In one of my grad classes we watched a video where a teacher lectured in front of a plot triangle made out of construction paper on the whiteboard, at which point my teacher suggested I use the concept in one of my lessons for my unit planner. I admitted that I had been recently researching such things on my own – As I had since been tasked with the assignment of writing 500 words on plot for a certain blog I know – and it was at this point that one of my classmates turned to me and said “You don’t know about the plot triangle?” The question was posed in that all too familiar tone akin to English majors that falls somewhere between condescending and contemptuous on the sliding scale of pretentious douche.
But all douchebaggery aside I have to admit in all my years in college and what passed for my high school education, I somehow remained ignorant of a concept regarded, at least by some, as a codified standard. Now don’t get me wrong, I’ve studied my share of theories and diagrams regarding plot structure, but this was mainly in regards to screenwriting. Ask me about Syd Field’s three act structure or the sequence approach and I could bore you for hours. Now, with the obligatory overcompensating out of the way let’s get down to business. The plot triangle in question is known as “Freytag’s pyramid” invented by 19th century German novelist and playwright Gustav Freytag. It was designed to analyze the structure of five-act plays and broke down the “dramatic arc” into five distinct parts: Exposition, Rising Action, Climax, Falling Action and Denouement.
But all douchebaggery aside I have to admit in all my years in college and what passed for my high school education, I somehow remained ignorant of a concept regarded, at least by some, as a codified standard. Now don’t get me wrong, I’ve studied my share of theories and diagrams regarding plot structure, but this was mainly in regards to screenwriting. Ask me about Syd Field’s three act structure or the sequence approach and I could bore you for hours. Now, with the obligatory overcompensating out of the way let’s get down to business. The plot triangle in question is known as “Freytag’s pyramid” invented by 19th century German novelist and playwright Gustav Freytag. It was designed to analyze the structure of five-act plays and broke down the “dramatic arc” into five distinct parts: Exposition, Rising Action, Climax, Falling Action and Denouement.
Now available in blacklight poster
So let’s start where all stories start, the beginning, also known in dramatic theory as exposition. The literal definition of which is the act of expounding, setting forth or explaining. Before we can tag along with our Hero or Heroine on their respective journeys, we must first know the answer to a few key questions first – Who is our main protagonist? What kind of person are they? When and where does the world they inhabit take place? What do they want and why? Once we’ve established the back story to the characters and their world, then we can move them about like the pieces on a fictional game board. So now that we’ve fully explained the rules of the game all that’s left is to roll the dice.
The next stop on the Dramatic Arc Express is rising action, which Freytag defines as a series of related incidents that build toward the point of the greatest interest. This greatest interest is called the climax and known in dramatic or literary works as a decisive moment of maximum intensity or a major turning point in the plot. This is where Freytag loses me a bit because I’m so used to the ongoing screenwriting debate about the differences between crisis and climax in relation to the third act that for it to appear in the middle of a story seems oddly anticlimactic. This brings me to another famous narrative triangle, though now we move from equilateral to the scalene, screenwriting guru Syd Field’s three act structure.
The next stop on the Dramatic Arc Express is rising action, which Freytag defines as a series of related incidents that build toward the point of the greatest interest. This greatest interest is called the climax and known in dramatic or literary works as a decisive moment of maximum intensity or a major turning point in the plot. This is where Freytag loses me a bit because I’m so used to the ongoing screenwriting debate about the differences between crisis and climax in relation to the third act that for it to appear in the middle of a story seems oddly anticlimactic. This brings me to another famous narrative triangle, though now we move from equilateral to the scalene, screenwriting guru Syd Field’s three act structure.
Here we find the climax in the middle of the third act, much closer to the end of the story. Now everyone knows that books and movies are two different mediums, but they both tell stories, so aside from the fact that screenwriters presumably make better lovers what are we to make of the glaring differences in the placement of the climax? First let’s look at what Field designates as the midpoint, which he places, as one might expect, smack dab in the middle of the story, effectively breaking the story in two. This is the part where a major plot reversal or point of no return usually takes place. To use the ubiquitous Star Wars as an example, it’s when Luke, Han and the gang discover Alderaan’s been blown to smithereens and then get caught in the death stars tractor beam. Up until that point the goal for Luke and Obi-wan was to get R2D2 and the stolen death star plans to Alderaan and now not only is there’s no way that’ll ever happen to make things worse they fall into the clutches of the Empire.
So where does that scene fall in relation to Fretag’s definition of climax? Is it a decisive moment of maximum intensity or a major turning point in the plot? I would argue it’s the latter but not the former. The death of Obi-wan or Luke’s destruction of the death star seem better candidates for a decisive moment of maximum intensity. Regardless of where the climax falls in either model one trait they share in common is falling or descending action. And what that exactly is, other than the obvious that the name implies, seems to be anyone’s guess. Here’s the definition from Dictionary.com I came across trying to wrap my head around it.
falling action
noun
the part of a literary plot that occurs after the climax has been reached and the conflict has been resolved.
The other definitions I found weren’t any better and leads me to wonder whether the concept has any merit at all in either model. And so like any narrative our story must have its end and that brings us to the Denouement.
It has recently come to me attention that the word isn’t pronounced [dee-nou- muhnt] but rather [dey-noo-mahn] much to my consternation. (thanks Matt) The denouement, much like exposition, is easy to define and recognize, it’s where the main conflict of the story gets resolved, main characters often achieve enlightenment or some catharsis and any loose plot threads get tied up. So how does any of this help you write a better story? I’m not sure that it does. I’ve seen better road maps drawn by kindergarteners in crayon that what Freytag model provides. Perhaps we’re no better understanding how narrative stories work now, than all the way back when Aristotle first figured out that they all have a beginning, middle and an end. (and that guy was a genius) If there was some magic formula or universal panacea for writing great dramatic stories, then anyone could do it. But in the end it doesn’t hurt to have a few signposts along the way.
It has recently come to me attention that the word isn’t pronounced [dee-nou- muhnt] but rather [dey-noo-mahn] much to my consternation. (thanks Matt) The denouement, much like exposition, is easy to define and recognize, it’s where the main conflict of the story gets resolved, main characters often achieve enlightenment or some catharsis and any loose plot threads get tied up. So how does any of this help you write a better story? I’m not sure that it does. I’ve seen better road maps drawn by kindergarteners in crayon that what Freytag model provides. Perhaps we’re no better understanding how narrative stories work now, than all the way back when Aristotle first figured out that they all have a beginning, middle and an end. (and that guy was a genius) If there was some magic formula or universal panacea for writing great dramatic stories, then anyone could do it. But in the end it doesn’t hurt to have a few signposts along the way.