Scan barcode
glendonrfrank's review against another edition
5.0
It's genuinely very funny that this took me twice as long to read as War and Peace.
A year ago now I fulfilled a long-held dream of reading Campbell's "Hero With A Thousand Faces" and found myself irrevocably disappointed. Instead of a revolutionary textbook on art and structure, I found a muddied, colonial reshaping of religion into a toothless self-help narrative. Shortly into "Story" I realized that this, instead, was the book I had long been waiting for. McKee is constantly instructive, entertaining, insightful, and surprisingly simple, trading Campbell's Oedipal obsessions with the basic question: what moves people? The art of story is, more often than not, an emotional one, and McKee's explorations of story structure and mechanics always drive into finding the sense of humanity within everything.
In my work recently I have been on occasion running into high school students looking for the best college in which to become a screenwriter, and my McKee-informed answer is in essence that going to school specifically for screenwriting is a waste of time. With books like this, anyone could become a competent screenwriter; the important thing is, do you know how to tell a story? McKee's book crosses all sorts of boundaries - it may be focused on film, but his core points hold universally true for any medium of writing. When I call this the ultimate writing textbook, I don't mean that it's stodgy or unwieldy, I mean that it's so innately practical and accessible that I can't imagine not relying on it for my entire future. McKee doesn't just hit the nail on the head, he shows you how to build the entire porch. Simply a phenomenal read.
Anyways, I'm about to not be working 12-hour shifts every day, so I'm excited to actually get back to reading and ignore how much the past couple months have devastated by Goodreads metrics.
A year ago now I fulfilled a long-held dream of reading Campbell's "Hero With A Thousand Faces" and found myself irrevocably disappointed. Instead of a revolutionary textbook on art and structure, I found a muddied, colonial reshaping of religion into a toothless self-help narrative. Shortly into "Story" I realized that this, instead, was the book I had long been waiting for. McKee is constantly instructive, entertaining, insightful, and surprisingly simple, trading Campbell's Oedipal obsessions with the basic question: what moves people? The art of story is, more often than not, an emotional one, and McKee's explorations of story structure and mechanics always drive into finding the sense of humanity within everything.
In my work recently I have been on occasion running into high school students looking for the best college in which to become a screenwriter, and my McKee-informed answer is in essence that going to school specifically for screenwriting is a waste of time. With books like this, anyone could become a competent screenwriter; the important thing is, do you know how to tell a story? McKee's book crosses all sorts of boundaries - it may be focused on film, but his core points hold universally true for any medium of writing. When I call this the ultimate writing textbook, I don't mean that it's stodgy or unwieldy, I mean that it's so innately practical and accessible that I can't imagine not relying on it for my entire future. McKee doesn't just hit the nail on the head, he shows you how to build the entire porch. Simply a phenomenal read.
Anyways, I'm about to not be working 12-hour shifts every day, so I'm excited to actually get back to reading and ignore how much the past couple months have devastated by Goodreads metrics.
lukedaloop's review against another edition
3.0
A great into to screenwriting and what it takes to create a great story.
danlandreads's review against another edition
5.0
Lots of tools described in this book apply to prose writing as well. McKee presents elements that elevate writing with logical reasoning and examples. A must read for anyone who writes.
<>
<
adamskiboy528491's review against another edition
5.0
"First of all, you write a screenplay without conflict or crisis, you'll bore your audience to tears. Secondly, 'nothing happens in the world'? Are you out of your f--king mind? People are murdered every day. There's genocide, war, corruption. Every f--king day, somewhere in the world, somebody sacrifices his life to save somebody else. Every f--king day, someone, somewhere takes a conscious decision to destroy someone else. People find love, people lose it. For Christ's sake, a child watches a mother beaten to death on the steps of a church. Someone goes hungry. Somebody else betrays his best friend for a woman. If you can't find that stuff in life, then you, my friend, don't know crap about life. And why the f--k are you wasting my two precious hours with your movie? I don't have any use for it! I don't have any bloody use for it!" — McKee, “Adaptation.”
Story: Substance, Structure, Style and The Principles of Screenwriting is a 1999 book by Robert McKee about the elements at work in stories. Primarily concerned with film and television (McKee was a story analyst for United Artists and NBC back in the 80s), the text claims to apply to all storytelling mediums, such as stage plays and novels. Story borrows heavily from older texts, most specifically Aristotle's Poetics; McKee notes this, but often suggests the older work is essential if a proper understanding of narrative techniques is desired. Rather than defining story structure through rigid paradigms or formulas, Story has a very flexible framework with plenty of deep philosophy into what goes behind storytelling.
To limit the limitless possibilities of a story, you first need creative limitations to act as guard rails, so you don't fall off the road to your best possible story. They are made up of...
Placement on the Story Structure Spectrum: Is the story archetypal/realistic, minimalist, absurdist, or a combination?
Setting: Where does the story occur? When does it take place? For how long? What's the inherent level of conflict?
