Question regarding “The One-Page Novel Plot Outline” by Derek Murphy@Creativindie

[JohnnyNeutron]

The One-Page Novel Plot Outline by Derek Murphy (https://www.creativindie.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/plot-outline.pdf) looks like an excellent tool for a plot & structure-nooby-wannabe-writer-type-person like myself. But there is something I’m confused by. Doc Murphy breaks his outline template into 25 key chapters, but he places the eight main plot-points as bullets between the numbered key chapters. For instance,

6) Pull Out Rug
# ACT II: 1st PLOT POINT (Point of No Return)
7) Enemies & Allies

So, where does the 1st Plot-Point scene go? Should it be the last scene in Chapter 6 Pull Out Rug at the end of ACT 1, or is it the first scene in Chapter 7 Enemies & Allies at the beginning of ACT 2? (I am aware that there’ll probably be many more than 25 chapters in my book, I know the Doc is using these 25 as key story chapters, not the only chapters)

Everything I’ve read, thus far, makes it clear that the 1st Plot-Point scene should be the last scene in ACT 1, but Doc Murphy seems to suggest that it belongs as the first scene in ACT 2.

I have the same question regarding the other seven main plot points as well.

I’m probably splitting hairs here, but I’m kind of a stickler for details. If my question is annoying, just let me know, I’m old and have rhino-hide thick skin. Peace.

– The Freshman JohnnyNeutron

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Honestly - these models have their place. But tell your story first - they can really get in the way of that x

 

[-K2-]

Hi and welcome to the forum;

Though I'm not experienced enough to answer your question, I do want to say thanks for the PDF attachment. Reviewing it and comparing it to my own WiP, I was stunned to discover it pretty much followed my story as is. I really didn't know about such things when I started down this unforgiving path. But, such things inspire me not to chuck it all... Now watch someone state that outline is all wrong, hehe.

K2

 

[Brian G Turner]

It looks like he's mixing a couple of different structural elements in there - the red upper case refer to the Hero's Journey aspect of writing, whereas the others are general structure.

In terms of general structure, this is what I got from Blake Snyder's Save the Cat (which I commonly recommend here):

1. OPENING IMAGE (1)
2. THEME STATED (5)
3. SET-UP (1-10)
4. CATALYST (12)
5. DEBATE (12-25)
6. BREAK INTO TWO (25)
7. B STORY (30)
8. FUN AND GAMES (30-55)
9. MIDPOINT (55)
10. BAD GUYS CLOSE IN (55-75)
11. ALL IS LOST (75)
12. DARK NIGHT OF THE SOUL (75-85)
13. BREAK INTO THREE (85)
14. FINALE (85-110)
15. FINAL IMAGE (110)

Hero's Journey structure can be found here:

The Writer's Journey: Mythic Structure for Writers - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Forget about what other people are telling you is the way.
Write the novel that works your way.

 

[Kerrybuchanan]

Forget about what other people are telling you is the way.
Write the novel that works your way.

This.

 

[HareBrain]

So, where does the 1st Plot-Point scene go? Should it be the last scene in Chapter 6 Pull Out Rug at the end of ACT 1, or is it the first scene in Chapter 7 Enemies & Allies at the beginning of ACT 2? (I am aware that there’ll probably be many more than 25 chapters in my book, I know the Doc is using these 25 as key story chapters, not the only chapters)

Everything I’ve read, thus far, makes it clear that the 1st Plot-Point scene should be the last scene in ACT 1, but Doc Murphy seems to suggest that it belongs as the first scene in ACT 2.

No, I think the elements in red are subtitles for what comes after. So "first plot point" is chapters 7-9. (I think the fact that some of them share names with hero's journey elements is a red herring.)

As a personal opinion, I wouldn't be put off using this, at least for a first novel. Sometimes rigidly sticking to a definite structure can teach you a lot, and make the whole thing less overwhelming a prospect.

 

[tinkerdan]

I printed this off--it's on two pages--I threw it away.
What went wrong?

 

[ckatt]

I'm sure this isn't the advice you were looking for but...
Who is Derek murphy? Why do you want his advice on writing? One look at his website makes me think he is an entrepreneur whose business is targeted at creative types on social media and the like. I'm not saying that he can't have good advice but if the free resources he offers are unclear or confusing maybe you are better off looking else where.

