Back to the table

32 Advanced Sq Scene and Sequel Scene Craft

Scene and Sequel

Action scenes followed by reaction scenes.

What it is

Scene and sequel is a way of building chapters out of two kinds of unit that take turns. In the first kind, a character goes after something specific and ends up worse off than when they started. The second kind is quieter. The character takes in the damage, looks over a set of options where none of them is good, and commits to one. That commitment becomes the goal of the next action unit. The story moves as pressure, then release, then pressure again, instead of one long unbroken push.

The handoff has a useful side effect. You can't shuffle the chapters of a book built this way. The end of each one decides how the next one opens.

The quiet half also sets your speed. Give a character one line to react and the book runs fast. Give them four pages and the book slows down and goes deeper. Leave the reaction out altogether and you get a relentless draft that readers find hard to care about. The reaction half is where readers attach to a character, so never treat it as filler.

A word of warning about the name. In this bit of craft jargon, "sequel" means the aftermath passage that comes after a scene. The next book in a series has nothing to do with it. Readers, booksellers and marketing people hear "Sequel" and think of book two, so expect to explain yourself to editors and readers. Aftermath, interlude and reaction beat are all accepted names for the same thing.

Dwight V. Swain devised the method and put it in print in 1965. The Scene element walks through the inside of a single action unit: the viewpoint, the goal, the opposition and the outcome. The question here is a different one. Why can't you stack two action units back to back without a break, and what does a reaction do that an action can't?

The action half has three movements, and each one has a job. The goal comes first. The character wants something within the next few pages, and it has to be concrete enough that the reader can tell whether they got it. Writers skip this beat more than any other, and scene goal goes into it in depth. The opposition comes next. Mere difficulty won't do here. You need a person or a force with its own reason to say no, which is what turns the attempt into real conflict. The outcome comes last, and it leaves the character farther from what they want than when they walked in.

Swain's word for that outcome is "disaster", and the word sounds bigger than he meant it. He was naming a place in the structure. He wasn't asking for a catastrophe. A clean success ends the chain. A refusal, or a success with a cost attached, starts the next link.

The reaction half has three movements too: reaction, dilemma and decision. The reaction is the physical and emotional hit of the news, before any thinking starts. The dilemma is a dilemma in the strict sense. Every option is bad, so whatever the character picks will cost them something. That makes a dilemma much bigger than the plain question "what should I do" ever gets. The decision is a specific intention. A mood or a loose resolve won't do. The decision is what the next action unit takes as its goal. Most drafts are missing this whole half.

The handoff from decision to goal is the joint that holds a book together. Using the pattern means building cause and effect into a draft on purpose. Those chapters you can't shuffle come straight out of that handoff.

Swain also described a smaller relative at the level of the sentence, which he called the motivation-reaction unit. The stimulus comes first and the response second, because readers' minds put them in that order anyway. Swap them and the passage reads slightly wrong, even when every fact in it is right. Scene and sequel runs on the same stimulus-then-response logic, blown up to the size of a chapter.

That gives six names in all: goal, opposition, outcome, reaction, dilemma and decision. The back-and-forth matters more than any of them. A writer who never uses the word "dilemma" but keeps showing a setback being felt, bad options being weighed and a commitment being made has the pattern. A writer who labels all six beats in the margins and still turns out prose with no pulse doesn't have it.

Why it matters

The reaction unit is your throttle. Pace depends less on words per scene or the length of your sentences than on how long you give the reader to feel something. The reaction unit decides that, so it controls your pacing. You can turn the dial from one line to four pages during revision without rewriting a single scene. Of all the structural fixes you have, this one costs the least.

The decision beat earns the reader's consent. Readers will follow a character into almost anything as long as they know why. The decision beat supplies the why. Without it, the next chapter shows your protagonist acting for reasons the reader has to work out backward. The story feels random, even when the outline behind it is perfectly logical. When an editor writes "she wouldn't do that" in your margin, a missing decision beat is usually the cause. A real disagreement about the character is much rarer. Motivation covers that ground.

Readers attach in the aftermath. Of all the reasons the pattern matters, this one counts most. Readers bond with a character inside a head that hurts and still has to choose. A book with no reaction units can grip and still leave readers saying they didn't care about anybody. If readers call a draft thrilling but cold, missing reaction units are very close to a sure sign.

Relief is what makes pressure work. When tension stays at its peak all the time, it goes flat and stops building. The quiet passages reset the reader's sense of danger, so the next reversal lands. Writers who fear that any slow paragraph will lose readers end up writing the relentless book. The relentless book is the one that loses them.

