irg7620

I read a book earlier this year about writing novels and the author of this book said that the "Aristotle's Incline" is a good way to help an author outline their book. Has anyone heard of this before? He put an example in his book to show the reader what it looked like. It shows a line starting low on the left and rising higher to the right with things called plot point one, midpoint, plot point 2, catharsis (climax of the book), Act 1, Act 2, Act 3 all wrote around this line at various points. Sounds like a good way to outline a novel. I would like to try to find more books on writing books to see if this is a common piece of advice before I dig in. I have a lot of stuff done for my book, I am just looking for a good way to organize it.

lin

This shape, also termed various type of pyramid, like most of Aristotle, is not designed as writing advice, but as an analytic.

Like "Three act structure", it's just too vague and inevitable a description to be worth much. Yeah, a piece of drama has a beginnning,. middle and end. How does that help.

Is this "incline" in anyway more descriptive that saying a storie rises to a climax (the actual word here...catharsis is NOT the same thing, it's a emotional state) then resolves?

Part of the problem is you so often see it portrayed as a regular triangle. Well, you KNOW that stories don't take as long to come down from the climax as they do to build to it, don't you? In fact many stories move from climax to ending with a highly foreshortened denoument, lke an orange rolling off a table.

A much more useful model would be something like a mountain range or stock graph...the level of suspense or involvement rising, then falling over an overall gain, like going up into the mountains.

But even that gives you little to go on. What are you doing to do, plot the graph and cut your chapters to fit?

It's just not going to help you.
You'd be better off letting your book determine it's own structure. Fiddle around with it, sketch it out, tack cards on a bulletin board, whatever it takes. But if you are going to try to cram it into a cookie cutter, at least choose one that is a little more up to date and less simplistic.

__________________

astralis

irg,

Check out what the "quest" is and discover how it creates the archplot, which is essentially Aristotle's Incline. There isn't a single story that can escape the quest.

As Aristotle said, stories have a three-act structure: beginning, middle, and end. That seems obvious today even for new writers but it is somewhat too general. Learning how those three acts work together ca help you learn how to write your story. The acts create the quest, listed below in general terms.

Act One
Character's world has its normal ups and downs until there's an inciting incident that sets the world upside down. The character then has a desire to correct it -- this is his object of desire. (Someone pointed out that the world doesn't have to be turned upside down and it doesn't have to be corrected. I agree and used these examples more as euphemisms for what happens instead of literal events. Therefore, the trigger events can be very subtle and the correction can merely be seeking to return to normal. In the example of Pulp Fiction in the posts below, the trigger of the main plot is simply to return a briefcase to someone. The correction to return to the norm would be to happily return it.)

Act Two
By seeking the object of desire, the character encounters progressive complications that keep him obtaining the object of desire.

Act Three
At the climax the character is given one last test that is greater than to other complications to obtain the object and whether he obtains it or not provides the meaning to your story.

These acts create the archplot and you can get deeper into them by studying beats, scenes, and sequences. Beats create scenes and a series of scenes create a sequence. Each ends on a turning point in the story. Scenes usually move on minor turning points and sequences usually move on major turning points.

Most people have problems with the middle of their stories: Act Two. One method around this is for many stories to break act two into two sections with the middle containing a mid-point climax that turns the story into a major new direction.

You also will probably have subplots that merge into the archplot. Each of your main characters will probably have their own subplot and each contains the same tools you used to create the archplot with each subplot having a three act structure, an inciting incident, and an object of desire.

Again, these are very general terms. There are variations to the quest. Some stories have multiple objects of desire. For example, a character can have a conscious desire and an unconscious desire:the character might want power but unconsciously wants to live a life in spiritual solitude. The ending might be ironic where the character is swept from power and therefore does not achieve the conscious object of desire but when he is exiled to a deserted island, he achieves his unconscious object of desire giving an ironic and bittersweet ending.

__________________
How to write a story

lin

No, as a matter of fact, the "quest" is TOTALLY different description from the incline. Not even similar and in many ways diametrically opposed.

The idea that there is no single story not described by "the quest" or "hero's journey" or any other construct somebody cobbles up is a total crap. A symptom of narrow guage mentality.

You've gone to a great many words to expand the basic item being discussed, and yet added nothing to it...and have still left it at a generic cookie-cutter that might be of use to critics but is useless to writers.

GOD, what a mishmash of theoretical structure that is. Whew!

__________________

astralis

irg,

I read Lin's post that disagrees with my post. I stand by what I posted and therefore disagree with Lin. If you want clarification just ask.

All of the elements that make up a quest are not the same as the "hero's journey" as Lin claims. Those are two different matters. The quest is an archplot and when plotted, it looks like Aristotle's incline. All stories follow the same form, but that's not the same as formula.

You can't get away with writing an archplot and not having beats, scenes, sequences, acts, and inciting incident, nor a final climax.

