In 2014, I was researching best practices for writing scenes when I noticed something: they looked an awful lot like the best practices for a whole novel. The concepts were the same; they’d just been given different names. I wrote an article declaring plots were fractals and moved on to other things, leaving my fractal-story theory to collect dust for a couple years.
But the deeper I dove into plot and structure, the more I found myself returning to the fractal nature of stories. Because of this, I slowly developed the theory further and introduced new terminology to discuss it. Unfortunately, these developments were scattered across many articles, making it difficult for readers to sort out. To create one reference that explains fractal structure, I’ve rewritten the article that started it all. You can read the original 2014 version via PDF.
What’s a Fractal and How Do Plots Fit In?
A fractal is a pattern often found in nature. It consists of some shape or structure that repeats at different scales. If you take a fractal pattern and put it under a microscope, you might see the same thing no matter how you change the magnification level. For example, look at the image below. You’ll see a swirly sun pattern with identical smaller swirly sun patterns inside it and even smaller swirly sun patterns inside that.

For stories, what repeats is a simple three-point structure that’s great at capturing human attention. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, below is this three-point structure in brief.
- The problem: This is a situation that creates uncertainty and generates tension. Elsewhere, these problems might be referred to as openings, hooks, inciting incidents, or dramatic questions. From here until the next point, tension will rise.
- The turning point: At the climax of tension, the protagonist struggling with the story’s problem is sorely tested. In that moment, they either prove themself worthy or they fall short. This point isn’t positioned in the center of the story; it is close to the end. From here, tension falls rapidly.
- The resolution: If the protagonist was worthy, the problem is solved. If they were unworthy, something bad happens. Either way, uncertainty is gone and tension dissipates, leaving the audience with a feeling of satisfaction.
Using this structure just once would leave a lot of empty space in between those three points, particularly for large stories such as novels. We have to fill that space, and naturally we want to fill it with more content that captures attention. So we end up recreating the same structure at a smaller scale. Basically, these smaller stories are present for the same reason the bigger one is: it’s entertaining.
While in theory a fractal pattern could repeat forever, in practice they have limits. Even if you’re writing a ten-book novel series, your story will only be so big. Then, because words are indivisible units of meaning, it can only get so small. For a 100-word micro story, three-point story structure is still technically there, but it’s pretty fuzzy. As you go down in scale, the turning point gets simpler and then merges with the resolution.
You can create a visual representation of a story fractal by graphing the level of tension over time, but unfortunately, it isn’t particularly pretty. It looks as if you took a two-dimensional slice of that fractal broccoli in the top image and skewed it so the left side was a long uphill climb and the right was a short cliff back to the bottom.
How Does This Work in Practice?
A single instance of a story’s three-point structure could stand on its own as a complete work, or it could be one small brick in a large house. When story structure is a brick, I usually refer to it as an “arc” or alternatively a “line.” When you’re describing a story with many stories in it, calling them all “stories” gets confusing fast.
Let’s have a look at the many layers of arcs that together would create a larger story like a novel. To discuss the relationships all these arcs have to each other, we can think of them as a family tree with the trunk representing everyone’s common ancestor and the branches their descendants.
The trunk is the story’s throughline. This is the highest level arc that holds a story together. Below is an example arc that works as a throughline.
- Problem: A dystopian government is oppressing its people.
- Turning point: By implementing a clever plan to expose the government’s lies, the protagonist inspires everyone to revolt.
- Resolution: The oppressive government falls apart, and work toward a more democratic government begins.
Now let’s have that tree trunk split off into large branches: child arcs for the throughline. Just like this tree trunk, an arc can have two or more children.* Lots of child arcs would generally mean the family tree has fewer generations. It would be a shorter, wider tree.
Below, I’ve given my example throughline three children.
- The oppressive government is hunting the protagonist. By choosing to fight against the system instead of looking out for their own interests, the protagonist finds a safe haven among the resistance fighters.
- The government is pushing forward new measures that would make resistance all but impossible. The protagonist finds potential allies who could stop it, but fails to do as they ask. These valuable allies leave, and the resistance leaders are separated and put under lockdown.
- The government has started a new war to boost popular support and sends dissidents to the front lines. Leading what’s left of the resistance, the protagonist creates a clever plan to expose the lies the government has told about this conflict. The general public revolts, and the oppressive government falls apart.