Your chapter breaks land in better places. Break a chapter right after an action unit resolves and you let the reader go at the wrong moment, because their question has just been answered. You have two other choices. End the chapter a beat sooner, or open the next chapter with the aftermath. Cliffhanger and hook both deal with where that cut falls.

Two common verdicts turn out to be one problem. Two verdicts come up again and again on unpublished manuscripts: "this is exhausting" and "nothing happens". They sound unrelated. They are the two opposite ways this one pattern fails. Once you can say which one applies to your draft, most of the repair is done.

Real-world examples

Techniques of the Selling Writer (1965): where the pattern was first written down

Dwight Vreeland Swain (1915 to 1992) was a working pulp writer long before he taught anyone. His first published story appeared in Fantastic Adventures in 1941. He went on to sell to magazines of pulp, science fiction, mystery, western and adventure fiction, and later he wrote scripts for documentary and instructional film. Then he taught in the Professional Writing Program at the University of Oklahoma for two decades or more.

His book grew out of that teaching. Doubleday first published it in 1965 as Tricks & Techniques of the Selling Writer. In the 1970s the University of Oklahoma Press reissued it under the shorter title Techniques of the Selling Writer, and the press has kept it in print since the 1970s. You'll often see the 1965 date paired with the Oklahoma press. That pairing is wrong. The first edition was Doubleday's, and Oklahoma's came later.

In the book Swain defines a scene as a unit of conflict. A character attempts a goal against opposition, in three movements, and the scene ends in a setback. He names its partner the sequel. In the sequel the character reacts, faces a choice among bad options, and decides, and that decision supplies the goal of the next scene. Together, he says, the two units control pace. Longer sequels let the story breathe. Shorter or missing ones make it sprint. His book is listed below, and it still gives the fullest account of why reaction has to follow action. A borrowable copy on the Internet Archive, also listed below, lets you read his own pages on scene and sequel before you buy.

The pattern carries a bias you can trace back to where it came from. Swain's students were writing for magazine markets that paid by the word and dropped writers who bored their readers. So the method is tuned for drive and for keeping pages turning. That tuning is its strength and also its limit, and the limit comes up again under the mistakes below.

Scene & Structure (1993): Jack Bickham turns the pattern into a repair manual

Jack Miles Bickham (September 2, 1930, to July 25, 1997) came to the University of Oklahoma in 1957, after newspaper work in Ohio, to take a master's degree under Swain. He stayed. He taught in the H. H. Herbert School of Journalism from 1969 and became a full professor in 1979. From 1973 to 1990 he ran the university's yearly professional writing short course. Along the way he published about seventy-five novels under his own name and pen names, and two of them were filmed, The Apple Dumpling Gang and Baker's Hawk.

Scene & Structure came out from Writer's Digest Books in 1993, in the Elements of Fiction Writing series. Bickham wrote it as his account of what he learned from Swain, and it remains the clearest working statement of the method. He drew his illustrations from his own fiction, including two tennis-player thrillers, Dropshot and Tiebreaker. So you watch a working novelist handle his own prose, instead of reading excerpts from famous books.

Bickham moved the emphasis. He cared less about the six beats as a checklist and more about the joins, the cause-and-effect weld between the end of one unit and the start of the next. The joins are where a book is most likely to fail. He also ran the pattern backward. He would start from a finished draft that had stalled and work out why. That instinct is the right one, because the method is better at finding faults than at generating stories. His book is listed below.

Jim Butcher's "SEQUELS" (2006): four steps instead of three

The line runs on through the novelist Deborah Chester, who teaches professional writing at the University of Oklahoma, in the same program where Swain taught. The fantasy novelist Jim Butcher wrote his first Dresden Files novel while he was taking her class. He later wrote the foreword to her book The Fantasy Fiction Formula (Manchester University Press, 2016). Her book teaches the pattern at the length of a whole novel and applies it across whole genre novels. Among recent teaching texts in this tradition, hers is the clearest, and it is listed below.

On December 29, 2006, Butcher put up a post called "SEQUELS" on LiveJournal, and the post is listed below too. He breaks the reaction unit into four steps where Swain has three. The emotional response comes first. Next comes a review of the facts and the rational options. Then comes the likely result of each option. The choice comes last. Butcher insists on that order, because he says people really do move through those steps in that order once things go wrong. In the same post he calls this structure "pretty much the ENTIRE secret of my success."

Two lessons come out of Butcher's version. The first is that feeling comes before thinking. A reaction that opens with analysis reads cold, however good the analysis is. The second lesson comes from how he handles Swain's single dilemma. Butcher splits it into two beats: reviewing the options, then weighing what each one costs. That split gives a truer picture of what a long reaction passage holds, and it shows why such a passage doesn't have to sag.

