Can a good story be put in virtually any setting?

[Achernar]

Inspired by a thread on Star Trek movies this question is.

Shakespeare’s Hamlet is a good story. Many of us have seen Hamlet set in the 16th or 19th or 21st century without changing a word of dialogue, and it works. If we decided to change the actual lines, but stay true to the story itself, I don’t think it would be hard to make this classic revenge tale work as a western, or wizardry tale, or cop show, or saturday morning cartoon. I would say that the story of Hamlet can work in any setting.

So the question is, is Hamlet the exception or the rule? Can a good story necessarily be made to work in any setting?

I’m intentionally leaving a couple of things vague, like how much you can change and still have the same story, and what counts as a “setting”. I don’t want to be the one to decide these things. Just go with what you think of when you read the title of this thread.

[annaplurabelle]

So the question is, is Hamlet the exception or the rule? Can a good story necessarily be made to work in any setting?

I would say yes, although Hamlet is exceptional for other reasons (see below). For the most part, setting is secondary to story - it’s the possible storylines that are finite. One of the more famous theories about this is Polti’s 36 dramatic situations:

In Hollywood, it’s pretty much agreed that there are no new stories, only new treatments, new ways to execute the old stories. And then you do the sequel, of course.
That’s all well and good – but what are the old stories, anyway?
In 1868, Georges Polti, after an extensive survey of literature, declared that there were no more than 36 dramatic situations. Here, he said, was the stuff of human drama. No matter the tale, for it to be dramatic, it would invariably involve one of these 36 situations.

For the outline of all 36 situations click here. There are other theories about the possible number of storylines. For a brief overview click here:

…So perhaps there are two core plots. Then Vonnegut outlined the story of Hamlet, which has no standard structure and delivers “neither good news nor bad news”. Vonnegut concluded: “So, I have just proved to you that Shakespeare is as poor a storyteller as any quackydoodle.”

The Hamlet example has not stopped drama students over the decades from seeking the definitive list of plot structures, or from imagining that such a list will help them to create their own play, film, TV show or novel. The quest for fundamental storylines is the subject of countless books and articles in the field of literary criticism, and even in psychoanalysis.

In a 1959 book, The Basic Patterns of Plot, the American critic William Foster-Harris also plumped for three: happy ending, unhappy ending, and “the literary plot, in which, no matter whether we start from the happy or the unhappy fork, proceeding backwards we arrive inevitably at the question, where we stop to wail”. This may, finally, cover Hamlet.

[Achernar]

For those following along, here is a direct link to Polti’s 36. I haven’t read them all, but I consider the idea of a finite number of tales to be an interesting take on things. It may be right, but I’m not convinced yet. They strike me more as categories of stories or elements of stories than actual stories.

Hamlet would seem to be #4 - “VENGEANCE Taken For Kindred Upon Kindred”. Really, though, is The Lion King the same story as Hamlet just because they both fall into this category? I can definitely see how they share a lot, but there’s also a lot they don’t share.

The second article you link to says that stories actually exhibit more than one of the 36 Polti plots: “In Fellowship of the Ring, we see 5 (Pursuit), 7 (Falling prey to cruelty and misfortune), 9 (Daring enterprise), 20 (Self-sacrificing for an ideal) 30 (Ambition), and 31 (Conflict with a god).” This is what gives me the impression that they’re aspects or elements of a story.

More importantly, I think that whoever first said, “A good story can be put in virtually any setting” would not agree with the finite-story idea. It sounds to me like a guide to story writers, one thing to check if you want your creation to be good - can it be put in another setting? If there are a small number of stories, and thus every story can be put in virtually any setting, of what use is this guideline?

[annaplurabelle]

*Originally posted by Achernar *
**Hamlet would seem to be #4 - “VENGEANCE Taken For Kindred Upon Kindred”. Really, though, is The Lion King the same story as Hamlet just because they both fall into this category? I can definitely see how they share a lot, but there’s also a lot they don’t share.

The second article you link to says that stories actually exhibit more than one of the 36 Polti plots: “In Fellowship of the Ring, we see 5 (Pursuit), 7 (Falling prey to cruelty and misfortune), 9 (Daring enterprise), 20 (Self-sacrificing for an ideal) 30 (Ambition), and 31 (Conflict with a god).” This is what gives me the impression that they’re aspects or elements of a story.**

If the concept of the story can’t be described in 2 or 3 sentences (called a logline in Hollywood), the chances are it’s ill-conceived and/or poorly executed. Consider it from the perspective of a writer trying to “pitch” his work. Producers are inundated with pitches, and have the equivalent attention span of the general public (as in short). Producers want high concept stories because they are most likely to be popular (and make money). So yes, it’s likely that the Lion King was pitched as: “Think Hamlet meets The Jungle Book” - or something similarly hokey.

