Recent from talks
Contribute something
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Story structure
View on WikipediaThis article possibly contains original research. (October 2024) |
Story structure or narrative structure is the recognizable or comprehensible way in which a narrative's different elements are unified, including in a particularly chosen order and sometimes specifically referring to the ordering of the plot: the narrative series of events, though this can vary based on culture. In a play or work of theatre especially, this can be called dramatic structure, which is presented in audiovisual form. Story structure can vary by culture and by location. The following is an overview of various story structures and components that might be considered.
Definition
[edit]Story is a sequence of events, which can be true or fictitious, that appear in prose, verse or script, designed to amuse and/or inform an audience.[1] Story structure is a way to organize the story's elements into a recognizable sequence. It has been shown to influence how the brain organizes information.[2] Story structures can vary from culture to culture and throughout history. The same named story structure may also change over time as the culture also changes.
Variations
[edit]Three-act structure
[edit]The three-act structure is a common structure in classical film and other narrative forms in or associated with the West.[3][4]
First described in the fourth century A.D. by Aelius Donatus in his commentary on the works of Terence, the form was popularized by Syd Field in Screenplay: The Foundations of Screenwriting. Based on his recommendation that a play have a "beginning, middle, and end," the structure has been falsely attributed to Aristotle, who in fact argued for a two-act structure consisting of a "complication" and "dénouement" split by a peripeteia.[5]
The sections are:
The first act begins with setup, where all of the main characters and their basic situations are introduced, as well as the setting. It contains the primary level of characterization for both of these (exploring the characters' backgrounds and personalities, the relationships between them, and the dynamics of the world they live in). This setup is often called the exposition.
Later in the first act, the protagonist experiences a dynamic event known as the inciting incident (or catalyst). Their initial actions are to deal with this event and attempt to reestablish order.[6][7] These lead to the first plot point, where the first act ends and a dramatic question is raised; for example, "Will X disable the bomb?" or "Will Y end up with their love interest?"
The second act, or confrontation, is considered to be the bulk of the story. Here, the characters' conflict is most developed (particularly between the protagonist and antagonist) as well as any changes in values and personality one or more characters may undergo (known as character development, or a character arc). This leads to the second plot point, where the second act ends and the protagonist returns to their ordinary world.
The third act, or resolution, is when the problem in the story boils over, forcing the characters to confront it, allowing all the elements of the story to come together, leading to the climax, which is the answer to the dramatic question, being hand in hand with the end of the conflict.
Kishōtenketsu
[edit]Kishōtenketsu is a structure mainly derived from classic Chinese, Korean, and Japanese narratives.
Kishōtenketsu is divided into four sections, which have been defined and used differently by narratives from each of the three cultures where the form is most commonly found. The first section is generally considered an introduction of sorts across all three interpretations, albeit understood by each in a different way. The second may refer to the development, or to a beginning of an action related to self-realization. The third section is based around a turning point, change in direction, reversal, or twist. The fourth and final section concerns itself with a result or conclusion, a consequence thereof, or a 'coming to fruition'.
History
[edit]This covers a loose worldwide history of story structure.
European and European Diaspora
[edit]The first known treatise on story structure comes from Aristotle's Poetics. He advocated for a continuous two-act plot: δέσις (desis) and λύσις (lysis) which roughly translates to binding and unbinding,[8] that was not centered on "one individual",[9] but where the characters learn a lesson through negative reinforcement. He believed the Chorus was the most important part of the story.[10]
Later scholars such as Horace in Ars Poetica and Aelius Donatus in Aeli Donati qvod fertvr Commentvm Terenti: Accendvnt Evgravphi Volume 2 argued for a five act chorus. Neither specify that five acts should be for the story itself, but for the chorus.[clarification needed]
Most extant theories of story structure took off in the 19th-20th centuries, the first notable work being Gustav Freytag's Die Technik des Dramas which was published in 1863. He outlined the basics for what would later become the foundation for the three– and five–act story structures. He outlined the sections of the story as Introduction, Rise, Climax, Return or Fall, and Catastrophe.