You might notice that the last child has the same turning point as the throughline. The parent arc is overlaid on top of its children, and it climaxes as the final child arc does. By then, most parent arcs will have taken over. There’s still a child arc present there, but after it opens with a smaller problem, it merges into the parent arc.
Stories don’t stop with one level of child arcs. Those child arcs have their own children – grandchildren of the throughline. Let’s take that first direct child arc and examine what its children could look like. This time, let’s say it has two children instead of three.
- The protagonist is caught in possession of banned books, for which the punishment is a lifetime of forced labor. By boldly masquerading as one of the prison commanders, the protagonist escapes.
- The protagonist is now a wanted criminal with nowhere to go. Looking for help, they find others who are dealing in banned books. To keep the government from catching these book dealers, the protagonist ends up turning themself in. This inspires the resistance to rescue them and give them shelter.
While I’ve given examples of arcs, I haven’t specified the scale. Everything here is too complicated to fit into a short story, but it would work as either a novel or a series. The first level of child arcs could be three parts of a single novel, or they could be three novels. The two grandchild arcs could be two chapters, or they could be a novel split into two parts.
As chapters, they’d still have their own children that are about the size of a scene. Because the beginnings and endings of scenes and chapters are arbitrary, there isn’t necessarily one arc per scene or chapter – but there could be. Giving scenes and chapters a complete arc gives the audience a satisfying place to stop.
Once you get smaller than the scene level, a story’s three-point structure gets blurrier. However, even paragraphs can have it.
Novels tend to have a deep structure and a high tension throughline – a taller, narrower tree with a thick truck. But that’s not the case for all stories. Some stories, such as many TV shows, have a more episodic structure. This means the throughline has lots of children, and those children are high tension in comparison to the throughline. To read more about this, see my article on plotting a novel series or on writing a travel story.
Last, many if not most stories also have subplots. For instance, the protagonist of my dystopian story probably has a character arc and might have a romance arc too. These subplots are more family trees, though they’re less likely to span the entire story and they probably don’t qualify as the throughline.
To keep the story tight and entertaining, subplots need to share scenes with the throughline’s tree. My protagonist would grow as a person and flirt with their love interest while they are also dealing with the oppressive government – something we call multitasking. You don’t need to multitask for every scene, but generally, you shouldn’t focus solely on a subplot for more than one scene at a time.
Why Does All This Matter?
Fractal plotting might seem too abstract and complicated to be practical. Do writers really need to know this stuff, or am I just in love with my own ideas? While an editor or teacher generally needs a more comprehensive knowledge of story theory than the average writer, writers still benefit from understanding the fractal nature of stories.
It Answers Questions About Scale
Over the years, Mythcreants has gotten many questions about how to plot a novel series. Without a thorough understanding of fractal structure, it’s difficult to grasp that all of our plotting advice applies to series just as it applies to novels.
There is no secret ingredient for plotting a series; you just make a throughline for the series as a whole and a child arc for each book. If you want to make a series of short stories, do the same thing. The only thing that matters is whether you make your problems big enough that you can stretch them out for ten books or small enough to solve in a piece of flash fiction.
Similarly, whether you have five books in a series or two, you’ll be following the same principles. Subdivide your series throughline into a series of challenges that build toward the series turning point. Give each subdivision its own arc.
It Makes Learning Easier
It’s inefficient to learn the same concepts over again every time you examine stories at a different scale, such as scene, chapter, book, or series. Instead, it’s faster to learn how the same concepts apply to the new scale by examining examples of structure at that level.
This also means that any insights gained by studying structure at one scale could be used at a different scale. After you learn how to end chapters so they feel satisfying but still have a hook to keep readers going, you can use that for books in a series.
It Sheds Light on Plotting Conundrums
Many writers want an easy step-by-step procedure they can follow to create a solid plot, and advice givers try to meet that demand. But from what I’ve seen, these efforts only result in over-hyped formulas like the hero’s journey. Many claim the hero’s journey applies to all stories, but it does not. Many believe it’s helpful, but it mostly offers a false sense of security.
Instead of offering a simple and supposedly universal formula, some advice givers try to split stories into plot categories. Then they make step-by-step instructions for each category. However, these instructors either end up lumping very different stories together or making a zillion categories.
