Back to the table

69 Structure Sy Story Engineering Story Structures

Story Engineering

Larry Brooks's six core competencies.

What it is

Story Engineering is Larry Brooks's name for a model that covers the whole craft of writing fiction. He set it out in a 2011 book with the same title. The model says a novel has to work in six areas: concept, character, theme, structure, scene execution and writing voice. A book needs professional-grade work in all six.

Most writers meet the model through one piece of it, the structure. Brooks splits a plot into four quarters, gives each quarter its own job, and places a few big turns between them. Summaries that go by "Larry Brooks's structure" cover only that one layer and present it as the whole model.

In fact the model has two layers, one inside the other. The outer layer is a claim: every skill a novelist needs falls under six headings, and a weak spot in any one of them can get a book rejected. The inner layer is the four-part plot template with its fixed milestones. That template is just competency number four.

If you're drafting a book now, the model helps in two ways. When a manuscript is stuck, it gives you a wider diagnosis than "fix the plot". And it lets you read what a scene should be doing from where the scene sits in the book. The one thing to carry away is a question. When a draft is failing, ask which of the six is broken. Often the answer isn't the one you suspected.

The model is Brooks's. The description here is an independent one, in Storycosm's own words. Storycosm has no connection to Brooks or to his publisher, and neither of them has endorsed it.

Brooks took an unusual road into teaching. His publisher's bio says he spent five years in professional baseball with the Texas Rangers organization and wrote magazine pieces about minor-league ball. He graduated from Portland State University in 1976 and moved into corporate scriptwriting in 1983. For seventeen years he was executive creative director at a communications firm in Portland, where he wrote hundreds of corporate videos. He wrote screenplays on the side, and later thrillers. His first novel, Darkness Bound (Onyx, 2000), was a USA Today bestseller according to that bio. Pressure Points followed from Onyx in 2001, then Serpent's Dance in 2003 and Bait and Switch from Signet in 2004. The hero of Bait and Switch comes back in Deadly Faux (Turner Publishing, 2013).

The method grew up on his blog, storyfix.com, before it became a book. A ten-part series there defined the four parts and their milestones. Long chapter-by-chapter analyses of published novels and films showed the method at work. Writer's Digest Books, based in Cincinnati, then published Story Engineering in early 2011, as an e-book in January and as a 288-page paperback on February 24. You may see two titles for it. Catalogs and the publisher's site give the subtitle Mastering the 6 Core Competencies of Successful Writing. Some retail listings print a different cover line, Character Development, Story Concept, Scene Construction. Both share one ISBN, and they're the same book.

The book opens by making the case for the six. Then it takes concept, character and theme in turn. Structure gets the biggest share, with chapters on the four parts, the milestones, the first plot point, the midpoint, the pinch points and the second plot point. Scene execution comes next, then voice. A closing section covers the writing process, including outlining versus organic writing and a planning guide for writers who don't outline. Brooks's favorite worked example throughout is Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code (2003). The Hook page looks at that novel from another angle.

Brooks wrote the book to fix a problem he kept seeing in new novelists. In his view, most of them start drafting without knowing the criteria a publishable story has to meet. Then the rejections arrive with no reasons attached, since a form letter doesn't name the flaw. His answer was that the cause is always the same kind of thing. At least one of six areas falls short of what an agent or editor will accept. The model turns a vague "it didn't work for me" into six places to look.

When Randy Ingermanson asked him in March 2011 why he wrote the book, Brooks said people at his workshops had been asking for it for some fifteen years. Even with so many craft books around, he said, the craft stays hard to pin down. He started from the belief that nothing in fiction craft sits outside the six. In an interview with Writer Unboxed on March 13, 2011, he put it another way. The trouble, he said, lies in criteria rather than in talent or process. Writers who draft by the seat of their pants are hoping to meet the requirements by accident. He described six deep buckets of criteria, and all six have to hold, because one bad bucket spoils the lot.

That stance explains both the model's strengths and the friction it causes. Brooks built it as someone who had written to client briefs and then coached writers whose manuscripts had already been turned down. In his model, a novel passes or fails a specification.