__________________
How to write a story

lin

Read again, twit. I never said they were the same, just that they are often cited for the idiotic supposition that ALL stories must follow them.


That is REALLY stupid, but I'll chalk it up to the trouble you have reading.

Anybody who reads knows better than that.

I'm beginning to think you're putting us all one with this lame assertion (if that's what it even is)
First of all, much of that breats, sequences, etc. are elements that get projected onto stories by analysists. They are not something that affects a writer, sitting there wriiting a "beat".

FICTION does not have "acts". DRAMA has acts. You can decide to divide a piece up into "acts" if you wish, and have fun. But the writer didn't think that way.


You can have novels without "final climaxes" as a matter of fact. Picaresque stories often don't. Road novels often don't. Read something like "Movin' On" by Larry McMurtry and sniff out the final climax. Or "On the Road" or "Pilgrim's Progress" or "Canterbury Tales"
Or for that matter, since you are obviously getting this gobbledegook from screenwriting nitwits, not novelists, try looking for the "final climax" of Pulp Fiction. Or "Crash" Or "Babel" Or "Amores Perros" Or.....

Look, if you write anything at all, use whatever method works, But laying this shit on newbies asking honest questions isn't very nice.

__________________

lin

Almost anybody who talks about fiction writing and says "You can't get away with writing X" is full of shit.

ANYBODY who says all stories can be describe by a single matrix or modle is even FULLER of shit because it's just to easy to find things that don't work, no matter how diligently some fool tries to shoehorn 10 pounds of pig manure into a 5 pound sack.

__________________

astralis

I believe newbies should be the first to learn about the quest as soon as possible because story is a lost art in schools and is no longer taught as it used to be in the 1960s. You can have your opinion but I disagree with it. Therefore, still stand by my post. Additionally, I don't know what you mean that fiction doesn't have Acts. The last I checked all fiction has a beginning, middle, and end. And some authors even organize their book by acts.

Also, all those books and movies you mentioned have beginnings, middles, and ends, and they all have final climaxes.

For one story you said I can't find a final climax, "Pulp Fiction", I assure you that it's there. It has a beginning, middle, and an end. And it's still a quest even when the time is non-linear.

The screenplay for Pulp Fiction actually included a Table of Contents:

Part I, was the Prologue;
Part II, Vincent Vega and Marcellus Wallace's Wife;
Part III, The Gold Watch;
Part IV, The Bonnie Situation, and
Part V, the Epilogue.

The story included three subplots (each with their own inciting incidents and final climaxes) surrounded by a prologue and an epilogue. Even the title page of the screenplay says "this is three stories about one story".

The Prologue
You have Pumpkin and Honey Bunny in the diner discussing robbery. Then they hold the place up and the titles begin.

Then the famous Big Mac discussion happens between Jules and John Travolta's character, Vinnie while they're driving. We learn that their goal is to retrieve the briefcase and return it to Marcellus Wallace (what a quest!). This is the inciting incident of the main plot (no one said you have to have a 747 land on top of an elementary school to start your story). To set their world straight they must return the briefcase.

Part I
Jules and Vincent arrive try to collect the briefcase (a progressive complication). They load their weapons into the kids and the screen goes black...

There's a little setup about Butch's story.

Then we see Vincent takes Wallace's girlfriend (Mia) out to dinner where they dance and return to her house. They do drugs, she almost ODs but he saves her and then he says goodnight. (Yet another progressive complication that shows the risk involved with Wallace (disobeying authority).

This sequence displays more of Wallace's power and it's about the risk Vincent is taking with his life.

Part II
This is about Butch and how he doesn't follow Wallace's orders and lose the fight. He takes the risk of losing his life and is now on the run from Wallace. Butch goes to collect something from his apartment and finds Vincent on a stake-out and shoots him (this part plays a good role in making the story non-linear because we see Vincent in practically the next sequence as if nothing happened to him). Butch and Wallace are eventually trapped by the gimp and escape and Wallace tells him not to mention what happened to him and to leave town and he'll call it even.

This subplot has little to do with the main plot about the suitcase. Instead, this establishes more information about Wallace's power and the risk Butch is taking. Vincent's death is just a red herring.

Part III
Back at the apartment from Part I with Jules and Vern. Jules gives his Ezekial speech and they kill the boys in the apartment. But there's still one in the bathroom. He comes out and unloads his gun on Jules and Vern and misses. They kill him. Then they tell Marvin, one of the boys there, to come with them (apparently Marvin's a friend).

Soon thereafter, Wolf is called in to clean up Marvin's remains in the back of the car because Vincent accidently shot his head off. This incident risks Vincent's and Jule's arrest and thereby Wallace doesn't get his briefcase and prison would be better than not giving Wallace his briefcase.

