Reddit reviews Into the Woods: A Five-Act Journey Into Story

Into the Woods is posted here often. I'm currently reading it. It's fantastic. Definitely recommend it.

Edit: Hah - whoops. Just realized I posted this on the wrong thread. I suppose its still relevant.

I think, beyond musical-specific reading material, it's super important to understand exactly what a story is at its most basic level-- even if you're not a librettist. In my opinion no matter which medium you're specifically writing for, the fundamentals of story don't change all that much and a firm understanding of how stories function can help out a ton in diagnosing problems and knowing how to fix them.

I went to film school, and so a lot of the books I've read on story are through that lens of filmmaking, but the book I've found most useful so far is "Into The Woods" by John Yorke (No relation to the Sondheim musical). It may primarily use examples from films and TV, but it gives you a super interesting perspective on not just what makes up a story, but why that tradition has maintained over thousands of years, and why humans like our stories told in a certain way.

EDIT: You said "it seems it should be a lot easier locating beats and acts in a series where commercials doesn't mess everything up." -- I'd say the opposite is true for television. You literally have act breaks on the page for network shows. It really doesn't get clearer than that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I struggled with this a lot because I attempted TV pilots after writing features. While simon2it's approach makes a lot of sense, I'd also recommend keeping a few other things in mind:

In network television, commercial breaks DO equal act breaks (at least, that's the norm). And that does mean up to seven acts as opposed to the traditional 4/5 because the number of breaks are on the up. So for studying television structure, broadcast shows (1 hr dramas and 1/2 hour sitcoms) are the best point of entry for newbies, or writers who're trained in features. Watch as many pilots as you can (as these typically lay the structural foundation for episodes to follow), and READ as many pilots as you can. You'll find act breaks on the page. These are available online, but if you struggle to find them, drop me a PM with your e-mail ID and I'll send you a few. I just checked the pilot script for ABC's American Crime, and it has five acts (maybe I'll watch the pilot in a couple days and let you know how this reconciles with the commercial breaks). Mr. Robot doesn't have act divisions on the page.

Next, I'd advise against approaching television structure using Save The Cat or any similar paradigm. I suppose it's theoretically possible, but in my experience, you need to shed "feature thinking" if you really want to understand television structure, which is more liberal and allows you to just focus on telling a really good story. For instance, sitcom episodes are often not goal-driven (as is the norm in features), but tend to build towards a future event which serves as a third-act set piece. Network procedurals might be comparable to features, but things will get really muddy if you use a feature lens to understand cable and streaming.

In sum, to understand television structure: watch tv pilots, and read tv pilots and episodes. Everything you can get your hands on. That's the best education you could possibly have. If you'd like to complement this with theory, I'd recommend these books:

Writing the TV Drama Series, by Pamela Douglas
http://www.amazon.com/Writing-TV-Drama-3rd-Professional/dp/1615930582/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1452403878&sr=8-1&keywords=pamela+douglas

Future of Television, by Pamela Douglas
http://www.amazon.com/Future-Television-Guide-Creating-World/dp/1615932143/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1452403878&sr=8-2&keywords=pamela+douglas

Into the Woods, by John Yorke
http://www.amazon.com/Into-Woods-Five-Act-Journey-Story/dp/1468310941/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1452403897&sr=8-9&keywords=into+the+woods

So personally I think all patter for magic is boring. Literally all of it. Also, procedure is inherently boring. The points that are really important, in the mind of the spectator, are the initial conditions, (How the card was chosen and how the card was lost) and the final conditions, (how the card was found). Everything else is kinda in the background. If they wanted a good story, they'd be rewatching Bojack Horseman for the 20th time. They're watching a card trick, so the important parts they're paying attention to are those 3 things. When you start with a monologue, it's boring because we're waiting for the card trick to begin. We know it's coming so we're not really paying attention to the story. Then after the card is lost, we're kinda suspended between being curious about the previous moment (was the card really lost) and watching to see the final moment (how the card is found). This tension is what magic is better than any medium at.

So you're performing at a very even pace, and evenly emotive. Think of pacing as a push and pull. You can speed up or you can slow down. Speeding up can help cover boring, but necessary things, like patter and procedure, while slowing down can stretch the important moments to make those 'wow' moments the focus of the trick.

This trick relies on the building anticipation, but each reaction is the same. Your goal of this trick is to determine from the way they say, "that's it" whether it really is. You are a lie detector, but how are you figuring out s/he's lying? A mentalist would read body language, or read their mind, or whatever, a clown would use increasingly preposterous means like staring into someone else's eyes to read their mind or genuinely try and fail despite the method being obvious (jumbo card in a normal deck) and a gambler would look for tells, which I guess is pretty much just body language.

Anyways, these moments are great character moments. The way you choose to execute the trick is totally up to you. The trick itself is just a framework. I believe all art is just communication. What are you trying to communicate the audience? This is who you are, why you are here...let it be you. The more clearly you define the character you are trying to convey the easier it'll be to create material. The secret to defining your character isn't the costume you where or the props you use. It's the small moments surrounding the card trick. No one cares about the card trick, they care about you. How do you react to the card being wrong at the finale (before the big surprise)? That's the moment everything is building up to. You're the one on stage, so how do you choose to react? That's what's important in performing, and the more you focus on making that part interesting, the more fun you'll have performing and the more successful you'll be.

Screenwriting books can be helpful in understanding tension and storytelling. My favorite was Into the Woods. Acting books are great for performing in general. I'd really recommend taking acting classes, or improv is great too. Stella Adler's The Art of Acting was my favorite so far for acting.

Maybe you need to study story structure. Not being able to finish something usually means you don't know how to end your stories. I'm currently reading Into the Woods: A Five-Act Journey Into Story by John Yorke. This book has already helped me. I was writing a short play last night but got stuck on the ending. Then I realized that the ending needs to be the consequence of the inciting incident and it needs to point the way forward for the protagonist. The story can't just peter out.