Brooks sorts the six competencies into two groups, and the split matters more than most summaries let on. Four are elemental. They are the pieces the story is made of, and you can settle them before you write a sentence, separately from the writing itself.

Concept is the foundation. Brooks says a concept works best as a "what if?" question that opens onto more questions. A concept differs from an idea, which can be just a subject or a setting, and it differs from theme. A concept is a situation with a problem built in. His later books add premise as an extra stage, and the Premise page lists what a premise has to hold.

Character starts with a protagonist the reader roots for, which isn't the same as one the reader merely likes. Brooks describes three layers. The outer layer is what a stranger would see. Under it sit the history and inner fears that explain that surface. The third layer is the choices the character makes under real pressure, and Brooks says that's where identity lives. His chapters on inner and outer conflict, and on arc, tie the deeper layers to the plot. The Character Arc and Backstory pages carry this further.

Theme is what the story says about life, apart from what happens in it. Brooks ties it closely to arc, since the way the hero changes usually shows the story's view of life. The Theme page goes wider.

Structure is the order of events and the reasons behind it. Brooks is strictest here. Commercial fiction has norms for where events go, he argues, and norms you invent for yourself won't get you published.

The other two competencies are executional. They are skills on the page, applied line by line, and they grow with practice. You can't settle them with one decision. Scene execution means building each scene around one job it does for the larger story. Brooks sees a novel as scenes plus the material that links them, and the test for a scene is whether it delivered the piece of story it was given. The Scene page covers how a scene is built. Writing voice is the sound of the prose, and here Brooks counsels restraint. The main risk with voice, he writes in the book, is that it gets in the way. Clean, competent prose that stays out of sight is enough for most genre and commercial fiction. So he treats voice as a bar to clear and suggests you spend your energy elsewhere.

The value of the split is easy to miss. An elemental problem survives any amount of sentence polishing, because it's a choice, and the fix is to choose differently. An executional problem survives any amount of replanning, because the plan can be sound while the pages still fail. Once you know which of the two kinds of problem you have, you stop fixing the wrong thing.

The structure competency is the part people draw as a diagram. Brooks pictures four boxes of roughly equal size, each filled with scenes that serve that box's job. The first and last boxes are a little shorter than the middle two. What a scene should do depends on which box it's in, and a common flaw in drafts is the right event sitting in the wrong box. Brooks also gives the hero a stance for each part: orphan, wanderer, warrior and martyr. He picked those four labels because they're easy to remember and they contrast with each other. The martyr doesn't have to die. The martyr does what has to be done, whatever it costs. Laid out from start to finish, the diagram looks like this:

Each of these milestones has its own page on the table, so here they get only a quick pass. The hook grabs attention early, inside the opening scenes, and Brooks insists it differs from the first plot point, however striking the hook may be. The first plot point, somewhere from the twentieth to the twenty-fifth percentile, is in Brooks's view the most important moment in a story. The main opposition steps forward and the hero's plans change. The First Plot Point page gives the full argument, along with the clash between Brooks's term and Michael Hauge's. The Inciting Incident page explains how Brooks's series merged this beat with the inciting incident that other models keep separate. The two pinch points, near 3/8 and 5/8, show the opposing force directly. The Rising Action page covers them and notes that nobody is established as the person who coined the term, so crediting Brooks goes too far. The midpoint changes how the whole story is framed, and the hero shifts from responding to acting. The second plot point, at about 75 percent, delivers the last piece of new information. That makes it different from the low point other models put at the same spot, as the All Is Lost page explains. After it come the hero's climax and the resolution.

Two rules sit on top of the diagram. Rule one says a part is defined by what the hero is doing, rather than by what happens to the hero. In Part 2 the hero reacts: running, hiding, gathering information, making plans that don't hold. Brooks says it's too early for the hero to go on offense. Part 3 is offense. A hero who charges ahead in Part 2 leaves the midpoint with no turn to make. Rule two says no new information enters after the second plot point. Everything the hero needs to win, allies and tools included, has to be in place by the 3/4 point. The ending gets built from things the reader already holds.

