Your story has three acts - Part I

Printer-friendly versionSend by email

"Thou shalt count to three, no more, no less. Three shalt be the number that thou count, and the number of the counting shall be three."

- Michael Palin

Your story has three acts. It doesn't matter if it's a two act play, a five act television show, a single feature film, or a three act play. Your story has three acts. Unless it sucks.

I see much discussion and pontification on the web and elsewhere about three-act structure and it seems a lot of it is based on a basic misunderstanding of what "three-act structure" actually means. Three-act structure is not a reference to the spatial or physical presentation of a narrative. The number of intermissions, commercial breaks or other interruptions don't enter into three-act structure, except as guideposts in your pacing. Three-act structure is a reference to the fact that every story has a beginning, a middle an and end. If your story doesn't have these three basic parts, it's not actually a story.

This isn't really up to debate. It's not a matter of convention or experimental forms, this is a definitional matter. If you don't have a beginning, middle and end, you don't have a story. Similar to a sentence without a subject AND a predicate, stories without a beginning, middle AND and end are not actually stories. Not even E. E. Cummings claimed every line in his poetry was actually a sentence. The grammatical rules still apply, Cummings used his understanding and their cultural and societal meanings and associations to great effect. I encourage you to experiment with narrative forms and story structure, but don't tell me that "to the store" is a complete sentence.

Three-act structure can be convoluted and complex, or it can be very simple. The ratio of lengths between each part of the story varies by writer, but there are general conventions based on the willingness of the audience to accept and be entertained by the telling. A story can be very simple: "John went to the store. An ogre tried to kill him, but he escaped." is, in fact, a complete story. In this example, "John went to the store." is our beginning, "An ogre tried to kill him" is the middle and "but he escaped." is our ending. It's not a particularly exciting story, but it is a story. "John went to the store" is not a story, it is merely part of the story. Without context it could be the beginning, middle or end of the story, but it's not a story by itself.

Pacing is an important consideration related to three-act structure, but it is a separate consideration. In a two-act play, for example, your story's beginning will likely be contained within the first act, the second act will be split between the two, and the ending will be contained in the third act. Popular stories that work with a mass audience tend to follow a ratio of 20-30% beginning, 50-60% middle and 15-25% ending. These numbers aren't hard and fast; you have a lot of flexibility and I recommend letting the needs of the story dictate their exact length, but be aware that if you end the first structural act at the end of the first act of your two-act play any attendees who actually return to their seats after intermission will likely find the second act blissfully brief as compared to the first, and probably more enjoyable. The further you stray from convention and mass-market forms, the smaller your audience will be. It's not a judgement on the quality of the work, but there's not a lot of work for experimental architects who place all doors on the third floor of a building. But this is a separate discussion from our understanding of three act structure - pacing is where you place the doors, three act structure is having doors.

One shouldn't feel restricted by these forms, but they do require your understanding in order to create work with the greatest effect. You have to understand the mechanics of sentences before you can write quality prose, and you have to understand the mechanics of story before you can write quality narratives. Understanding the nature of your medium gives one the ability to experiment while remaining understandable. The boundaries provide points of reference, ignoring the boundaries leaves you in empty space, where up and down don't exist, and going somewhere means absolutely nothing.