This is the thing that fascinates me when people look to existing texts to guide the structure of their own work.

The ability to fit even quite simple stories into different structures retroactively justifies the attitude of A Single Universal Structure. https://twitter.com/jeannette_ng/status/1085466575887466497

The same applies to conflict driven storytelling or reactive protagonists. You can make the case for classic characters like Elizabeth Bennett or Frodo or whatever being reactive or proactive depending on what structure you're trying to make the case for.

Characters must grow and change and have arcs.... except for all the stories where adventure, or mechanics of a mystery, or literally anything else is the focus.

I mean, Asimov wrote logic puzzles thinly disguised as stories.

More people reading "how to write" guides are critiquing books and films than ever and you hear "this character is unmotivated and reactive" and other such structural critique more and more. And I'm ambivalent if that's a good lens.

Or at least I don't find it very useful. Arguing that your protagonist just needs A Goal (any goal) implies that all goals and motivations are ultimately equal and all you need to do is be good at conveying that when, well, it's not really true?

I think there's this eternal tensions between what makes for a useful tool in studying, analysing and comparing stories versus what is of use when you're actually writing one.

There is non-zero overlap in these two disciplines but they aren't the same.

Cue: every memorable pasta dish you had has wheat and olive oil and salt

But that isn't what makes those dishes good.

And adding wheat and olive oil and salt will not magically make a bad dish good.