Brooks went on to write three more craft books with the same publisher. Each one adds a layer to the model without replacing it. Story Physics: Harnessing the Underlying Forces of Storytelling (2013) lays a second set of six over the first. The competencies are the parts of a story, and the physics are the forces those parts exert on a reader. In an interview on Sue Coletta's blog on April 8, 2015, Brooks listed them as narrative strategy, vicarious experience, hero empathy, pacing, dramatic tension and compelling premise, and he called them essences rather than components. The difference matters. A concept can be complete as a competency, with its question and its built-in problem, and still exert no pull if nothing makes readers need to know how it turns out. The physics try to name that pull, which gives you a second test for every part.

Story Fix: Transform Your Novel from Broken to Brilliant (2015), with a foreword by Michael Hauge, recasts the model as a way to revise. The publisher's description says it gives you twelve elements and essences to score a draft against, and it splits revision into a story realm and an execution realm. Those two realms are the elemental and executional split, aimed at a finished manuscript. Great Stories Don't Write Themselves: Criteria-Driven Strategies for More Effective Fiction (2019) is a checklist book. It moves the weight to the very start of the process and opens by separating a premise from a bare idea, since everything after depends on that difference. None of the three changes the four parts or the milestones. What changes is the emphasis. In 2011 structure took up most of the pages. By 2019 the weight had moved earlier, onto the premise and the dramatic tension that can carry a whole book. If you want Brooks's own definitions of all six before you buy the book, Writer's Digest published an excerpt in 2012, listed below.

Why it matters

A stuck draft gets a wider diagnosis. Most of the named structures in this row of the table deal only with when a plot's big moments arrive. Story Engineering puts that timing inside a bigger frame, and that's the main reason to know it, even if you never use the diagram. A struggling draft hands you symptoms. It doesn't tell you the causes. Beta readers say it's slow, or they didn't care about her, or it fell apart near the end. If all you own is a structure template, you fix structure. Maybe you move the midpoint three chapters, and nothing gets better. The six buckets make you ask an earlier question. Slow could mean a structure problem, like a first plot point at 40 percent. It could mean a concept with nothing built in to escalate. It could mean a protagonist nobody roots for, or scenes that run on past their job. Each has a different cure, and only one of them involves moving chapters. The elemental and executional split does the same job one level down. It tells you whether to remake a choice or practice a skill.

Each part tells a scene what to do. The percentages hide a practical benefit. Once each part has a mission, "what happens next?" stops being a wide-open question. In Part 2, the hero responds to whatever the first plot point set loose, without solving it. In Part 3, the hero goes on offense, and it isn't enough yet. When you're stuck in the middle of a chapter, knowing that helps more than knowing some beat is due at 37 percent.

You can plan first or discover as you draft. Online, this method is tied more closely than any other to the argument between writers who plan first, the "plotters", and writers who find the story by drafting, the "pantsers". The second name comes from flying by the seat of your pants. Brooks has been in that argument since 2009, and his structure series was already being summarized on other blogs by October 2009. His position is narrower than his reputation. He doesn't demand an outline, and the structure series says so flatly. What he pushes is story architecture built around the milestone scenes, and when you come to know those scenes is up to you. The one thing he won't bend on is that the criteria apply either way. If you draft to discover the milestones, you're doing the outliner's search by a longer road. Expect a big rewrite afterward, since each milestone needs setting up earlier in the book. The book has a chapter weighing outlining against organic storytelling, plus a planning guide for writers who don't outline. Albert Zuckerman's Writing the Blockbuster Novel, listed below, shows the same bet paying off on a real bestseller: a commercial novel's big moments can be found and fixed in a plan before the draft. Zuckerman, who was Ken Follett's agent, prints successive drafts of Follett's outline for The Man from St. Petersburg and notes what each one still lacked.

Brooks's manner is a separate question, and he knows it. In a post on The Kill Zone on January 25, 2016, he wrote that social media had called him "the formula guy" and "the guy who hates pantsers". His reply was that structure and formula are different things, and that any claim about a universally right process should come with "for her" or "for him" attached. In that post he says success comes from story sense rather than from any one process. He also says writers who succeed without planning, Stephen King among them, carry the principles inside them already. That last claim is his opinion, and it's where the real disagreement lies.

