Life Doesn’t Follow the Archetypal Structure

Why should stories follow a 3 or 5 Act structure when life doesn’t?

I posed the question on Twitter to see what responses might be generated. I received a couple. One went off on a philosophical tangent. And my answer is already given.

Screen Shot 2015-09-18 at 2.14.26 pm

Screen Shot 2015-09-18 at 2.14.58 pm

Screen Shot 2015-09-18 at 2.17.30 pm

Screen Shot 2015-09-18 at 2.17.45 pm

I suspect there is a field of narrative sociology (now there’s topic for a PhD) where this might apply and I remembered one of my twitter connections who is doing something like this.

Screen Shot 2015-09-20 at 8.38.56 am Screen Shot 2015-09-20 at 8.39.16 am Screen Shot 2015-09-20 at 8.39.23 am Screen Shot 2015-09-20 at 8.39.29 am Screen Shot 2015-09-20 at 8.39.37 am Screen Shot 2015-09-20 at 8.39.46 am Screen Shot 2015-09-20 at 8.39.53 am

I write stories where I follow the practiced methodology of the 3- or 5- Act structure, following the characters’ development and complications. It is the fundamental aspect of story telling you can find on most writing blogs. Other experimental forms still adhere to this idea in some tangential form or another.

You can start the Ira Glass research here.

Life is chaotic, messy, rhythmic, cyclical, disorganised, organised, coincidental, planned.

The takeaway is this: we codify experience to make it easier to understand.

Your response?

Advertisements

3 responses to “Life Doesn’t Follow the Archetypal Structure

  1. I think our attention span is different for real life than for reading.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s