Asian story structure: twist instead of conflict

[Brian G Turner]

alexvss posted a link to a nice resource in a recent profile post, which highlights a key difference between Western and Asian story structure. Simply put, while
modern Western stories often focus on conflict, where a protagonist has to overcome adversity to get what they want. Asian story structures instead focus on a twist in the 3rd act which changes everything.

Here's a good starter article about it:

Kishōtenketsu: Exploring The Four Act Story Structure - The Art of Narrative

Kishōtenketsu is a story told in four parts. Kishōtenketsu is a Japanese story structure that doesn’t need conflict to work. Learn to write without conflict

artofnarrative.com

Of course, there are a lot of generalizations going on here. However, I'm still struck by the story structure in the Anime film Your Name, which uses the third act twist to brilliant effect.

I thought some people might find this helpful as something to look into, because while a strong twist has often been used in short stories, it's tended not to be a main feature of Western novels.

 

[HareBrain]

I thought some people might find this helpful as something to look into, because while a strong twist has often been used in short stories, it's tended not to be a main feature of Western novels

I'd say the twist is near-essential to a fully satisfactory short story. (Or maybe I've been conditioned to think that, and it colours what I find satisfactory.)

The article is interesting, and it's always good to be shown that what we've taken for granted ain't necessarily so, but I'm struggling to see how it could translate to a novel. All the examples the article gives are short form (or very short form), and I don't think I've come across even a Japanese film that relied on a twist rather than conflict. Of course any length work can contain both, but I think the longer a work is, and the more investment it requires in the reader/viewer, the more difficult it is to have a twist create a fully satisfactory ending. Partly this is because to some extent it negates all the previous investment, which has been shown to be based on a false premise. Yes, there is intellectual satisfaction at the turnaround, and being able to adjust perception of previous events to fit, but the emotional investment in the misinterpreted build-up isn't paid off to the same extent.

I could be wrong, though, and I'd welcome examples to show I am.

 

[HareBrain]

I don't think I've come across even a Japanese film that relied on a twist rather than conflict.

Your Name was mentioned as an example, but I haven't seen it yet. It is on my Netflix to-watch list, though, and I might bump it up in response to this.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I don't think I've come across even a Japanese film that relied on a twist rather than conflict

Have you watched the Anime "Your Name"? It's an excellent film that highlights this use of structure. I was so impressed after watching it that I wondered how I could write a novel with the same type of structure, not realizing it was already a tradition.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Yes, it's very recommended.

Starts off looking like a teen drama, but when we hit Act 3...

 

[Brian G Turner]

Your Name was mentioned as an example, but I haven't seen it yet. It is on my Netflix to-watch list, though, and I might bump it up in response to this.

I would certainly recommend it.

It starts off looking like some routine teen drama/comedy. Then Act 3 hits and it becomes a completely different film.

 

[alexvss]

Oh, hello there!

They say that 99% of all movies follow the Save the Cat! Beatsheet (and some argue that 99% of novels do too), but have you considered that every single scene follows said beatsheet? Ditto for the three-arc structure. Even a dialogue may have beginning, middle and end.

I finished the second draft of the story a week ago (it's currently on critters.org's queue for critique). That story has a bigger four-arc, as well as mini-four-arcs on every scene. The character is introduced to something, it escalates, something unexpected happens, then there's a conclusion.

The only Asian novel I've ever read was Battle Royale (gotta change that), and it's been a while so I don't remember how it's structured. But I think that's how you write a four-arc novel: lots of smaller four-arcs inside a bigger four-arc.

Traditional Asian story structure rellies on twists instead of conflict, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have conflict. It often does. Lots and lots of conflict. They're just not important to the plot; they're there just for the fun. Think about Dragon Ball Z and its fights, or My Hero Academia, which every single chapter clearly follows the four-act structure.

Outlining with that structure made it very easy to draft the story. I was surprised how practical it was.

The hero's journey, on the other hand, although also very practical, can only be used on the whole of a story. You can't complete it in a single scene, and if you do it in a single novel, there's no place for sequels. That's why famous stories scatter that journey along a series of movies or novels. And they do that with a lot of different three-arcs.

 

[alexvss]

I'd say the twist is near-essential to a fully satisfactory short story. (Or maybe I've been conditioned to think that, and it colours what I find satisfactory.)