The model suits some books better than others. It fits genre books written for the market, where you can point at the opposing force. Thrillers are Brooks's own ground, and suspense, mystery, adventure fantasy, science fiction and romance with a strong outer plot fit too. It suits writers full of ideas who haven't finished a book yet, since it spells out what a finished book contains. It may help more in revision than in a first draft, because the six buckets give feedback somewhere to go. And it suits writers who like checklists and trust them. In five places it fits less comfortably.

Some books have no villain to point at. The first plot point is defined as the main opposing force stepping forward. A quiet literary novel might set its hero against a marriage, a temperament or growing old. The definition has to stretch to cover that, and a strict reading risks bolting on a villain the book doesn't need.

Ensembles strain a single line. Four parts with four hero stances suit a book with one main line. You can read ensemble and multi-viewpoint books through the model, and Brooks's own analyses do. Still, different strands are often in different parts at the same moment, and forcing them into step costs the book texture.

Twist endings push against the Part 4 rule. The ban on new information in Part 4 guards against a rescuer who comes out of nowhere. Applied strictly, it clashes with mysteries and twist novels, which often put their biggest reveal in the last fifth. The usual way to square the two is to say the late reveal recasts what the reader already has instead of adding something. Whether that keeps the rule or rewrites it is open to argument.

Voice gets treated as a hurdle. A bar to clear works for a lot of commercial fiction. As a guide for books people buy for the voice alone, it falls short. Voice is the competency where the model most plainly reflects one section of the bookstore.

The word "Engineering" puts some readers off. The frame suggests specifications, tolerances and a structure that either stands or falls. Brooks chose that frame on purpose, and it turns some readers away.

Two skeptical reviewers found plenty to push back on. Michelle Van Loon, in a review dated June 22, 2011, described the book as a formula that says it isn't one. Van Loon wrote that Brooks came at the subject "with the precision of… well, a very chatty engineer", and found the book padded: so much room goes to announcing a big point that its 288 pages could lose about half. Brooks owned up to the habit that same month. His post of June 28, 2011 opens with a reader's observation that he lingers over set-ups, in the book and on the blog. J.D.J. Plocher, a fantasy writer and teacher who writes from the pantser end by Plocher's own account, reviewed the book on Walking Ledges on March 17, 2014. In Plocher's reading, the book spends a lot of energy on a straw-man pantser who plans nothing, and oversells itself by announcing that everyone who sells a story already follows Brooks's way, knowingly or not.

The deepest objection is that the claim can't be tested. Saying every successful novel follows the model, even when its author never heard of it, can't be proven wrong. Every book that works counts as proof. Every book that doesn't fit can be said to hide its milestones. The Hero's Journey has drawn the same objection for decades. The objection doesn't prove the model wrong. It does mean a track record can't prove the model true. The better test is whether it helps the draft in front of you.

Even the skeptics credited the working core. Van Loon recommended the book to beginners who think in systems. Plocher, bluster aside, called the structure chapters surprisingly practical and the four elemental competencies the best part of the book. Randy Ingermanson, who created the Snowflake Method, wrote the book's endorsement and repeated it on his blog on March 1, 2011: in his view, nobody teaches story structure better. The political writer Ian Welsh wrote on October 13, 2020 that the book showed him why his first novel failed, and that it was the clearest of the structure books he had tried. Once he learned to spot a first plot point, he found it nearly every time within one percentage point of 25 percent.

Real-world examples

Brooks on The Help (2009): milestones in a quiet novel

The reading here belongs to Brooks. His series on The Help is the best public record of the model being run by the person who made it, on a novel many people have read or can easily get. His overview post, which looks at the book's structure from 10,000 feet, is one of the three additional resources listed below, and this example starts from it.

The Help was Kathryn Stockett's first novel, published in 2009 by Amy Einhorn Books, an imprint of Putnam. The story is set in Jackson, Mississippi, in the early 1960s and told in the first person by three women. Aibileen and Minny are Black maids working in white households. Skeeter is a young white woman just back from college who wants to write.

