I’ve always enjoyed writing and telling stories. I have exercise books from my childhood, filled with imaginative stories that only the mind of a five year old high on fairytales can produce. Over the years these stories have accumulated into a sort of archive, and one thing that connects them all is the three act structure.

Of course, my childhood stories aren’t as complicated and intricate as some writing. However, they do contain a solid ‘beginning, conflict, and conclusion.’ It has been drilled into our minds since primary school that a story must always contain those things. However, as Brian mentioned in today’s lectorial, many believe that this structure will ruin a narrative rather than redeem it.

I’m a solid believer in the three act structure. I’ve been conditioned to use it, so when I write it seems to happen automatically. But, as someone who is open to the opinions of others I did a little research to see why the three act structure could damage a person’s writing. I came across John Truby’s 2015 post, ‘Why 3 Act Will Kill Your Writing’, on Raindance. His point against the 3 act structure seems to be that it constrains an authors writing. Truby believes it is too simplistic and unrealistic. He considers the 3 act structure to be a tool most useful to story analyst’s rather than writers, who must take greater care in considering the idea that the character and their situation and development drive the narrative, not the plot.

This idea is definitely food for thought, but at the moment, even with this concept in mind I cannot remember a narrative film that didn’t follow the 3 act structure in some way or other.