Several months ago, I wrote an article on "Writing with 3 Equal-sized Acts," where I used The Hunger Games as an example, since Suzanne Collins writes all of these books with that structure. In it, I said this:
I was originally going to avoid bringing this up, but since we are here. . . . Sometimes . . . act-turns can be broken down into two parts--one major moment that ends the previous act, and another that starts the next act. I'll probably do a post breaking that idea down later.
Guess what? Today is that day!
And this isn't something that only applies to working with three equal-sized acts. It applies to any type of structure that is long enough to use acts, including the most common approach, which divides the story into quarters, like this:
One of the reasons I've put off writing this post, is because you have to have a bit of an understanding of story structure and specifically acts. So if you are new here, I'll very briefly catch you up to speed (doesn't hurt for the rest of us to review this either, so we start this explanation with the right mindset (but if you want, you can skip to the next section)).
An act follows the same basic shape as the whole narrative arc. This shape:
The "climax" is also called a "
plot turn," "turning point," or "plot point." Because it
turns the direction of the story. It's just that an act's "climax" is going to be smaller than the actual climax of the whole narrative arc (overarching story).
At that turn, the character's goal and/or plan to get the goal somehow changes; this helps create the turn--it's what "progresses the plot."
An obvious example of this is the story's climax itself. At the climax, the protagonist and antagonist face off, and the protagonist either gets or doesn't get what she wants, then we hit the falling action.
If you are familiar with other story structure approaches, you may know the act-level turns by other names:
In 7 Point Story Structure, they are Plot Point 1, Midpoint, Plot Point 2, and Climax (or "Resolution" (or part of Resolution, anyway)).
In Save the Cat!, they are Break into Two, Midpoint, All is Lost, and Finale (or part of it).
In the Hero's Journey, they are Crossing the Threshold, unstated, The Ordeal, and Resurrection.
(But if you aren't familiar with any of those names, that's okay too.)
Whether or not you are aware of it, most of the stories you consume follow this basic structure.
Let's talk more about goals. A character should have a concrete goal, of which there are three basic types: obtain something, avoid (or stop) something, or maintain something as is.
An antagonistic force of some sort will come along and oppose that, creating obstacles. The character dealing with those, creates the rising action of conflict.
At a turning point (or plot point, or plot turn--whatever term you prefer), the goal or plan to get the goal, will somehow shift.
There are several ways that can happen.
Goal Shifts:
- The character gets the goal (and therefore soon needs a new one)
- The character gains an additional goal (he can have more than one)
- The character abandons the current goal (maybe he fails or quits)
- The character swaps goals (this could be a change in priorities)
- The character gets part of the goal (some goals can be broken down into pieces)
- The character's goal gets more detailed and specific (ex. he wanted to graduate, but now he wants to graduate with honors)
Plan Shifts:
- The character forms a new plan
- The character abandons the current plan
- The character changes or swaps out the plan
- The character's plan gets more detailed and specific
Let's quickly look at some of my go-to examples.
In The Hunger Games (book version), Katniss's overarching goal is to win (or survive) the Games. But her specific plan (or route) of how to do that, shifts with each act. (And we may even argue, these are smaller goals that fit within the big goal.) For Act I, she's focused on preparing for the Games. In the first half of Act II, she focused on basic survival--find water and food sources, shelter, etc. After the midpoint, that shifts, and her focus is working with Rue to strike at the Careers. For Act III, she wants to win with Peeta.
Some characters don't have one overarching goal for the story, but their goal changes with each act.
So in contrast to Katniss, we have Luke Skywalker, whose goal simply changes for each quarter in A New Hope. First, he aims to get off the farm and go to academy. Then he wants to go with Obi-Wan and become a Jedi (which entails going to Alderaan), then he wants to rescue Leia, and finally, in Act III, he aims to destroy the Death Star.
