Realization Crisis

[polymath]

I've sensed something was missing from my theory of narrative structure. I graphed representative short-short fiction, short fiction, long fiction, and nonfiction long and short and noted a gap bridge between the rising action act and the climax act. So I dissected my test bench samples for what it is that bridges the gap and what the commonalities are.

I hypothesized that the something-that-happens to bridge the gap between the rising action act and the climax act must be a crisis. The crises bridging the acts basically report major turns in the action; major reversals, setbacks, discoveries, and so on. The acts basically report lead-ins and fallouts of the crises. Of course, the exposition act starts with a lead-in and the denouement act ends with a fallout. Therefore, I deduced, the gap bridge between the rising action and climax acts must also be a major crisis turn.

Since the four degrees of plot's causation, tension, and antagonism influences are in play and a major reversal indicated and since the gap bridge in question is a lead-in to the climax act where the four degrees are greatest, the degree of information known about the main dramatic complication must be nearly fully realized. Degree of efforts must also be nearly fully committed. Degree of doubt must also be nearly at the greatest degree of uncertainty and forces in opposition almost at their greatest degree.

I concluded that since the rising action act is basically efforts to discover the full ramifications of the main dramatic complication, the second crisis must be a full realization of what's going on and what effort it will take to win through, and the realization is it's time to fish or cut bait, full speed ahead or turn and run for sanctuary.

The five acts and four crises and four degrees

1. The five acts
2. Exposition or introductions
3. Rising action
4. Climax
5. Falling action
6. Denouement

1. The four crisis bridges spanning gaps between acts
2. Inciting crisis bridging exposition act and rising action act
3. Crisis bridging rising action act and climax act (Realization crisis?)
4. Tragic crisis bridging climax act and falling action act
5. Final crisis bridging falling action act and denouement act

1. The four degrees
2. Degree of information about the main dramatic complication known
3. Degree of efforts to address the main dramatic complication
4. Degree of doubt regarding final outcome of the main dramatic complication
5. Degree of forces in opposition for the outcome of the main dramatic complication

[Beethovenfan]

I wonder if you are thinking about this too hard. It sounds like you are trying to write according to a formula, making sure every part and parcel is in its place. I realize some things absolutely MUST be there, but you also have to go with what "feels" right. From what I've read of your posts, you come to writing from a very intellectual angle. Perhaps, just this once, you could look at it from a more emotional one. I don't know - might work.

[polymath]

I do these kinds of thought exercises for editing and revision purposes. I have an organic writing process which dovetails fairly well with them. Some preplanning, some free writing drafting, some more planning, some more free writing, and so on. Progressive steps that lead to a finely finished but not overworked product.

I liken writing to making three-dimensional art, some planning is required, some feel too, some of both at once. Except making three-dimensional art, sculpture more often than not involves taking away the parts that aren't part of the finished product. Like my latheware woodworking, writing involves planning and building up a basic structure then taking away material, adding more, taking away, adding more, until the envisioned raw shape emerges, then preparation for the finish.

Raise the grain. Sand smooth with progressively finer sandpaper, then ultrafine steel wool, then burnish with wood flour. I apply half a dozen coats of sealer, sand smooth, apply half a dozen coats of base finish, sand smooth, apply half a dozen coats of final finish, sand smooth, ultrafine steel wool again, apply several coats of wax polish, buff to a high gloss. Sometimes I have to sand it all off and start over. When I'm done, the surface is so fine it's got delightful tactile and visual appeal.

My current creation in progress has over four hundred pieces of wood in the plan. Without attention to structural planning I wouldn't have managed to put it together as I envisioned it.

[Mike Dickson]

Polymath,

For some reason when I think of the correct structure in a story, I use what I consider to be a well thought out, and by the book in most respects, novel and later movie, John Grisham's, The Firm, for comparison.

[Too many comma's? I'll have to break out English for Dummies later and revise]


Anyway, I may be completely wrong but at this stage of learning, it helps me visualize, so for the sake of humoring me, please read on.