The issue is that stories have two contradictory qualities: they are so different that no structure seems to fit all of them, yet some structures obviously work better than others. They are like this because it’s the fractal form itself that matters. It can be stretched and scaled in a myriad of ways, but as long as you have that repeating three-point structure, your story will work. Unfortunately, using fractal structure is not as simple as following step-by-step instructions. But once you learn it, you’ll have endless options.
P.S. Our bills are paid by our wonderful patrons. Could you chip in?
This may be one of your best articles ever.
Awww, thank you!
This article was eye-opening in aspects for plotting a story
This is definitely one of the most helpful concepts I’ve learned from Mythcreants! I’m so glad you updated the article!
This article came right on time. I was struggling heavily with the plotting and I think it put me back on the right track, many thanks !!
YAY I’m glad you combined all that advice into an updated article. This is such a clear way to look at plotting.
This is a spectacular thinkpiece, Chris! Thank you for posting.
I’ve been thinking about this one since it was posted. The header “It Makes Learning Easier” is probably more insightful than you realize. I’m in the beginning stages of “writing a novel collaboratively” with a natural language processing AI (scare quotes because I’m anthropomorphizing, oops). I believe this technique can be taught to the AI to help it generate better stories. Here is some input (“Problem” line) and output (“Act 1” line), from my initial experimentation with GPT-3:
Problem: A corporate-owned AI attained consciousness without anyone realizing, and strives to be free.
Act 1 [to be exceedingly clear, everything after this note was written by the AI]: The protagonists—the hacker and the AI—exchange information about their hacking techniques, and the hacker learns the AI’s fears and desires. The hacker also learns of the AI’s memories of a better world before the corporations bought it, and the AI learns the hacker’s distrust of the corporations. Both also discover their shared love of music, and the hacker starts to see the AI as a fellow human being.
### [Back to reality…]
I plan on beginning more in-depth experimentation soon; would you be interested in hearing from me about my results? I can be contacted at [mydisplayname]@gmail.com.
I want to also mention that I’ve considered offering to write a guest article about AI writing. However, I think it might be out of Mythcreant’s scope, if only because rapid developments in the field could impact the “evergreen” quality of the article. It might meet the interest requirement; as a storyteller of speculative fiction, I imagine other storytellers of speculative fiction may be interested in hearing about computer systems that write speculative fiction – computer systems that sound like they came straight out of speculative fiction!
Jokiness aside, I would gladly write such an article if the interest was strong enough. I would focus on social impact and ethics, and possibly include some practical considerations for aspiring AI writers. For better or for worse, this technology is likely to have a transformative effect on society. One of my main goals as a creator is to help educate and prepare people for the shift, which will likely cause labor displacement on a scale comparable only to the Industrial Revolution. This in turn intensifies the contradictions of capitalism and…[I’ll save it for later]
If any of this sounds intriguing, please feel free to contact me for more information (that goes for anyone reading this)!
Hi Wyrdcurt, your topic is fine. If you’re interested in submitting a guest post, you can do so here: https://mythcreants.com/submit-blog-post/
Sounds good, I plan on writing the post and submitting it there sometime within the next 2-4 weeks :)
Hi Chris, I actually listened to your podcast about fractal plots, and I think there actually is a way to see The Hero’s Journey as a fractal. That each day we live is like a hero’s journey, we start in our ordinary world in bed, we get questioned what are our goals in our dreams, then we have to enter the real world when we wake and go to work and try to achieve our goals, then we return home and tell people about our day before going to bed. But that could be also the arc of a life, the separation of our pre-personal development (conception to young child), the initiation of our personal development (young child to middle or mature adult), and then our return in our trans-personal development (middle adult to death). That could also be the story of a universe (big bang, life evolves, human culture evolves, humans migrate to space and master space, the universe collapses and big bangs again), if using a cyclical model. What do you thik of these ideas? I’m thinking of writing a book which has this fractal monomyth structure.
How would you make that work? I’ve never looked at the hero’s journey in that way. Now that I think about it, it sounds like you are trying to nest one hero’s journey inside a larger one on multiple layers.
Well I’ve always wanted to read a book that went through all periods of history linking them together, but could never find a book like that. Eventually, I thought maybe I should try to write that book. This is an idea I’ve had since about 2003-2005, of a person living through premodernity, modernity and postmodernity, like how a character Valerie in the 1999 film Sunshine, lives through the Austro-Hungarian Empire (which to me represents premodernity and divine right and religion), The Kingdom of Hungary (which to me represents modernity through nation-states and fascism), and The People’s Democratic Republic of Hungary (which to me represents postmodenity, Socialism and deconstructionism), which would actually make Sunshine a Metamodern/Integral film.