In both stories, between each of these shifts, is a plot point. For example, the reason Luke's goal changes at the end of Act I, is because stormtroopers attack the farm, killing his aunt and uncle. This is Plot Point 1, and it leads him to choose to go with Obi-Wan.
When the plot point happens--that act's "climax"--the goal or plan shift.
2 Distinct Turns at the End of an Act
Sometimes, an act's plot point is essentially made up of two separate, distinct, significant moments, not one.
One moment closes the previous act.
And another moment kicks off the next act.
Let's start with the example I used originally, when I first brought this up. Here is what I said:
In Act I, [Katniss's] current plan or "route" is to prepare for the Games. This makes up the rising action.
The crowning moment of preparation is when Caesar Flickerman interviews Katniss and Peeta. This is the last major moment to "prepare." It clearly ends that phase. It is Katniss's last chance to make an impression before going into the arena.
Based on the actual act break in the book, Suzanne Collins views this as Plot Point 1, essentially (that first peak of the story).
However, I want to point out that the start of the next chapter is the Cornucopia bloodbath, which kicks off the Games. This kicks off Katniss's new focus, which is basic survival in the arena.
So one moment ends Act I (the interview), and another event starts Act II (the bloodbath).
The interview completed that "plan." The bloodbath leads to Katniss's new plan. Once she checks what she's got from the cornucopia, she needs to move forward with the next phase: basic survival.
A similar thing happens at the end of Act II.
Katniss successfully blows up the Careers' stash, but Rue dies.
This ends her current plan/route (or we could say, smaller goal). She no longer needs to strike at the Careers with Rue, because she got that goal (though it came with a high cost--Rue's life).
She mourns Rue.
And then an additional turn gives her a new plan/route for Act III: the Gamemakers announce there can be two victors if they are from the same district. New plan: win the Games with Peeta.
I've been listening to Hamilton lately, and a similar thing happens at the midpoint.
But let's back up a sec.
At Plot Point 1, "Right Hand Man," Washington asks Hamilton to be his right-hand man during the war, and Hamilton quickly accepts. This is the major turn of the first quarter, and it takes us into the second quarter.
Notice this is one key moment: Washington asks, and Hamilton accepts.
This changes Hamilton's objective. His focus for the second quarter is to win the war by helping Washington (specifically, he wants to do this by being in command).
As we get to the middle, the midpoint, there are two separate and distinct key moments.
Hamilton successfully leads men to win the war--completing that objective--in "Yorktown."
This "ends" that quarter.
But his new goal for the third quarter doesn't show up until "Non-stop," where Washington asks him to be the Secretary of the Treasury--this kicks off the next quarter. Hamilton will be focused on doing this job, while Jefferson and Madison act as his (act-level) antagonists.
One moment ends the previous quarter.
And two songs later, another moment starts the next.
Lin-Manuel Miranda decided to slice the play after "Non-stop" for the intermission. Notice this is in contrast to my Hunger Games example, where Collins sliced it at Plot Point 1. (But it's similar to where she sliced it after Plot Point 2.) See below:
VS.
It's simply a matter of where the writer chose to put in the break (and I'm betting percentages had something to do with it 😉).
In these examples, both Katniss and Hamilton have completed their objectives, and there is a space, an "interlude" (the falling action in these cases) before their new objectives form. In these examples, these spaces are rather noticeable--as they have scenes in between.
In other stories, this sort of thing can still happen, but they just happen more closely together, and less obviously.
At the midpoint of Star Wars: A New Hope, Obi-Wan and Luke go to Alderaan. But it's gone.
This arguably officially ends the second quarter. The goal is abandoned, because the planet no longer exists.
A tractor beam pulls the Millennium Falcon onto the Death Star, and Luke learns the princess is here.
This kicks off the next quarter. Luke's goal for the third quarter is to rescue Leia.
The space between these moments in A New Hope is more intense and exciting, so it's easier to lump them together when talking about the midpoint--and I don't think that is a problem at all.
But I want to point out these are two different moments.
