I was watching a video about the correct way to structure a story. And the guy had eight or ten different versions that people have formulated over the years. And they go from a three-act model to a (I kid you not) twenty-seven stage version. The latter is based on the hero’s quest model that Joseph Campbell formulated based on what he observed in various western myths and legends.
From what I could tell, more is better. He had the three-act version down as the worst version. Now he did qualify that it was probably a good model for a movie or a short story but for a novel it was too slight. For the most part they all seemed to be variations on a theme. Basically, you have a series of setbacks and victories leading up to a climax and then a conclusion.
I guess that’s probably more or less what a story is. And there were some good ideas for what some of these setbacks should look like. In particular, the hero’s quest had a bunch of stages that seemed to echo many of the incidents in such classic adventure stories as “The Lord of the Rings.” There’s the initial refusal to accept the quest, there’s a temptation at a low point to renounce the struggle. We have a scene where a minor character saves the day. We might have a mentor helping the hero mature into his role. Maybe there’s a betrayal. Etcetera, etcetera.
In his defense the video guy did say that a good writer wouldn’t have to follow any of these models slavishly. Like a good cook he can use his own judgement and add and subtract things from this recipe according to personal taste. And I think that’s the point. Really there is no perfect recipe. Every story should be different. If it’s not, why would anyone want to read the second one? Why would someone want to write a second story that’s exactly the same as the first one? That’s a rhetorical question. The obvious answer is that if people liked it the first time, many of them will want more of the same. So, the answer is money. But I hope that anyone who is writing a series can plot out the events for the saga with enough intelligence to make the story varied and interesting and not repeat all the same events with only small variations.
I will confess that when I was getting close to the end of my book, I was tempted to make the story quite a bit longer. I thought the ending was a bit abrupt and there wasn’t a more gradual slope to the end of the story. But the more I thought about it the less I liked the idea of dragging it out. My character had gone to war for revenge. When that was done his part of the history was effectively over. What came afterward would be another story and I still haven’t decided what the next thread I want to pull on in my make-believe world should be. So hopefully I’ll have the sense to read Joseph Campbell’s book and then do the opposite!