The Story Climax (and Crisis): The Most Important Moment

[@tomlewis4748]

I think it's important to not overlook the fact that the five elements are important at the story arc level, but are also very important at the scene level, and even at the sequence level and the beat level. Having all those elements is important at all levels of story. I Think Shawn stresses this in his original book. So it's something to understand at all these different levels, and the understanding is slightly different at each level, because the effect is slightly different at each level. The cumulative effect of showing these sorts of things at the underlying levels is just as important as the effect of showing them at the story arc level. Both are necessary. It's good to have a broad understanding of this. For instance, when two characters speak in dialogue, especially if it's misattuned dialogue as Story Grid rightfully suggests, every line of dialogue from person A can be a new inciting incident for person B. And vice versa-at the very same time, every line of dialogue from person B can be an inciting incident for person A. The reason is because it throws the status quo out of balance, and requires some sort of response. Every line of dialogue can also be a climax (except the very first one). That inciting incident leads to a turning point (the character realizes that they must reply by saying something that pushes toward the goal of their object of desire), which leads to a crisis question (what choice should they make to do that?), and a decision, which then leads to a climax-the action they take in reply, to that small moment in the story.

[@MrNoucfeanor]

Good info! The Martian isn't very believable with its scientific inaccuracies, but it's fun!

[@PleadingMackerel]

Great video as usual. Whenever I read a book or watch or film now, I'm always thinking about the Story Grid principles. Recently, I've been reading a lot of whodunnits, and I think it might be a genre/sub-genre that's exempt from a lot of the rules (not all). It would be really interesting to hear you talk about that.

[@StoryGrid]

Great question. I've added to my very long list of videos to make 😀 - Tim

[@PleadingMackerel]

@@StoryGrid Awesome, thanks!

[@terrystrong9787]

Great class

[@tophat2115]

My protagonist in my first novel had to choose between saving her own life, or sacrifice it to save everyone else. That's pretty much committed!

[@matthewmusgrave6673]

Question: Are there any examples of a good or at least decent Deux Ex Machina? I'm writing a story that has a DEM in the third to last chapter but the DEM itself has been discussed, longed for, feared, and questioned throughout the story up until that point, and when the DEM happens it changes core elements of nature itself while also answering world building questions and setting up future stories. So essentially most of the story is wrapped up in the DEM. Any thoughts?

[@WisdomThumbs]

I suppose it depends on how the DEM resolves the core themes and questions, and whether the protagonist(s) made any difference at all before or after. Maybe the point is they made no difference on their own. Maybe the point is the DEM is a reward or punishment for their actions. IDK

[@PhoenixCrown]

I heard someone make a great argument for the Jurassic Park DEM (1st movie, where the T-rex kills the raptors) because it was in-line with the story's theme that you can't control nature, that it's chaos. They basically got lucky this time. Of course I like this, because it helps me justify my own DEM =P The group that saves my protagonist at the end has been hinted at and even received a POV scene prior to the DEM, and one of my book's themes is destiny. My MC doesn't like the concept, wants to be in control of his own life, but then comes to a revelation through happenstance. He realizes that destiny is simply the parts of his life that were outside his control. (I think the obsession with hating DEMs these days is that we as a culture want to believe "we're good enough the way we are, and we have agency, and we can solve our own problems garsh darnit!" Yea it's lame when the ending is just handed to our MCs, but especially when writing a fantasy series, at the end of the first book... lots of good ways of doing it imo.)

[@Venejan]

One successful example of a DEM is H.G. Wells's "War of the Worlds," where humanity is truly and genuinely scr€w€d by the alien invasion and can only be saved by the miracle of microscopic pathogens. I've always found this ending to be moving since it points to our utter vulnerability to invasion and extermination by superior forces, whether they're alien or terrestrial in origin.

[@Lilitha11]

Going with the metaphor of the video, you need the squeeze to reveal what the protagonist is made out of. As long as you have that, then the other stuff is less important. So you can have a Deus Ex Machina, but the protang needs to make an active, and impactful choice. The reason they are usually bad, is because they take away all agency from the character and something random happens, and that doesn't work. So lets say for example, you got a survival situation. If you put the character in a position where it is all over and they lose all hope of surviving, and their choice is to resign themselves to their fate or try even though they will die, and then they make that choice, they will give it their all and strive to the very end...Then you are allowed to have a recuse team come and save them. If they get saved before that last final choice, you would destroy the story, but after the choice is made, and we see what the character is truly made out of it, then it is okay. To put it another way, the ending of Lord of the Rings. The giant eagles come after the climax and save Frodo. If they saved him prior to the climax it would suck and the story would be bad, but after the climax is over, it is fine. Some people give Tolkien crap for it but it is ultimately a minor thing, the story is over and saving Frodo through an unlikely situation is fine. If the eagle flew in and picked up Gollum and threw him into the lava with the ring though...That would of been horrible. Would ruin the entire story.

