So many video essays about how to get the 3 act structure right, the Hero's journey, analyzing films through this lens, etc. Dan Harmon is always yapping on about his "story circle"... it's like damn is writing really that bland?
I feel like adherence to these guidelines and the quest to find the perfect structure cheapens things and generally gets in the way of things. But I don't know anything about writing so maybe that's nonsense. What do you guys think?
Lots of good comments! I don't mean to say that story structure is fake, or that a story is inherently bad because it fits into these familiar molds or good because it avoids them.
But from a writing perspective, this on-rails/formulaic approach to stories seems to me like an attempt to replace or make up for artistic individuality with a mastery of those familiar tropes that appeal to the most amount of people.
Maybe it gives people a foundation, but at the cost of narrowing their individuality, do all the awkward habits outweigh those interesting quirks that get lost in that process?
Take Metal Gear Solid for example, it talks your ear off every cutscenes and is in your face with its serious themes while also being a ridiculous anime video game, but the end product is a very memorable and enjoyable game to a lot of people. Would it have been an even bigger hit had it been a more straightforward action game? Maybe, but I think it's harder to say it would've been more interesting that way. All that shit gives it an identity, and personally I don't see the trade-off as worth it.
Counterpoint, many of the most radical experimentalist artists end up redoing Orpheus at some point. Which is one of the most rigid structures you can have.
Because sometimes you want to do radical new things, and sometimes you want to summon the ancient muses and Tell A Story.