Georges Polti in The Thirty-Six Dramatic Situations (1895) proposed multiple plot forms in lieu of Freytag's single structure, also making a point of discussing material from cultures that Freytag disparaged.
This continued into the 19th century when Selden Lincoln Whitcomb wrote A Study of a Novel which examines the basis for Silas Marner's plot structure, where he argues for the Line of Emotion on Page 39. He argues that "The general epistolary structure may be partially represented by a graphic design."[11] For this, he posts a proposed design for Miss. Burney Evelina on page 21.
He presupposes that stories might have different shapes for those emotions. This leads to diagramming, later described by Joseph Esenwein, who directly cited him, but argued that the diagram was supposed to be used only for short stories.[12] He follows Selden Lincoln Whitcomb's recommendations and says that the parts are incident, emotion, crisis, suspense, climax, dénouement, conclusion.
This diagram was copied and explained one for one by Kenneth Rowe almost verbatim, in Kenneth Rowe's Write That Play, though no credit was given to Joseph Esenwein. The plot structure was then used by Death of a Salesman author Arthur Miller.
However, the coining for "Exposition" as the first part goes to earlier author, Rev. J.K. Brennan, who wrote his essay "The General Design of Plays for the book 'The Delphian Course'" (1912) for the Delphian Society.[13] Exposition, not Introduction nor "Incident" are used as the first part.
This leads to Percy Lubbock who wrote The Craft of Fiction in 1921. He argued that there were too many story structures in the time period which made it harder to study academically, and thus proposed that conflict should be at the center of all stories, using such works as War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy. He also advocated for Death of the Author in his work.[14] He made a concentrated effort to look at conflict at the center of stories.
Writers such as E. M. Forster and Virginia Woolf disagreed with him, the latter of which wrote in November 1923: "This is my prime discovery so far; & the fact that I've been so long finding it, proves, I think, how false Percy Lubbock's doctrine is--that you can do this sort of thing consciously."[15] She went back and forth on the work throughout her life.[16] She thus wrote some bits on their own treaties.
Gertrude Stein also later contributed to the general feel of stories by promoting stream-of-consciousness and supported much of Literary Modernism and looking at writing as a look into psychology.[17][clarification needed]
This was furthered by Lajos Egri who advocated for using psychology to build characters in The Art of Dramatic Writing, published 1946. He also examines character through the lens of physiology, sociology and psychology.[18]
However, there was a rise in structuralism in the mid-to-late 20th century with such thinkers as Roland Barthes, Vladimir Propp, Joseph Campbell, and Northrop Frye, who often tried to find a unifying idea for story structure and how to academically study it. For example, Joseph Campbell tried to find one unifying story structure for myth, Roland Barthes further argued for the Death of the Author theory and Propp tried to find a story structure for Russian folktales.[citation needed]
In Northrop Frye's Anatomy of Criticism, he deals extensively with what he calls myths of spring, summer, fall, and winter:[19]
- Spring myths are comedies, that is, stories that lead from bad situations to happy endings. Shakespeare's Twelfth Night is such a story.
- Summer myths are similarly utopian fantasies such as Dante's Paradiso.
- Fall myths are tragedies that lead from ideal situations to disaster. Compare Hamlet, Othello, and King Lear and the movie Legends of the Fall.
- Winter myths are dystopias; for example, George Orwell's 1984, Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, and Ayn Rand's novella Anthem.
In Frye's Great Code, he offers two narrative structures for plots:[20]
- A U-shaped structure, that is, a story that begins with a state of equilibrium that descends to disaster and then upward to a new stable condition. This is the shape of a comedy.
- An inverted U-shape structure, that is, a story in which the protagonist rises to prominence and descends to disaster. This is the shape of tragedy.
Lajos Egri is then credited in Syd Field's last edition of The Foundations of a Screenwriting published in 1979. The book argued for three acts, not five, and had no peak in the final diagram.
