Maybe, maybe not, but I do know bits about human psychology. The point I'm making is that responses to a piece of art are very much individual and personal. They aren't statistically measurable in the sense that the behavioural or cognitive effects of a buildings' structure on the public are. Nor do they rely necessarily on following a correct structure to be valid, as evidenced by quite a few absurdist and experimental disciplines, some of which do in fact employ entirely free form. Narrative structure tends to follow conventions for the sake of accessibility, much as the 3 minute format makes pop music accessible. More complex non linear and unconventional structures are used for a variety of purposes in terms of (for example) symbolism, exposition or reflecting the chaotic nature of human thought processes. However there's no reason to presuppose those structures are indispensable, much as jazz or numerous experimental forms dispense with many musical conventions. Therefore to claim there's some "correct" way to tell or interpret a story, available only to an elite few, is at the very least presumptuous, not to mention inaccurate.