Reinventing the Wheel: An Integrated Model of Everybody's Story Circles

If a group of crows is called a murder and a group of vultures is called a congress, what do you call a group of writers? I think 'an argument' would be a good term. Because the laws of thermodynamics state that the longer a group of writers remain in proximity to each other, the more certain it is that someone will ask a question that creates infinite debate:

Which story structure do you like to use?

Story structure is an immensely important subject to study, because understanding structure enables you to bring it to your own stories. A story without structure is a kindergartner telling you about their trip to Disney World. The center cannot hold. All is sound and fury. 

But asking "what structure do you use" isn't studying structure. It's asking Stan Lee who would win in a fight between Spider-Man and the Thing. There may be no such things as stupid questions, but "which structure is best" does not meet the criteria for a smart one. 

I once offered in a class that it doesn't matter which one you use because they're all the same. I got a lot of blank looks. Then the instructor followed up with "they're all equally good and what you choose is a matter of preference, so find the one that works for you." 

I don't agree with that. You can't take an English class and call yourself a linguist. You can't buy a hammer and call yourself a carpenter. You have to study the whole subject and make a practice of using all the tools. If you just use one story structure all the time and have no ability to use another type to either build or assess your stories, are you a storyteller or just someone that tells a certain kind of story?

I use multiple structures to build my stories. I think you can use them all at once. I do it frequently. I even used one I just learned four months ago to outline a western drama I'm writing. And while marveling at how well it worked in comparison to everything I thought about how I was subconsciously using it in the context of all the others. That got me to thinking about how I might have saved myself a couple of drafts if I'd been a little more conscious of that context. I went looking for a visual reference that would help me do that. Certainly, there was somebody out there who'd done it before, right? 

Not that I could find. So, I decided to make one. I found out why nobody had done it yet, because it wasn't easy. I wound up making a complete diagram of three well known models to get to the combined one. I'll share them here and a little background for anyone who's never encountered any of them.

And also because I insist on proving all those classmates who'll never see this that I'm right. 

First and simplest Dan Harmon's Story Circle. And I mean "simplest" as a compliment. For all the modeling that the world's top storytelling scientists have performed, Dan has found elegance in simplicity. Eight, count 'em, eight major components. That's it. Eight episodes of Community and three episodes of Rick and Morty (on top of running both shows) can't be wrong. It works. Not only does it make brilliant TV, but he can explain it in less than four minutes on YouTube. 

For those seeing this for the first time, there are some pros and cons. Pros first:

1. Simple and streamlined. Identifies the big pieces of a story's requirements.
2. Allows plenty of room to work out details.
3. Loose enough to be adapted to most genres (horror is always different, right?)
4. Small and simple. Could be used to plot multiple arcs and connect them into a larger narrative.

The cons:

1. Can lead to lots of ambiguity. How many beats between points? What are they?
2. Allows you to misinterpret what individual elements mean, leading to plot holes.
3. Leaves a LOT of work to be done in the actual writing. 

If you're trying to keep a macro-level view of quests in a game or sub-plots in a series, this is a great tool to throw down in a larger map. It also works for half-hour comedy and animated shows because each of these elements covers 3-4 pages of script. But it's probably not the engine you want to drive your Oscar contender for best original screenplay.

Now for one everybody in science fiction and fantasy has seen or heard. Please welcome the Lovecraftian Leviathan that spawned all others, the monomyth with the most, Joseph Campbell's very own Hero's Journey.

Oh, yeah. Breathe it in. Twelve points, each drawn from an unrivaled pantheon of European fables and folklore. From the walls of Troy to the moon of Endor, it covers 'em all. With Campbell's The Hero of a Thousand Faces on your shelf and this diagram by your side, you have everything you need to write an epic rivaling those of Herbert, Jordan, or Martin. So why don't more writers do it? 

Primarily because they don't actually read the book. But there are also pros and cons to the model. Pros:

1. Much more specific and structured. Helps identify points between the most basic elements.
2. The journey offers geographic orientation. It's a great way to connect events and locations. 
3. Forces you to get your characters out of bed and on the move.
4. Helps connect plot points to avoid holes and disconnects.

Cons:

1. Strong temptation to chase rabbit holes like worldbuilding and tropes.
2. Because of obstacles and enemies and magic, you could write a story in which the character doesn't do much and instead just has a bunch of stuff happen to them (Disney Princess Syndrome)
3. Can lead to a misinterpretation that each story element gets an equal amount of page space or screen time. 

The hero's journey is a tool of immeasurable, eldritch power. Homer and Tolkien and the Arthurian tradition used it before Campbell even gave it a name. But it's not easy. While I also urge you to read the book, you might find it easier if you give yourself a compass, like so...

Will ya look at that? You are in the ordinary world. But once a call comes, you suddenly discover a need, which propels you to go into the special world, and endure trials as you search for what you require. You find and take the treasure, then return to the ordinary world a changed person who now masters both realms. 

I don't blame you if you're not convinced yet. Two of a kind is just a coincidence. Stay with me. 

