The other day I was trolling around on Goodreads when I decided to check out the ratings for James Scott Bell’s book, Plot and Structure. Why? Probably just because it seemed like a fun little distraction from whatever important thing I probably should have been doing instead. I credit this book for finally breaking my cycle of writing and abandoning half-finished novels, and giving me the tools I needed to understand how to complete a (hopefully) competent piece of commercial fiction. I was curious to see what other aspiring writers thought of it.
The vast majority of the reviews are positive, but I was more interested in the negative reviews. I thought the book was full of really excellent, practical, actionable advice. I wanted to know how and why another reader might come to the opposite conclusion. The most common criticism of the book seemed to be that Bell focused too much on how to create a commercially viable novel rather than how to craft a novel that satisfies the author’s need for artistic self-expression. In particular, he caught a lot of flak for citing Dean Koontz when it came to providing examples of how to create successful fiction that sells.
Here’s the thing: I am not a huge fan of Koontz. I read a handful of his novels and determined that he’s just not for me. For example, I read The Silent Corner and found that while the plot was generally exciting and engaging, he made choices as an author that just rubbed me the wrong way. I certainly don’t mind having an attractive female lead, but it gets distracting when nearly every interaction Jane had with a man involved him fawning over how good-looking she is. And I gave the guy a fair shake, mind you. It’s not like I only tried his recent stuff. I gave Watchers a try too, but I just couldn’t get into it. That said, I completelyunderstand how someone else could love his works. And bottom line? The guy sells some damn books. He’s undisputedly commercially successful.
So what I have trouble understanding is this: for those of us yet to reach the status of commercial success achieved by the likes of Koontz—or hell, even just making enough money to make writing our day jobs—why are some so eager to cast aside Bell’s advice? His point-by-point breakdown of how to use the modern commercial three-act structure is an excellent framework for developing stories that modern consumers of fiction want to read.
No matter how much some want to fight it, the three-act structure just freakin’ works when it comes to modern day fiction. When done right, it provides the reader with a sense of urgency that creates that compelling need to finish the narrative. We see it everywhere in successful modern fiction:
Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone:
Act 1: Harry lives a miserable life with the Dursley family, but eventually discovers he’s a wizard.
Act 2: Harry leaves for Hogwarts (first door of no return) and discovers the mystery of the stone.
Act 3: Harry, Ron, and Hermione enter the trap door (the second, more literal door of no return) in anticipation of facing off against Snape, only to discover it’s Quirrell/Voldemort.
The Hunger Games:
Act 1: Katniss lives a difficult, impoverished life in the 12th district. The upcoming 74th hunger games are a looming threat.
Act 2: Katniss volunteers as tribute to save Primrose, goes off to the capital for the games (first door of no return) and fights for survival.
Act 3: Katniss and Peeta confront Cato, threaten a double-suicide if not allowed to win the games as a two-person team.
Anyway. I could go on, but I don’t think it would be very helpful. Apologies if this reads more like a rant than a cohesive article. Just something I had on my mind today.