 

[Ashley R]

Everything I’ve read, thus far, makes it clear that the 1st Plot-Point scene should be the last scene in ACT 1, but Doc Murphy seems to suggest that it belongs as the first scene in ACT 2.

The answer is either. It just depends. For a discussion on plotting using the 7 point plan: Dan Wells on Story Structure, part 1 of 5.

Brandon Sanderson also has a helpful lecture here: - 318R - #10 (Plotting).

Also, to the poo-pooahs, Derek Murphy has his own successful YouTube channel, and seems pretty legitimate to me.

If all of this falls under TL;DW: then to summarize:

Seven point novel structure.

Hook, plot turn 1 (there’s a problem), pinch (it’s not that problem, it’s this problem), Mid-point (try/fail cycles), pinch (the problem now is), plot turn 2 (I’ve fixed it), Resolution.

Or:

Character in a setting with a problem (3); try/fail, but things get worse; or try/succeed, but things get worse (2); Climax with success (1); Time jump and validation (1)

 

[Montero]

Derek Murphy's books are all about marketing and publishing books - he doesn't have a big list of successful novels to his name as compared to say Brandon Sanderson. So I'm another sceptic.

 

[Steve Harrison]

I am wary of anything gets in the way of writing. especially writing advice.

 

[The Big Peat]

I am not familiar with this method but on a look, I'd be inclined to treat those bits in red as either headings to mini-acts, or as transition scenes between the elements of the chapter and to place them in whichever chapter makes sense be it Pull Out Rug, Enemies & Allies, Both, or a different chapter in between. Or both. Whatever works for you. If you want more precision than that, I'd suggest asking the guy on twitter as he's the only guy who can answer with absolutely certainty on what he intends.

I do have to add that if you are truly unsatisfied with the lack of clarity, there are other similar plotting models out there that don't have that ambivalent ill-described line. But I think by and large you should be okay if you want to use it - looks very modern superhero-centric, so should work if your story heads in that direction.

 

[Toby Frost]

Honestly - these models have their place. But tell your story first - they can really get in the way of that

I agree.

I think this outline, while hugely over-detailed for my tastes (why 2 and 3, for instance?), might be of use for someone just starting out, but these things all tend to generate the same story (in different settings). They are designed to "hook" the reader with their structure, which is fine, but leaves out the fact that writing, setting and character can all do that, leaving the writer to tell whatever shape of story they want. The more detailed they get, the more restrictive they become.

And the reader/viewer starts to recognise the structure. How many times has the hero confided "I don't think I'm up to this" to a friend (19 and 20 on this sheet), and then turned out not to be up to it? Almost never. If we know that the hero will be up to it, despite his misgivings, what purpose does this scene actually have? (I think it humanises the hero and makes him more sympathetic, but it may well not raise any real doubts as to his success.)

A large number of stories have roughly this plot: Hero is ok. A problem appears. Smaller threats or challenges are defeated or evaded by the hero, in the process of which he learns things about himself, his allies or the problem. The threats become increasingly serious. The hero gathers allies, develops skills, makes a plan or somehow prepares to defeat the problem in one fell swoop. The plan is executed, and only just succeeds. The hero survives, the problem is defeated, but he is a changed man somehow, usually for the better. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with this, because it's loose enough to allow breathing room. That breathing room is very important.

One thing that these outlines do is to give the writer a good idea of what a formulaic plot looks like, so that they can tell when they are doing something that goes against reader expectations. That might be useful in itself, but perhaps more so to an experienced writer who might be less inclined to follow an outline of this sort.

 

[The Big Peat]

And the reader/viewer starts to recognise the structure. How many times has the hero confided "I don't think I'm up to this" to a friend (19 and 20 on this sheet), and then turned out not to be up to it? Almost never. If we know that the hero will be up to it, despite his misgivings, what purpose does this scene actually have? (I think it humanises the hero and makes him more sympathetic, but it may well not raise any real doubts as to his success.)

And yet they gobble it up again and again anyway. I'm sure we've all seen the beat sheet of Star Wars where someone crossed out the SW specific words and inserted the Harry Potter specific words, right? The MCUverse has become a multi-billion dollar industry on the back of this structure. If we're going to start advising writers what to do based on consumer reaction, I do not see any sane response other than "Learn to love common plot structure more than your mother and favourite pet combined". Obviously that's not the only reason any of us are writing (or we'd all be on screenplay forums) but if we're going to pay attention to this aspect, it's telling us to embrace structure (and yes, occasionally subvert it), not distance ourselves. I always find it intriguing how much novel writers to warn against getting too involved in structure while screenplay writers seem almost obsessed with it. A product of different disciplines? Or a product of different cultures where the paymasters are far more customer-orientated?

