Kurt Vonnegut's analysis of the structure of stories struck me as really interesting. We all love the classic rise at the end. That's the reason why classics like Cinderella are still so popular among children; the happy ending leaves you with a warm glow that makes you feel like problems always work out. Leaving you feeling inspired, Cinderella - and almost all other Disney movies - are made to make the viewer leave the theater feeling happy. The more popular structures all end with a rise, yet there are still the famous stories that end with a fall like Oedipus. Story structure is something that gives the literature world variety, otherwise we would just be getting constant reptition of a protagonist learning to overcome their fears, their problems, or an enemy. Yet Yorke says that all stories are the same and just recreations of one another. I think Vonnegut's model begs to differ. Yes, everything must have some basis on previous stories or past experiences, but that doesn't make them all the same. In How to Read Lit like a Professor, the author claimed that everything was one story as well, but it was all just a part of a big story. Everything that happens is all just part of the story of our world; with many similarities and plot structures mixed in. So maybe all stories are just the same, with their own flare added through structure.
Comments
Post a Comment