I feel like as I'm learning ways to plot out a story from scratch, I'm seeing some of those same blueprints in published pieces I run across. Like I'll read a story that feels like you can pick out exactly where the author wanted to chop up their story into acts and scenes, and it feels a little inorganic for it. Is this something writers consciously correct for, trying to hide their plot diagram and make things feel more organic by the time their story is finished?
I'm assuming what you mean is that it feels like your MC was moving onto the next setpiece because it was time for the next setpiece, rather than because the character was making a rational decision.
The key to avoiding that feeling is set a really cunning trap for your MC. One so subtle and diabolical that after the Inciting Incident there is simply no way for them to avoid answering the call.
In the best stories, the MC will spend most of that late first act trying to wriggle off the hook, and will only actually start working the quest you've set before them once all other options have been exhausted.
Yep, you've intuited my point much better than I was able to make it, thank you!
Now that you've laid it out I'm realizing I've been reading a lot of romance lately, and been frustrated by scenes where it felt like the characters were kissing because it's time for the chargers to kiss. You can call out similar genre norms and tropes but that one really irks me. But I really like the strategy of letting your MC exhaust all of their other options before they're willing to follow your plot. Maybe I'll write some romance with that mentality, that sounds a lot more satisfying.
Yeah... There are some really poorly written romance out there. Some choices that I've made to make my stories seem realistic:
Instead of showing FMC's perspective so the readers understand it, the MMC's perspective so the readers understand it, and then having the annoying aunties tell them they are such a cute couple until they start making out - have the MCs actually talk to each other and come to an understanding and then decide that they would, in fact, like to make out. Historical really annoyed me, so I had to take a break.
And sometimes the MC doesn't have to exhaust all other options. As long as you didn't lean too hard into "they hate each other" at first and the MCs can reasonably tolerate each other, it isn't that unreasonable that they would be willing to work together to achieve a mutually beneficial goal. And then you write a 2 inch spine with a slow burn tag...
Wait - That's me and my 10 year war saga that I'm cutting down into inside jokes and references...
This all depends on your intended theme, your execution, what tropes you intend the reader to assume, and much more.
Though I find this next bit of advice reductionist, it has often been said: everything has already been written. Some people phrase it as "There are only seven stories."
There is evidence to back this up. Look at Hollywood. The formulas are there. The buddy cop film. The revenge thriller. The romantic comedy. They each have standard story beats. The variation and execution within that expected framework is what distinguishes hits from flops.
I've reviewed a lot of indie films and it makes me appreciate the Hollywood formulas. A lot of indie films "change the rules," invent new cinematic metaphors, subvert expectations, and take other risks that Hollywood wouldn't. As much as I appreciate and support indie films, the result is often a hot mess.
Can you hide your story structure? Sure, you can. But why? What are you gaining?
For example, in a progression fantasy, numbers go up. Readers want that. If you change the rules they will probably be frustrated.
I'd say use the framework and reader expectations when they help you, and sparingly change it up when your theme or execution call for it.
I don’t understand the question. Why would you need to hide the centuries old recognized structures of storytelling?
No. It might not have even been a conscious effort to fit into a specific story structure. If you're looking, you could fit the same story into different story structures. So, even if the author was writing toward a 3-act structure with intention, and someone can make it fit into a 4-act structure, does it matter?
Basically, "story structure" is just the way we analyze stories to fit them into certain patterns.
Your audience might also be expecting a story to be told in a certain way. Some story structures are natural ways to tell interesting stories. I mean, you can mostly boil every story structure down to: Something happens, it escalates to a huge conflict, it resolves. (And you'll have various points of flavor thrown in depending). You can completely subvert those expectations, but will people enjoy it? Even something more unorthodox like slice of life still needs conflict for readers to care.
Does the reader see the steel beams of story structure through the page when they’re reading? I don’t understand the question.