This idea of a universal story structure fell out of favor with poststructuralism. Theorists such as Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida asserted that such universally shared, deep structures were logically impossible.[21]
At the same time that Literary Structuralists rose with story structure, there were also Postmodernism and Post-postmodernism, which often argued about the nature of stories and what, if existing, story structures could be.[clarification needed] Some authors, such as John Gardner, advocated for the use of both, such as in The Art of Fiction (1983).
Ideas of this got shared over the next few decades, which lead to writers such as Blake Snyder, who in Save the Cat contributed language such as "Story Beats".
However, other story structures became more widely known in the 2010s-2020s, when European and European diaspora writers became aware of story structures such as kishotenketsu, which was said to be used in films such as Everything Everywhere All at Once.[citation needed]
Categories
[edit]Most forms of narrative fall under two main categories: linear narrative and nonlinear narrative.[22] Other forms also include interactive narration, and interactive narrative.
- Linear narrative is the most common form of narration, where events are largely portrayed in a chronological order telling the events in the order in which they occurred.
- Nonlinear narrative, disjointed narrative, or disrupted narrative, is a narrative technique where events are portrayed out of chronological order or in other ways where the narrative does not follow the direct causality pattern.
- Interactive narration refers to a work where the linear narrative is driven by, rather than influenced by, the user's interaction.
- Interactive narrative is a form of fiction in which users are able to make choices that influence the narrative (for example, through alternative plots or resulting in alternative endings) through their actions.
Linear narrative
[edit]Flashbacks, often confused with true narratives, are not strictly linear, but the concept relies upon a fundamentally linear understanding of the narrative. An example would be Citizen Kane by Orson Welles. Although some films appear to open (very briefly) with the ending, flashback movies almost immediately jump back to the very beginning of the story to proceed linearly from there. Usually the film will proceed past the supposed "ending" shown at the beginning of the movie.
Nonlinear narrative
[edit]Cinema can only provide the illusion through broken narrative, a famous example of this being the 1994 film Pulp Fiction.[clarification needed] The film is ostensibly three short stories, which, upon closer inspection, are actually three sections of one story with the chronology broken up; Quentin Tarantino constructs the narrative without resorting to classic "flashback" techniques.
An even more ambitious attempt at constructing a film based on non-linear narrative is Alain Resnais's 1993 French film Smoking/No Smoking. The plot contains parallel developments, playing on the idea of what might have happened had the characters made different choices.
Outside of film, some novels also present their narrative in a non-linear fashion. Creative writing professor Jane Alison describes nonlinear narrative "patterns" such as spirals, waves, and meanders in her 2019 book Meander, Spiral, Explode: Design and Pattern in Narrative.[23] The chapters of Chitra Banerjee Divakaruni's novel Before We Visit the Goddess are not arranged based on the linear sequence of events, but rather in a way that fulfills certain literary techniques. This allows the characters in the novel to have a believable life timeline while still employing the techniques that make a story enjoyable.
Interactive narration
[edit]In works of interactive narration there is only one narrative, but the method of delivery requires the user to actively work to gain the next piece of the narrative, or have to piece the parts of narrative that they have together in order to form a coherent narrative.
This is the narrative approach of some modern video games. A player will be required to reach an objective, complete a task, solve a puzzle, or finish a level before the narrative continues.
Interactive narrative
[edit]An interactive narrative is one which is composed with a branching structure where a single starting point may lead to multiple developments and outcomes. The principle of all such games is that, at each step of the narrative, the user makes choices that advance the story, leading to a new series of choices. Authoring non-linear narrative or dialogue thus implies imagining an indefinite number of parallel stories.
In a gamebook, readers are told to turn to a certain page according to the choice they wish to make to continue the story. Typically, the choice will be an action rather than dialogue. For example, the hero hears a noise in another room and must decide to open the door and investigate, run away, or call for help. This kind of interactive experience of a story is possible with video games and books (where the reader is free to turn the pages) but less adapted to other forms of entertainment. Improvisational theatre is similarly open-ended, but of course cannot be said to be authored.
