The way I remember Tolstoy saying it was “There are only two real stories: Someone goes on a journey, a stranger comes to town.” Looking at that phrasing, it could almost be considered that their different POVs on the same thing: if you’re the journey-er (and you come to a town), then it’s story one, but if you’re someone from town (and a stranger/journey-er shows up) then it’s story two.
Heinlein’s list only had three entries, so you’ve already got the whole schlemazl.
As I recall, he preferred “The Brave Little Tailor” and called #3 “Boy Meets Girl,” but otherwise they’re as you listed.
And I came here deliberately to post them, so you beat one person, at least!
Could someone please explain “The Brave Little Tailor”? What does that mean?
Go Protect It could actually be considered a subset of Go Get It or Go Kill It, depending upon whether the Protector uses fight or flight as a means for protection.
Go Protect It could actually be considered a subset of Go Get It or Go Kill It, depending upon whether the Protector uses fight :mad: or flight :eek: as a means for protection.
Irishman:
The Brave Little Tailor is a fairy tale (sorry – when I originally posted I left out the “Brave”) about a meek tailor who is overheard saying “I killed seven with one blow!” He was referring to flies, but the townspeople thought he was referring to men or giants, so he is sent out to kill the giant that threatens the town. Disney made a cartoon out of this, starring Mickey Mouse as the tailor. In the original, the tailor has a series of adventures in which he overcomes his adversaries through cunning and cleverness rather than brute strength. So Heinlein saw this as a typical story line, in which our hero overcomnes obstacles in clever ways to achieve his goal. Not incidentally, he usually gains self-confidence and recognition as well.
Fellow role-players, how about “Go gather information”? Is that a subset of “Go get it”? Or “Go deliver it”? And what about “Escape” and/or “Survive”?
Huh. You folks are clearly ignoring George Stevens 1953 western classic, SHANE.
Now THERE’S a plot that bursts through ALL the boundaries and cliches.
A friend of mine had this very odd book called something like “Plot It” that was a collection of possible story plots in very terse form. There were probably millions of plots “contained” in the book (it wasn’t just a listing, it was more of an algorithm and some data to drive it). The surprising thing was that the book actually had some interesting plots in it that I had never seen (and probably even some that had never been written up). I doubt that it was a useful book in any way, but curious.
Has anyone else ever seen this book? Do you recall the actual title?
If my movie plots are not plots how come virtually all hollywood movies re-cycle them. Some of what i wrote
was off the cuff, but surely the sports movie and the
prom night have become archetypal ie 'plots"
Uke: Shane is, in the various classification systems,
Stuff Happens
Man vs. Man
Go Kill It
The Man who Learned Better
Action/War
A Stranger Comes to Town
Revenge
I could be off on a few of those (it’s been eight years since I read Shane), but it certainly fits in a few of the categories.
I think all the confusion on this point, as in most cases, boils down to confusion in terminology - specifically, what is meant by “plot”.
Various definitions are in play without agreement as to which is the intended one. For instance, types of conflict (i.e. man vs man) vs. the types of adventure (go kill it vs. go get it).
A lot of what is being argued/discussed comes down to how precise you want to be about plot.
riverman’s examples are closest to what I would think of as “plots”. The others fall more under “types of story”, but not really plots.
For instance, a plot would be:
Some rich/powerful/eccentric/governmental official has some dubious mission. He gathers a small team of crack commandos/ wiley spys/ tough and sneaky expert whatevers that are iconoclasts and individualistic and loners to take on the adventure. This team has internal clashes as they have to learn to work together. The set out on the adventure, running into trouble and causing more trouble by not helping each other. They must face the bad guy and his huge army of lackies. The heros find that they must unite and work together to defeat the enemy, who turns out to be the person that set them on the adventure in the first place. The heros win, but one of them sacrifices his/her life to save the others.
Whereas instead of plots, I could list a set of plot devices, or story elements.
true love
betrayal
mortal enemies
brooding loner
secret villain
big monster
hidden talisman/map
It really boils down to what’s being asked. My 2 cents.