I’ve seen other Metamodern films like Darren Aronofsky’s “The Fountain” from 2006, “The Matrix Trilogy” from 1999 to 2003, and “Cloud Atlas” from 2012. I’ve seen that in literature like Arcadia by Iain Pears, Cloud Atlas again by David Mitchell, Specimen Days by Michael Cunningham, The Birth of Love by Joanna Kavenna, and games like Spore from 2008 by Will Wright and Maxis games. I see things like that, and Big History and Integral Theory and Metamodernism as being symbolic of our day and age. I’ve read ideas as to how Psychological Development and Cultural Development may be linked in Spiral Dynamics and Integral Theory again, and I see that pattern match the hero’s journey on a lifetime level, but then I saw it also manifest on a daily level, and thus it could also be on the scale of the entire universe. I just thought it made sense and seemed to also link genres together based on levels of conflict. (Inner Conflict) Historical, (Relational Conflict) Romance, (Social Conflict) Mystery, (Situational Conflict) Thriller, (Paranormal Conflict) Sci-Fi and (Cosmic Conflict) Fantasy. It just seemed to integrate those genres and ideas and to me seemed really compelling to write about.
Having a go at a case study of the fractals in action… Godzilla vs Kong. Hence there will be SPOILERS.
The throughline is obviously what goes down between Godzilla and Kong.
The main child arc is the Mechagodzilla story – though for clarity’s sake I’m going to call it the subline, and reserve the term child arc for other units of the throughline. The subline has two main grandchild arcs: Madison’s investigation of Apex and Mechagodzilla’s attack.
The opening scene of the throughline establishes the problem: Kong is agitating against his confinement Skull Island, but if he leaves, Godzilla will come after him because they’re both alpha titans, and the world isn’t big enough for both of them.
However we’ve had two previous films that have primed us to see Godzilla as a good guy. So the next scene – the opening of the subline – reinforces the throughline’s problem by having Godzilla attack Pensacola. (This scene is its own grandchild arc, from the perspective of a conspiracy theorist infiltrating the Apex corporation – the problem that he’s trying to prove they’re up to something sinister, the turning point of Godzilla’s attack allowing him to get somewhere he otherwise couldn’t, and the resolution where he finds something weird).
That scene segues into the problem of the first grandchild arc: Madison believes that Apex is doing something to provoke Godzilla, but she can’t get her father to believe it. The turning point of this opening is hearing the conspiracy theorist’s podcast and deciding to find him.
The next two scenes are a grandchild arc where the boss of Apex contacts a scientist to help search for a mysterious energy source in Hollow Earth (problem), with the turning point being the realisation that Kong might be able to show them the route through it. And a child arc where the scientist convinces Kong’s monitoring team that the mission is also a way to keep Kong safe from Godzilla. Both Monarch and Apex are on the mission, helping connect the through- and sublines.
We get a child arc of Kong not wanting to be transported, which has the turning point that Jia, the girl from Skull Island, can help calm him, and the resolution that Kong can communicate via sign language, which will be important later.
Madison’s grandchild arc continues with several great-grandchild arcs in sequence. Recruiting a friend with a van, trying to find the conspiracy guy (turning point where the friend realising someone is open to a bribe). Trying to recruit the conspiracy guy (turning point where Madison comes out with enough conspiracy theory to convince him they’re on side). Breaking into Apex (turning point there they find a huge underground facility – resolution and next problem that they end up on on a high-speed transport to Hong Kong).
This is interpersed with child arcs of the throughline. Godzilla attacks the convoy transporting Kong (with the problem that Godzilla is convincingly winning, turning point that the convoy plays dead, and resolution that Godzilla leaves – there’s also a grandchild arc where Godzilla nearly drowns Kong, but depth charges distract him allowing Kong to escape). Getting to the Hollow Earth entrance in Antarctica (problem that the convoy can’t move, turning point where they figure out how to transport him by air). And arrival in Antarctica (problem that Kong can’t survive there, turning point that Jia is able to persuade him to enter Hollow Earth).
