The pattern I found mostly is - in comfort - something bad happens - try to get out of bad situation/get revenge - overcome many difficulties - maybe some plot twist - overcome last difficulty
What are good examples of the story setup in the articles?
It usually is both. If the protagonist doesn’t want anything then they (and the story) feels directionless. If there is no bad thing happening to them then the audience is left wondering why the protagonist deciced to go on a crazy adventure now, instead of some other time.
Let me illustrate this with the start of Star Wars a New Hope.
Luke clearly wants to leave his podunk life and seek adventure. Also and independently of this the Empire swoops in and kills the people who has raised him.
If the bad thing doesn’t happen he would finish his chores and then pick up some power converters.
If he wouldn’t have the want of an adventure he would hand over the droids, and grieve his uncle and aunt. He also probably would go and pick up some power converters.
For the story to happen you needed both, the want and the bad thing. Otherwise the farmer boy would have remained a farmer boy.
> What are good examples of the story setup in the articles?
How about you pick a story and if we also know it we can try to see if the pattern fits? It really is kinda universal. Not saying that all stories will fit but it is harder to find exceptions than examples.
It seems to me that most heros have a mentor that guides them on their way.
Originally, when I was trying to think about stories, the following came to mind - Revenge movies like John Wick (the first one), and video games like The Last of Us 2, where the protagonist originally just wants to go about his affairs, but bad things happen to them and they want revenge. - "Catastrophe" movies like Alien, Predator, Terminator 2, where the protagonist needs to act to stay alive.
The circle described by Harmon are just the overarching story beats, but there's plenty liberty to be had when moving from one beat to the next. There's also liberty in whether steps overlap or are combined, such as where the desire is defined/reshaped at the same time that they enter an unfamiliar situation (e.g., desire changes to one of survival at the same time as a catastrophe beginning).
In other words, the points on the circle may still exist regardless of what happens between them or if they happen simultaneously. Even acknowledging the liberty to be had, there's always exceptions to this heuristic and not every story will follow this structure.
(this is from memory, maybe that encounter goes differently than I recall)
Both have to happen, most of the time.
I think most story starts with the protagonist in some sort of _status quo_, where change is resisted, either because the protagonist doesn't want to change, or because the protagonist is incapable of change. Then, a catalyst happens (doesn't have to be something bad, though, for instance, in Harry Potter, the letter from Hogwarts is a good thing that kicks Harry out of the status quo), and the protagonist now wants or needs something so much that they has to enter and deal with unfamiliar situations.
Without "something happens to them", it's just strange that the protagonist suddenly decides to do something different without any reason. But ultimately, it has to be their choice to react to the catalyst. Making a decision is one of the most empathizeable elements of a story. It lets the reader step into the character's shoes and feel their inner debate.
Which films are you thinking of?
“I just wanted to live an ordinary life, then bad stuff happened, and I struggled against adversity and prevailed, then everyone dies.”
- Revenge movies like John Wick (the first one), and video games like The Last of Us 2, where the protagonist originally just wants to go about his affairs, but bad things happen to them and they want revenge.
- "Catastrophe" movies like Alien, Predator, Terminator 2, where the protagonist needs to act to stay alive
From another commenter I understand that the revenge or will to survive becomes the want. But not sure if it really fits the presented scheme that well anymore.
For one thing, this only really applies to stories with a single protagonist. But lots of stories don't have a protagonist, and thus rarely fit this mold at all.
Don't confuse a story for the text.
For example, you could, in principle, analyze the story of each individual character in the Iliad, but that would be missing the story. The story of the Iliad encompasses all of these different characters doing to their part to advance or retard their cause. Different characters are more important in different parts, but there is a single cohesive story being told.
* though even here I would say that the stories of many of the characters don't match the circle model - notably, Ned doesn't return to anything.
Even the Homer Odyssey is more complex then this pattern (except for its most boring chapters).
And you are right; not all books are like that: I just finished “Catcher in the Rey”. The protagonist goes through his ordeal totally unchanged; it is infuriating. I wanted to scream: Dude, didn't you get any wiser! On the other hand: He goes from a safe place, in the underworld of NY, through the night, faces dangers, returns home; depressed and tired; having learned… nothing!
For example, sticking with ancient myths, the story of Orpheus and Eurydice ends with the hero's defeat, he fails his greatest challenge and returns empty-handed, nothing having been resolved, not even any wiser. You could say the story contains the first few elements, but it wildly diverges towards the end.
Tell us the title of a good story which does not at least resemble the pattern.
What is described here is super simple hero journey. Not everything is an adventure.
But if it doesn’t have the tell-tale elements we have a hard time recognizing it as a story, and then we don’t have expectations to subvert.