The Epilogue (INCLUDES THE FINAL CLIMAX)
The epilogue is with Jules and Vincent in a diner, with the briefcase, and discussing how they were lucky they weren't killed. Jules called it divine intervention. Then the diner is robbed by Pumpkin and Honey Bunny which pivots us back to the prologue. Pumpkin and Honey Bunny rob and then they tell Jules that they want his briefcase but Jules doesn't hand it over. This is the crisis decision and final act's climax: he'd rather risk death than not give Wallace his briefcase. He talks them into not taking the briefcase and to leave them alone. Honey Bunny and Pumpkin agree and Vincent and Jules leave the diner in peace with the briefcase.

There's the quest with the final climax. The drama is fulfilled and we don't actually have to see the briefcase dropped off at Wallace's (or even know if it will eventually make its way to him although I think there's no doubt they deliver it to him).

It's clear the screenwriters, Tarantino and Roger Avary, knew all the parts of a quest and rearranged their story to make it non-linear. But when you piece it all together, the quest is still there in its rightful place.

__________________
How to write a story

lin

There is a reason for that.
It's not a "lost art" it's a foolish waste of time and injurious to real writers who really write things.

No it's not you stupid shit. Those aren't "subplots" either. What you're saying the guy not wanting to give up his wallet is somehow a higher and finaller climax than the confrontation between Butch, the freaks, and Wallace in the basement??????

You obviously got warped out by film school (happens a LOT, probably more harmful to young writers than creative writing programs) and can't figure out why you aren't as successful writer since you know all this drivel.
Don't clutter up people's minds with your own silliness.


Nothing of the kind is clear. This is exactly what I was talking about above: every moron with some sure-fire, absolutely only way to do it gimmick starts off by boring your ass off showing how everything that was ever a hit was just predictated right according to their scheme.

__________________

lin

irg7620, here's the thing.

There is NO one pattern for writing. The patterns you see in classes are for TEACHERS and CRITICS, not writers.

Anybody who claims to have the magic key that fits all locks and no other way to the Light is possible is a charlatan.

Good thing to keep in mind if you have any sort of serious future in writing.

AVOID gurus and magic mousetraps.

__________________

astralis

Knowing the form of storytelling is not magic just as much as knowing how to play a piano will not make you a virtuoso. You still have to have immense talent to create a story and to do it well.

Is this necessary, Lin? Take a deep breath.
Those are essentially subplots, albeit non-traditional. They are "three stories about one story" and very strong subplots.
Yes. Each subplot was strong enough in its own right, for sure, but the final climax where Jules decided to keep the briefcase while looking down the barrel of a gun only had meaning because of the rest of the story's climaxes. Otherwise we really wouldn't have cared if he had given it away or not. It also revealed the controlling idea of the movie. I think most people who watched the movie felt very satisfied with the outcome and thought it tied the plots together very well, especially the main quest. While the writers could have made something much more exotic like the other endings you mentioned, they opted to end it as they did.

__________________
How to write a story

lin

There is no point in this. Youy are completely, absolutely, totally full of shit and there's no remedy.

The idea that three stories about different characters are "subplots" (without a main plot) rather than a melding of stories is so ignorant and slavishly attempting to justify your "My Only Story Model Uber Alles" crap that it's pretty obvious to any reader, so I'll leave it.

It's a sad affliction. Quit tryiing to infect others with it.

__________________

astralis

There is a main plot. Read my posts again. It's the quest of returning the briefcase.

__________________
How to write a story

lin

READ THEM AGAIN!!!!!!! They weren't wordy, self-congratulatory, and idiotic enough the first time?????

You know, when people don't respond to your stupid little fetishes, it's not that they don't read carefully, or that they fail to comprehend you genius.

It's that what you are saying is a crock of shit.

Sure. Some whackos are doing homo torture in a basement and a boxer defends a guy who is trying to kill him...a mess he's in because he WENT BACK LOOKING FOR A WATCH... but it's all just a subplot to finding a briefcase that has absolutely nothing to do with the boxer and the guy being buttfucked never even sees or touches.
You got it.
Are you SURE it's not about a quest for the watch??? And dancing with Uma Thurman isn't a subplot for that?

You aren't just wrong. You're lost.
I will bet that if you look around the results of your studies of writing and tot up the results you might just come to the same conclusion. But that's just a hunch. Or possibly a sub-hunch.

Give it up, man. This doesn't help you, the poor original poster, nobody.
Burn all your notes on this shit and try to write something coming from your own head and heart.

__________________

astralis

I'm sure. All subplots have their own arch with an inciting incident, progressive complications, final climax, etc. The watch was not a part of the main plot and was only a part of the Butch subplot.
Correct, Vincent dancing with Uma and that entire subplot did not have anything to do with the watch subplot. The relation with Uma and Vincent and Butch and winning the boxing match is disparate but both subplots provide the suspense of getting caught by Walllace because they disobeyed him (authority).

__________________
How to write a story