Brooks wrote about the book from June 2 to July 15, 2011, before the film adaptation opened. He posted on storyfix.com and syndicated the posts to his Goodreads author blog. He worked from the trade paperback and gave page numbers throughout.

In his June 2 overview, the hook comes at the end of chapter one, on page 13, when the white woman Aibileen works for announces she'll build the maid a separate bathroom. Brooks points out that the hook ties straight into the theme, which is why it's so subtle. The first plot point comes on page 104, at the end of chapter six, almost exactly at the 20th percentile. Skeeter's vague idea of a book about Jackson's maids turns into a real intention. The midpoint falls around page 248, at the 48th percentile. After Medgar Evers is murdered, the community gathers, and Yule May tells Aibileen she wants to be in the book. Yule May is the most reluctant of the maids, and she works for the villain, Hilly. A later post puts the first pinch point on page 184, at the 35th percentile, when Hilly announces over a card game that she'll run her "Home Help Sanitation Initiative" in the local paper.

Beyond the page counts, the series makes three points a working writer can use.

First, the milestones are quiet. They come out of the situation instead of out of noise. There's no storm, no diagnosis and no body. The book moves through what feel like vignettes, yet at the first plot point every scene's purpose changes. Skeeter's project becomes the thing all three narrators' stories respond to, and from then on you can see what each scene is for. That answers the charge that the model needs an armed villain. Here the opposition is a social order, and Hilly is its face.

Second, the book has three narrators. Brooks separates the protagonists from the driving force. Aibileen, Minny and Skeeter carry about equal weight, but Skeeter's choices create the tension, so Brooks measures the parts along her line. At the midpoint the dramatic question changes. Before it, the question is whether Skeeter can get enough maids to talk. After it, the question is whether the book will be finished and published, and what happens to everyone afterward. That change is the response turning into attack.

Third, a milestone can move while you look at it. The June 2 overview put the second plot point on page 398, at the 77th percentile, when the secret behind the pie Minny baked for Hilly comes out. The July 15 final post put it on page 452, where Skeeter tells the group that Harper and Row has accepted their manuscript. Three weeks before that final post, his Part 3 post had called the same acceptance a twist late in Part 3. None of this is a gotcha. Both readings can be defended. What the shift shows is that milestones get found by interpretation, after the fact.

The same overview also gives the clearest example of what the skeptics complain about. Brooks says nobody knows whether Stockett was aware of structure, and that it doesn't matter, since the story works and these principles are always the reason. Put that way, every success just confirms the model.

There's also something the model doesn't measure. Brooks praises how the book delivers its theme. In August 2011, as the film opened, the Association of Black Women Historians published an open statement against the novel and the film. The statement said both distort the lives of Black domestic workers, bring back the Mammy stereotype, and render Black speech as exaggerated dialect. Story Engineering tests whether a theme is present, clear and resonant. Whether the theme is handled accurately and fairly is a separate question, and you have to ask it yourself.

Brooks on The Hunger Games (2008): finding the core story first

Again the analysis is Brooks's, passed along here rather than endorsed, and no new reading of the book is offered. What makes it interesting is his reasoning, which exposes a step that diagram summaries skip. Suzanne Collins's novel (Scholastic, 2008) shows up elsewhere on the table too, with its climax on the Climax page and its premise on the Premise page.

From April to June 2012, after the film came out, Brooks took the book apart on his blog in eleven numbered posts plus a prologue. His third post, on May 12, asks where the first plot point is. The candidates all come early. Prim's name is drawn. Katniss volunteers in her place. Peeta is chosen. They're taken to the Capitol. They're told to present themselves as a couple to win sponsors. Brooks says none of these is the first plot point. Each is an inciting incident inside the set-up, and he allows several of those in Part 1. They all come too early for the milestone.

His pick is one quieter moment, on page 72 of the trade paperback. Katniss stops resisting the couple strategy she distrusts and acts it out. She kisses Peeta on the cheek, right on a bruise that's already there.