I've talked about the latest and the greatest. What's in the middle? What about Blake Snyder's 'Save the Cat' structure?

My pros and cons list here might be the most skewed, because admittedly I like to use Snyder's tool in a very specific way. That is, I use it to inspect work after it's done rather than draw plans beforehand. I use Snyder's measurements to figure out where things might be a little out-of-whack, imbalanced, or not quite on the level. I have great success with it during editing. The pros:

1. It's oriented to time/story space. If you have a defined word/page-count, it gives you a reasonably good estimate of what your allocations are for each portion of your story. It's great if you're writing for e-readers. 
2. Keeps you on pace throughout development. 
3. Establishes limits early so you don't plan more story than you can actually write.
4. It's very open-ended as to actual things that must happen. This model is broad enough to work equally well for John Wick and Power of the Dog. 

The cons:

1. Can cause you to feel like you're constricted by hard-and-fast rules. Hampers creativity. 
2. The terminology doesn't lend itself to nailing down plot points. What's the difference between debate and choice? When do you know you're out of one phase and into the next? It's not intuitive, so it could induce banging-head-against-wall syndrome from trying to sort it out.
3. It's very character-focused. Between the first three elements and "Dark Night of the Soul," you could fall into the trap of writing 37% of your story inside your protagonist's head without them taking action. 

Feels like it's a little too esoteric. Maybe it needs some hard-and-fast reference points to define what's going on. Try this:

Now's an appropriate time for a "see what I mean." Look at how the models synchronize. Set-up necessarily starts with the 'you' of the protagonist and flows naturally to their need. They enter a debate with their environment or an adversary and ultimately make (or be forced to make) the choice to go and do something about it. Things in Act II are a little less synergistic, but at least Harmon's search informs Snyder's fun and games. It gets intuitive again around the return and change in the finale. 

Let's try it a different way. 

Now we're playing with real power. I want to note that the synchronization here is not a result of any graphical trickery. I'm keeping with all the conventions that everyone else used to make their circles. Up is up. Everything is 360-degrees and correct fractions of radians. Snyder's portions are proportionate. The reason these different methods overlay so well is the same reason that Beowulf and Gilgamesh and Odin and Oedipus and MacBeth all pulled it off before anyone had invented these circles. Because they're based on the same proven conventions of successful storytelling. 

In other words, they're the same circle.

Sorry, I couldn't help it. But if you accept that fact and let these circles nest with each other, look at what happens. You suddenly have a tool that kills all the weaknesses of its components. Where Campbell leaves you at risk of making your protagonist a victim of their world, here comes Snyder to help you think about how your character feels about what's happening to them. 

Look at how choice overlaps supernatural help. Remember that the character can either make or be forced to make a choice. Forced by who or what? There's Campbell to inform Snyder. 

Look at how return and atonement blend with dark night of the soul. It's always darkest before the dawn, and who needs atonement that isn't laid low? One informs the other. 

And now for the big reveal. We've seen that each of these works with the others. Time to form Voltron.

Booyah. Look at what we achieve:

1. How do we keep from getting too far into our character's head or too far into White Walker land early in Act I? Simple. Let Harmon remind you that you must clearly define a NEED by the end of the Set-Up. 
2. What does Snyder mean by "fun and games" early in Act II? Campbell and Harmon have some ideas.
3. Those synchronicity hiccups between Snyder and Harmon late in Act II? Campbell helps fill in the gaps. 
4. Want solid tension throughout Act II? Follow the sequence of Find the Treasure, Fight Bad Guys for Treasure, Face Death, and finally Take the Treasure. 
5. Is Act III lame? Is it just Frodo flying home on an eagle? Maybe he should reflect on how he almost threw the whole game. Don't let him master two worlds without seeking some atonement. All of that is essential action to demonstrate his change. 
6. Have some of these points make you feel like problems in your story are more easily solved? They should, because the unified model has enough overlap that you no longer feel constrained by Snyder's hard-and-fast percentages. They're guidelines upon other guidelines. 
7. We're also no longer grasping for ways to connect Harmon's eight elements. We don't have to talk to a guy with a portal gun or an 800-year-old Jedi, but there's now a space reserved for some sort of interaction or beat that can fulfill our story's needs. 

I think this combined model works best using a "work from the outside in" approach. Nail down your fundamentals according to Harmon's elements. Develop the connective tissue with Campbell's principles. Allocate your page space, dialogue, scenes, and cinematics with Snyder's model. Write it and then figure out what you need to do with the second draft by working from the inside out. What's too long? What needs more room? Why? What questions or plot holes are lingering? Is that because some fundamental element is unclear or incongruous with the others?

But ultimately, I don't think you can escape the weaknesses of any one story structure by using it over and over and over. You can master using a hammer, but it'll never help you drill a hole or cut a board. 

In closing, I acknowledge that I didn't consider linear story models in this presentation. I actually played around with doing that a bit, but I haven't quite settled on how I want to lay those out. It's a challenge I won't leave laying around for long.