That’s not to say that there can’t be a subplot (the “B” story), and most of the time there will be (occasionally there can be more than one subplot a la Seinfeld the sitcom). But in most dramatic works, the “A” story is what drives the script and must be clearly defined and resolved.

**More importantly, I think that whoever first said, “A good story can be put in virtually any setting” would not agree with the finite-story idea. It sounds to me like a guide to story writers, one thing to check if you want your creation to be good - can it be put in another setting? If there are a small number of stories, and thus every story can be put in virtually any setting, of what use is this guideline? **

Your question was: Can a good story be made to work in any setting. Being able to alter the setting and still make the story work seems like an extremely useful guideline to me, if you’re aiming for good.

I think you’re confusing good and every in relation to finite. The theory is that good stories are finite. Not every story is good, and bad stories are less likely to be finite, if not technically infinite.

[biqu]

American anthropologist encounters cross-cultural misunderstandings when narrating the Hamlet story to the Tiv of West Africa. Usually classified as fiction, this article is nonetheless often cited as evidence that literary tastes are very dependent on culture.

[annaplurabelle]

"In Fellowship of the Ring, we see 5 (Pursuit), 7 (Falling prey to cruelty and misfortune), 9 (Daring enterprise), 20 (Self-sacrificing for an ideal) 30 (Ambition), and 31 (Conflict with a god)."

Okay, but what is the “A” story, or high concept?

If it’s not strong (or clear) enough to drive the narrative/script/film, it could be viewed (by some) as tedious, to say the least.
I did read one film review of LotR that said “It seems it’s just a bunch of guys in funny costumes walking across New Zealand. Verrry slowly.”

[Wumpus]

It depends on whether you’re talking about the basic plot–what happens–or the theme–the meaning of what happens.

When it comes to the basic plot elements, arguably all of them can be used in different settings.

When it comes to the meaning of the story, the short answer is “No” or perhaps, “Maybe, but only if the writer is prepared to go to a lot of extra effort to adapt it to the new setting.”

Take the story of King Arthur, Lancelot, and Queen Guinevere. Back when the story was first told, Lancelot’s affair with Guinevere was more than just a personal betrayal of her wedding vow and Lancelot’s friendship with Arthur.

According to the thinking of the day, Lancelot and Guinevere were committing some of the most serious offences imaginable. They were breaking their oath to their liege lord; they were committing an act of treason against their king; they defying the Church; and, ultimately, they were defying God. Given the enormity of the act, it’s no suprise that it has catastrophic consequences for the kingdom.

These days, we just don’t see those additional layers of meaning. So Lancelot is boinking Guinevere? Big deal; she gets a divorce and goes off with Lance, while Arthur goes on to acquire a new trophy wife and a new convertible to compensate. It might do as a small little tale of personal betrayal - but how on earth does a little infidelity turn into an epic story involving the fate of kingdoms? We moderns just don’t get it. (Which is why most Arthur-related adaptations since the swinging 1960s have flopped.)

So the same story elements have different meanings in different times and in different settings. The same goes for Hamlet; non-Christian cultures would find Hamlet’s moping about the afterlife rather odd, for example. And cultures where revenge was not only legal but a duty (and there have been many such cultures over the ages) would find Hamlet’s delays in the first part of the play to be rather scandalous. It would be like us watching a movie where the cop hero keeps calling in sick because he doesn’t want to deal with a complicated investigation.

[Number]

Cecil weighed in on this.

What are the seven basic literary plots?

See, this is the problem I have with all these schemata–first, no taxonomy can encompass everything in literature, and second, they don’t tell you anything beyond the obvious. A more useful approach would be to abandon the chimera of universality and focus on what works today. By this light it seems to me that the most useful divide is: Everybody Gets Killed (or at least the hero[ine] does, e.g., Hamlet, Thelma & Louise, Romeo and Juliet, The Wild Bunch, American Beauty, etc.) versus Only the Bad Guys Get Killed (the collected works of Spielberg, Lucas, et al.). The former leaves you thinking life sucks, whereas the latter has everybody walking out of the theater with a smile.

[AncientHumanoid]

I like Wumpus’ reasoning on this. How much backstory needs to be changed so the plot fits into a new setting?

Some stories can work in two (maybe more) compltely different settings because the story is so strong, it makes its point to any generation in any genre.

Take Romeo and Juliet. I’m guessing there is probably an earlier epic that Willy used to get his idea. That earlier story would’ve had a differnt setting. (maybe) I’ll have to do some research to see if my assumption is correct.

But, West Side Story is most definitely a different setting. And a different genre (musical). But the story is almost exactly the same and the point or theme is still as powerful, imho.

The remake Romeo + Juliet was also very effective as the same exact play, only a different setting.

Now, this is probably one of the easiest stories/plots to switch settings on, but, as I said inthe other thread, I think the answer to the OP depends on much you’re willing to change to make it fit the new setting.