His reasoning is that you have to decide what the core story is first. Here, he argues, the core story is the relationship between Katniss and Peeta, and the Games are the dramatic backdrop. He compares the book to Titanic, a romance set on a ship that's going down, where the relationship is the core and the catastrophe is the backdrop. Get the core story wrong and you'll hunt for milestones in the wrong place.

You can argue with that, and in the post Brooks admits some readers already had. If you take the Games themselves as the core story, the turn moves to the start of the Games, and the four-part shape still holds together.

The lesson is that you can't lift the four parts out of a book the way you'd lift page numbers. They come from a judgment about what the book is really about, so the model is only as good as that judgment. For your own book, settle the core story before you place a single milestone, because the milestones belong to the core story.

An everyday scenario: a pharmacist's sagging middle

Here's a made-up case, to show how the model sorts a vague complaint into the right bucket. Rosheen Tullett is a pharmacist who works for a hospital. Her second manuscript, a suspense novel called Returned Unused, follows a pharmacist who notices that the controlled drugs returned from one ward don't reconcile. Her three beta readers all say the same thing in different words: the middle sags.

So she fixes the structure. She moves her midpoint four chapters earlier and adds a break-in at what she works out to be 37 percent. She sends the book out again. The readers still say the middle is slow.

Then she does the six-bucket pass. Her concept won't turn into a question. All she can write is "a pharmacist investigates missing drugs", and that's a subject. Her character line is weak too. She can describe her heroine, but she can't say what the heroine does at the moment that counts, because nothing in the book makes any moment count. Structure, the part she spent a month on, turns out to be the easiest line to fill in.

The box sort shows the real pattern. From chapter four to chapter twenty-six, nearly three-quarters of the book, her heroine reacts. She checks records, questions colleagues and watches. Then the case gets solved. There's no attack run at all. The midpoint's position was never the cause. At first the person diverting the drugs has no want on the page, so nobody has a stake that the heroine's inquiry threatens. With nobody pushing back, she's never forced to stop gathering and start striking.

The flaw is elemental, and it lives in the concept. No amount of moving chapters could reach it. The cure is a choice. She decides what the person diverting the drugs wants, and how that person reacts to being noticed. Her new concept, as a question, asks what happens when the only person who sees the pattern becomes the one the hospital blames.

Now the first plot point is an internal audit that singles out her heroine. Part 2 is the heroine's failed attempts to clear herself. Part 3 starts when she stops defending and starts hunting.

Her late-arrivals list catches one more thing. The security footage that decides the ending first appears at 88 percent. She plants it in chapter six, with a passing remark about a camera everyone assumes is dead.

She never needed perfectly placed pinch points. She needed to stop treating a concept problem as a structure problem. Telling those two apart is what the model is for.

Try it yourself

This takes an afternoon. You need a finished or stalled draft, a list of its scenes or chapters with their word counts, and a blank page.

  1. Write the concept as a question. Write one sentence that starts with "What if". If it names only a topic, such as grief in a novel set in a fishing town, and no situation with a problem built in, you have an idea rather than a concept. Rewrite it until the question holds something that has to be resolved.
  2. Write one line for each of the six. Concept: the question from step 1. Character: what your protagonist does at the moment that matters most, rather than what she's like. Theme: what the book says about life, put some way other than a plot summary. Structure: your first plot point, midpoint and second plot point, a short phrase for each. Scene execution: the job of your least favorite scene. Voice: one line on how the prose sounds, and whether it ever pulls attention away from the story. Give each line one of three marks: decided, vague or missing.
  3. Sort the trouble by type. If any of the first four lines is vague or missing, the problem is elemental. Line editing won't fix it, because you need to make a decision. If the trouble is in the last two lines, the problem is executional. Replanning won't fix that, because the pages need rewriting. Write down which type you have before you open the manuscript, since it decides what next week looks like.
  4. Do the box sort. Go through your scene list and work out where each scene starts as a percentage of the total word count. Then give each scene one of four letters for what the protagonist is doing. S means she's still living her life before the trouble. R means she's reacting: gathering information, hiding, making plans that fail. A means she's taking the fight to the trouble. F means she's finishing with what she already has. Ignore the percentages while you assign the letters.
  5. Read the runs. Expect four long runs of one letter, changing near the quarter, half and three-quarter marks. Look first wherever a change sits far from those marks. A draft that "sags" usually has an R run that never turns into A, so the protagonist reacts for two-thirds of the book. A draft that "rushes" usually has A scenes before the halfway mark, which leaves the midpoint nothing to change.
  6. List the late arrivals. Write down every person, object, skill or fact that first shows up after the three-quarter mark but matters to the ending. For each one, move it earlier, recast it as a new way of seeing something the reader already knows, or cut it. Here the no-new-information rule becomes a revision pass, and this step is usually the quickest.
  7. Check that the antagonist shows up mid-book. Find the R and A scenes where the opposing force appears on the page in person, rather than through the protagonist's guesses. If you can't find any, read the Rising Action page before you change anything.
  8. Pin the six lines to your revision notes. Put them at the top. When a beta reader's comment comes in, assign it to one of the lines before you decide what to do about it. You can paste in this block and fill it out.