The article is interesting, and it's always good to be shown that what we've taken for granted ain't necessarily so, but I'm struggling to see how it could translate to a novel. All the examples the article gives are short form (or very short form), and I don't think I've come across even a Japanese film that relied on a twist rather than conflict. Of course any length work can contain both, but I think the longer a work is, and the more investment it requires in the reader/viewer, the more difficult it is to have a twist create a fully satisfactory ending. Partly this is because to some extent it negates all the previous investment, which has been shown to be based on a false premise. Yes, there is intellectual satisfaction at the turnaround, and being able to adjust perception of previous events to fit, but the emotional investment in the misinterpreted build-up isn't paid off to the same extent.

I could be wrong, though, and I'd welcome examples to show I am.

Two examples: The Handmaiden (2016) and A Tale of Two Sisters (2003).

The Handmaiden follows two points of view. The first half follows the title character's POV, and it goes on until a twist in the middle. For the second half, it switches to another character, doing the same structure all over again. It's two four-arcs.

A Tale of Two Sisters (2003) has an American remake (2009's The Uninvited), so it's an interesting case study! The original has a twist a little bit after the middle, and the rest is a long, boring denouement. They did just one four-arc structure. Now, the American remake pushes the twist until the last ten minutes or so. If you haven't watched the original (because you would know what would happen), your jaw drops and remains dropped for the whole credits.

It's similar to what I said about the hero's journey: if you use it all, you must start again with another character. The Psycho novel does that.

It seems to me that Western stories like to show the twist in the very end. Think about Sixth Sense (1999) or Primal Fear (1996) or Shutter Island (2010) or Seven (1995) or Goodnight Mommy (2014). If you're in the movie theater, you go the bathroom with your jaw dropped. Asian movies, on the other hand, twist in the third-act, then alongate for another arc (or start all over). That's a generalization, of course. Shutter (2001) is a Thai movie with a jarring twist at the end. And 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) has a twist for a midpoint (ok, it has another one at the end, but still).

 

[HareBrain]

It seems to me that Western stories like to show the twist in the very end. Think about Sixth Sense (1999)

Yes, after I posted above, I thought of this film. However, for me, it's an example of the twist structure not really working for a long work, because it ditches all the emotional investment in Willis's character's situation in favour of one flashy "oooh!" gimmick. And it felt a cheat -- I've only ever seen it once, so my memory might be slightly off, but I recall one scene in which he's apparently talking across the table to his wife, except that as far as she's concerned, he isn't there (the film reveals later). BUT all through that conversation the director is at pains to make sure she acts as if he might be there, even if she never actually speaks to him -- making apparent eye contact etc. If you watch that scene with the knowledge that as far as she's concerned, there's nothing in front of her**, her behaviour doesn't ring true. (And even if Willis's character is a bit deluded, would he really not notice that his own wife doesn't make eye contact throughout the conversation?)

**Even though I've only seen it once, this was in fact what I did, because I knew the twist in advance.

 

[Astro Pen]

Interesting.
(I admit I skimmed that, I'll explore further later)
Whilst I have followed western convention in my novels I like to add a twist. The good guy becomes the bad guy or the or a key piece of knowledge flips the built scenario on it's head. I think The Magus was influential in encouraging that "things are not as they seem" pivot.

I'd agree with @alexvss that the 'hero's journey' is a sequel killer, however I am not a fan of sequels, preferring stand alones. Not that you can't leave a door open at the end of a novel, but the next volume won't be 'hero's journey 2', it will be 'what hero did next.'

 

[Chris 1978]

Really enjoyed that film, I'm trying to remember the twist you're talking about though...never been great at remembering plots! I should watch it again really.

Thanks for the informative link, very interesting and I learned something new.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I wonder if the originally South Korean film Old Boy is another example of this story structure?

 

[Toby Frost]

This sounds rather like the structure of a long joke, where there's a basic setup, an expansion of the concept, and then a twist in the form of the punchline that changes the meaning of what's gone before. In some Western strip cartoons (Garfield springs to mind) the last thing you see is someone reacting to the punchline, which is a kind of 4th act.

However, the trouble with twists is that you get used to them and they start to distract from the actual drama. I guessed the twist to The Village from the trailer, purely because it seemed the most unlikely thing that could happen. Unlike a joke or urban legend, the story has to hold up before the twist (and therefore be interesting without it).

Something I like is a mixture of the two: a traditional three-act structure overall, with one or more smaller twists in the course of the story that change the method that the story will be resolved, but don't alter the need to resolve it. I wonder if this is what you see in detective stories, where suspicion moves from person to person.

 

[leorising]

First post, but super interesting info! This puts Haruki Murakami's novels into a very illuminating space. I finally understand his narrative structures which I always loved. Truly, a character not having to suffer trauma in a story to grow is such a startling realization to come to.