I have to say - not particularly aimed at you Toby - that there seems to be a fair amount of onetruewayism in this thread, that things like these are best kept at a distance and true writers ignore these structures and follow their heart alone. More power to everyone who does their best that way, but the idea that every writer is like that is one where the precise correlation between the information communicated and the facts insofar as they can be determined and demonstrated is such as to cause epistemological problems of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear. It is a lie. And there seems to me to be a major paradox in urging writers to follow "their" way by following the advice giver's way on this issue rather than their own. Maybe the intention is good, to save the OP from a potential mistake and frustration with strict story structure, but I think there's a good chance they could be urging him into a bigger mistake by disparaging what he wants to do.

 

[Steve Harrison]

And yet they gobble it up again and again anyway. I'm sure we've all seen the beat sheet of Star Wars where someone crossed out the SW specific words and inserted the Harry Potter specific words, right? The MCUverse has become a multi-billion dollar industry on the back of this structure. If we're going to start advising writers what to do based on consumer reaction, I do not see any sane response other than "Learn to love common plot structure more than your mother and favourite pet combined". Obviously that's not the only reason any of us are writing (or we'd all be on screenplay forums) but if we're going to pay attention to this aspect, it's telling us to embrace structure (and yes, occasionally subvert it), not distance ourselves. I always find it intriguing how much novel writers to warn against getting too involved in structure while screenplay writers seem almost obsessed with it. A product of different disciplines? Or a product of different cultures where the paymasters are far more customer-orientated?

Excuse the long post. I got carried away.

I've had a lot of experience writing (& trying to sell) novels and screenplays and conversely while I'm a big supporter of set structures in scripts, I hate them when applied to novel writing.

If - as I once did - you want to succeed in writing mainstream movies, formula is king. Though it ultimately didn't work out for me, I did have a heady period of nearly selling, which included several meetings with Hollywood producers. To me, they all seemed obsessed with structure and were keen to ask if I had read books like Christopher Vogler's The Hero's Journey and Story by Robert McKee (books I disliked intensely). The relief was palpable when I said yes, but it quickly became clear they hadn't actually read them.

Then they'd speak about originality and creativity and how they wanted 'unique & ground-breaking' scripts. But it's all bullsh**. What they crave is something exactly the same as everything else, only different. And if they can snag a star actor, different is optional. But if you prefer to write quirky, non-formulaic scripts, it may be more satisfying in terms of artistic endeavour, but you'd better be prepared to starve to death.

I was happy trying to write formulaic 'Hollywood' screenplays and I loved the challenge of working within those structural constraints, but when I see the same structural formulas applied to novel writing my blood boils inappropriately on behalf of all the new writers who are conned into believing anyone - including professional and successful novel writers - knows how to write a novel.

They know how they write their own novels, of course, but they don't know how you write yours. How you learn to write a novel is - obvious, I know - by writing a novel. By experimenting and discovering and making mistakes and going up blind alleys and becoming frustrated and abandoning projects and by finally reaching that Eureka! moment when you realise you can do it. Only you can write that novel. No one else.

And one other thing becomes apparent during the writing of that first novel. You will have to unlearn most of the advice you have absorbed prior to tackling the book and realise that all those how-to-write gurus and all those writers and wannabe writers who tell you what to do - driven by you-musts and you-can'ts - know absolutely nothing about how you should write your novel.

As much as movie producers want every screenplay to look the same, literary agents and publishers want untainted unique voices who bring something new to the craft. They want to see something rarely mentioned when creative writing is discussed in advice books, on writing boards and social media: creativity.

So, my opinion - certainly not advice - is that by throwing out the baby and the bathwater during the writing of that first novel, you learn far more about writing and yourself than you will from any outside source.

 

[HareBrain]

I wouldn't use such a framework, and I prefer novels that don't seem to have used it.