[@patnor7354]

Gandalf?

[@KutWrite]

Good stuff. I'll have to sharpen the crisis and resolution in my almost-finished novel.

[@Gunsong1]

One thing I have noticed is the importance of the atagonistic force's influence on the decision. The antagonist attempts to force the decision, and must have the ability to do so. The hero must realize the right choice only after the decision has been all but forced. Then and only then, must he snatch salvation from the maw of damnation. Examples of this done right is in Kung Fu Panda 2 where shen remains dangerous untill killed by his own weapon. An example of this done wrong is Kung Fu Panda 1 where Tai Lung doesn't have any real say in the outcome. He has been characterized as one of the greates warriors in his world, only to flail like an amateur when facing Po.

[@kateillustrate]

amazing video! thanks!

[@theapavlou3030]

Loving the story grid and Tim always gives clear explanations + examples, his energy is compelling. I wonder how this is applied per book for a series? Book 1 has its own arc and the characters + plot follow the genre rules & beats without strictly having to read on to the next book to find out what happens. I plan to let the reader know that the first book ends on a cliffhanger but it is still a complete story and a choice whether you want to read on or not. Each book follows the 3 act structure. My question is about pace and does book 2 have to focus on the same main character again? Book 2 focuses on the primary villain from book 1 and his story, conflict etc

[@tomlewis4748]

It's even a bit fuzzier (and more difficult to write) for a single-story trilogy. While each of the three books should likely have its own complete story arc, the full story also needs a full story arc. So it becomes difficult to know exactly where to place everything. For instance, it's difficult to have resolution at the end of book one and book two without stealing some of that from the full resolution, in book three. IOW, it's difficult to nest three complete serial story arcs within a single-over-arching story arc simultaneously.

[@theapavlou3030]

@tomlewis4748 I think because the series is character driven with a lot of plot, it feels as though they come full circle by the very end. Just started fleshing out book 2 which I plotted long before plotted book 1, it's halfway there already and it focuses on the 2nd main character who was the antagonist of book 1... it's difficult to find clear guidance on this because most of these videos focus on Harry Potter or Star Wars which is the total opposite of my dark gangland suspense theme

[@tomlewis4748]

​@@theapavlou3030 Interesting. I'm on a similar journey. My most important WIP is a trilogy, a single story with primarily the same characters from beginning to end, and is essentially about a critical period of time in a single protagonist's life, so the story is mostly linear, and like your story, it's nothing like Star Wars or H Potter. But how those particular plots work really reveals nothing about how to structure a trilogy or a series. It's really not about how the plots work. It's about how to fit a story, regardless what the genre might be, into such an unwieldy format and still hit a grand slam. I did not know it would be such an involved story that it would turn out to be a trilogy (there was a point where I thought it would be a novella). I looked for guidance on how to structure a trilogy and got none, nowhere. There's tons of writing advice, some good, some not so good, but none on how to write a trilogy, anywhere. I searched high and low. For instance, how do you show closure and resolution in B1 and B2 without diluting the resolution in B3? How do you transition from B1 to 2 and then to 3? How much recap, if any, should there be? How dissimilar should the books be, and how alike? How do you create three complete sequential story arcs in a way that coincides properly with an overarching story arc? It's a pretty thorny journey to be on. Sharpen that machete. I eventually decided that while all one story, B2 and B3 would concentrate a bit more on slightly different things, including secondary plots, which is sort of how Tolkein told a ginormous story in several volumes. That was the only guidance I had, but it worked. As for resolution, I resolved some secondary plots in B1 and others in B2, which did not hurt the resolution in B3 which addressed resolving the global plot. That way, B1 and B2 feel like complete story arcs, even though there is more story to come. And they are dissimilar enough to not feel like retreads or sequels, but still part of one story. I think what makes this work is how I wrote the secondary plots. They are not parallel plots or anthological-every event in every subplot has weight in the main plot, and while different things happen, the story, including the subplots, is coherent. It never feels as if it's wandering away from the main plot. It all weaves together into that one story. So I feel like I finally have heard from someone who is in a similar state of mind, that maybe I'm not the only one struggling with this. I hope you can now feel the same way.

[@Jonaelize]

Where roughly do you put the Crisis and the Climax in your story?