I'm not sure I'm buying the theory laid out in this article, for at least two reasons.
First, I'm not even sure every good story can be shoehorned in the framework.
For example, how does the archetypal "vengeance story" fit in that framework?
In that type of story, many a time, the seeker of vengeance, once he's reached his goal after much struggling, finds he's destroyed himself in so doing.
Trying to apply the framework leads to the main character essentially never getting out of the hole ... you could argue that reaching the vengeance goal is a super short "high" of the story, but I find the argument specious.
Second, even if we assume that every story can somehow be shoehorned into a simple curve of highs and lows ... what does that actually teach you about the story?
More importantly, what kind of creative help does that buy you? I'm pretty sure I coud "reverse-engineer" any highs-an-lows type curve into a story rather easily ... will that make the story any kind of interesting? I doubt it.
First, I'm not even sure every good story can be shoehorned in the framework.
For example, how does the archetypal "vengeance story" fit in that framework?
In that type of story, many a time, the seeker of vengeance, once he's reached his goal after much struggling, finds he's destroyed himself in so doing.
Trying to apply the framework leads to the main character essentially never getting out of the hole ... you could argue that reaching the vengeance goal is a super short "high" of the story, but I find the argument specious.
Second, even if we assume that every story can somehow be shoehorned into a simple curve of highs and lows ... what does that actually teach you about the story?
More importantly, what kind of creative help does that buy you? I'm pretty sure I coud "reverse-engineer" any highs-an-lows type curve into a story rather easily ... will that make the story any kind of interesting? I doubt it.