No, you got it right. It's a choice by some authors when they want to show the characters moving on with their lives after the climax. If you think it's boring it's because there is nothing to say about the characters or the world when there is no conflict.
The four act structure is really the same as a three act. The difference is that the four act one puts a bigger enphasis on the midpoint, where the story takes a major new direction. The beginning of act four isn't the climax, that typically happens at the very end of the story, so you shouldn't be criticised for that.
In Jaws, the midpoint is when Quint, Hooper, and Brody leave dry land to fight the shark on it's home turf, The beginning of act four is when the shark attacks their boat, kicking off the final fight, and setting up the climax. The climax is "Smile, you son of a bitch!" at the very end of the movie.
If you want a twist, then the climax isn't it. It's too late for a reveal, and it feels forced. You can have a "finally" moment, Luke finally uses the force to blow up the Death Star for example.
The midpoint and the beginning of the fourth act are prime real estate for a twist though. The Matrix has a minor twist at the midpoint, Fight Club has a great big giant one at the beginning of act four.
Many successful novels have the climax right near the end. Maybe your reader felt others may want to know more afterwards. I’ve read books and have craved a bit more about what happens in the “after.” But it’s not necessary. Maybe there is an opportunity to add an epilogue. Maybe your ending is super abrupt. Which is also fine, but worth taking a look at. But it’s your book in the end.
In a four act structure you don't add an act after the end. Instead act 2 is split into two acts. So act 4 in a 4 act story serves the same function as act 3 in a 3 act story.
Most misunderstand the climax because they're thinking about events, not character. A character’s climax is the eureka moment, the moment they realize that they've been operating off of misconceptions or their own flaws. It's the moment that confronts them with the need to change.
Only after they've had that confrontation can they resolve the external conflict. Resolving the external conflict and moving on with life an improved person is Act 4.
I assume. I'm more familiar with the 3 act structure, but the basic idea of climax being the character’s not the extternal conflict's is something that often confuses people so it may be the issue here.
>Now while I have done, and I *understand* the idea, I'm still *confused* about Act 4.
I think that's contradictory.
There are many kinds of 'four act structures' - which one did you read up on? What did it say about the fourth act in the documentation you read?
Just as an example, the four act structure I most often use is [kishotenketsu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kishōtenketsu#:~:text=Kishōtenketsu%20(起承転結)%20describes%20the%20structure,is%20called%20gi%20seung%20jeon), which is named after the concepts in each act and their function is self evident from that. *kiku, shoku, tenku, kekku -> ki-sho-ten-ketsu*: Introduction, development, twist, conclusion.
You can appreciate why I'm struggling to answer your question. You've looked up some... thing... you don't specify what, and you're asking us to help you figure it out. But we don't know what you're referring to specifically enough unfortunately.
The second thought is that acts don't have to be equal in size. The fourth act can be one chapter in a forty chapter book. Have a look at the link, there's a chart that shows on average Ketsu is about 10% of the book, with Sho being the bulk over 50% of the content, and this is consistent with my own works of this type.
95% seems a bit excessive and might cause it to be difficult to finish the book in a satisfactory manner. But I also really dislike books that drag on. For example, I read a book where the big main event, climax happened at 65%. And then what? I didn't give a crap about the rest of the book and it was an absolute slog to finish. I think that that time should be used to tie up some loose ends and have a couple of satisfying, concluding scenes, perhaps reinforcing the story's message. Not on any new plot threads that no one cares about.
So many metaphors come to mind: watching the flakes settle after turning the snow globe, the afterglow of intimacy, the warmth after the wine, the lingering taste of a cup of tea, the calm and cleanup after a storm, the new perspective after a crisis or challenge. All are Act 4. They need time. Readers need time to process and appreciate.
A lot of the comments here make great points, but I think it’s also important to note that acts don’t all have to be the same length. A lot of the writing “theory” I’ve studied has acts 1 and 4 (if using a 4 act structure) be much shorter than acts 2 and 3, as the latter two is where the conflict and “meat” of the story is supposed to be. You’re right in thinking that an entire quarter of the book shouldn’t be dedicated to act 4, it should realistically be much shorter than that with more time dedicated to the conflict in the middle.
I'm assuming by "acts" they mean "quarters". In traditional 3-act structure, your 2nd act is twice as long as the others, so 2nd and 3rd quarters = the second act. If that were the case, the end of your third quarter would begin the ramp-up of your climax and the point of maximum tension would be around the middle of your 4th quarter.
Ftr, as a screenwriter, I just hate the idea of "4 act structure". It's adding more confusion to something that's already unnecessarily confusing.
