting to learn what a story was, this was posited as an example of story, but I didn't ever understand - that's on me, because I expected (both as a reader and a writer) something to happen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top