The five acts
1. Exposition or introductions - young lawyer, Mitch McDeere joins a prestigous law firm. All the major players are introduced and the setting is in place.
2. Rising action - Doubt is first cast in the mind of Mitch McDeere after the associates are killed and he finds files for the mob in the Caymens.
3. Climax - Mitch's life is falling apart. He admits to cheating, seemingly losing his wife, and managed to get a private investigator killed.
4. Falling action - Mitch finds an angle that can save his brother, his life, and possibly keep him from getting disbarred.
5. Denouement - Mitch gives the FBI the firm (mail fraud) and saves his own ass by easing the tension with the mob. Finds out his wife played a large part in helping him, and off to Boston they go.

The four crisis bridges spanning gaps between acts
1.Inciting crisis bridging exposition act and rising action act - two associates are murdered.
2.Crisis bridging rising action act and climax act (Realization crisis?) - Mitch is contacted by the FBI. The life as he knows it, is now over. Major reversal?
3.Tragic crisis bridging climax act and falling action act - Mitch finds out he was set up at the Caymens and has to admit to cheating, seemingly losing his wife.
4.Final crisis bridging falling action act and denouement act - The killer sent for Mitch is killed opening the door for him to complete his plan by meeting with the mob.

[polymath]

You've got it, Mike Dickson, how plot organizes creative writing for best emotional effect. The fundamental purpose of plot. One criticism of Grisham's work is he's too methodical, but that's a legal mind in action. The plot benchmarks in most of his work are comparatively straightfoward, which makes for ready translation to movies with their insistence on high-concept premises for the broad audience appeal movies require in order to pay off production costs. And not coincidentally, why Grisham is the second-most financially successful author after Rowling.

For some reason when I think of the correct structure in a story, I use what I consider to be a well thought out, and by the book in most respects, novel and later movie, John Grisham's, The Firm, for comparison.

Maybe one or two commas too many and hyphens lacking if by prescriptive conventions.

//For some reason when I think of the correct structure in a story, I use what I consider to be a well-thought-out and by-the-book, in most respects, novel and later movie, John Grisham's The Firm, for comparison.//

[Mike Dickson]

Maybe one or two commas too many and hyphens lacking if by prescriptive conventions.

Damn hyphens get me every time.

[Guardian]

I have to agree with Beethovenfan. Maybe you're meditating on this too much or too hard, like if you would want to write by the book, following an exact formula. But this formula is just one part of writing. Follow your instincts. As you have a great knowledge, you'll write what must be there. Preplanning is always good, but if you spend too much time with it, and maybe you did it this time, you'll be bored by the actual chapter even before you would start it and / or you'll feel that something is not right with it, while there is no problem with the concept at all.

Turn off your mind, forget the rules just once and simply... write. Try it. Trust in your instincts. The problem will be solved by your instincts as you progress and the best is, even the desired "by the book" formula will be there as your instincts and your knowledge won't let you to make mistakes.

[polymath]

Maybe this is me? What works for me works for me. It's not something I've come to by a capricious whim. Nothing in life ever came easy to me. Writing certainly isn't easy for me. No matter how hard I wish it wasn't hard, the hard way is for me the easy way.

I've tried the organic method, didn't let it go easily after decades of floundering in the dark muck. My early writing had aesthetic panache but lacked for structural shortcomings. Like a dog with a bone I've since worried structure to the point I've had to develop my own theory in order to reach a satisfying endpoint. Something's missing in others' theories, at least what they put on the page. They seem to have somethings kicking around in their minds that didn't make it onto the page.

And as an editor, I want to be able to not only respond to an aesthetic hunch something's not working, I want to be able to analyze it and diagnose and suggest treatments for its shortcomings without rudely imposing my will.

And, you know, we're not sitting around together in person where communication is less dependent on words. That's all we've got online. Well, we're writers, all we have are our words. So, there it is, words offered for others' considerations from my insights. Take 'em or leave 'em.

[Guardian]

And as an editor, I want to be able to not only respond to an aesthetic hunch something's not working, I want to be able to analyze it and diagnose and suggest treatments for its shortcomings without rudely imposing my will.