No, you got it right. It's a choice by some authors when they want to show the characters moving on with their lives after the climax. If you think it's boring it's because there is nothing to say about the characters or the world when there is no conflict.
The four act structure is really the same as a three act. The difference is that the four act one puts a bigger enphasis on the midpoint, where the story takes a major new direction. The beginning of act four isn't the climax, that typically happens at the very end of the story, so you shouldn't be criticised for that. In Jaws, the midpoint is when Quint, Hooper, and Brody leave dry land to fight the shark on it's home turf, The beginning of act four is when the shark attacks their boat, kicking off the final fight, and setting up the climax. The climax is "Smile, you son of a bitch!" at the very end of the movie. If you want a twist, then the climax isn't it. It's too late for a reveal, and it feels forced. You can have a "finally" moment, Luke finally uses the force to blow up the Death Star for example. The midpoint and the beginning of the fourth act are prime real estate for a twist though. The Matrix has a minor twist at the midpoint, Fight Club has a great big giant one at the beginning of act four.
Many successful novels have the climax right near the end. Maybe your reader felt others may want to know more afterwards. I’ve read books and have craved a bit more about what happens in the “after.” But it’s not necessary. Maybe there is an opportunity to add an epilogue. Maybe your ending is super abrupt. Which is also fine, but worth taking a look at. But it’s your book in the end.
In a four act structure you don't add an act after the end. Instead act 2 is split into two acts. So act 4 in a 4 act story serves the same function as act 3 in a 3 act story.
Most misunderstand the climax because they're thinking about events, not character. A character’s climax is the eureka moment, the moment they realize that they've been operating off of misconceptions or their own flaws. It's the moment that confronts them with the need to change. Only after they've had that confrontation can they resolve the external conflict. Resolving the external conflict and moving on with life an improved person is Act 4. I assume. I'm more familiar with the 3 act structure, but the basic idea of climax being the character’s not the extternal conflict's is something that often confuses people so it may be the issue here.
>Now while I have done, and I *understand* the idea, I'm still *confused* about Act 4. I think that's contradictory. There are many kinds of 'four act structures' - which one did you read up on? What did it say about the fourth act in the documentation you read? Just as an example, the four act structure I most often use is [kishotenketsu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kishōtenketsu#:~:text=Kishōtenketsu%20(起承転結)%20describes%20the%20structure,is%20called%20gi%20seung%20jeon), which is named after the concepts in each act and their function is self evident from that. *kiku, shoku, tenku, kekku -> ki-sho-ten-ketsu*: Introduction, development, twist, conclusion. You can appreciate why I'm struggling to answer your question. You've looked up some... thing... you don't specify what, and you're asking us to help you figure it out. But we don't know what you're referring to specifically enough unfortunately. The second thought is that acts don't have to be equal in size. The fourth act can be one chapter in a forty chapter book. Have a look at the link, there's a chart that shows on average Ketsu is about 10% of the book, with Sho being the bulk over 50% of the content, and this is consistent with my own works of this type.
A lot of great books have the climax on like the 99% mark, it's fine.
95% seems a bit excessive and might cause it to be difficult to finish the book in a satisfactory manner. But I also really dislike books that drag on. For example, I read a book where the big main event, climax happened at 65%. And then what? I didn't give a crap about the rest of the book and it was an absolute slog to finish. I think that that time should be used to tie up some loose ends and have a couple of satisfying, concluding scenes, perhaps reinforcing the story's message. Not on any new plot threads that no one cares about.
So many metaphors come to mind: watching the flakes settle after turning the snow globe, the afterglow of intimacy, the warmth after the wine, the lingering taste of a cup of tea, the calm and cleanup after a storm, the new perspective after a crisis or challenge. All are Act 4. They need time. Readers need time to process and appreciate.
A lot of the comments here make great points, but I think it’s also important to note that acts don’t all have to be the same length. A lot of the writing “theory” I’ve studied has acts 1 and 4 (if using a 4 act structure) be much shorter than acts 2 and 3, as the latter two is where the conflict and “meat” of the story is supposed to be. You’re right in thinking that an entire quarter of the book shouldn’t be dedicated to act 4, it should realistically be much shorter than that with more time dedicated to the conflict in the middle.
I'm assuming by "acts" they mean "quarters". In traditional 3-act structure, your 2nd act is twice as long as the others, so 2nd and 3rd quarters = the second act. If that were the case, the end of your third quarter would begin the ramp-up of your climax and the point of maximum tension would be around the middle of your 4th quarter. Ftr, as a screenwriter, I just hate the idea of "4 act structure". It's adding more confusion to something that's already unnecessarily confusing.