Killing Floor (1997) and Die Hard (1988): the thriller shrinks the reaction

The next two examples sit at opposite ends of the dial, a thriller and a romance. Lee Child's first novel, Killing Floor, came out from Putnam in the United States in March 1997. It was the first Reacher novel, and the next year it won both the Anthony and the Barry awards for best first novel. Jack Reacher steps off a bus in Margrave, Georgia, and within the first few pages he is arrested for murder. The dead man turns out to be his brother.

Reacher's reaction units are there, but they are tiny. After a chapter ends badly, you get a paragraph of flat assessment. The options take a line or two. The decision is one short, blunt sentence, and then the next attempt begins. Two things let Child squeeze the reaction this far. Reacher tells the story in the first person, so the reader is already inside his head while he processes. Reacher's defining trait is keeping his feelings down, so a three-line reaction suits him.

Die Hard (1988) gets the same economy on screen. John McTiernan directed it from a screenplay by Jeb Stuart and Steven E. de Souza, adapted from Roderick Thorp's 1979 novel Nothing Lasts Forever. The film keeps its reaction beats in John McClane's radio talks with Sergeant Al Powell. In those talks McClane, bleeding, admits he is scared, and then he chooses to go back up. Take those talks out and you have a very loud film with nobody to care about.

Thrillers shrink the reaction unit and keep it. What gives a writer permission to compress is a close viewpoint plus a character for whom saying little means something.

Get a Life, Chloe Brown (2019): the romance stretches the reaction

Talia Hibbert's Get a Life, Chloe Brown came out from Avon on November 5, 2019. Its opening works almost like a diagram of the pattern. Chloe is a web designer who lives with chronic pain, and she has just come close to dying. She answers that by writing a list of seven aims: leave the family home, get drunk, ride a motorcycle, go camping, have enjoyable, meaningless sex, travel with only hand luggage, and do one bad deed. Hibbert has been open that Chloe's chronic pain mirrors her own fibromyalgia. Red Morgan is the superintendent of Chloe's building.

Here the proportions run the opposite way from Child's. The action units are small: a talk on the stairs, a bike trip, a quarrel that turns sour. The reaction units are long, and they carry the book, because watching the characters work things through inside is what the reader came for. The dilemma is the heavy beat in this kind of book. Every choice means giving up a defense the character had good reason to build. Rush that beat and you get the genre's most common failure: two people pairing off with nothing visibly at stake for either of them.

Put the two books side by side and both of them alternate. Only the ratio differs, and the ratio follows what each genre's readers are buying. Genre sets the dial. Genre never gets rid of the pattern. If you write in both genres, you have to retune the ratio every time you switch. Reader promise covers the other things that shift with genre.

An everyday scenario: seven bad endings in a row

Here is a made-up case. A thriller writer sends the first 100 pages to four beta readers. Three of them say much the same thing in different words. The book moves and the writing is good, but it didn't grip them, and they can't say why. The fourth reader enjoyed it. She also put it down for a week before going back, and she never noticed she had.

Instead of rewriting sentences, the writer lists the units. Chapters one to seven turn out to be seven action units in a row. Each one ends badly, and nobody ever stops. The draft holds zero reaction passages, and the protagonist hasn't had a private response to anything since page one. So when she breaks into a warehouse in chapter six, the reader doesn't know why she picked that over the four other options. The reader doesn't know what it costs her either.

The fix takes one afternoon. The writer adds three reaction passages. Two of them run under 200 words each. The third is a full scene, placed after the biggest reversal. Each one ends on a stated intention, and the next chapter takes up that intention as its goal. Two chapter breaks move so they fall inside a reaction. Nothing is cut and nothing new is invented. A fresh set of readers calls the same pages tense.

Try it yourself

The exercise below is an audit. You do it on a separate sheet, outside the manuscript file, and it works better on a written draft than on a plan. Ratios are seldom right in a first draft, so this audit pays off in revision. If you'd like to see a worked example first, Randy Ingermanson's free article on writing the perfect scene is listed below. Written in plain language, it covers both halves, shows them chained together, and credits Swain by name.

  1. List your last ten scenes. Take the ten most recent scene-sized chunks of your draft and give each one a line on the sheet. Mark each line A for an attempt or R for a reaction. If a chunk holds both, split it into two lines.
  2. Write each attempt's goal. For every A, finish the sentence below in one line. If you can't, the chunk isn't a scene yet. Usually it turns out to be a conversation or some travel. Decide whether to give it a goal or cut it.

"In this scene, ___ is trying to ___."