In the morality theme of which Wump spoke, a rather lot would have to be written to make the point/theme fit a new setting. But, it’s just details and background info. The basic plot/story line can exist in multiple settings or genres.

So, are we talking about pulling up a story and dropping it almost untouched in a new setting? Or, using the same basic plots, motivations, character developements…, but substantially changing details?

I now see how the OP Q can be answered both yes or no.

Very interesting discussion, guys.

BTW, why is Achernar speaking like Yoda in the OP?

[Katisha]

*Originally posted by NoClueBoy *
**Take Romeo and Juliet. I’m guessing there is probably an earlier epic that Willy used to get his idea. That earlier story would’ve had a differnt setting. (maybe) I’ll have to do some research to see if my assumption is correct.
**

It’s ultimately derived from the story of Pyramus and Thisbe, which Shakespeare knew from Ovid – indeed, there’s a hilariously inept performance of a P&T play in A Midsummer Night’s Dream (which was written around the same time that R&J was, so the mechanicals’ production could be a bit of Shakespearean self-parody). His immediate source was a poem by Arthur Brooke called, in short, Romeus and Juliet – I can’t remember the long version of the title – and this source does have the same setting (Renaissance Verona) as Shakespeare’s play, though Shakespeare of course makes plenty of changes to it. This is where things get fuzzy – there are several more or less contemporary Italian versions of the same story; Brooke was translating one of these, but there were others in existence (I believe the story was often claimed to be a true one). It’s not certain what Shakespeare knew of them, though – the most important sources as far as Romeo and Juliet are concerned are Brooke and Ovid.

[Achernar]

*Originally posted by annaplurabelle *
If the concept of the story can’t be described in 2 or 3 sentences (called a logline in Hollywood), the chances are it’s ill-conceived and/or poorly executed. Consider it from the perspective of a writer trying to “pitch” his work. Producers are inundated with pitches, and have the equivalent attention span of the general public (as in short). Producers want high concept stories because they are most likely to be popular (and make money).

That’s fair, but is what “sells” in Hollywood really the same as what’s good? If so, then any story that takes five hours to tell is bad. And is the “pitch” necessarily the same as the story? The pitch for Traffic might be “Looking at the drug trafficking trade from several different points of view.” but that really doesn’t tell you anything about any of the storylines, does it?

I think you’re confusing good and every in relation to finite. The theory is that good stories are finite. Not every story is good, and bad stories are less likely to be finite, if not technically infinite.

Well, I didn’t get this impression. That Wordplay column doesn’t mention anything about good or bad stories. But if you’re right, can you name a single movie with a bad story that can’t be described by one of Polti’s 36? It seems to me that they’re so broad they could apply to any story, not just good ones.

[annaplurabelle]

*Originally posted by Achernar *
That’s fair, but is what “sells” in Hollywood really the same as what’s good?

No, not necessarily. But maybe the answer to your question depends on the perspective of the one asking:
1)The writer
2)The producer (or whoever is in a position to “buy” the writing)
3)The eventual/prospective audience or reader
(and btw, are we limiting this to scripted work or any category of fiction writing?).

And is the “pitch” necessarily the same as the story? The pitch for Traffic might be “Looking at the drug trafficking trade from several different points of view.” but that really doesn’t tell you anything about any of the storylines, does it?

Your example would be considered a bad pitch, IMO. The pitch isn’t just the subject of the story, but an attempt to ecapsulate the concept (or “theme”, if you prefer) within the subject/story in both an original and interesting way.

I’d still assert that if the writer can’t do that in less than 3 sentences, odds are the script is either ill conceived or poorly executed. This doesn’t just speak to whether or not the story is good, but whether or not the writer has a firm grasp of the story itself. A good story can be poorly told (not sure if you want to consider that result a “bad” story or not).

**Well, I didn’t get this impression. That Wordplay column doesn’t mention anything about good or bad stories. But if you’re right, can you name a single movie with a bad story that can’t be described by one of Polti’s 36? It seems to me that they’re so broad they could apply to any story, not just good ones. **

Wordplay is a site for wannabe scriptwriters who want to sell their work. From that perspective, “good” equals “saleable” or “successful”. A writer (or prospective writer) can use Polti’s 36 (or another theory) as a guideline to that end. Doesn’t necessarily guarantee the end result will be “good”, because there is another factor involved - individual writing talent. Again, a good story can be poorly told.

In film or theatre, the story itself is just one facet of the final production - there are plenty of bad movies/plays - doesn’t mean the story was bad, does it?

And of course, there are always “exceptions to the rule”, or debatable exceptions. My earlier cite claims that Hamlet is an exception (as in, not considered to be a “standard” good story).

Which prompts me to ask for a distinction that might need answering before the OP can be addressed further: What is the criteria (in the OP) for a “good” v. “bad” story? Why is Hamlet considered a good story?