<![CDATA[Catherine Chisnall - Blog by the \'Plot Hole Fixer\']]>Thu, 20 Aug 2026 18:19:36 +0100Weebly<![CDATA[The 3 Act Structure Is The Wrong Way Round]]>Thu, 20 Aug 2026 14:57:31 GMThttps://www.catherinechisnall.com/blog-by-the-plot-hole-fixer/the-3-act-structure-is-the-wrong-way-roundI always thought that the best – and only – way to use the standard 3 Act Structure was to plan your story according to it, and then write the story. As a reminder, here is an image from Reedsy, thanks to them!
Picture
A story is divided into three clear acts:

  1. The Setup – introduces your characters, setting, and main conflict. The story gets moving. The end of this act will be marked by a turning point which will push your characters into the second act. As in the diagram, Act 1 includes the Exposition, Inciting Incident, Plot Point One.
  2. The Confrontation – the tension and action rise continuously, your characters are totally absorbed in the main conflict. This act ends with a sudden twist or obstacle that forces your main character to reassess their progress, and this drives them into the third act. Act 2 is made up of Rising Action, the Midpoint and Plot Point Two.
  3. The Resolution – all the threads of the story come together, the characters face their greatest challenge, the tension erupts and is resolved. By the end of the act, the story concludes via the Pre-climax, Climax and Denouement.
 
This is nice and clear, it gives us a definite pathway to plan our stories and fit the pieces together.

But.

I found that I can’t do this. If I plan my story according to the 3 Act Structure and then write it out, it leads to predictable tales where I write each part separately and connect them together afterwards. I know I could solve this problem by adding linking scenes, but that would still be too disjointed for me.

Then.

I had a revelation! Why don’t I try writing the story, then map the 3 Act Structure on to it afterwards? And see if it fits?

So before starting to write a new story, I did an experiment using the classic 3 Act Structure and investigated three of my old ones.
  • The first of my stories I tried this with, I found that Act 3 was too short. There wasn’t enough happening in the third act, the storylines all ended rather too quickly and neatly, so I added more detail, consequences, depth, and fleshed it out nicely. And enjoyably too! I had fun thinking more deeply about what would happen after characters experienced an event or had an argument or achieved something. The aftermath is just as important as the actual happening.
 
  • The second one I used this method on, I discovered the story was rather aimless. Every time it seemed to be going one way, it changed direction so any building tension or confrontation dispersed suddenly. So I changed a few scenes so they built more logically towards major plot points. But I was very proud of the opening image, the resolution and final image, so mapping the 3 Act Structure onto the story showed me the successful sections as well as the less effective ones.
 
  • The third I reviewed didn’t really have defined conflict or stakes, it was more of a narrative of events all at one level, there were no ups and downs to engage readers, so I added some tension. Even though it was a fluffy romance, we still need some conflict.

So my experiment showed that it is a viable way of working: instead of planning and writing a story according to the 3 Act Structure, do it the other way round! Ignore structures, write freely, then map the outline of your choice (not necessarily the 3 Act Structure, there are others) after you’ve finished.

It can provide the alignment, the last check, the fine-tuning to reassure us that we are on the right track with our story and show that we are not way off our mark.

I now enjoy the 3 Act Structure, it’s not as predictable as I thought! I was just using it the wrong way round. Now I write the story first, throw myself into it, get carried away writing without thinking of any structure, beats, rising and falling tension and so on. THEN when I've finished the first draft, I map the 3 Act Structure onto it, I can use it as a guide to ensure I've got the parts of the story in the right places.

I’m wondering now if I was doing the 3 Act Structure wrong anyway by planning first and writing later? But I don’t think so. I thought the 3 Act Structure was meant to come before the writing, not the other way round.

Maybe this is right for you too? If you’re a pantser it could easily be, but if you’re a planner maybe not so much. But still, as a planner you could start with the 3 Act Structure, write your best story and then double check at the end by mapping it onto what you’ve written. So you’d be using it twice, lucky 3 Act Structure.

As ever, writing advice is very varied and different methods suit different people. But turning some of them upside down adds even more resources to the authors’ toolbox.
]]><![CDATA[Film: People We Meet On Vacation]]>Sun, 18 Jan 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://www.catherinechisnall.com/blog-by-the-plot-hole-fixer/people-we-meet-on-vacationTwo Successes
1. This is a classic ‘Opposites Attract’ romcom, the genre is very familiar to us all so we know what we are getting before we start watching. “Ditzy, impulsive Poppy meets cautious, organised Alex. There’s no way this could work as a relationship…is there?” The plot is along the lines of an updated When Harry Met Sally, where a scatterbrained woman meets a cynical man, and the film is sweet, reassuring and very funny in places.

2. The two young, attractive lead actors, Emily Bader and Tom Blyth, are perfect for this story, plus there are some great supporting actors e.g. Alan Ruck, Molly Shannon, Jameela Jamil, Lucien Laviscount. The settings are also ideal, showing the adventurous holidays Poppy and Alex go on, as the title indicates.

Two Improvements
1. The structure of the film is confusing. It keeps jumping from today to 9 years ago; 8 years ago; 7 years ago etc. It is often hard to know where we are in time.
Fix: show today, then go back to when Poppy and Alex first met. Then continue along that timeline until we reach today again. Also they could clearly define the time periods by what Alex and Poppy are wearing e.g. Poppy could have a different hairstyle each time, which would emphasise her impulsive nature.

2. There is too much telling instead of showing the main characters’ personalities.
Fix: instead of telling us how ditzy Poppy is and how cautious Alex is, the actors could go further and show extreme behaviours. The silly scenes could be more silly, the serious scenes more serious, and more of a contrast shown between the two characters.
]]>