

You might have seen this word, Kishōtenketsu, popping up a bit in writing circles. I came upon it a few months ago, and it has been running around my head ever since.



Basically, it means a narrative structure where conflict is not driving the plot. You can read more You might have seen this word,, popping up a bit in writing circles. I came upon it a few months ago, and it has been running around my head ever since.Basically, it means a narrative structure where conflict is not driving the plot. You can read more here , and here , and here , but I don't so much want to talk about its definition, as I do the ramifications of Kishōtenketsu in both my writing, and the importance of narratives in society.





So if you read any of those links, then you have gotten the basic idea that Kishōtenketsu is a way to structure a narrative very differently to the three acts we are all familiar with. So familiar, that I had not even considered there was another way. Comic blog, Warning: this may be a long post. I'll try to put in some pics to keep you interested.So if you read any of those links, then you have gotten the basic idea that Kishōtenketsu is a way to structure a narrative very differently to the three acts we are all familiar with. So familiar, that I had not even considered there was another way. Comic blog, AtomicRobo explains it like this:

The trick is to realize: it’s three acts all the way down. Each story has three acts. Each chapter of that story has three acts. Each scene of each chapter has three acts. Each conversation of each scene of each chapter has three acts. In a sense, though at this magnification our definitions begin to blur, each line of dialogue has three acts.All you need is a set up, a conflict that follows from the set up, and a resolution that follows from the conflict.





This is what we all know to be the central nervous system of a story, and it works very well. So well in fact, that it has not only become ubiquitous but the unquestioned gospel of western narrative.



So what's the problem?

Well, there is an underlying philosophical world-view that this type of structure reinforces. No matter what the characters do in your story, no matter what the motivations the bad guys have, or the actions the heroes undertake to win the day, there is an unspoken acceptance in all such narratives that conflict is reality. If all the narratives you have ever read are like this, then everything you do will be framed as a battle, a struggle of you against adversary. Is this really what life is like? Is the point of existence to defeat all foes and reign as king?











watching violent films do not make people violent, but that does not mean that some other effect is not taking place. This is where I show them the documentary on the



In the late 60s In my day job I teach media studies to high school kids, and one of the units I love teaching is Media Effect Theory. Sounds boring, but I take my students from propaganda in the world wars, right through to product placement in summer block busters, and we look at the research that tries to show a clear link between what we watch and how we behave. I challenge my students that it is not as simple as either agreeing or disagreeing with the idea that media has an effects, either as individuals or as a society. That is a given. What I try to get them to be is critical about HOW and WHY the media influence us. It is easy to find statistics that provewatching violent films do not make people violent, but that does not mean that some other effect is not taking place. This is where I show them the documentary on the Mean World Syndrome In the late 60s George Gerbner conducted a Cultural Indicators Research Project, that led to his findings that whilst violent media did not directly make people violent, it still had a cumulative negative effect on people that he called 'The Mean World Syndrome' Basically, he found that if we watch enough images of violence on the TV, then we start to think -- despite all the statistical evidence that says the opposite -- that the world we live in is out to get us. The truth of course, is that we have never lived in a safer age, yet people have never felt so scared and threatened by dangers they perceive to be waiting around every corner.





Normally this is as far as I get on the subject, but this year I read two things that made me think a little more. The first was the post about Kishōtenketsu, the second was the brilliant book of optimism,



On page 46 he explains it like this: This, I explain to my students, shows the true power of narrative. When we see the same stories of conflict night after night, in films and even in video games, then we start to believe that this is how the world truly is.Normally this is as far as I get on the subject, but this year I read two things that made me think a little more. The first was the post about Kishōtenketsu, the second was the brilliant book of optimism, Abundance: The Future Is Better Than You Think by Steven Kotler . I don't have time to go into everything the book talks about, but early on Kotler talks about the changing nature of our economy. Specifically, that we are moving from a zero sum game of a resource based economy, into the exponential positive sum game of a knowledge based one.On page 46 he explains it like this:









How does all this tie together? Well perhaps the narrative of our culture comes from the way we have lived and evolved for the last few thousand years: with scarce resources that lead to conflict, to the victor, the spoils. Even positive narratives of hope -- say Star Wars for example, still show that we must first kill the evil empire before we can have peace. Obi-Wan can say all he wants about anger leading to the dark-side, but in the end Luke blows up the death star.