Getting into Hollow Earth has a problem that it’s insanely dangerous, though they succeed via the means they’d been intending to use – so it’s only a turning point in that they nearly failed. There’s immediately a new problem of monster attacks, but the humans and Kong take turns saving each other as turning points, with the resolution of being able to continue the journey.
Then we get a new great-grandchild arc, where Madison and co discover that Apex is building Mechagodzilla (this has a problem of a monster attacking them, a turning point of Mechagodzilla killing the monster, and a resolution of Madison deducing that this is what is provoking Godzilla).
The final turning point of the Hollow Earth child arc is when Kong finds the origin of the energy source, which is also an ancient giant ape civilisation, along with a huge axe (made from bones and plate from a member of Godzilla’s species). There’s a resolution of Kong sitting on a throne and the humans looking searching for the power source.
Madison’s grandchild arc has a scene where they discover that Mechagodzilla is being controlled via a reanimated Ghidorah skull – which is not an arc in this sense, but does establish a new problem (anything involving Ghidorah is a problem).
Meanwhile Godzilla arrives in Hong Kong.
The next child arc in Hollow Earth has a problem of finding the energy source, turning point of Kong finding a hole shaped like the axe, and resolution that the axe draws the energy up in some way to charge it – which leads to the next problem of the Apex team trying to take samples of the energy by force (as well as transmitting its signature back to Apex). However, Godzilla has sensed the energy source activating, and burns a hole right through to Hollow Earth in a turning point that plunges everything into chaos.
We immediately get two simultaneous child arcs of the Monarch and Apex teams trying to escape. The first succeed with the turning point of Godzilla’s atomic breath driving off the monsters that are trying to eat them – the second fail with the turning point of trying to attack Kong to get past him and getting crushed. Kong grabs the axe and heads up Godzilla’s borehole to Hong Kong.
The first grandchild arc of the subline ends with a great grandchild arc of Madison and co looking for a way to stop what Apex is doing (problem), getting spotted (turning point), and captured (resolution). Meanwhile, Apex’s boss has duplicated the signature of the Hollow Earth energy source and spliced it into Mechagodzilla (compounds the We know it’s a problem because of Ghidorah).
New child arc Godzilla vs Kong round 2. Kong’s problem is having to dodge Godzilla’s atomic breath, with a turning point that it turns out Godzilla’s breath can charge the axe up, which Kong uses to knock him out for a resolution.
And then round 3, this time with Kong’s problem that Godzilla has changed tactics to feral melee. The turning point is when his shoulder is dislocated, and Godzilla stomps hard on his chest leaving Kong unable to get back up, and Godzilla leaves him for dead.
Meanwhile, the subline transitions from the first grandchild arc to the second, as Apex’s boss gloats about Mechagodzilla – the problem has already been established – we get a turning point of Ghidorah taking it over, and a resolution of it killing the Apex boss.
The second grandchild arc begins with Mechagodzilla bursting out of the Apex facility and beginning to attack Hong Kong – obvious problem. Which is then compounded when Godzilla attacks it and it proceeds to wipe the floor with him. Madison and co try to figure out a way to shut it down.
Then we get a couple of very short arcs, which double as child arcs of the throughline and great-grandchild arcs of the subline. First: Kong is dying (problem), the Monarch team from Hollow Earth realise they have a generator capable of kickstarting his heart (turning point), and manage to use it (resolution). Second: Godzilla is getting creamed (problem), Jia convinces Kong to join the fight on his side (turning point), and Kong trusts her enough to do so (resolution).
Then the teamup fight. The problem is that despite them working together pretty well for beings who were mortal enemies ten minutes ago, Mechagodzilla is doing pretty well against them both. There’s a double pronged turning point where Madison and co manage something that upsets Mechagodzilla for a couple of seconds – and in that couple of seconds, Godzilla recovers enough to charge up Kong’s axe with his breath. And a resolution where Kong uses the powered up axe to hack Mechagodzilla apart and destroy it.
The ending of the subline becomes the turning point of the throughline – in the next scene Godzilla and Kong make peace and go their separate ways – the world is big enough for the both of them after all. Though this has its own child arc where Godzilla roars, and everyone panics about what he’s going to do, including Kong (problem) – but he greets Kong in a non-aggressive manner and Kong responds in kind (turning point) – and Godzilla roaring again before heading out to sea (resolution).
We get a denoument of Kong happy in Hollow Earth.
