Phiction
Much has been written about the golden ratio in art and architecture and music .
Has anyone sought it in fiction? I can see it now… if your Act I climax is on p. 25, then your Act II climax must be on p. 65.
« Twists, Slugs and Roscoes | Main | On Holiday »
Much has been written about the golden ratio in art and architecture and music .
Has anyone sought it in fiction? I can see it now… if your Act I climax is on p. 25, then your Act II climax must be on p. 65.
I think it's more like "you should have 1.616... adjectives per noun." :-)
Posted by Mike Jones on December 19 2003 19:53
Other way around: Act one should be about 1.616 times the length of act two. You generally want your second act to be shorter than your first. The other way around, for some psychological reason, will tire your audience more quickly.
A first act about an hour and a quarter long and a second act around 45 minutes would indeed be a shapely structure for a two-act play, all other things being equal.
Posted by Scott on December 26 2003 23:42
I was thinking of 3 acts, and, actually, that pacin isn't too far off of what's suggested in some screenwriting texts... I'll double-check Lew Hunter's Screenwriting 434 when I get home.
Thanks for weighing in on 2 act pacing.
Posted by Zed on December 27 2003 08:34
Ah. Acts mean something a little different in screenwriting than in playwriting, and actual intermissions greatly affect how you structure your story. I'm more familiar with play structure, obviously.
Regardless of the number of acts in a play, it's usually strongest to have the last act the shortest. The relative lengths of the earlier acts are less important, but you generally don't want them very different. It does seem to me, though, just off the top of my head, that if you took the average of all your acts but the last, and divided it by phi, you'd get a very shapely length for your last act.
Posted by Scott on January 5 2004 15:08