Concept (what if): __________ Character (what she does when it counts): __________ Theme (what it shows about life): __________ Structure (FPP / midpoint / SPP): __________ / __________ / __________ Weakest scene and its job: __________ Voice (where it gets in the way, if anywhere): __________ Elemental or executional? __________ Box sort runs change at: S→R __% R→A __% A→F __% Late arrivals after 75%: __________

Common mistakes and misunderstandings

Thinking Story Engineering is a plot structure. The mistake usually comes out as a flat statement: "Story Engineering is a plot structure." The model is six competencies, and structure is one of them. The opening and closing parts of the book insist the other five count just as much. Using only the diagram is fine. Calling the diagram the method gets the method wrong.

Treating the percentages as a schedule. Brooks writes "roughly" and "about" for a reason, and his own published analyses disagree with each other about where milestones fall. A first plot point at 28 percent is fine. At 45 percent, Part 1 is probably doing Part 2's job, and the box sort will show you which scenes.

Mixing his terms with another teacher's. In his 2009 series, Brooks used "inciting incident" to mean the first plot point. That left no separate milestone for the early disruption that Robert McKee calls the inciting incident and Blake Snyder calls the catalyst. By 2012, writing about The Hunger Games, he was using inciting incidents for the early disruptions that come before the first plot point. Before you compare charts, check which usage each one follows. The Inciting Incident page maps how each teacher uses the term.

Thinking the second plot point is the low point. Most three-act models put a defeat at the 3/4 mark. For Brooks, that spot is where the last needed information arrives. The two often land together, which is why people mix them up. The All Is Lost page pulls them apart.

Crediting Brooks with inventing pinch points. The term is tied mainly to Story Engineering and to Dan Wells's Seven-Point Structure. Brooks often gets the credit, but no primary source settles who coined it. Brooks himself points elsewhere. His June 28, 2011 post says he learned about pinch points from Syd Field's Screenplay. Say the term is associated with him and leave it there.

Believing you have to outline. Brooks's position is that you need to know the milestones before the draft is finished, rather than before it starts. Finding them partway through still counts as using the method. The price is reworking the set-up so it plants them. Budget for that work instead of giving up the way you like to write.

Reading the no-new-information rule as a ban on surprises. The rule covers new tools, new allies and new facts that rescue the ending. A late reveal that makes readers reread what they already have is allowed. A twist that reinterprets the story passes. A twist that brings in a twin doesn't.

Polishing the wrong bucket. A beautifully voiced manuscript built on a concept with no problem in it still gets rejected. Four more line edits won't change that. Skill on the page can't make up for an elemental flaw. Of everything here, this lesson is the one you can act on most directly, and the easiest to forget at two in the morning.

Taking the four hero labels as requirements. Orphan, wanderer, warrior and martyr are stances. They describe what the protagonist is doing in each part. She doesn't have to lose her parents in Part 1 or die in Part 4.

Mistaking Brooks's manner for the method. His tirade against writers who don't plan is the part of the book that travels worst, and it has driven off more readers than any of his ideas. You can take the criteria and leave the tirade.

Related elements