Limyaael

illidanstr @ 07:53 pm: .. why are the popular story strictures a good thing?
I beg of you (or *someone*, at least) to answer this:

Why are the tried and true methods of story strictures a GOOD thing?

I was reading Jim Butcher's description of stuff (dramatic reversal, resolution, etcetera), only to face an unconscious mental scream:

"ARGH! THOSE ARE THE ANNOYING THINGS THAT DRIVE ME CRAZY IN BOOKS!"

If I know someone's going to fail at something because it's helpful to the plotline, it tends to deep-six my enjoyment (or immersion) into a book. Ditto if I know there's a "good" and "bad" choice, in the sense that one brings Universal Love and Redemption and the other would cement their status as a failed failure left failing behind. My biggest issue was with this:

"The result of the conflict is *always* a SETBACK of one kind or another (also thought of as the SCENE ANSWER)--at least, until you get to the end of the book."

ARGH! Can someone give me some kind of reason why any of these rules could ever be anything but terrible?