⏰👁💀👨: Drop your guesses below!
👉 Need my help with your novel? https://julianmaylett.com/mentorship

I'm so excited you posted for Christmas! And this is an awesome video!!! I love that you gave the inciting incidents names. That will make it so much easier when I use the method for future novels, too. Ahh I'm so excited to go through my outline, check what I have, and implement these! Thank you!

Thank you, your videos content is as always of high value, delivered in well made episodes.

These are actually just the ordinary inciting incident (plus an earlier foreshadowing), then the first plot point (start of act 2), then the midpoint, then the second plot point (start of act 3), from the seven plot point story structure, aren't they?

Another excellent video. Thank you and Merry Christmas 🎄🎁

If the murder mystery is anything Agatha Chrstie, I'm even more excited. (I'll be back to the comments after watching this through) I didn't see the 3rd example coming, but now I'm intrigued... Thank you, Juilan!

When is your book releasing?

So question about the inciting news you say it will either supercharge the minor fixation or force them to the major fixation. Could it involve both. Through fixing the major fixation they solve the minor fixation?

Hey I love your videos! A suggestion if I may. I think for people who watch this channel a lot, the beginning becomes repetitive. If you can find a way to cut it down to a smaller amount, that would help. The first 2 minutes of the video is just setup and introduction, which can also set off new listeners. Just my personal opinion!

I'm pretty sure buzzwords are not the answer. An inciting incident is technically and precisely defined in literature, by everyone who actually knows what they're talking about, as something that happens that throws the protagonist's status quo out of balance. There is no other sensible way to define it, and no other way to express it to someone who wants to learn how to write, that could be helpful to them.

The best thing for a budding writer to do is to understand that definition as being concrete. Not fuzzy. It's not complicated. There's no value in trying to falsely make it seem more complicated than it actually is.

And it does not have to be a threat. That is ridiculously, tragically narrow underthinking, and narrow underthinking is the last thing that a good writer ever does.

A call to adventure is nothing more than an opportunity to step forward into a new path. That is not an inciting incident. It is something OTHER than an inciting incident, because a call to adventure does not throw the protagonist's status quo out of balance. It does not fit that definition. At all. It's not an incident of any kind, or even an event. It's not something that happens TO the protagonist. It's only an opportunity to make a choice.

An inciting incident is nothing more than an EXTERNAL force ACTING ON the protagonist's environment. A call to adventure only reveals an opportunity to make a decision that COMES FROM the antagonist. How can anyone with any sort of cognitive capability imagine that those two things are in any way the same thing? The definitions of these two things are directly in the names. It might be time for you to wake up and smell the propane.

For instance, in a courtship love story, the lovers meet moment is considered the inciting incident, because it throws a protagonist's status quo out of balance. And it also is NOT A THREAT. It fits the goddamn definition perfectly. But a lovers meet moment also often implies a call to adventure, which is something that comes AFTER the inciting incident, NOT DURING IT. That is not part of the inciting incident simply because it can happen nearly simultaneously. Sometimes the call to adventure doesn't appear until later, if at all.

It's a completely separate thing. It does not fit the concrete definition of an inciting incident. It only fits the definition of a call to adventure, which is something completely different. An inciting incident results in a reaction to it which is the turning point (the moment the protagonist realizes they must do something about it), which automatically evokes a crisis question (what are the options?), which eventually results in a decision, which is an expressed in the action of the scene climax for a scene inciting incident, and in the story climax for a story inciting incident. A call to adventure also can influence the decision, which is usually something that happens later, and it's often a completely different decision about a completely different thing.

If a writer is able to NOT conflate those two things in their mind, then they can consider them separately and deal with them separately, rather than trying to deal with them as if they were one single monolithic thing, or understand them as if they were one single monolithic thing. They aren't. At least until somebody criminally mislabels a call to adventure as an inciting incident.

Doing that does not imply that you're smarter or more knowledgeable than anybody else. It does not imply that you are in any way clever, regardless the smirk. It doesn't imply that you even know what you're talking about.

All it does imply is that your word salad is going to get in the way of a budding writer's understanding, which will get in the way of them doing the job they're very likely capable of doing in the first place.

Put another way, that's not in any way helpful. It's actually harmful. Knock it off. Stop just waving your hands at us. That's really annoying. It doesn't add to your credibility. It does the opposite.

Earn the right to breathe our air. So far, that has not happened.

The English novel is hundreds of years old yet here's some dude with no accomplishments as a writer selling you his "novel writing" method.

Here's some advice you didn't ask for, but need: stop using subpar movies and films to demonstrate your concepts. Harry Potter and Hunger Games great. Most of your viewership will have seen or read them and know the story well, so your points can land. Wake Up Dead Man and Desperate Housewives, awful. The former was a dogs breakfast of a film undeserving of analysis beyond why it barely scraped into being a 2 star film, and the latter is so old it's not in conversation anymore. Both consistently fail to give your message weight. You need to put aside your personal obsessions and deliver relevant content to your listeners. Additionally sticking to a single film example will help you deliver your message. Jumping between several different films in a single video demands your viewer context switches, making it harder to understand your points.
Also remove the giggling and fake joviality. Just arrive, deliver your message, and leave. Nobody is watching you for your personality, so skip it.
This is a supportive message for you, not unconstructive criticism.

HOW HAVE I NEVER HEARD OF THIS? 🫠🫠