  1. Mark how each attempt ends. Mark each A's ending "no", "yes, but" or "yes". A plain "yes" ends the chain. Either add a cost, or move the ending earlier so the fallout has room. A long run of "no" is a different problem, and try-fail cycle deals with it.
  2. Check each reaction for its three parts. Look in every R for a physical or emotional response, for options that each carry a cost, and for a decision phrased as an intention. Note which one is missing. The options are the part most often missing. You can spot the gap by a character who chooses instantly and seems to risk nothing.
  3. Test the joins. Put the last line of each R next to the first line of the A that follows it. The goal of the A should follow from the decision in the R. If it doesn't, the chain of cause and effect is broken, and the reader will feel the book wander.
  4. Compare your ratio with your genre. Pick a successful novel in your own subgenre. Over one chapter, count the action paragraphs and the aftermath paragraphs. Make the same count in one chapter of your own. Don't copy the number. You only want to know whether you're off by something like ten times.
  5. Resize on purpose. Cut two reaction passages down to one line each. Pick the one after your worst reversal and expand it into a full scene with another character in it, so the processing happens out loud. Read the stretch aloud. No other pace edit in revision changes as much.
  6. Move two chapter breaks. Find a chapter that ends on a resolution. End it one beat earlier, so the aftermath opens the next chapter. Do the same with a second chapter. Put each pair of versions side by side on screen and pick the better one.
  7. Throw away the labels. Discard the sheet. Nothing in the manuscript should be named after a beat, and no chapter should exist only to be one.

Common mistakes and misunderstandings

Leaving out the reaction units altogether. The relentless book is the most common failure, and the hardest one to see from inside, because each chapter reads well on its own. Beta readers give it away with notes like "exciting but I didn't connect", "I didn't care what happened to her" and "I needed a break". The reader has been shut out of the place where attachment forms. About 200 added words in the right places usually cures it.

Writing nothing but reactions. The all-sequel book shows up more often in literary and romance drafts. Characters sit in parked cars and kitchens, digesting things that happened off the page, and every scene turns into talk about a scene. To check, go through chapter by chapter and say what a character was after. If the answer comes back "to talk about it" three chapters running, the attempts have gone missing.

Using the six beats as a template. Some writers label their chapters and hit each beat in order. The result is correct, evenly paced and lifeless. The six names describe what's missing when a passage fails. They aren't a form to fill in. Watch for one warning sign: adding a dilemma only because the template calls for one.

Thinking a reaction has to be long. A reaction can be a paragraph, a single line, or half of one. "She looked at the phone for a long time, then called him back" counts as a whole reaction unit. You get the feeling, the options are implied, and she commits. To size a reaction, ask three questions. How bad was the reversal? How well does the reader know the way this character processes things? How fast does the genre expect to move? A large reversal, a character new to the reader and a slow genre call for space. A minor reversal, a character the reader knows and a thriller call for a single sentence.

Reading "disaster" as catastrophe. Swain's word only means the goal wasn't cleanly won. A partial win with a cost often works better than a flat refusal, and a chapter of nothing but refusals gets monotonous. What has to move is the value of the situation, up or down. Value shift spells out exactly what has to change.

Treating scene and chapter as the same unit. They are different units. Merging them gives you dead chapter endings, and chapters that hold two unrelated attempts. A chapter is a packaging choice about where to let the reader go. A scene is a unit of story.

Letting the narrator decide instead of the character. A narrator telling you that she resolved to go north doesn't give you a decision beat. The reader has to watch the choice being made and see what it gives up. The companion fault is naming the feeling, as in "she was devastated". Show, don't tell deals with both.

Saying "sequel" to the wrong people. Readers, booksellers and marketing people hear the word and think of book two. Inside a critique group the word is fine. Outside it, say aftermath.

Treating the pattern as a universal law. Scene and sequel is one craft tradition. It was built for mid-century American commercial fiction and taught by people who sold stories to magazines and genre publishers, and it tells you what to do. A lot of excellent fiction isn't built this way. Kishōtenketsu, the four-part East Asian shape, isn't organized around an engine of conflict and disaster. Its parts name an order, with no opposition built in, and stories built on it can satisfy with very little conflict. In Japan, manga teaching often puts the main conflict in the third part. Steven James, in Story Trumps Structure (Writer's Digest Books, 2014), argues for dropping formulas of this kind in favor of organic writing and trust in escalation and discovery. He is right about what templates cost. Books driven by juxtaposition, by voice, or by a situation revealed little by little can succeed with aftermath passages that never end in a decision. The claim you can defend is narrower than "always do this" and runs like this. When readers call a draft exhausting or flat, check the alternation of pressure and response first, because it fails often and it mends easily. Use it as a diagnostic tool and not as a law. The tradition's best teachers used it that way, Bickham above all.

Related elements