# The formulaic novel.



## qwertyman (Jan 9, 2012)

Right, here’s the formula.

A Rom-com, mystery-thriller... _Reason – highest selling genres._

A male MC... _Reason - females will accept Male MCs. Males tend not to accept female  MCs._

Two female MCs who have scenes together where they talk...  _Reason – females buy more books_.

These scenes must be writtenby a female...  _Reason -  if written by a male they will turn out to be lesbians._

One of the female should be playable by Meryl Streep... _Reason –film rights, duh!_

It should contain a horse or a dog which show life-saving faithfulness, preferably to the antagonist... _Reason –  weepie appeal._

The conclusion should show revenge, death and redemption, but not to the same MC. _Reason – you’ll never cast the other roles if Ms Streep gets the death scene as well as revenge and redemption._

Fat lady sings. R_eason - Elton's busy.

What else?
_


----------



## philistine (Jan 9, 2012)

Mandatory death of the 'can't be disliked by anyone' character; really pull on those emotions!


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 9, 2012)

i can't think of any books that use more than one of those. two at a stretch. what exactly is your point, OP?


----------



## Chirios (Jan 9, 2012)

qwertyman said:


> Right, here’s the formula.
> 
> A Rom-com, mystery-thriller... _Reason – highest selling genres._
> 
> ...



You know what's really funny? The book I'm writing as a response to Twilight contains pretty much every single one of these elements. I had myself a right old chuckle. 
_
Leave room for a sequel. A series will make more money than a book, even if you pull the plot from the series straight out of your ass. _


----------



## philistine (Jan 10, 2012)

Chirios said:


> You know what's really funny? The book I'm writing as a response to Twilight contains pretty much every single one of these elements. I had myself a right old chuckle.
> _
> Leave room for a sequel. A series will make more money than a book, even if you pull the plot from the series straight out of your ass. _



On a serious note: I can't understand how people who do such things (farming a series, for example, purely motivated by money) live with themselves. I consider writing to be much more than just a way to make a quick buck; heck, the creation process as a whole, and I think those who don't must be seriously lacking something inside.


----------



## qwertyman (Jan 10, 2012)

philistine said:


> ... I consider writing to be much more than just a way to make a quick buck...



A quick buck!


----------



## philistine (Jan 10, 2012)

qwertyman said:


> A quick buck!



:excitement:


----------



## qwertyman (Jan 10, 2012)

Hi philistine,

Publishing is a business and writing is a creative process they live off each other.

If a publisher knocked on your garret door and asked you to write a formulaic novel, what would you say?

This is not the same question as an editor reading your script and saying, cut chapter four and make the MC a dwarf. It’s a commission.


----------



## philistine (Jan 10, 2012)

qwertyman said:


> Hi philistine,
> 
> Publishing is a business and writing is a creative process they live off each other.
> 
> ...



I'll look over the condescension in that post, and answer your question:

I wouldn't write it. Why would I? I write, paint and draw because I enjoy doing so, and have enjoyed selling the work (to those who it might appeal to), even greater. If I knew there was a market for someone who wanted a, b and c typical _cliche _nonsense (those box-art photographers come to mind-- yeuch), then I'd pass the opportunity on by. 

I realise my opinion is very much different from yours, evidently, and many others, though I was primarily an artist before a writer, and I guess my core principles are as solid as Japanese anti-earthquake technology. Writing or painting something simply because some told me to; well, I wouldn't be able to do it. No heart, no dice.


----------



## qwertyman (Jan 10, 2012)

Condescension…. splutter, splutter!

It was a statement followed by a question followed by a qualification.





> Writing or painting something simplybecause some told me to; well, I wouldn't be able to do it. No heart, no dice.



Okay, we obviously see things differently.I take a broader view of a writer’s job.

TAXI!


----------



## movieman (Jan 10, 2012)

philistine said:


> On a serious note: I can't understand how people who do such things (farming a series, for example, purely motivated by money) live with themselves.



Probably the same way that people who spend their days stacking shelves at Walmart live with themselves. There's nothing wrong with working for money and if you write the next Da Vinci Code you won't have to worry about money for the rest of your life.


----------



## philistine (Jan 10, 2012)

movieman said:


> Probably the same way that people who spend their days stacking shelves at Walmart live with themselves. There's nothing wrong with working for money and if you write the next Da Vinci Code you won't have to worry about money for the rest of your life.



That's a terrible example. Stacking shelves at a supermarket, assuming one had that job, would be done with the intention of surviving; to provide a living for oneself, no matter how meagre and ill-catering such a salary could provide. Writing a puddle-deep novel on the other hand, is, despite the opinion of many, still quite difficult, and requires a willingness (assuming it bore the same success as Brown's _magnum opus) _which is, in accordance with basic survival, completely unnecessary.


----------



## Chirios (Jan 10, 2012)

philistine said:


> On a serious note: I can't understand how people who do such things (farming a series, for example, purely motivated by money) live with themselves.



You don't understand how they live with themselves? Seriously? They live with themselves by paying for food with the money that the Farmed Series brings in.