I never said to abandon your true identity, otherwise that person wouldn't be you anymore. :) I just offered an alternate scenario, a different path for that case if you can't find a mistake or if you feel something is missing. Sometimes a different path can help if the standard way is not working out by some reason. And it can give you a different result. After that you still have a chance to analyze it and diagnose it... after you've walked the different, not that known path.

Personally I have no problem with your way as just as you, I always plan ahead. Sometimes too much. But theories sometimes... in most cases changing or worse, failing as you're writing. The good parts or the mistakes of the theory also used to appear when you're trying to execute them in the reality. Ideas, plans and theories sometimes are changing because a new idea is flashing into your mind as you're writing and / or you're taking a different path (And up from that moment the original plan, the theories are collapsing.)... and sometimes... the original idea and theory simply fails in execution because of some reasons. In this case; instinct remains (Same what Beethovenfan said.).

If you know the world, if you're in the mood, you can trust in your instincts anytime. Even if you don't have any plans. As you said...

I've sensed something was missing from my theory of narrative structure.

If you sense something is missing after you're meditating on it so much, maybe it's there, you're just not noticing it. It used to happen with everyone as we're meditating on something too much. We're trying to solve something on the hardest way, while the solution is the easiest of all and it's right in front of our eyes. Sometimes the easiest solution is the best solution, while we're meditating in the hardest, craziest scenarios. In this case, plan B comes; use your instinct and during the execution you'll see where the problem lies, where the theory fails... or is there a problem at all.

Right now as I see, you're working on this way (Based on your post.).

- Planning
- Analyzing the plan and the theories from every possible angle
- Writing
- Analyzing the writing

But sometimes you can switch these points and / or you can drop or merge some of these points...
- A little planning AND / OR starting to write following your instincts
- Analyzing the plan based writing OR analyzing the finished work what you've created without any plans

You will see the difference between the two writing style. Both of them will mirror you, but something will be different in it. Presumably the second version will be less complex, but the writing style will be much more flexible (Usually the pacing is better in this approach as you put the details into the background and you're focusing mostly on the events.). In the first case, as both of us used to work, everything goes by the book. It will be a complex work, it will has wonderful phrases and sentences, but at certain points, it will be much more rigid then the other version (Partially because you defiantly want to follow the plan. I also used to fall into this trap.).

You're an editor and a writer. And in my opinion a very-very good one because you know this craft inside out (Based on your posts.). But sometimes everyone must try a different path, which is not "by the book". Your knowledge won't vanish, but you can learn from the other path. Sometimes much more, than from any books (And sometimes not.). "By the book" theories and formulas also used to fail sometimes when you walk the other path. But the other path also can present new theories and new formulas.

So, there it is, words offered for others' considerations from my insights. Take 'em or leave 'em.

I believe you misunderstood me. But regardless from this, I'm truly sorry if I offended you somewhere. It wasn't intentional at all. It was just a friendly advice to you, because you used to meditate so much on many good things and you used to share them with us. But sometimes when you've doubts (And you had doubts based on your post; you missed something, you meditated on this scenario, presumably so much), when you can't find a problem, sometimes use your instincts and simply write instead of analyzing something over and over again. You'll see the difference. :) Sometimes, and you always loved to learn new things, the other path can give you a different result, even in this "Realization crisis" scenario. Maybe that approach will give you a different idea, a new solution, a new point to the existing ones. Will it be better or worse? No one knows. Maybe it will be something what for you never thought before. Maybe the result will be less glamourous than this one. But you never know if you never try, right?

[polymath]

I get that "you're trying too hard" jive so frequently it gets under my skin. It's especially annoying when someone who doesn't try hard makes it look easy, says it's not as hard as you're making it, and then complains when the outcome is mediocre. Lighten up they say. Buck up I say. They won't buck up. I'll lighten up when I'm dead.

If it were easy, everyone would do it or wouldn't because it's so easy anyone can do it.

My original post was a summary of a thought process which helped me to find a new concept that eluded me and I suspect eluded others before me who have followed a similar path. For me, I pushed the frontier back a smidgeon by following the path to its end and went beyond a step or two into an untracked wilderness.