Genre: What is the story's focus? What are the medium and the limits of that medium? Is there a combination of genres?
Characters: What are my characters like on the surface? What will they do under pressure to get what they want? As McKee writes, "Likability is no guarantee of audience involvement; it's merely an aspect of characterisation" , whilst sometimes "the audience's emotional involvement is held by the glue of empathy."
Value Charge: The lifeblood of a story, as changes in values (life to death or death to life, hope to despair, love to hate, etc.) create the very substances from which we shape pleasurable or painful experiences. What is at stake in my story? How can I express what is at stake in my story? How can I fairly show all sides of the value?
A pattern emerges when you look at how value charges change within stories, resulting in the following five parts...
The Inciting Incident: The protagonist's life is more or less in the balance until something happens to throw a value charge in his/her life out of balance, either positive or negative. This first turning point sends the character on a quest to obtain an object of desire to restore the balance of life. They may have a conscious desire, or they might also have a contradictory unconscious desire.
Rising Conflict: The character will take a small, conservative step based on their experience of life, only to find that it won't work. Taking a risk, they take a more extensive action. It may work for the time being and bring the value back to the positive, but that brings about repercussions and new situations that force the character to take larger and more significant actions.
Crisis: Once the character has exhausted all of his/her options, they're left with one final method to achieve their object of desire to restore the balance of life. This action takes the character to the climax. A crisis can be placed anywhere in the story. When placed within the climax, one final action solves the story. When placed before the climax, it fills the final Act or final Sequence with climatic action. When placed at the very beginning, you get an entire story of relentless pursuit of the object of desire, typical of action films.
Climax: The most meaningful event of the story, expressing the controlling value with one final action. The climax can result in an idealistic ending, ending on the positive and celebrating the good in life. The climax can result in a downbeat ending, ending on the negative and reminding us of the horrors and perils of life. The climax can also end on two opposite charges, creative and Ironic Ending, which can be mostly good or bad.
Resolution: The after-effects of the story, which can be used to clear up any remaining loose ends.
The rest of the book goes into detail about the designing philosophies of each of these parts, how to use them, how to avoid pitfalls and other problems, and more.
The "Controlling Idea" is the story's main lesson, illustrated through how the different scenes play it straight, why it doesn't, why both sides are wrong, and who is worse than all sides combined. Discussed in the epilogue how writers who understand the principles of a story should not worry about how they write but continue doing what they've been doing with more excellent skill and insight.
Story: Substance, Structure, Style and The Principles of Screenwriting is a 1999 book by Robert McKee about the elements at work in stories. Primarily concerned with film and television (McKee was a story analyst for United Artists and NBC back in the 80s), the text claims to apply to all storytelling mediums, such as stage plays and novels. Story borrows heavily from older texts, most specifically Aristotle's Poetics; McKee notes this, but often suggests the older work is essential if a proper understanding of narrative techniques is desired. Rather than defining story structure through rigid paradigms or formulas, Story has a very flexible framework with plenty of deep philosophy into what goes behind storytelling.
To limit the limitless possibilities of a story, you first need creative limitations to act as guard rails, so you don't fall off the road to your best possible story. They are made up of...
Placement on the Story Structure Spectrum: Is the story archetypal/realistic, minimalist, absurdist, or a combination?
Setting: Where does the story occur? When does it take place? For how long? What's the inherent level of conflict?
Genre: What is the story's focus? What are the medium and the limits of that medium? Is there a combination of genres?
Characters: What are my characters like on the surface? What will they do under pressure to get what they want? As McKee writes, "Likability is no guarantee of audience involvement; it's merely an aspect of characterisation" , whilst sometimes "the audience's emotional involvement is held by the glue of empathy."
Value Charge: The lifeblood of a story, as changes in values (life to death or death to life, hope to despair, love to hate, etc.) create the very substances from which we shape pleasurable or painful experiences. What is at stake in my story? How can I express what is at stake in my story? How can I fairly show all sides of the value?
A pattern emerges when you look at how value charges change within stories, resulting in the following five parts...
The Inciting Incident: The protagonist's life is more or less in the balance until something happens to throw a value charge in his/her life out of balance, either positive or negative. This first turning point sends the character on a quest to obtain an object of desire to restore the balance of life. They may have a conscious desire, or they might also have a contradictory unconscious desire.
Rising Conflict: The character will take a small, conservative step based on their experience of life, only to find that it won't work. Taking a risk, they take a more extensive action. It may work for the time being and bring the value back to the positive, but that brings about repercussions and new situations that force the character to take larger and more significant actions.
Crisis: Once the character has exhausted all of his/her options, they're left with one final method to achieve their object of desire to restore the balance of life. This action takes the character to the climax. A crisis can be placed anywhere in the story. When placed within the climax, one final action solves the story. When placed before the climax, it fills the final Act or final Sequence with climatic action. When placed at the very beginning, you get an entire story of relentless pursuit of the object of desire, typical of action films.