Graphic narrative
[edit]A simple graphic narrative, such as in comics, has four stages: an introduction of the characters and a description of a situation; the introduction of a problem, unexpected opportunity, or other complication into the situation; a resolution in the form of a partial or complete response to the problem by one or more of the characters; and the denouement, the aftermath of the response that makes clear the success, partial success, non-success, or uncertain success of the response. This fourth stage may also show how the original situation has changed due to what has taken place in the Complication and Resolution stages of the narrative.[24]
In a simple narrative, the four stages appear in order. That is, the sequence of the telling or presentation follows the chronology of the told. In a more complex story, the order of the telling may vary. For instance, such a story may begin with the Denouement and then present the Situation, Complication, and Resolution in a flashback. But this is not the case with a simple narrative.[25]
See also
[edit]- The Hero with a Thousand Faces
- List of story structures
- Narratology
- Narreme as the basic unit of narrative structure
- Non-narrative film
- Rising action
- Rule of three (writing)
- Screenwriting
- Suspense
- The Writer's Journey: Mythic Structure for Writers
References
[edit]- ^ "Story Definition".
- ^ Hsi-Chin Janet Chu, Janet Swaffar and Davida H. Charney (2017-06-10). "Cultural Representations of Rhetorical Conventions: The Effects on Reading Recalls". TESOL Quarterly. 36 (4): 511–541. doi:10.2307/3588239. JSTOR 3588239. Retrieved January 28, 2021.
- ^ Khatib, Lina (2013). Storytelling in World Cinemas: Contexts. New York: Columbia University Press. p. 167. ISBN 978-0-231-16336-1.
- ^ Lowe, N. J. (2000). The Classical Plot and the Invention of Western Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. x. ISBN 0-521-77176-5.
- ^ Tierno, Michael (21 August 2002). "1. Let's Start at the Very Beginning, Middle, and End". Aristotle's Poetics for Screenwriters. Hyperion. ISBN 0786887400.
- ^ Vanhala, Helena (2011). The Depiction of Terrorists in Blockbuster Hollywood Films, 1980-2001: An Analytical Study. Jefferson, NC: McFarland. p. 102. ISBN 978-0-7864-3662-0.
- ^ Lieberman, Elias (1913). "The Editor; the Journal of Information for Literary Workers, Volumes 37-38". Google. Retrieved 9 June 2024.
- ^ Liddell; Scott; Jones, eds. (1940). "λύσις - release (n.)". Perseus Greek–English Lexicon (9th ed.). Archived from the original on 2 June 2022. Retrieved 30 October 2021 – via Kata Biblon Wiki Lexicon.
- ^ Aristotle. "8 (Aristotle on the Art of Poetry)". The Poetics. Translated by Ingram Bywater. Archived from the original on 27 January 2021. Retrieved 2023-01-25 – via www.authorama.com.
- ^ Aristotle. "18 (Aristotle on the Art of Poetry)". The Poetics. Translated by Ingram Bywater. Archived from the original on 24 July 2021. Retrieved 2023-01-25 – via www.authorama.com.
- ^ Whitcomb, Selden L. (1905). The Study of a Novel. University of Kansas. Retrieved 22 December 2021.
- ^ Esenwein, Joseph Berg (1909). Writing the short-story; a practical handbook on the rise, structure, writing, and sale of the modern short-story. Hinds, Noble & Eldredge.
- ^ "Episcopal Diocese of Northern Indiana Archives: Rev. Jesse Ketchum Brennan". Archived from the original on 2 February 2023. Retrieved 2 February 2023.
- ^ Lubbock, Percy (1921). The Craft of Fiction. London. p. 18. Archived from the original on 30 December 2021. Retrieved 30 December 2021.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - ^ Woolf, Virginia (1980). The Diary of Virginia Woolf Volume Two (First ed.). Harcourt Brace. p. 272.
- ^ Bronstein, Michaela. "The Craft of Fiction". Yale. Archived from the original on 30 December 2021. Retrieved 30 December 2021.
