Plotting with the Freytag Pyramind Lecture 10
Plotting with the Freytag Pyramind Lecture 10
The basic structure of a traditional plot—situation, conflict and resolution. This was first codified by Aristotle in the Poetics, in which he defines the elements that make up a tragic drama. Aristotle was the first to state that a story should have a beginning, a middle, and an end; that the events of the plot should be causally connected and self-contained; and that the ending of the plot particularly should provide both closesure and catharsis. More commonly referenced today than Aristotle is Freytag's pyramid, a diagram of dramatic structure based on Aristotle's theory. In this lecture, we'll look at the pyramid, using the film version of The Wizard of Oz as an example.
According to Freytag's pyramid, the exposition stage of a story sets the scene and introduces the characters. In The Wizard of Oz, the exposition is everything that happens from the beginning of the film to the tornado:
We meet all the major characters; Dorothy runs away with Toto and meets Professor Marvel; and on her way back to the farm, Dorothy is overtaken by the storm.
With Wizard of Oz example the Freytag Pyramid only applies to the movie. The book is extremely different one we don't have exposition Toto never got in in trouble with an old lady threatening to put him to sleep.
The call to action in the book is the Tornado actually.
And each character Dorothy meets strengthens their own character because she inspired them they get their own atonement—for sacrificing their time and aid to help her cross the country of Oz. Their reward they all get a happy ending satisfying others with their pleasant demeanors and manners in several different regions of Oz.
Next comes the inciting at inciting action, which is the event that introduces the conflict into the plot into story.
This is a bit tricky with the Wizard of Oz because there are two elements within the movie's story that might be called conflict.
One conflict between Dorothy and Miss Gulch because Miss Gulch wants Dorothy's dog put to sleep. This is what causes Dorothy to run away from home, leading to the blow to the head she receives during the tornado. In that sense, we might consider Miss Gulch's threat the inciting moment. (Except this part is strictly movie cannon it wasn't ever written in the actual book plot. —Lumna10.)
But this conflict becomes more complicated when the tornado transports Dorothy to the Land of Oz. There, Dorothy's house lands on the Wicked Witch of the East and kills her, and the Wicked Witch of the West threatens to kill Dorothy in revenge. However, this is actually the same as the first conflict because the Wicked Witch of the West is Miss Gulch in her Oz incarnation, and in both incarnations, she wants to harm Dorothy.
There's also another potential conflict that arises after Dorothy lands in Oz: the fact that she wants to go home, but nobody knows how to send her back to Kansas. The two conflicts— Dorothy versus the Wicked Witch and Dorothy's quest to go home are linked and become even more explicitly linked later on.
(Using movie examples for plot is using poor point of view and perspectives, the plot can be deeper than the 7th basic steps of the Freytag Pyramid, James Hynes. It's too much simplification and simplification when overdone is just as annoyingly irritating as overcomplicating things.
Certain Disney movies can at least skip over a part of the Heroes' journey chart.
Classic Example: Belle in Beauty and the Beast's journey despite what the beast does she never leaves the castle unless it's accidental, but most of the time she only leaves when she has permission of his leave. (Her story skips over the part of the refusal to stay in her main story of her classic movie. Sometimes there won't be any refusal moment.)
Ariel in the Little Mermaid also skips over the refusal part of the story of heroine she has.
She never refuses her dreams could be a real thing one day.
Eric also skips over this too. He never listens to the refusal of Grimsby and makes it his goal to find the mystery girl of the sea who saved his life. He never refuses that hope that she is still somewhere in his world waiting to be sought out and found.
Moana also skips the refusal part twice in her movie whereas Maui covers a lot of the refusal part in his journey of the same story.
The rising action is the part where the plot becomes more complicated and exciting, building tension. In The Wizard of Oz, the rising action includes Dorothy's departure from Munchkinland; her meetings with the Scarecrow, the Tin Man, and the Cowardly Lion; her arrival in Emerald City; her first audience with the wizard; and her capture by the witch.
During this part of the story, small obstacles are thrown in the path of Dorothy and her companions, and the two conflicts mentioned earlier are reemphasized. Once Dorothy and her companions arrive in Oz, the witch spells out "Surrender Dorothy" in the sky, and Dorothy, trembling before the flaming head of the wizard, asks for his help in returning home. The two conflicts are then explicitly linked when the wizard tells Dorothy that he'll help her get back to Kansas if she brings him the witch's broomstick.
Dorothy and her companions then face their most difficult challenge, with Dorothy getting carried away by the flying monkeys and her companions breaking into the witch's castle to rescue her.
The climax is the most dramatic and exciting event in a story. In The Wizard of Oz, the climax comes when Dorothy and her friends are trapped in the witch's castle, and Dorothy kills the witch by dousing her with a bucket of water. At that moment, much of the film's tension is released because at least one of the conflicts, the one between Dorothy and the witch, is ended, and the plot begins its descent down the other side of the pyramid.