Climax: The most meaningful event of the story, expressing the controlling value with one final action. The climax can result in an idealistic ending, ending on the positive and celebrating the good in life. The climax can result in a downbeat ending, ending on the negative and reminding us of the horrors and perils of life. The climax can also end on two opposite charges, creative and Ironic Ending, which can be mostly good or bad.
Resolution: The after-effects of the story, which can be used to clear up any remaining loose ends.
The rest of the book goes into detail about the designing philosophies of each of these parts, how to use them, how to avoid pitfalls and other problems, and more.
The "Controlling Idea" is the story's main lesson, illustrated through how the different scenes play it straight, why it doesn't, why both sides are wrong, and who is worse than all sides combined. Discussed in the epilogue how writers who understand the principles of a story should not worry about how they write but continue doing what they've been doing with more excellent skill and insight.
laurenstrick's review against another edition
informative
inspiring
medium-paced
4.5
Anyone anyone telling any type of story can learn from this!
ladyk23's review against another edition
3.0
It’s not an exaggeration to say it took me two years to read this book. I added it to my ‘currently reading’ list on November 9th 2019 and I finished it in September this year. Now, I hope it goes without saying that I was not constantly reading this every day of those almost two years, but it’s also fair to say that when I did pick it up in those intervening years, it was a real slog to get through.
In part that's because of the subject matter. You do really want to take in what McKee is teaching you about the craft of screenwriting, but he really doesn't make it easy for you to do that.
There’s no synopsis for this as it’s a book that basically teaches you the dos and don’ts of writing a screenplay. And I can definitely see lots of merits with this book, so I’m in no way saying it’s bad or not to read it. Especially if you have an interest in screenwriting. But it is quite outdated in both its approach, and in what it has to say on the subject too.
Some of the recommendations contained within its pages are still relevant and pretty solid advice, but a lot of it goes into too much detail, is overly wordy, and if I am honest, as a woman, I found the authors decision to use “He/Him” pronouns whenever he was talking about “the writer” really sexist. It made it that much harder for me to relate to being the person who might be submitting said screenplay because I am not a “he/him”. How difficult would it have been to just write “they”? And how much more inclusive to your audience Mr McKee?
Around a year after I was kindly given this book by my brother (I am grateful – it was a thoughtful gift), I was gifted another writing tome, ‘On Writing’ by Stephen King. I didn’t want to start that one until I finished this book however, but now I am really keen to compare the two.
I suspect as ‘On Writing’ is more of a memoir that I will prefer that anyway. And as a fan of Mr King’s work I will be interested to find out more about him personally too. But I think I will especially prefer his book, over a book that seems to think the only writers in this world are men. *eyeroll*
It’s absolutely fascinating to me that both people I’ve heard say wonderful things about this book are men. And it also makes me wonder if other women/non-binary people who have read this (if there are any) have also struggled with it on the simple basis of the decision to use only masculine pronouns throughout (unless McKee is specifically talking about a woman in a scene that is).
It’s a shame as I think otherwise I’d have absorbed this book like a sponge, but instead I just found it seemed more like it was trying to mansplain to me, and rather archaic.
In part that's because of the subject matter. You do really want to take in what McKee is teaching you about the craft of screenwriting, but he really doesn't make it easy for you to do that.
There’s no synopsis for this as it’s a book that basically teaches you the dos and don’ts of writing a screenplay. And I can definitely see lots of merits with this book, so I’m in no way saying it’s bad or not to read it. Especially if you have an interest in screenwriting. But it is quite outdated in both its approach, and in what it has to say on the subject too.
Some of the recommendations contained within its pages are still relevant and pretty solid advice, but a lot of it goes into too much detail, is overly wordy, and if I am honest, as a woman, I found the authors decision to use “He/Him” pronouns whenever he was talking about “the writer” really sexist. It made it that much harder for me to relate to being the person who might be submitting said screenplay because I am not a “he/him”. How difficult would it have been to just write “they”? And how much more inclusive to your audience Mr McKee?
Around a year after I was kindly given this book by my brother (I am grateful – it was a thoughtful gift), I was gifted another writing tome, ‘On Writing’ by Stephen King. I didn’t want to start that one until I finished this book however, but now I am really keen to compare the two.
I suspect as ‘On Writing’ is more of a memoir that I will prefer that anyway. And as a fan of Mr King’s work I will be interested to find out more about him personally too. But I think I will especially prefer his book, over a book that seems to think the only writers in this world are men. *eyeroll*
It’s absolutely fascinating to me that both people I’ve heard say wonderful things about this book are men. And it also makes me wonder if other women/non-binary people who have read this (if there are any) have also struggled with it on the simple basis of the decision to use only masculine pronouns throughout (unless McKee is specifically talking about a woman in a scene that is).
It’s a shame as I think otherwise I’d have absorbed this book like a sponge, but instead I just found it seemed more like it was trying to mansplain to me, and rather archaic.