Cecil is right to note that there can be as many ‘basic’ plots you want, depending on how fine a level of classification you want to apply. Big lists (60 plots!) refract the grains of a story into smaller pieces, but tend to be too analytical for their own good. Smaller lists (2 plots! 1 plot!) save on typing, but succeed only as exercises in bland generality.
Let’s dispense with some confusions. ‘Plot’ and ‘structure’ are two different things, but can be related. Sequences such as ‘exposition \ development \ tension \ resolution’ and so on are attempts to define elements of structure, not plot. There are many possible structures, some more widely used than others, and one can apply almost any structure to any plot.
There have eben several references to Aristotle, his ‘Poetics’ and classical scholarship in general. Aristotle was not trying to distinguish or classify plots. He was distilling the state-of-the-art at the time, and was the first (so far as we know) to analyse some structural aspects of drama e.g. he said ‘successful’ plays would obey the unities of time and place (e.g. one hour in the hero’s life equals one hour in ours), and embrace the notion of ‘catharsis’ (i.e. the audience achieve a moral progress through witnessing the drama as opposed to perpetrating heroic acts themselves).
Drama as we know it in the western world is almost entirely rooted in early religious texts and plays. There were two basic plots: salvation (hero achives the moral good, and is reconciled with God) or damnation (er… the opposite). More secular forms of drama emerged only very slowly during the 17th and 18 centuries. The old divide between salvation and damnation became transmuted into two possible resolutions: wedding or death. The hero either achieves the love of his life (with the implication of children, hence birth, new life, continuation) or he dies (death, no new life, no continuation).
Salvation \ wedding plots became known as ‘comedies’ while the others became known as ‘tragedies’. Lots of people who first study Shakespeare’s ‘comedies’ are puzzled - if they are comedies, why aren’t they funny? But in his day, ‘comedy’ didn’t have the modern association of ‘laughter’, it simply meant the hero attained salvation or romantic happiness, as opposed to damnation \ death.
Over time, more variety has entered the frame by way of ongoing evolution, and this is where we encounter these often misleading lists of ‘basic’ plots. It is useful to consider different genres spearately, since different media have evolved their own priorities. The ‘basic plots’ of the Hollywood movie industry are rather different than those found on the modern stage, or in contemporary novels, or in TV dramas. We all know how difficult it is for a success in one genre to be translated into another - the bestseller being made into a movie hit etc. - and this difficulty reflects the fact that the different dramatic genres function very differently. However, literary plots are a good place to start, as they do provide the basis for many other genres.
Errr… Shakespeare’s comedies are funny. And the transition to secular drama was pretty complete in the 16th century. And most earlier, religious, drama was hardly as described, being more commonly straightforward presentation of biblical stories, often with a certain amount of comedy mixed in. (Noah’s bitchy wife, the Christmas shepherds’ encounters with a sheep thief…)
The literary critic Northrop Frye lists four basic plots in his book Anatomy of Criticism: comedy (good things happen to everybody in the end); romance (good triumphs over evil unambiguously); tragedy (bad things happen to everybody in the end); and satire (the good do not prosper, no good deed goes unpunished, line between good and evil unclear). The use of the word “comedy” does not refer to the term in its modern ha-ha sense, but to any plot that ends happily for everyone. “Romance” does not refer to Harlequin novels, but to its older definition of stories about knights triumphing over evil. Action movies, where the good guy vanquishes all the baddies without so much as a scratch, would be the “romances” of today.
And just to add to all the various literary sources, there is Jorge Luis Borges’ list – made within one of his short pieces, so it may, bit very likely may not, be his own position – of the 4 stories worth telling:
A siege/battle
A return home
A quest
The death and rebirth of god(s).
jonp’s reference to Frye is quite good in regard to 4 basic kinds of story, independent from plot.
BTW, when I learned conflicts, I learned them as Man vs. Man(external), Man vs. Self, Man vs. Nature, Man vs. Fate.