So, I did a TEDx talk—did I mention that? I probably should mention that. I did a talk for TEDxAlbury 2025, you can check it out here—and I talk about some really cool stuff regarding psychology and how people think.
See, that talk is all about cognitive narratology. I won't repeat it here, not just because you should have seen it already (seriously, the link is right there), but because I explain it much better in that talk.
But, one of the claims I make in that talk is that I'm a narratologist. It's a claim I've been making for a long time now, and even something that I say in the introduction to every single podcast that I make: I'm a horror author, narratologist & word nerd.
Two of those are pretty self-explanatory. I'm a horror author, I write horror stories and I've had several of those stories published. I'm a word nerd... well, look at this blog. I named it that because I love geeking out about etymology, meaning and vocabulary. And, I'm a narratologist. But, what even is that?
Well... let's talk about that. The Word of the Day is: 'NARRATOLOGY'
Narratology n. /ˈnær-ə-tɒl-ə-dʒi/ The study of narrative, and narrative structure.
That... is pretty short. So, allow me to elaborate a little. First of all, "narrative" isn't just "story", but rather story-telling (which includes any means of conveying a story, not just telling it, but writing it, filming it, drawing it, etcetera). So, I study the ways that we tell stories, and the way that we structure the stories we tell.
Because, consider this for a moment - some stories are true. This is a fact. A story is just a series of events, told in some order. Technically if I say:
I bought a burger. I ate it.
That is a true story, it happened to me. Not the most interesting story. But, it is a story. Now, a story doesn't have to be in chronological order. I could have instead said:
I ate a burger. I bought it.This too is a story, and it is also not all that interesting. But, as a narratologist, I find this interesting because I notice that even the way you tell a story this trivial affects your interpretation. And, as I said, this story is "true", yet I can literally tell it backwards, not change any of the facts within... and yet simply by structuring it in this way, it can affect interpretation. To me, the first story sounds more declarative, whilst the second sounds more defensive; and thus each paints a different picture of the eater (or narrator) to me.
This, effectively, is the basis of narratology. The way a story is told affects the way the audience (reader/viewer/etc) percieves it. For this reason, some prefer to define narratology as "the study of narrative, and how it affects human perception", but in any case, the study of structure fascinates me because narrative structure exists in the first place.
How can a narrative have structure? As previously stated some stories are "true", yet unless you're talking on a micro-chemical or macro-physical scale, truth—which is to say reality in general—doesn't really have "structure". Things just happen. Especially when you introduce life into the equation.
But stories aren't defined by truth. Not only because some stories are lies (i.e. fiction), but because stories are determined by audience interest. I'm not going to publish my burger story any time soon, but I have published other stories. And it's not because they weren't about burgers, it's because people found them more engaging.
And what I find interesting is that "story structure" is a huge part of what makes stories more engaging. But, as a writer, I found myself dissatisfied with this proposition because I grew up around the time when the Monomyth had become a large part of the "writing community" zeitgeist...
For those of you who are unaware, the Monomyth - or "Campbellian Monomyth" is a concept first proposed by Joseph Campbell in his book The Hero with 1000 Faces, wherein he claimed that not only do good stories have narrative structure, but every story has the same narrative structure, and that structure was his monomyth.
Hence the name, mono meaning "one" and myth meaning "story", he was literally saying that every story was the same one story, wearing a different "face".
As a writer, this made it feel like writing was a waste of time. After all, if every story is the same story, then all writing is pointless. We've already written every story. So, let's close up shop. We're done here. Party's over. Everyone go home...
At first, I was in denial about this possibility. I thought maybe it was the details or themes that determined how a story is written. But, the more I listened to different writers tout the benefits of the monomyth, I finally decided to tackle this nonsense. And when I did, I found that this "monomyth" wasn't so much a universal truth or unconquerable revelation of every story ever told... but rather an odd idea that becomes less accurate the more you study it.
The Monomyth is very specific and reductive, seventeen steps written in a specific order that represent the basis of story. But when you start trying to use it to analyze stories that exist, you find that this rigid structure becomes loose, flaccid and metaphorical very quickly. Because not only are all of these elements metaphorical and malleable, meaning they can shuffle around, but some stories drop elements entirely.