- ^ Batoréo, Hanna (2010). "Was the birth of modern art psycholinguistically minded?" (PDF). Studies in the Psychology of Language and Communication. matrix: 149–164. ISBN 978-83-932212-0-2.
- ^ Egri, Lajos (1946). The Art of Dramatic Writing. Touchstone. pp. 35–37.
- ^ Waugh, Patricia (2006). Literary Theory and Criticism: An Oxford Guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 125. ISBN 978-0-19-925836-9.
- ^ Northrop Frye, The Great Code (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1982, 1981).
- ^ Grey, Christopher Berry (2013). The Philosophy of Law: An Encyclopedia. New York: Routledge. p. 669. ISBN 978-0-8153-1344-1.
- ^ Lau, Siew; Chwen, Chen (2010). "Designing a Virtual Reality (VR) Storytelling System for Educational Purposes". Education and Automation: 135.
- ^ "Meander, Spiral, Explode: Design and Pattern in Narrative by Jane Alison". Catapult. Archived from the original on 2020-01-28. Retrieved 2020-01-28.
- ^ Baraou, Anne. "Facing Faces", Drawn and Quarterly 10 (1992)
- ^ "Jonathan Bass | Rutgers University". j9bass.github.io. Archived from the original on 2023-01-24. Retrieved 2023-01-25.
Story structure
View on GrokipediaDefinition and Fundamentals
Core Definition
Story structure refers to the organized framework of events, character arcs, and thematic progression that imparts coherence and purpose to a narrative, enabling it to unfold in a meaningful sequence across various media such as literature, film, and oral traditions. In narratology, this structure is analyzed as the recurrent patterns and universals that govern how stories are assembled, distinguishing effective storytelling from mere event listing by ensuring logical causality and emotional depth.[8] This foundational organization transcends specific content, providing a blueprint for how narratives achieve unity and impact.[7] A key distinction lies in viewing story structure as the "skeleton" of sequence and pacing, which arranges the narrative's progression, in contrast to plot, which forms the "flesh" of specific events, actions, and incidents. While plot details the what and how of occurrences—such as conflicts or resolutions—structure dictates their when and why in terms of rhythmic buildup and release, often rearranging chronological events for dramatic effect.[8] For example, E.M. Forster's seminal distinction in Aspects of the Novel illustrates this by contrasting a simple chronicle ("The king died and then the queen died") as basic sequence with a causally linked progression ("The king died and then the queen died of grief") as plotted depth, both governed by overarching structural principles. Universal structural principles, such as the Aristotelian model from Poetics, emphasize a narrative's wholeness through a beginning that initiates without prior necessity, a middle that causally connects and builds tension, and an end that resolves without excess, forming a complete arc applicable to diverse storytelling forms. One common application of these principles is the three-act structure, which segments the narrative into setup, development, and payoff.[1] By methodically escalating tension through rising conflicts and delivering resolution, story structure enhances audience engagement, promoting immersion, emotional investment, and retention of the narrative's themes. Research on narrative arcs across thousands of stories reveals consistent patterns of initial staging, progressive momentum, and peak cognitive tension that correlate with heightened viewer synchronization and comprehension.[7][9] This structured payoff fosters satisfaction and deeper interpretive connections, underscoring structure's role in making narratives compelling and memorable.[10]Essential Components
The essential components of story structure form the foundational sequence that organizes narrative events, creating a cohesive progression from introduction to conclusion. These elements—exposition, inciting incident, rising action, climax, falling action, and denouement—provide the scaffolding for conflict and resolution, applicable across various storytelling forms.[11] Exposition establishes the initial framework by introducing the story's world, key characters, and their circumstances, allowing audiences to orient themselves to the narrative's baseline normalcy.[1] This setup often conveys essential background information through descriptions, dialogue, or actions, setting the stage for subsequent developments without overwhelming the reader or viewer.[12] The inciting incident disrupts this equilibrium, serving as the catalyst that propels the protagonist into the central conflict and initiates the plot's momentum.[13] Typically occurring early, it introduces a problem or opportunity that forces change, compelling the characters to respond and engage with the story's stakes.