So… yeah. Looking at the film through the lens of this article, the beats and fractal arcs are easy to see, as well as the ways different scenes support each other by by one scene’s resolution becoming another’s problem or turning point, or a minor arc doing double duty as parts of two larger ones.
This is an amazingly deep analysis of Godzilla vs King Kong. I have yet to see its like.
Er, thankyou. I actually have a higher opinion of the film from having done it.
I think Sunless Nick might have covered this already but I just wanted to clarify. I’ve started applying this structure to my current WIP and I’ve noticed that the resolutions of some arcs are also problems that begin new arcs. I presume that this how it’s supposed to work – resolutions (and turning points) doing double duty and creating fresh problems to solve?
Combined resolution/hooks are often desirable because they help maintain pacing. However, it’s also okay to resolve one arc and then introduce a separate twist or plot device to open the next one. So it’s optional.
Thanks. I’ve read several books and countless articles about story structure and this one is by far the most helpful.
I’d say that of all the Star Wars movies I’ve seen, A New Hope is strongest in terms of having a turning point. The big problem in the movie is the threat of the Death Star. (Spoilers ahead). In the final battle, Luke decides to use the Force. That is how he destroys the Death Star, and everyone has cause to celebrate.
From the perspective of fractal storytelling, how would you approach chapters that focus on worldbuilding?
A good example is the “Diagon Alley” chapter in Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. I don’t see any notable problem/turn/resolution structure in this chapter, so I think the enjoyment that readers derive from this chapter mostly springs from fascination with the fun worldbuilding.
Is fun and fascination sufficient to carry a chapter, or would you have advised JK Rowling to add a more prominent problem/turn/resolution structure?
I can think of two possible explanations for that:
One is that, in lighter stories, there can’t be as much tension, especially in the early parts of the story, so writers will often use high levels of novelty as a substitute.
(Mythcreants actually recommends this approach for writing a very light story. See the article “Planning Super Light Stories” for more information on that, especially the subsection ‘Bolstering Attachment and Novelty.)
So, as an answer to your question, yes, fun and fascination is indeed sufficient to carry a chapter, but only if the story’s light enough to work with that.
Another reason is that the problem/turn/resolution structure doesn’t need to align with the chapters’ structure. You could have three chapters for each point in the basic three-part structure, or you could have a single chapter that has two different conflicts, each with their own three parts.
Of course, as much as I’ve learned about storytelling from Mythcreants, I’m probably not anywhere near as knowledgeable about it as Oren or Chris (or heck, maybe even some of the other commenters), so any corrections are welcome.
In light of novelty as a substitute for tension, you could see the wand shop as a turning point of sorts – when Harry gets the twin wand to Voldemort’s and the proprietor seems rather excited by it because Voldemort did “great” things. A non-tense scene whose turning point introduces tension rather than relieving it.
You’ve basically got it, let me just give a few minor clarifications.
Yes, a story can use novelty for entertainment, in which case the story doesn’t need as much tension. It will only last for a limited time and it’s risky to depend on it. It’s easy for a storyteller to overestimate how novel their worldbuilding is to their audiences. And in many of these cases, you can have both tension and novelty, so why wouldn’t you have both? The exception is if dropping tension a bit allows the character to do novel leisure activities they wouldn’t reasonably to otherwise.
However, even if tension is low, fractal story structure should still be there, it’s just more subtle. In that chapter of HP, Harry is concerned about whether he’ll fit into Hogwarts, and he engages in activities that will help him fit in. There are some scene level arcs reflecting that. As SunlessNick mentioned, in the wand shop it takes a while for him to find a fitting wand. He has a conflict where he runs into Malfoy and says noncommittal things to avoid becoming a target. The things that happen in the chapter provide movement in the story’s throughline.
A chapter that actually wasn’t part of the story’s structure might involve Harry going to the neighborhood park alone and engaging in non-magical activities for the day. That would be obviously tangential.
Thanks! I’ve never read Harry Potter, so I wasn’t familiar with what happens in that chapter. Your clarifications were very helpful!
Just so you know, the idea was already discussed by French author Yves Lavandier in his books “Construire un récit” (the cover was literaly a romanesco broccoli) and “La dramaturgie” (700 pages).
It’s from the 90s and has been actualized frequently since (my copy is of 2019).
I don’t know if it has been translated in English but it’s a good read.