Comments on: Story Structure Series: #2 – Milestones Along the 4-Part Storytelling Road

By: Overview of Larry Brooks’s Story Structure » Jordan McCollum

Overview of Larry Brooks’s Story Structure » Jordan McCollum — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 02:29:05 +0000

[...] structure is in four parts with three turning points separating them (plus two “pinch points”). Each part of the story should be about one [...]

By: Jess

Jess — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:00:01 +0000

Allow me to point out, Lauren, that LotR was written as ONE book, so that keeps to Larry’s boxes, but I think you are right as far as larger series are concerned, just perhaps with a different example (Dresden Files, Anita Blake, Jill Kismet series, etc).

By: Lauren S

Lauren S — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:37:09 +0000

If you’ve ever heard Diana Gabaldon talk about her writing process, she says she writes random scenes as they occur to her, until she happens on one that strikes her as being either the beginning or the end. Then she arranges the others in light of that knowledge, and fills in the gaps…yikes. But it works for her, although her books don’t all follow traditional structure.

For JM — it seems to me that successful series novels usually have their own complete story structure within the individual novel, while contributing to the whole. Think The Fellowship of the Ring — the conflict within the Fellowship is resolved in the climax, but it’s resolved by the shattering of the Fellowship, thus propelling the characters in new directions in the second book and continuing to the overall quest to defeat Sauron.

By: Shirls

Shirls — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:47:22 +0000

That’s an interesting observation JM. I’m wondering how the authors of Big Series novels such as Diana Gabaldon in her Outlander series sorted out her structure?

By: J.Morgan

J.Morgan — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 16:25:21 +0000

I’m actually really becoming a beliver of creating more structure first before you do anything…of course since I’m already in the midlle I’ll leave the experimenting with your process for my next book. I have a question though…

I’m writing a series so my major plot will not pan out until the third book..I know that it increases the number of my “Boxes” does this change the structuring or are each of the books now the smaller boxes inside of the big box? This is bcoming a russian doll!

By: janice

janice — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 16:52:00 +0000

I’m so glad you’re planning on giving these their very own page. They need to be read and re-read then printed off and laid beside the laptops of writers who want to get published.

By: Lori

Lori — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 15:58:15 +0000

I am glad I waited for your “magic pill” before I started randomly writing, and re-writing, and re-writing, and re-writing, and re-writing…

And, thanks for giving examples (i.e., Titanic). I’ve been looking for this kind of explanation for years; what you’re saying here at StoryFix is utterly refreshing! Ahhh…thanks Larry!

And, yeah, I’m heading over right now to pick up my copy of 101. I feel like I’m picking up my prescription of magic pills so I can avoid a trip to the Writers’ ER.

By: Shirls

Shirls — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 15:24:49 +0000

Ah Larry, this is good meaty stuff. It’s telling me what my shelves of writng books never did. And thanks for releasing your 101 Tips today – I’m glued to it but should be cooking dinner…Maybe my husband will settle for pizza?

By: Cait Morgan

Cait Morgan — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 13:17:27 +0000

Larry, yer bastard–leaving me dangling like an unwarranted participle from a cliff for the bleeding payoff.

Actually, I’m looking forward to your breakdown. Mine consists of the more traditional Set-Up, Inciting Incident and Point of No Return in Act I, Rising Action and Climax in Act II, then the Resolution as Act III (which, at risk of double-entendre shielding groans from the peanut gallery, works brilliantly for me in writing sex scenes).

My problem is the Rising Action bit–it yawns before me as the longest part of my story structure, and I tend to get bogged down in the process. Your concept of milestones has me perked up considerably. If I can revise my outline format and rip out the unwanted appendix before it flares up I’ll be a much happier writer monkey.

By: poch

poch — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 08:47:20 +0000

Hey Larry,
I can’t remember If I’ve ever read T Pynchon but here’s a funny and interesting review:

Thomas Pynchon’s back with what appears to be his most accessible novel yet, in the unlikely category of detective fiction. Critics reviewing Inherent Vice say he pulled it off:

Laura Miller, Salon: It’s “a sun-struck, pot-addled shaggy dog story that fuses the sulky skepticism of Raymond Chandler with the good-natured scrappiness of The Big Lebowski.” The minimal structure and the genre itself provide “ample cover for Pynchon’s literary weaknesses.”
Andy Martin, Independent: “Sun-kissed, psychedelic, and sexually enhanced, Pynchon has re-embodied, re-grooved the soul of the ’60s.”
Louis Menand, the New Yorker: It’s “self-consciously laid-back and funky” and “does not appear to be a Pynchonian palimpsest of semi-obscure allusions. (I could be missing something, of course. I could be missing everything.)”
Carolyn Kellogg, Los Angeles Times: It’s Pynchon “doing Raymond Chandler through a Jim Rockford looking glass, starring Cheech Marin (or maybe Tommy Chong). What could easily be mistaken as a paean to 1960s Southern California is also a sly herald of that era’s end.”

—John Johnson