[12] Rising action follows, comprising a series of escalating events and obstacles that build tension and complicate the protagonist's journey toward resolution.[11] Through advances and setbacks, this phase heightens emotional and dramatic intensity, developing character arcs and subplots while amplifying the central conflict.[1] The climax represents the narrative's peak, where the protagonist confronts the primary antagonist or challenge in a decisive manner, resolving the core tension through heightened confrontation.[12] This moment often encapsulates the story's thematic essence, delivering the most intense emotional payoff.[11] Falling action ensues as the immediate aftermath, addressing the consequences of the climax and tying up secondary conflicts or loose ends, which allows the narrative to decompress.[1] This phase provides breathing room, showing how the resolution impacts characters and the world.[13] Finally, the denouement concludes the story by fully resolving the main conflict, offering closure and reflecting on the outcomes, often reinforcing themes or character growth.[11] It ensures a sense of completion, leaving audiences with a lasting impression of transformation or stability.[12] These components interrelate to generate rhythm and pacing, with the rising action's escalation of stakes creating a natural build-up to the climax, followed by a controlled release in the falling action and denouement.[11] This progression mirrors emotional arcs, where early setup informs later conflicts, fostering suspense and catharsis through balanced tension and relief.[12] In linear narratives, they arrange chronologically for straightforward flow, emphasizing cause-and-effect progression.[13] Imbalances among these elements can undermine narrative effectiveness; for instance, a rushed denouement often summarizes resolutions rather than dramatizing them, resulting in unsatisfying conclusions that fail to provide emotional closure or adequately process consequences.[14] Similarly, an underdeveloped rising action may dilute tension, making the climax feel unearned and disrupting the story's overall momentum.[12] The components exhibit adaptability across mediums, with novels allowing extended exposition through internal monologues to delve into character psychology, while films often condense rising action via visual pacing to maintain viewer engagement within runtime constraints.[12] This flexibility enables variations in emphasis—such as prolonged falling action in episodic series versus succinct denouements in short stories—tailoring the structure to the medium's demands without altering its core function.[11]Historical Evolution
Ancient and Classical Origins
The earliest documented examples of structured storytelling emerge from ancient oral epic traditions, particularly in the works attributed to Homer around the 8th century BCE. The Iliad and Odyssey exemplify these traditions through their narrative frameworks centered on heroic quests and returns, where the Iliad focuses on the wrath of Achilles and its consequences during the Trojan War, building tension through battles and divine interventions leading to a resolution of communal grief. In the Odyssey, the structure revolves around Odysseus's arduous journey home, incorporating episodes of trials, recognition, and reintegration that follow a cyclical pattern of departure, adventure, and restoration, reflecting the performative nature of oral composition with formulaic repetitions and thematic rings.[15] These epics established foundational patterns of heroic conflict and resolution that influenced subsequent Western narrative forms. In ancient Greece, Aristotle's Poetics (c. 335 BCE) provided the first systematic analysis of dramatic structure, emphasizing the unity of action as essential for a cohesive plot that avoids extraneous episodes and focuses on a single chain of causally linked events.[16] Aristotle advocated for a temporal unity, suggesting that the action should ideally unfold within a single day or a brief span to maintain intensity.[17] He further outlined the plot's tripartite form—a beginning that initiates the action without prior necessity, a middle that develops complications through reversals and discoveries, and an end that resolves the conflict logically—serving as a prototype for organic narrative wholeness.[16] This framework prioritized mimesis (imitation) of serious actions to evoke pity and fear, culminating in catharsis, and critiqued earlier epics like Homer's for their expansive scope while praising their unified episodes.