After Dorothy has killed the witch, she takes the broomstick back to the wizard. He solves the problems of the Scarecrow, the Tin Man, and the Cowardly Lion and agrees to take Dorothy back to Kansas himself. This is the falling action:
It shows the results of the death of the witch, but it doesn't resolve Dorothy's second conflict, the fact that she wants to go home to Kansas.
The resolution comes when the wizard accidentally takes off in his balloon without Dorothy, and Dorothy learns from Glinda the Good Witch that she could have taken herself back to Kansas at any time by using the ruby slippers. At this point, Dorothy's conflict is finally resolved. The threat from the witch is liquidated, and she realizes that she always had the power to go home.
The denouement is the ending of the story, when order is restored. At this stage, we are often shown the characters one more time so that we can see what happened to them. In The Wizard of Oz, it's the final scene in Dorothy's bedroom, where she is reunited with Aunt Em and Uncle Henry and the now-familiar farmhands.
In some stories, the denouement simply shows that order has been restored, and the world is now back the way it was. But this isn't usually the case, and it's certainly not the case in The Wizard of Oz.
Dorothy is back home, but everything is not back to the way it was before she went to Oz. Dorothy's understanding of herself and her place in the world have profoundly changed.
Pros & Cons of Traditional Structure
The structure outlined by Freytag's pyramid is sturdy, reliable, and ubiquitous, but it can, at times, seem like a straightjacket. With many conventionally plotted novels, we can guess the ending after the first few pages or even from the jacket copy. Sometimes we feel both reassured and annoyed at the same story: You may guess during the first 10 pages that the sparring lovers will eventually get together, but you might be irritated if, at the end, they don't really like each other and wind up with other people. The predictable can be seductive and disappointing at the same time.
Even so, this particular narrative structure has proved to be surprisingly adaptable, especially considering that it was originally conceived to apply to stage tragedies. The plays Aristotle was familiar with usually focused on the fate of a single central character, such as Oedipus or Medea, not novels that incorporate numerous characters. Yet this structure can be applied to everything from comedy to tragedy, thrillers to love stories, and Hamlet to Star Wars.
For writers who are just starting out, this narrative structure can be a useful set of training wheels, especially if you're uneasy about plotting. It's so common in our culture, in fact, than many writers adopt it instinctively, without even thinking about it. —James Hynes.
(Think about the Hero's Journey Round chart I added to this book go back to my reference book and see how many things with The Iliad & The Odyssey and The Labors of Heracles these two big famous Greek myths fall right into the stages of the Hero's journey chart as precisely as a glass makes a mirror.)
Why does Moana's journey in her Moana movie not show having refusal moments that cuts to her core? Simple she is a restless protagonist she will not still. She never sat still as she never sat still as a toddler (ironic foreshadowing) she was always interested in something to occupy her. Maui however isn't as restless as she is.
The same thing for Ariel and Eric in the movie they share a strong restless energy in their bodies this is really what allows Ariel to be fooled into signing Ursula's contract not because she was blinding ignoring the words she could read on the contract. When you're restless in mind and body common senses gets quite literally washed out. —Lumna10.
Magic_Pyrix RoyalBunny7 Normaniforever4
Anolier way to vary the Freytag pyramid is to create leapfrogsing or a contrapuntal narrative.
The first variation of this approach tells a single story from the point of view of multiple characters. One famous example is William Faulkner's As I Lay Dying, which is narrated from the point of view of 15 different characters, each speaking in the first person.
Another variation of leapfrogging is one that tells several equally important stories that remain separate for much of the book but come together at the end for a single climax. J. R. R. Tolkien used this approach in The Fellowship of the Ring. At the end of this book, the overarching story of the quest to destroy the Ring of Power splits into three equally important strands that are then followed to the climax of The Return of the King.
Still another variation of contrapuntal narrative is commonly used by modern historical novelists. Here, two main stories that are linked, one from the past and one from the present, are woven together. An excellent example is A. S. Byatt's novel Possession, in which the outcome of the historical plot determines the outcome of the modern one.
Finally, the basic murder mystery is usually a contrapuntal story. It's the most basic kind of binary plot there is—who killed the victim? — but the answer is often found through a combination of the present-day story and the story of the recent past.
—James Hynes.
Writing Exercise Prompt 1.
Try to graph some of your favorite books, movies, or television shows on Freytag's pyramid. Notice how common this structure is but also how often it is a complicated tangle of many pyramids rather than a single pyramid. If you don't want a traditionally structured plot to become a straightjacket, you need to walk a fine line between being too predictable, on the one hand, and disappointing the reader, on the other.
You want readers to be satisfied and not feel betrayed by your climax, but you don't want them to see it coming. This exercise will help you begin to think about meeting that challenge.
Ps, Professor Hynes' lectures are still as disorganized as ever. If something doesn't make sense blame it on his lack of ordering his writing correctly. Order of words in sentences is a big deal. Don't blame my () I've done them trying to simplify his overcomplicated lectures for mot so advanced aspiring writers. —Lumna10.)
You are reading the story above: TeenFic.Net