I have wondered for some time about the
presence of the Golden Segment in literature. Those of us who like literature
certainly recognise that stories presented in literary form have a shape that
includes a beginning, a middle that follows certain conventions, but not too
strictly, and an end. If these are out of balance we notice. But is this a
learned response or is it natural?
The presence of the Fibonacci
series in nature tends to suggest that we are dealing with something natural
here. This series of numbers can be traced in the patterns of sunflower seeds,
in rabbits breeding and in branch formation in plants and trees, to give just a
handful of examples. In this experiment I have set out to work with this series.
One might sub-title this novel “Writing by Numbers”. The first chapter is one
word long, the final one is 28,657. I have labelled each chapter simply by the
number in the series it represents.
In doing this I’ve not
completely ruled out my normal way of planning fiction. Distilled from various
story theories I find work for me, and in particular that of Robert McKee, the
shape I favour is:
Inciting incident
Growing complexities (usually
three)
Crisis
Climax (This is actually the
gap between the crisis and the resolution and generally where all the
excitement is. From this point onwards life can never be quite the same again
for the protagonist, however the story resolves. Everything up to now was a
rehearsal for this big moment.)
Resolution
A more complex novel – and Fibbin’ Archie is complex – will have
sub plots. How sub plots relate to the main plot is also to do with the Golden
Segment. Andrew Melrose identifies a plot pyramid in Write For Children and I build upon that work in Writing for Young Adults.
The Fibonacci series anyway produces the Golden Segment. We see this in
the ratio of any two adjacent numbers in the series to their sum. That is there
in the formula described above. There are echoes of it in the three act
structure and the five act structure from the world of film and television and the
slightly different version of this in stage play.
This is how I worked the mathematics out for Archie.
1,597
|
4,180
|
Inciting incident
|
|||
2,584
|
6,764
|
||||
4,181
|
10,945
|
1
|
|||
6,765
|
17,710
|
2
|
|||
10,946
|
28,656
|
3
|
|||
17,711
|
46,367
|
60019 crisis
|
|||
28,657
|
75,024
|
End
|
Note that the crisis point happens at about word 60019. So there is a build up to it and then we come
back down to the resolution. Once I reached word 46,368 I knew I had to make
the stakes higher.
Christopher Vogler suggests that sometimes we can follow a formula too
rigidly. He identified what works for the film industry and based his
suggestions for story on Joseph Campbell’s work. Vogler suggests that it is
often more satisfying for the consumer when that formula is skewed slightly.
The formula is skewed slightly in Archie.
Content spills round the edges of word count. It could be, perhaps that
numbers aren’t accurate enough to pinpoint exactly when events need to occur.
What I have stuck to rigidly here is the word count per section, and then
shaped the content to the section.
At the end of the book I’ll be giving you some more information about
what it was like writing this way. I welcome commentary on this project and for
once this is a book I don’t mind you giving away for free; the more people who
read it the better. By all means put the usual reviews on Amazon and Good
reads, good or bad. I’d also welcome direct commentary which I’ll like to
publish verbatim or collated in summary if there is a huge response. Please
send your comments to g.james1@salford.ac.uk.
Thank you for taking the time to read Fibbin’ Archie.
You must have noticed the pun by now. It is, of course, deliberate.
No comments:
Post a Comment