A few years ago I picked up a popular screenwriting manual. The intro said there were too many formulae, too many checkboxes, too many rules to follow. On top of that, the three act structure was "dead" and led screenwriters into producing bland stories that had no heart. The solution? A TWENTY TWO STEP FORMULA.
I do think there is something of value in the more complex step approach, like Truby's, that can be simplified down to 7, and those seven are so broad they give the writer plenty of flexibility. At least they give the story a spine of how different elements connect and progress, and how that character, arc and theme progress at crucial stages, which is far more helpful than just dividing a story in acts. As with most of the formulae, I think their real benefit is in the rewrite phase - not because we should change what we wrote to fit a box, but that they might help us identify what the story lacks, or unify it with more clarity and power. IMO, a lot of the cynicism over formulae is the supposition that they 'guarantee' results, or are a shortcut to outlining/plotting or editing. And further in defence of gurus like Truby, he emphasises the importance of things like genre and how that affects audience expectations, and the conventions the industry expects. I don't think these gurus ever claim that art 'can't be' this or that, merely that they give advice on the pretext that writers want to satisfy the expectations of a wide audience and/or industry conventions. Of course, the case can be made that they are too certain of their own method, in order to make a buck, but again, I believe they are confident their method is a complete way to make a complete story, not a guarantee that using the method generates immediate results. The alternative is for the writer to spend months/years or more failing, failing more, failing better and ultimately probably reaching (through intuition) similar conclusions about storytelling, since we learn throughout our lives about stories through existing stories we hear, read, or see. And so one might argue that the sticker price is really a shortcut to 'professional writing', although one only becomes 'professional' through practice. McKee, for example, stresses that 'professional writing' requires the writer to rewrite and adjust scenes over and over and over, and by definition that means that 'rules' don't guarantee results and still requires effort and judgement and finesse.
@@Ruylopez778 You make a lot of good points. I think the main value of any form or formula is to show when something is missing. I just thought it was funny that his solution to three act structure was something even more complex. The way he was talking in the introduction seemed to be saying that structure was the problem. My last gripe with his book was that he emphasized a "designing principle" but couldn't define what that was. It's like people saying short stories need to be "about one thing," but then they can't explain what that is. Even Poe, who that advice is credited to, didn't follow it in any particularly esoteric or abstract way. He just wrote stories.
@@JoelAdamson From what I've heard/read from McKee and Truby, their main concern seems to stem from avoiding repetition and avoiding a lack of escalation, as these both lead to episodic stories. I think it's possible to follow the '3 act structure' and end up with exactly this problem. It stems from the 'yes, but, no and...' advice of one scene or consequence leading into another. And in terms of 'making art' there's nothing wrong with being episodic or repetitive, but in terms of being commercially viable, or fulfilling expectations of a general audience (rather than a niche one) these issues are not desirable. I think any tool that puts focus on a central spine of events is far more useful in crafting a story than just dictating a particular sequence or section begin at a certain specific point in the script/story. But yeah, I agree most writing advice is not necessarily applicable to short stories. Then again, a short story doesn't require as much investment for the reader, so perhaps their expectations are lower, and they are more open to a greater degree of ambiguity, much like poems. I think fundamentally, for most commercial fiction, a story or short story needs to be 'about something' (the writer's voice, intention or perspective) and 'to be interesting' (which is of course subjective). I think having a principle at the core (even one which isn't so defined) is more useful than when new writers fall into the trap of presuming that specific turning points at a specific percentage of the story constitutes 'structure' that will save them. IMO, the 8 sequence approach is far more useful than 3 acts. 3 acts might work for fan fiction, I guess, where the characters and the story world are already defined. I think some of Truby's tools like 'four corner opposition' are very useful, not necessarily in fitting to a paradigm but in getting the writer to really consider how best to utilise character and objectives/motivation. Obviously, some writers intuitively create this kind of dynamic without even realising. One of the books I want to read next is 'Screenwriting Unchained' by Emmanuel Oberg. He suggests that structure is simply about the reveal of information (dramatic irony, mystery, surprise and suspense). Perhaps the most important thing about rules and tools is that new writers don't fall into the trap of searching for a magic bullet to the point that they don't spend time actually writing their own creative work.... which I am certainly guilty of.
Always appreciate Glenn's approach, anytime someone says "you should do this" i cringe. Ps, glad I'm not the only one who always messes up their lines when making content 😂
Great lesson, Glenn! It reminds me of what I have heard about jazz musicians who study scales and other aspects of music theory so that when they want to improvise, they know the rules and how to break them in their free form improvisations. Really enjoyed this video, thank you!
A wise man once said something like, 'Do the best you can with what you have right now' which is sort of like a more tangible version of, 'Be like water'.