In contrast, Plot Point 1 of Hamilton happens in one moment, in one scene.
Both approaches are acceptable.
Often when there are two distinct moments, spread apart by scenes, what's actually happening is this: a falling action is getting extra attention as it splits up these moments. (As shown in my diagrams above.)
And it's worth keeping in mind, that the falling action is often where character reactions happen. The character reacts to whatever major moment happened that shifted her current objective.
In my first example, Katniss's--well, and Peeta's--crowning moment of preparation is their interviews.
After this, Katniss reacts to what just happened, then she gets ready to enter the Games.
The bloodbath kicks us off.
At the end of Act II, the Careers' supplies have been attacked, and Katniss is unable to save Rue--this is that peak "climax." In the falling action, she reacts. She mourns Rue.
The announcement about two victors is made, and this snaps her out of it, giving her a new objective--this kicks off the next rising action.
The midpoint of Hamilton is the same way.
Hamilton leads his men to victory--the revolution is a success.
Then characters react. There are church bells ringing, people singing drinking songs, King George gets his own song with his reaction, followed by Hamilton and Burr singing about building a new country to their children--this is all falling action. The "valley," so to speak.
"Non-stop" has the turn that primes us for the next climb.
It may not always map out perfectly this way.
Luke and Obi-Wan barely have a moment to react to Alderaan (and the Death Star), before the tractor beam hits. This leads to a more intense "interlude," that works just as well. So I'm not necessarily saying we always need "downtime" between these two distinct moments.
Where This Most Commonly Happens
Some of these concepts may sound vaguely familiar to some of you. . . .
This is because many approaches teach writers to give Plot Point 2 a noticeable falling action, frequently referred to as "The Dark Night of the Soul" (courtesy of Save the Cat!). They remark that Plot Point 2 is a major loss, and that the character then reacts to it for at least a scene, if not longer. Then something comes along and snaps the character back into action (leading to a new objective)(In Save the Cat! this is called "Break into Three").
This is often such a noticeable "interlude," that on some level, people recognize or even name these moments. So in Save the Cat! it looks like this . . .
"All is Lost" is the climactic peak.
"Dark Night of the Soul" is the falling action.
"Break into Three" is the kickoff that starts Act III.
This isn't to say, though, that you can't distinctly split these moments elsewhere, in a different act. Obviously The Hunger Games and Hamilton show you can.
This also obviously doesn't mean it always has to hit a peak with a major loss. Hamilton helps win the war, which is a major victory at the midpoint.
Often these "interludes" show up when an objective is achieved or abandoned, and the character doesn't yet have a new, major plot goal to act on.
This also isn't to say that you have to distinctly split these moments up to have a noticeable falling action. A character may get a new plan or objective at the peak, then still take a moment to react, before officially starting the next climb (and running into an antagonistic force).
With that said, though, often something will still come along that refines or reframes their current goal or plan.
For example, at the midpoint of The Lion King, Scar kills Mufasa and blames it on Simba. Simba's goal shifts in one moment; Scar suggests he runs away and never return, and Simba aims to do just that. Simba hits the bottom of his "valley" when he is lying unconscious in the desert. Timon and Pumba are the "something" that comes along and refines his current objective. Not only is Simba going to run away from home, but he's going to turn his back on it and live the Hakuna Matata lifestyle.
But to be honest, some of these moments can start to blur together . . . which is why they are so often lumped together.
I wouldn't stress too much about perfectly slicing, dicing, and categorizing the pieces.
What's usually really a problem is if there isn't any kind of major turn at the end of an act, and no clear goal for the next act.
Rather than worry if you have too many turns at the end of an act, it's more of a concern if you don't have any.
Still, I've been wanting to do this post and point out that in some cases, these are two, distinct, significant moments. And that's okay. And it's still worth covering and looking at them, because it may help you better understand and write your own story (as well as understand other stories better).
That's pretty much it. 😊
.jpg)