I'm gonna go back and try to finish Yukio Mishima's Sea of Fertility and see if this information contextualizes the book for me.

 

[JunkMonkey]

The Handmaiden follows two points of view. The first half follows the title character's POV, and it goes on until a twist in the middle. For the second half, it switches to another character, doing the same structure all over again. It's two four-arcs.

Just to note The Handmaiden, though a Korean film, is an adaptation of the novel Fingersmith by English author Sarah Waters. The film simplifies the latter part of the book considerably and does away with a lot of the twists in it.

 

[alexvss]

Just to note The Handmaiden, though a Korean film, is an adaptation of the novel Fingersmith by English author Sarah Waters. The film simplifies the latter part of the book considerably and does away with a lot of the twists in it.

I never read the source material, but I knew it was an adaptation of an English novel. So it seems that they not only changed the novel's theme to Japanese occupation of Korea, but they also changed the structure to fit a more traditional Korean structure. Interesting.

 

[Venusian Broon]

I'd say the twist is near-essential to a fully satisfactory short story. (Or maybe I've been conditioned to think that, and it colours what I find satisfactory.)

The article is interesting, and it's always good to be shown that what we've taken for granted ain't necessarily so, but I'm struggling to see how it could translate to a novel. All the examples the article gives are short form (or very short form), and I don't think I've come across even a Japanese film that relied on a twist rather than conflict. Of course any length work can contain both, but I think the longer a work is, and the more investment it requires in the reader/viewer, the more difficult it is to have a twist create a fully satisfactory ending. Partly this is because to some extent it negates all the previous investment, which has been shown to be based on a false premise. Yes, there is intellectual satisfaction at the turnaround, and being able to adjust perception of previous events to fit, but the emotional investment in the misinterpreted build-up isn't paid off to the same extent.

I could be wrong, though, and I'd welcome examples to show I am.

I would, offering only anecdotal evidence, fully agree with you that rhein western short story market seems predominantly 'twist' stories since the year dot.

However Brian did say the Modern short, and it's been a while since I've had a good look at current short stories.

Hence, I too kinda expect a twist to appear, of some form, otherwise it takes a lot for a short to grab me. Tis my age showing.

 

[JunkMonkey]

I never read the source material, but I knew it was an adaptation of an English novel. So it seems that they not only changed the novel's theme to Japanese occupation of Korea, but they also changed the structure to fit a more traditional Korean structure. Interesting.

It is a couple of years since I read the book but the theme setting up the Japanese occupiers' 'social superiority' over the local Korean population seemed a fair translation of the differences between the book's rigid English social strata. (The book is set in the Victorian era where social mobility was nigh on impossible.) But the structure, which swaps narrators, is there in the book. Just simplified towards the end.

It's a damn good book. As are all Sarah Waters' novels. I can thoroughly recommend it.

 

[Bramandin]

Would My Neighbor Totoro fit into this structure? Fun stuff happens though it doesn't seem to be tightly driving the plot, then Mei runs away after Satsuki yells at her, Tortoro helps Satsuki find Mei, then things are normal again.

 

[The Judge]

The article is interesting, and it's always good to be shown that what we've taken for granted ain't necessarily so, but I'm struggling to see how it could translate to a novel. ... I think the longer a work is, and the more investment it requires in the reader/viewer, the more difficult it is to have a twist create a fully satisfactory ending. Partly this is because to some extent it negates all the previous investment, which has been shown to be based on a false premise. Yes, there is intellectual satisfaction at the turnaround, and being able to adjust perception of previous events to fit, but the emotional investment in the misinterpreted build-up isn't paid off to the same extent.

I obviously saw this thread last year, but for some reason it didn't occur to me then that I'd actually read a novel with such a twist ending -- The Last Time They Met by Anita Shreve -- which to my mind confirms everything you've said. It was rather too self-consciously literary for my taste with attempted fine writing which just came over as pretentious, and I didn't take to either of the two main characters, but the twist at the very end of the book vitiates everything we've been told about them meeting for the first time in years in early middle age in Part One and their adulterous affair years earlier in Part Two (it jumps back in time, and in Part Three they're teenagers meeting for the first time), and it actually warps what is meant to be seen as wonderful lifelong love, making it rather less wholesome.

Spoiler: Gives away the ending

We're told that a road traffic accident when they were teenagers separated them. Well, yes it did, because she died in it. The whole of Parts One and Two are his excessively detailed fantasy about might have happened had she lived, which seems somewhat necro-stalkerish to me.