You're way too mean on yourself in the bloopers section! I know, it's just frustration:) Really appreciate your videos Glenn. They subconsciously organise my brain into prioritising what's important in my process, and inspire me to keep on keeping on - with a bunch more info and inspiration.
I think "mastering the craft" means developing the criteria by which you will review your work. This entails both understanding the theory and recognizing your references and inspirations. I don't think there are better or worse rules or formulas, as they all have their pros and cons when it comes to applying them to your writing. Don't stick to one method; absorb as many as you can until you develop your own. The goal is to deconstruct your knowledge to internalize it into your mind. Once you achieve this, you'll notice that your stories develop organically. Great content as always!
Thank you Glenn. As a future writer with a couple of ideas for stories in my head, I am impressed by this channel and your approach to delivering your teaching points on writing. This video seems to be analagous to the the "skinny boy" in that famous script who bent spoons with his mind and explained how to do it: "There is no spoon."
While I love all your learning/teaching videos this, I think, is my favourite because it gives credence to the process of making my own art. And I love learning, and know this process will never end. It's so exciting to be creative. Thank you Glenn.
Thx for your help! Just read The Unconsoled. Ishiguro. I wonder what others think about it. What a time I had trailing Mr Ryder. Was the book made into film?
I think a lot of these "rules" actually focus on success over creation and this is where they miss the point imo. One cannot succeed before creating in the first place and success or failure cannot be predicted or foreseen... The ONE rule to always remember and put above all others is the one you give in another of your videos : "because I said so". Whatever happens next is out of anyones' control.
Exhibit A in support of this video: What if George Lucas had followed some 'rule' and not started in the middle of the story with Episode IV, almost devoid of context?
A few years ago I picked up a popular screenwriting manual. The intro said there were too many formulae, too many checkboxes, too many rules to follow. On top of that, the three act structure was "dead" and led screenwriters into producing bland stories that had no heart. The solution? A TWENTY TWO STEP FORMULA.
LOL yeah...and the worst of it is, one of those steps might be very useful!!
@@writingforscreens Exactly. I was so turned off I didn't actually read the book.
I do think there is something of value in the more complex step approach, like Truby's, that can be simplified down to 7, and those seven are so broad they give the writer plenty of flexibility. At least they give the story a spine of how different elements connect and progress, and how that character, arc and theme progress at crucial stages, which is far more helpful than just dividing a story in acts.
As with most of the formulae, I think their real benefit is in the rewrite phase - not because we should change what we wrote to fit a box, but that they might help us identify what the story lacks, or unify it with more clarity and power.
IMO, a lot of the cynicism over formulae is the supposition that they 'guarantee' results, or are a shortcut to outlining/plotting or editing.
And further in defence of gurus like Truby, he emphasises the importance of things like genre and how that affects audience expectations, and the conventions the industry expects. I don't think these gurus ever claim that art 'can't be' this or that, merely that they give advice on the pretext that writers want to satisfy the expectations of a wide audience and/or industry conventions.
Of course, the case can be made that they are too certain of their own method, in order to make a buck, but again, I believe they are confident their method is a complete way to make a complete story, not a guarantee that using the method generates immediate results. The alternative is for the writer to spend months/years or more failing, failing more, failing better and ultimately probably reaching (through intuition) similar conclusions about storytelling, since we learn throughout our lives about stories through existing stories we hear, read, or see.
And so one might argue that the sticker price is really a shortcut to 'professional writing', although one only becomes 'professional' through practice. McKee, for example, stresses that 'professional writing' requires the writer to rewrite and adjust scenes over and over and over, and by definition that means that 'rules' don't guarantee results and still requires effort and judgement and finesse.
@@Ruylopez778 You make a lot of good points. I think the main value of any form or formula is to show when something is missing. I just thought it was funny that his solution to three act structure was something even more complex. The way he was talking in the introduction seemed to be saying that structure was the problem. My last gripe with his book was that he emphasized a "designing principle" but couldn't define what that was. It's like people saying short stories need to be "about one thing," but then they can't explain what that is. Even Poe, who that advice is credited to, didn't follow it in any particularly esoteric or abstract way. He just wrote stories.
@@JoelAdamson From what I've heard/read from McKee and Truby, their main concern seems to stem from avoiding repetition and avoiding a lack of escalation, as these both lead to episodic stories. I think it's possible to follow the '3 act structure' and end up with exactly this problem. It stems from the 'yes, but, no and...' advice of one scene or consequence leading into another. And in terms of 'making art' there's nothing wrong with being episodic or repetitive, but in terms of being commercially viable, or fulfilling expectations of a general audience (rather than a niche one) these issues are not desirable. I think any tool that puts focus on a central spine of events is far more useful in crafting a story than just dictating a particular sequence or section begin at a certain specific point in the script/story.
But yeah, I agree most writing advice is not necessarily applicable to short stories. Then again, a short story doesn't require as much investment for the reader, so perhaps their expectations are lower, and they are more open to a greater degree of ambiguity, much like poems.