[18] Outside the Greco-Roman tradition, the Sanskrit treatise Natyashastra (c. 200 BCE–200 CE), attributed to Bharata Muni, articulated a theory of dramatic structure centered on rasa, the emotional essence evoked in the audience through the interplay of stable emotions (sthayibhavas), transitory states (vyabhicharibhavas), and physical manifestations (anubhavas). The text delineates eight primary rasas—erotic (srngara), comic (hasya), pathetic (karuna), furious (raudra), heroic (vira), terrible (bhayanaka), odious (bibhatsa), and marvelous (adbhuta)—each dominating a narrative's emotional arc to create aesthetic relish, with the plot structured around determinants (vibhavas) that trigger and resolve these sentiments in performance. This holistic approach integrated poetry, music, dance, and acting to sustain rasa from exposition through climax to denouement, differing from Aristotelian focus on plot causality by prioritizing affective immersion. These ancient frameworks laid the groundwork for enduring conflict-resolution arcs in storytelling by establishing principles of progression from disequilibrium to equilibrium, whether through Homeric quests that balance individual heroism with communal restoration, Aristotelian plots that resolve through logical peripeteia, or Natyashastra's rasa-driven emotional catharsis.[18] Their emphasis on unified progression and affective closure influenced later dramatic theories, providing templates for narratives that build and release tension across cultures.[19]Modern Developments in Europe and Beyond
During the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods, European dramatists expanded upon classical foundations, notably through the adoption of a five-act structure in playwriting. William Shakespeare, writing around 1600, exemplified this in works like Hamlet, where he loosely adhered to the classical unities of time and action derived from Aristotle, while employing a five-act framework to build dramatic progression from exposition to resolution.[20][21] This structure, influenced by Horace and Senecan models, divided plays into acts of introduction, rising complication, climax, falling action, and denouement, allowing for intricate character development and thematic depth in Elizabethan theater.[20] In the 19th century, German critic Gustav Freytag formalized a visual model for dramatic tension in his 1863 treatise Die Technik des Dramas (Technique of the Drama), known as Freytag's Pyramid. This triangular diagram represents the narrative arc as a pyramid rising to a peak and descending, with five stages: Erregung (excitation or exposition, introducing characters and conflict at the base); steigende Bewegung (rising action, building tension through complications); Höhepunkt (climax, the turning point of maximum intensity at the apex); fallende Bewegung (falling action, resolving conflicts post-climax); and Katastrophe (catastrophe or denouement, the tragic or conclusive outcome at the base).[22] Freytag's model, applied primarily to classical tragedies like those of Sophocles but adapted for modern drama, emphasized emotional escalation and catharsis, influencing literary analysis across Europe.[22] The 20th century saw further adaptations of these structures for emerging media, particularly film. In the 1970s, American screenwriting instructor Syd Field introduced his Paradigm in Screenplay: The Foundations of Screenwriting (1979), refining the three-act structure—setup (Act 1), confrontation (Act 2), and resolution (Act 3)—for cinematic narratives, with plot points marking key transitions around page 25 and 75 of a 120-page script. This model drew from European theatrical traditions, as Hollywood's early development was shaped by immigrants from Germany, Austria, and Eastern Europe, such as directors Fritz Lang and Billy Wilder, who infused stage-derived plotting into studio-era films. Field's approach standardized screenwriting education, emphasizing visual storytelling while echoing Freytag's tension arc. Colonial-era global exchanges facilitated early Western engagements with non-European narrative forms, as seen in 19th-century translations of Japanese tales. Publisher Hasegawa Takejirō's Japanese Fairy Tale Series (initiated 1885), produced during Japan's Meiji-era opening to the West amid unequal treaties and imperial interactions, rendered traditional folktales like Momotarō into English, French, and German using woodblock-printed crêpe paper books for export. These adaptations introduced cyclical, harmony-focused structures to European audiences, contrasting linear Western models and sparking cross-cultural literary influences.[23] Such works exemplified how colonial dynamics prompted selective incorporations of Asian storytelling into European traditions.Primary Structural Frameworks
Three-Act Structure
