Comments on: Story Structure Series: Epilogue… the Fine Print

By: Katie

Katie — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:56:17 +0000

Excellent series! I only wish someone had laid it out this plainly before, instead of making it all seem like some sort of secret, mystic art that you had to be born knowing.

By: Pegg Thomas

Pegg Thomas — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:10:55 +0000

Thank you for sharing this series. I’ve learned a lot and I appreciate the time you took to lay this all out for us ‘newbies’ to the craft. I’m writing my first book and I’d like it be worthy of publishing some day. I think this series will help make it possible.

By: Trina

Trina — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 02:57:08 +0000

I’m with Trish….an MFA program cannot give me this much. In fact, I was in an MFA program (that I didn’t finish) that didn’t give me any of this…We simply went over other literature and descriptions…which are important, but I’ve always been after this story architecture. I’ve read numerous books, but none gave me the architecture as simplistically as you with stellar examples.
Great Series Larry….Keep them coming!!!
Trina

By: Trish

Trish — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:40:41 +0000

Awesome stuff, Larry. I went to your sessions at Willametter Writers Conference, came home and read Screenwriting, and have now read your blog…Whoa! I have to say, I can’t imagine an MFA program giving me more valuable information than what I’ve gotten from you in the past couple of weeks. I think I’m now ready to revise my novel (again – only this time with some actual tools to guide the process) and I know I won’t start writing another one until I’ve got the 4 corners and the story architecture figured out first. Thanks a ton.

By: Larry

Larry — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:07:59 +0000

Colleen — great question. With short stories, the rules do soften. The shorter the story, the more they soften. The longer the story, the closer it should adhere to these structural principles.

Short stories get away with a “slice of life” approach, a vignette, a “moment in time.” They should always have a hero, always have a conceptual element, and always have a thematic landscape… so that much (three of the six core competencies) is consistent. And, they should always ask a question that will compel the reader to keep reading in hopes of an answer, there should be conflict and an antagonistic dimension, and there should always be a conclusion that packs an emotional aspect.

So the answer really is… the shorter it is, the less structural milestones come into play… the longer, the more they are needed. Anything over 10,000 words should have a resemblance to the paradigm I’ve presented here. Hope this helps.

By: Colleen

Colleen — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:24:10 +0000

I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the series on story architecture, and it’s really helped me put into perspective the things I’ve only seen out of the corner of my eye when reading books that I’ve enjoyed.

A question: how does story architecture work for shorter fiction? Are all the signposts and milestones still there, at roughly the same intervals (25% here being not 25,000 words, but rather 1250 words)?

By: janice

janice — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 13:26:03 +0000

I wish you hadn’t introduced the metaphor of you as life guard. I’ve spent years trying to get the image of David Hasselhoff out of my mind!

This is sage advice to end a wonderful series, Larry. It may be too late for me to benefit – I fear the brave days of dreaming about novel writing are over – but my teenage daughter certainly will! Thank you so much, from both of us.

By: Sharon

Sharon — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 01:42:51 +0000

Great, great series!

Now, if you’re taking requests, perhaps a seriies on foreshadowing?

Please?

Sharon

By: Rebecca Ryals Russell

Rebecca Ryals Russell — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 01:54:48 +0000

Larry, this is probably the most informative and educational series of blogs I’ve read anywhere. I have taken notes like a college student and used them to study my book, which I then spent several days rewriting and making sure all of the elements were there. I was pleased to see that organically I had most of it there already, but your blogs clarified things greatly and will make writing my next book so much easier. Thank you. I’d like to put a link on my site if that’s okay and I’d love to twitter you.

By: poch

poch — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:50:26 +0000

‘The analogy hits home because every now and then, more often than you’d think, I encounter a writer who just won’t accept the unimpeachable truth and validity of story architecture. They fight it off as if their writing dream is being mugged. They reject it as formulaic, they do everything in their power to make it wrong.’

The dumbest people I know are those who listen only to themselves. They’re just determined to be dumb.
You’re still good when you’re philosophical like right now.
Bravo.
There are two kinds of Chess school:
Unorthodox and Bookish. I’ve spent years studying and playing both and guess what’s more effective. You’re right.

‘Stick close to these guidelines and you’ll be treading a proven and safe path. ‘
Seems this is the bottomline.
Your sarcastic conclusion is also great. lol
Congrats for the excellent series. I promise my support all the way and thanks a million.