To which I will point out, any structure that leaves parts out and moves elements around isn't so much a "structure" as a horrible mess with a convincing cover story.
I could go deeper and explain every problem I have with the Monomyth, but I just deleted 600 words of ranting all about it. I'll consider writing that in a later blog post if anyone else is interested. But, ultimately, I determined that Campbell's Story Structure was not, in fact, the best and only story structure... but, did such a story structure exist? This is where my narratological journey took me:
A Juxtapositional Analysis of Narrative Structures, or, basically... this thing:
[Click the Image for a Higher Resolution, as some of the words can get very small]
If you zoom in, you'll see that the most prominent lines are those of the three-act structure, because my initial thought was that the three-act structure seemed to be the most corelative structure throughout. But, in retrospect, this is because the three-act structure is more loosely defined, and so I couldn't help but interpret stories as fitting into this concept.
[Author's Note: It also occurs to me now that this could also be a failing in my interpretation. I made this table myself, based on my understanding of these structures. Others may consider my interpretation of "narrative alignment" lacking, especially with the newer story structures with less literature explaining how they work. If you ever feel like using this table, do keep that in mind.]
But this is where, in my eyes, I went from 'someone interested in how stories work' to a narratologist, because I had a revelation. I initially thought this was just me nerding out. Playing around with all these different structures to find the "right one". But I had a genuine epiphany when, after collecting the first two-dozen of these, I was looking at the differences between them, and I quickly realized something...
When comparing between different narrative structures, yes there are some similarities and differences, but when looking at these... none of them sound boring.
I admit, I am looking at these from a structural point of view, and they are therefore all filled with the limitless potential of creativity. But, if the purpose of narrative structure is to develop a story that is interesting and engaging, these are all structures that sound interesting and engaging to me. That being the case, there is no "right" narrative structure. There isn't a monomyth that applies to all stories.
But, if narrative structure can be so "unstructured", then what was the purpose of creating narrative structure in the first place? I was trying to figure out why, until I did some research into how some of these were discovered... and I learned that these were all developed through literary analysis.
That's when I realized that I'd been looking at narrative structure the wrong way.
I had thought that Narrative Structure had been created by some writer somewhere. I had the impression that someone had sat down and thought "how do I write a good story? Ooh, I'll base it around this", but no. Writers just develop stories in a way that's interesting to them, I can tell you that from experience. The original creators of narrative structure weren't writers, but readers. Some were philosophers trying to identify aesthetics. Some were critics who wanted to be able to objectively measure good writing. But in any case, this was all created after the fact. After the writing was done. It's only in the modern era that we have been using narrative structure to actually write stories. Because writers didn't invent story structure... readers did.
This is my revelation, which I mentioned in my TEDx talk by the way, but it's true:
Narrative Structure is a Social Construct.
It's determined not by one person, but by the collective influence of a society that tells those stories. So, what is the "right" way to tell a story? Well, it's in a way that's interesting. If you're a modern writer that loves a good structure, then you can pick any of these, you can't really go wrong. Heck, there are several more you could pick... these are all prescriptive, as in they have a defined structure. But some looser narrative concepts relate to specific genres, or writing styles as opposed to acts, tension, or story beats. It's not exactly a "structure", but it is a form of narrative, and you can write that way.
So, whilst this analysis did fail at finding the "one true narrative structure", I do think it's a useful tool for understanding how certain narrative structures do or don't align with each other [or at least, my interpretation of that alignment].
But, this was just my beginnings as a narratologist, and a brief explanation of what it is and how I first used it. There's a lot more to narratology... different story elements, and how more specific context affects the different kinds of conflict, tension and drama of a story. The concepts of Tension and Relief, Character, and of course how not just Narrative affects Perception, but how Perception affects Narrative, how this social construct is inspired by some of the quirks of the human brain, bias, memory and ideology...
And it all started because I was unsatisfied with the narrative... (pause for effect) that I was being told about story structure. I'm the Absurd Word Nerd, and if you really do want me to write a whole blog post about why I don't like the Monomyth, it will basically be a whole post ranting, so I don't encourage that. Until Next Time, I have a Doctor's Appointment that may result in another blog post.
Don't worry: I'm not sick, I'm just crazy. But, we knew that already...