[Guardian]

I get that "you're trying too hard" jive so frequently it gets under my skin. It's especially annoying when someone who doesn't try hard makes it look easy, says it's not as hard as you're making it, and then complains when the outcome is mediocre. Lighten up they say. Buck up I say. They won't buck up. I'll lighten up when I'm dead.

Oh, I can understand this. I also used to get this frequently. And no one said it's easy. I also know it's not easy. But sometimes a different method, which is also a challenge, can put things to a different, new light. I just tried to help, because I also met with this few times. You've presented the five acts and four crises and four degrees really good. But the question is; would it work in the reality, and is it a constant element that should work on this way every time? Or if you're not planning and analyzing, as you did now, you just write a chapter about this scenario following your instincts, would you get a similar result, similar points in every possible case... or would it give you something else, something different?

If it were easy, everyone would do it or wouldn't because it's so easy anyone can do it.

So true.

My original post was a summary of a thought process which helped me to find a new concept that eluded me and I suspect eluded others before me who have followed a similar path. For me, I pushed the frontier back a smidgeon by following the path to its end and went beyond a step or two into an untracked wilderness.

Yes, a concept. A good concept. But every concept must go through their baptism of fire. As I said above, I'm really curious that this theory, concept would stand in every possible case or not. This is the reason why I suggested the other, "not by the book" approach, because with that you can learn the weakness of this concept (If there is any at all.).

[polymath]

Yes, a concept. A good concept. But every concept must go through their baptism of fire. As I said above, I'm really curious that this theory, concept would stand in every possible case or not.

My investigation of the theory shows it doesn't fit every case, but it does fit top tier works I've tried out the theory on. Ones that didn't fit seemed to have shortcomings, like tediously slow starts, late if ever emotional engagment, episodic rising and falling action scenes, sagging middles, late or anticlimactic climaxes, precipitous endings, and/or unfinalized outcomes. The hunch I'd had before realizing the theory's ramifications was they lacked something structurally, but aesthetic considerations carried them through. Once I had a working theory the shortcomings boiled down to under-realized crises.

[Guardian]

Yes, a concept. A good concept. But every concept must go through their baptism of fire. As I said above, I'm really curious that this theory, concept would stand in every possible case or not.

My investigation of the theory shows it doesn't fit every case, but it does fit top tier works I've tried out the theory on. Ones that didn't fit seemed to have shortcomings, like tediously slow starts, late if ever emotional engagment, episodic rising and falling action scenes, sagging middles, late or anticlimactic climaxes, precipitous endings, and/or unfinalized outcomes.

Thank you very much for your answer and explanation.

The hunch I'd had before realizing the theory's ramifications was they lacked something structurally, but aesthetic considerations carried them through.

Actually that something might be the "instinct factor" or as Beethovenfan said "Write as you feel" factor, that you can't calculate into it as these are not static constant elements, while they're in the structure every time. It's a variable which is changing writer by writer. Maybe you should separate the crisis elements to constant elements and variables. Just my thought.

[polymath]

James Joyce's Odyssey has been my go-to acid test for some time. Aesthetically appealing to high-brow readers, rejected out of hand by low-brow readers, published narrative most often indicted for being so-called plotless. It passed my acid test. It's uncoventional to say the least. I don't personally like it, but I can appreciate Joyce's intent and the novel's meanings now, enough to comment on it without getting bogged down in unproductive negativity.

[Guardian]

James Joyce's Odyssey has been my go-to acid test for some time. Aesthetically appealing to high-brow readers, rejected out of hand by low-brow readers, published narrative most often indicted for being so-called plotless. It passed my acid test. It's uncoventional to say the least. I don't personally like it, but I can appreciate Joyce's intent and the novel's meanings now, enough to comment on it without getting bogged down in unproductive negativity.

Sounds interesting. I always loved these type of experiments. In this case the test might work properly. But as you written, the "human factor", the variable, the reader variable in this case, still stands even in this situation (high-brow readers vs. low-brow readers). But it's also interesting that you don't like it, yet, it was able to highlight few things and it has changed your mind.