But, we're mostly experienced writers, and I wonder if we remember how it felt to have an idea for a first novel, but not the experience of knowing what to do with it. For some people the lack of structure can be overwhelming, and stop them writing at all. And it's not as if, at the start of your writing career, you sign a contract in blood committing yourself to one method forever more. It's not as if you even commit to that structure for that book.

It's a tool. It's not a great tool -- it's a tool most writers will probably work out to abandon quite quickly, like a 1" brush a watercolourist uses to lay down a wash at the start of the work and then paint over. But it might help some people who feel unready for the "use the force" (non-)method. It's only a starting point. But it might actually get some people started.

 

[Toby Frost]

Firstly, we're not writing scripts for superhero films, or, very likely, stories that will ever become films at all. I expect that they are two very different disciplines, not least because far more money hinges on one than the other. Successful books are being written now that take significant "risks" by not following the structure above. For every five people who love Becky Chambers' work, there seems to be one who thinks that her books are almost devoid of plot. If that is so, it is a significant deviation from the outline above, and it succeeds.

(Occasionally - not right now - I've seen people on this forum and wondered if they'd decided to write a novel because they couldn't make a film or a computer game. This doesn't work: the three disciplines are really quite different.)

Secondly, I think that the rough shape of the outline above can provide entertaining and satisfying stories. A greatly simplified version of this outline is quite useful. But the detail that this outline goes into is unnecessarily prescriptive. What happens if I decide to leave out steps 2 and 3 in a novel (not a big-budget comic book film)? Not much, I suspect.

Thirdly, I think there is something to be said for understanding the way that an unadventurous film would tell a story, because a lot of people are conditioned to see stories in that way. Knowing when you are coming up with something that will surprise readers or go against their expectations is useful. However, this can turn into a sort of meta-game where the author is trying to second guess the reader instead of telling the best story possible. So I would treat this with caution, although it could be of use.

 

[Venusian Broon]

I wouldn't use such a framework, and I prefer novels that don't seem to have used it.

But, we're mostly experienced writers, and I wonder if we remember how it felt to have an idea for a first novel, but not the experience of knowing what to do with it. For some people the lack of structure can be overwhelming, and stop them writing at all. And it's not as if, at the start of your writing career, you sign a contract in blood committing yourself to one method forever more. It's not as if you even commit to that structure for that book.

It's a tool. It's not a great tool -- it's a tool most writers will probably work out to abandon quite quickly, like a 1" brush a watercolourist uses to lay down a wash at the start of the work and then paint over. But it might help some people who feel unready for the "use the force" (non-)method. It's only a starting point. But it might actually get some people started.

This ^^^^

Purely an anecdote but I wanted to write as a hobby for years and for various reasons they ended in catastrophic failures. i.e. a few days of frenzied activity then a hitting a brick wall of what to do next, feeling totally discouraged or the ever present paranoia that results when you knew no one else doing writing.

Then I found a framework for writing in general with a basic approach to structure (and yes, some carrot and stick!). With using that, I discovered I could actually finish things and that started the ball going. If I hadn't used it in the first place I wouldn't be on this website talking about writing because I wouldn't be writing.

And one other thing becomes apparent during the writing of that first novel. You will have to unlearn most of the advice you have absorbed prior to tackling the book and realise that all those how-to-write gurus and all those writers and wannabe writers who tell you what to do - driven by you-musts and you-can'ts - know absolutely nothing about how you should write your novel.

....

So, my opinion - certainly not advice - is that by throwing out the baby and the bathwater during the writing of that first novel, you learn far more about writing and yourself than you will from any outside source.

Excellent post Steve, not long enough! However just to reiterate what I said above and to paraphrase what you said: I knew absolutely nothing about how I should write my novel at first. I needed that advice to start and I suspect there are others who were and are in the same position.

So in my eyes this advice was vitally important to my development. I had to have a nice fitted bath first before I could add the baby and bathwater (then throw it out if I wanted to ).

Now of course I got rid of ideas that didn't work for me personally, and through my experience and practice developed other ways. But even now, although I have no intention of writing a story regimented by a strict outline - say the hero's journey - I find them interesting to understand and to compare with my own writing. And if something catches my eye that I feel will make my writing better then I'll pinch it.

Learning to be self-reliant when writing is very, very important, of course, and I agree that everyone will have their own path that works for them. But dismissing everything outside may also result in flying babies and flooded bathroom floors.

 

[Peeling]

Breaking the rules is a lot more fun when you know what they are.