I think fundamentally, for most commercial fiction, a story or short story needs to be 'about something' (the writer's voice, intention or perspective) and 'to be interesting' (which is of course subjective). I think having a principle at the core (even one which isn't so defined) is more useful than when new writers fall into the trap of presuming that specific turning points at a specific percentage of the story constitutes 'structure' that will save them. IMO, the 8 sequence approach is far more useful than 3 acts. 3 acts might work for fan fiction, I guess, where the characters and the story world are already defined.
I think some of Truby's tools like 'four corner opposition' are very useful, not necessarily in fitting to a paradigm but in getting the writer to really consider how best to utilise character and objectives/motivation. Obviously, some writers intuitively create this kind of dynamic without even realising.
One of the books I want to read next is 'Screenwriting Unchained' by Emmanuel Oberg. He suggests that structure is simply about the reveal of information (dramatic irony, mystery, surprise and suspense). Perhaps the most important thing about rules and tools is that new writers don't fall into the trap of searching for a magic bullet to the point that they don't spend time actually writing their own creative work.... which I am certainly guilty of.
The outtakes are priceless. You are not a fool. You're brilliant. Miss your lives!
Thank you! (Lives coming back, Tues & Thursday 1pm starting 6/1/23!)
Always appreciate Glenn's approach, anytime someone says "you should do this" i cringe.
Ps, glad I'm not the only one who always messes up their lines when making content 😂
Thank you! I suspect anyone who says they never mess up...is not telling the whole truth.
Great lesson, Glenn! It reminds me of what I have heard about jazz musicians who study scales and other aspects of music theory so that when they want to improvise, they know the rules and how to break them in their free form improvisations. Really enjoyed this video, thank you!
Yes - I think it's a safe principle when it comes to art: explore everything you can, learn everything you can...and then do your own thing.
You are my favorite channel for writing advice. Thank you for making these videos.
Yay! Thank YOU so much for watching - and saying that!
A wise man once said something like, 'Do the best you can with what you have right now' which is sort of like a more tangible version of, 'Be like water'.
I love the wisdom of the aged. Sorry: ages.
You're way too mean on yourself in the bloopers section! I know, it's just frustration:) Really appreciate your videos Glenn. They subconsciously organise my brain into prioritising what's important in my process, and inspire me to keep on keeping on - with a bunch more info and inspiration.
I think "mastering the craft" means developing the criteria by which you will review your work. This entails both understanding the theory and recognizing your references and inspirations.
I don't think there are better or worse rules or formulas, as they all have their pros and cons when it comes to applying them to your writing. Don't stick to one method; absorb as many as you can until you develop your own.
The goal is to deconstruct your knowledge to internalize it into your mind. Once you achieve this, you'll notice that your stories develop organically.
Great content as always!
Thank you - I very much agree!
Thank you Glenn. As a future writer with a couple of ideas for stories in my head, I am impressed by this channel and your approach to delivering your teaching points on writing. This video seems to be analagous to the the "skinny boy" in that famous script who bent spoons with his mind and explained how to do it: "There is no spoon."
I always loved that scene :)
Great and much needed insight, Glenn!
Thank you!!
Always helpful and inspiring, thanks for the videos. 👍🏼😎
So very glad you're getting useful things from them! thank you!
This is so great! Thank you!
So glad you like it!!
While I love all your learning/teaching videos this, I think, is my favourite because it gives credence to the process of making my own art. And I love learning, and know this process will never end. It's so exciting to be creative. Thank you Glenn.
That's wonderful, thanks!!
Thank you.
I get caught up in stuff like this.
We all do!
God Tier stuff here Glen, thank you for sharing!
You're welcome, thank YOU!
I like a lot your videos, scary and liberatory at the same time.
Thank you! That's a good description of them, I think!
Thanks for your vids! I’m really enjoying’em
Yay! Thank you!
Great info, truly makes sense.
So glad to hear it, thank you.
Thank you for another great video!
So glad you liked it!
Thx for your help! Just read The Unconsoled. Ishiguro. I wonder what others think about it. What a time I had trailing Mr Ryder. Was the book made into film?
I don't know! I haven't read it...
I think a lot of these "rules" actually focus on success over creation and this is where they miss the point imo. One cannot succeed before creating in the first place and success or failure cannot be predicted or foreseen...
The ONE rule to always remember and put above all others is the one you give in another of your videos : "because I said so".
Whatever happens next is out of anyones' control.
Well, certainly - I agree! I will almost agree with myself :)
❤
Again another amazing video❤ thank you so much
Happy it's keeping up the tradition!
Exhibit A in support of this video: What if George Lucas had followed some 'rule' and not started in the middle of the story with Episode IV, almost devoid of context?
Yes, a "rule" broken...with confidence...and a very good choice!