So, Then, What Is a Story?

January 15, 2007 By

After reading all of these books about story and narrative, I now have a clearer view of what a story is and what narrative is. Though I am not certain I can put my definitions into a single, succinct sentence, I believe I can illustrate them through example.

More than 2000 years ago, Aristotle said that all stories must have a beginning, a middle, and an end. This is still true today, though they do not need to presented in that order. Take, for example, a very simple story: “The man fell down the stairs and died.” Not exactly a great story, but it does have a beginning (implied, in that the man was at the top of the stairs to start), a middle (he fell down the stairs), and an end (he died). Changing the order of the words in the sentence does not change the basic events or character of the story, but instead changes its narrative. “The man died after falling down the stairs.” The end is presented first (the man died), then followed by the middle and the beginning. Two modern film examples, Pulp Fiction and Memento, present the story in a manner that is significantly out of order, but they are both still coherent, even compelling, stories.

Entities, or characters as I will henceforth call them, are essential to a story. As a sentence must contain both a subject and a predicate, so must a story contain both character and action. In the above simple story, “the man” is the character. The story becomes a little more fleshed out if I simply change the words from “the man” to “my grandfather,” for now I have given the reader a little more information. The reader might picture an elderly man falling down the stairs, and the story has a little more pathos. In this sad, but relatively uninteresting story, the character has merely been acted upon.

I could add to the story by defining the reason he fell down the stairs, say he slipped on a roller skate, or I can expand both character and action by either showing how the fall was caused by his own actions, or by showing his reaction to the fall.

“My grandfather fell down the stairs, and just before he died, he popped back up on his feet, and said ‘Ta-da!’”

The character’s reaction to his imminent death competely changes the feel of the story. It is far less pathetic than before, as “my grandfather” has changed from a frail, elderly man into a vibrant, comical person. The character and the action have been unified into one complete whole, with each essential to the other.

But, does this necessarily make it a “good” story? Probably not. To further expand on the above story, I can add elements to both story and character, and at the same time alter the order in which the events are told. Thus, I am both adding to the story and changing the narrative at the same time.

“Ta-da!”
Those were my grandfather’s last words. He had been a vaudevillian as a teenager, and never lost his flair for the dramatic. One Sunday, when the whole family was gathered for dinner, he went upsatirs to use the bathroom. On his way back down, he lost his footing, and started to tumble down the stairs. As he reached the bottom, he somehow managed to jump to his feet, spread his arms wide, look at the assembled guests, and exclaim, ‘Ta-da!’ We later discovered he had broken his neck in the fall, and I still wonder how he managed to pull off this last theatrical gesture.

By putting the end of the story at the beginning, I have changed the narrative, and changing the narrative in such a way has arguably made it a better story. To make the story less predictable, I have added suspense (why were his last words “ta-da”?) It has also made the end seem more inevitable (of course that’s why, he’s an entertainer). Whether or not this final version is a good story, I am not the one to say. (Incidentally, it is pure fiction.) But, I can state with certainty, that it is a better story than “The man fell down the stairs.”

Thus, I come to these definitions: A story is a limited sequence of events with a distinct beginning, middle, and end, in which entities (characters) act or are acted upon. Narrative is the manner or medium in which the story is told. A good story is that which is not predictable, but somehow seems inevitable. These are by no means my final definitions, but for now they work. They are quite sloppy, but in my mind, coherent enough to proceed.

Filed Under: converse Tagged With:

Hollywood Stories

January 4, 2007 By

Syd Field is apparently the pre-eminent authority on screenplays in Hollywood. It is said that some agents and producers will not even look at your screenplay unless you have read all of Field’s books. At the same time, there are many who blame him for the lack of orginality sometimes exhibited by Hollywood. One reviewer at Amazon describes it as, “quite simply, the book that ruined Hollywood movies.” All of this because Field put into writing, in 1979 in his book Screenplay (I read the 2005 edition), the basic structure of American films.

“To tell a story, you have to setup your characters, introduce the dramatic premise (what is the story about) and the dramatic situation (the circumstances surrounding the action), create obstacles for your characters to confront and overcome, then resolve the story.” (p3)

This is the core of what Field wants the aspiring screen writer to know, and it is called the Three Act Structure. In the first act, called Setup, the writer sets up the story, establishes characters, launches the dramatic premise, illustrates the situation and creates relationships between characters. It is usually the first half-hour of the movie, and in Field’s paradigm, ends with a plot point, usually the Key Incident, but also sometimes called the Inciting Incident. Field defines his plot points as “connect[ing] the acts, usually by hooking into the action and moving it in another direction.”

Robert McKee, in Story, states that “the inciting incident radically upsets the balance of forces in the protagonist’s life.” (p189) Typically, this incident can also be the first major event of the plot, and, in a piece of advice for any storyteller, McKee adds, “as a rule of thumb, the first major event of the Central Plot occurs within the first 25% of the telling. This is a useful guide, no matter what the medium.” (p200)

It is also at this point where the writer usually defines the character’s dramatic need. Field defines this as “what does the main character want to win, gain, get, or achieve during the course of the screenplay?” This is what drives the entire story, and Field gives a few examples: Frodo’s quest to destroy the ring, or Jake Giddes’ need to discover who set him up in Chinatown.

After Field’s first plot point, comes Act 2, Confrontation, where the main character encounters obstacles that keep him from obtaining his dramatic need. This act, according to Field, should be approximately one hour. In his book Good Scripts, Bad Scripts, Thomas Pope helps explain how the second act should move the story through to its only possible conclusion. He writes, “each scene should present a new problem or expand on an old one, creating a narrative imperative that powers the story past any hesitancies or questions.” (p177)

At the end of Act 2 comes another plot point, and then finally Act 3, Resolution. Act 3, simply stated, is when the protagonist’s dramatic need is either achieved or not.

This structure is one of the things that irks people about Field. Another reviewer at Amazon said, “This book is much oriented around following a certain structure.” She gave the book one star out of five. I think the people who are negative about Field’s paradigm might be misunderstanding his goals. He clearly states many times during the book that he is defining a form, not a formula. The difference being the same as the difference between soup and a recipe for chicken noodle soup: one is general outline of how things generally should be, the other a strict path from which one should never deviate. Field is merely offering a structure that he has seen work (and most importantly to him, sell) in Hollywood innumerable times. It is also a revision of Aristotle for the 21st century. After all, Aristotle defined a good tragedy as having three distinct parts: beginning, middle, and end. Field has given them different names, and suggested exactly what action each should contain.

Another objection is his seeming over-emphasis on plot and structure, with no really useful advice about developing character. While his advice on how to develop characters did seem a bit thin, he clearly believes that character and plot are equally important, and inextricable. To him, the subject of the film is the action and the characters, or Aristotle’s objects of mimesis. He is fond of quoting Henry James: “What is character but the determination of incident? And what is incident but the illumination of character?”

Overall, Field is very enlightening, at least to someone who has no plans to ever write a screenplay. I doubt I’ll ever watch a film in the same way again, as I’ll always be looking for the plot points and inciting incidents. But, learning about the craft does not detract from the art. If anything, it gives me more respect for what the artist has to do to create a successful story, and has made me anxious to continue my study of film.

Field has also helped the idea of story solidify a little more in my mind. Though he doesn’t define story as such, he gives a sort of definition in the negative.

“All drama is conflict: without conflict you have no action, without action you have no character, without character you have no story.”

Filed Under: converse Tagged With: ,