The three-act structure is a foundational narrative framework in Western storytelling, particularly dominant in screenwriting and film, that divides a story into three distinct parts to create a cohesive arc of setup, development, and payoff. Popularized by screenwriter Syd Field in his seminal 1979 book Screenplay: The Foundations of Screenwriting, the model builds on ancient principles articulated by Aristotle in Poetics, where he emphasized that every tragedy must have a beginning, middle, and end to achieve unity and wholeness.[24] Field's paradigm formalized this into a practical tool for modern creators, analyzing hundreds of successful Hollywood scripts to identify recurring patterns of progression and turning points.[25] In Field's breakdown, Act 1, known as the setup, occupies approximately 25% of the total narrative length and establishes the protagonist, their world, stakes, and initial conflict, culminating in the first plot point—a major event that disrupts the status quo and launches the central action.[26] Act 2, the confrontation, spans the longest portion at 50% and escalates obstacles through rising action, featuring a midpoint reversal where the protagonist faces a critical shift in fortune or insight, before ending at the second plot point that forces a final confrontation with the antagonist or core problem.[27] Act 3, the resolution, comprises the remaining 25% and delivers climax, falling action, and denouement to tie up loose ends and provide emotional catharsis.[28] In a standard 120-page screenplay, this equates to roughly 30 pages for Act 1, 60 for Act 2, and 30 for Act 3, ensuring balanced pacing for audience engagement.[29] A classic example of the three-act structure is George Lucas's Star Wars (1977), which Field cited as embodying the paradigm. Act 1 introduces Luke Skywalker on Tatooine, his ordinary life, and the inciting theft of droids carrying Death Star plans, ending with Obi-Wan Kenobi's revelation of the Force and Luke's decision to join the Rebellion after his aunt and uncle's murder—the first plot point.[24] Act 2 follows Luke's training on the Millennium Falcon and infiltration of the Death Star, with the midpoint at the rescue of Princess Leia heightening personal stakes, building to the second plot point when the Rebel base is discovered, prompting the desperate assault.[28] Act 3 resolves with the trench run climax, Luke's use of the Force to destroy the Death Star, and a celebratory medal ceremony for closure.[30] The structure's advantages lie in its clarity for commercial storytelling, offering a reliable blueprint that maintains momentum, builds tension through defined turning points, and aligns plot with character growth to deliver satisfying arcs—essential for audience retention in feature films and television pilots.[31] It facilitates efficient revisions by pinpointing where exposition ends and conflict intensifies, making it a staple in professional screenwriting education and production.[25] Despite its ubiquity, the three-act structure faces criticisms for oversimplifying intricate narratives, imposing rigid formulas that can stifle originality in experimental or ensemble-driven stories, and failing to accommodate nonlinear timelines or subtle character explorations beyond conflict resolution.[32] Scholars and writers argue it prioritizes plot mechanics over thematic depth, potentially leading to predictable outcomes in an industry favoring innovation.[25]Freytag's Pyramid
Freytag's Pyramid is a model of dramatic structure developed by German playwright and novelist Gustav Freytag in his 1863 treatise Die Technik des Dramas (translated as Technique of the Drama), which analyzes the architecture of plays through a visual pyramid representing the progression of tension and resolution. Freytag derived the framework from his examination of ancient Greek tragedies, such as those by Sophocles, and Elizabethan dramas by William Shakespeare, identifying a consistent five-part pattern that builds to a peak and descends to closure. This pyramid emphasizes the causal connections between events, forming a "firmly connected structure" where each element drives the narrative forward through conflict and consequence. The model divides a dramatic narrative into five interconnected stages, often visualized as a symmetrical pyramid to illustrate the rise and fall of dramatic intensity:- Exposition (Introduction): The foundational stage that introduces the setting, characters, and initial circumstances, establishing the story's "key-note" without immediate conflict.
- Rising Action (Exciting Force or Ascent): Tension escalates through a series of complications and decisions, propelling the protagonist toward confrontation.
- Climax: The pivotal peak where the central conflict reaches its decisive turning point, often involving peripeteia—a sudden reversal of fortune derived from Aristotle's Poetics—that seals the protagonist's fate.
- Falling Action (Return or Fall): The consequences of the climax unfold, leading to a decline in intensity as reversals take hold.
- Catastrophe (Dénouement): The resolution, typically a tragic downfall or moral reckoning, providing closure to the hero's arc.