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 10, 2012)

I see Phillistine's point.

And, ironically, it's something you see in books (and movies) time and again.. the author/musician/painter/filmmaker/actor finds himself at the end of a corporate leash, told how to construct his craft, and, when he expresses his desire to produce something new, something spiritual, meaningful, something of significance to him, he's told patronizingly, "Oh, you don't want to do _that_, dear artist. Trust me. _That_ is rubbish. _This_ is what sells. _This_ is what you were meant to create." and the artist, cliche as it may be, responds by lashing out, by tearing up the formulaic manuscript or smashing the synthesized recording, and expresses triumphantly his newfound self-respect.

And the publisher/agent/corporate fat cat responds by yelling "You'll never work in this town again!"


----------



## JosephB (Jan 10, 2012)

qwertyman said:


> If a publisher knocked on your garret door and asked you to write a formulaic novel, what would you say?



Possibly -- if I had the time and the money was right and/or I needed the money. I  would be perfectly capable separating the task from my personal writing  -- and would look at it as purely a business proposition -- not as some  artistic compromise or sell-out. I've written plenty of ad and marketing  copy -- I'd consider writing a novel for hire to be something similar.  It's writing -- but it's not MY writing.

I'm sure the people who do it regularly aren't hindered by any artistic  pretensions. They likely see it as a good way to make money -- probably  doing something they enjoy. More power to them.


----------



## The Backward OX (Jan 10, 2012)

luckyscars said:


> i can't think of any books that use more than one of those. two at a stretch. what exactly is your point, OP?



When you've been around this place as long as some of us, you'll realise there's rarely a point to any thread created by querty.


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 11, 2012)

movieman said:


> Probably the same way that people who spend their days stacking shelves at Walmart live with themselves. There's nothing wrong with working for money and if you write the next Da Vinci Code you won't have to worry about money for the rest of your life.





			
				phillistine said:
			
		

> That's a terrible example. Stacking shelves at a supermarket, assuming one had that job, would be done with the intention of surviving; to provide a living for oneself, no matter how meagre and ill-catering such a salary could provide. Writing a puddle-deep novel on the other hand, is, despite the opinion of many, still quite difficult, and requires a willingness (assuming it bore the same success as Brown's _magnum opus) which is, in accordance with basic survival, completely unnecessary._



yeah, movieman, you're a fool. so is qwerty for that matter. anybody who see's writing as being a legitimate pathway to making money - a 'quick buck' - clearly suffers from two delusions. firstly, that there is much money to be made in writing. sure, there's some money in it. but the fact is the majority of writers who are considered successful, and an even greater majority of writers who are considered both successful AND skilled, never make a real living from writing. in fact, many of the greatest writers of all time were not recognized as such until they were long dead and frequently died in poverty. obviously you have your JK Rowlings' and Tom Clancy's and so on, but who cares? your best chance of being a good writer is to accept that you will probably never make more than the occasional buck. it's nothing like stacking shelves at walmart. the people who stack shelves at walmart don't do it for fun. the job allows them no real ability to create, to inspire, to enchant. they watch the clock and work and there's nothing wrong with that, but if you think for a second that's even remotely comparable to a 'writing career' you're mistaken. 

so what is the point in writing? success, sure. there's nothing wrong with being successful. but you mustn't think of it in terms of readership figures or dollar signs. the success should be based not on creating work for an existing audience but on creating an audience for an existing work. compromise can only go so far. otherwise whats the point? what's the incentive? if it is only money or fame, well, there's much easier ways to make money and there's much easier ways to be famous. if you want money then go to college and get an office job, or work at walmart, or steal a car radio. whatever you like, but all of those ways are probably going to make you more money than through writing. if you want fame, well then that's easier still. go murder a prostitute and become a serial killer! you'll be darn famous. especially if it's really gruesome (heck, maybe someone will even write a book about you) but nobody will particularly look up to you for any of those things anymore than anybody will look up to you for being a bad writer. the point is, writing is not an efficient way to achieve either money or fame. and, more important, it screams of intellectual dishonesty and charlatanism.

that's why this whole notion that writing a 'formulaic' novel is so stupid. why the hell would you want to write one? most wont respect you for it and the ones who do will likely be the kind of people whose affections you wont want anyhow. the goal in writing should only be one thing: to be a good writer.


----------



## The Backward OX (Jan 11, 2012)

luckyscars said:


> that's why this whole notion that writing a 'formulaic' novel is so stupid. why the hell would you want to write one? most wont respect you for it and the ones who do will likely be the kind of people whose affections you wont want anyhow. the goal in writing should only be one thing: to be a good writer.



I'll drink to that!


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 11, 2012)

luckyscars said:


> that's why this whole notion that writing a 'formulaic' novel is so stupid. why the hell would you want to write one? most wont respect you for it and the ones who do will likely be the kind of people whose affections you wont want anyhow.



"Rahhh! HULK SMASH!"

: D


----------



## qwertyman (Jan 11, 2012)

luckyscars said:


> yeah, movieman, you're a fool. so is qwerty for that matter. anybody who see'swriting as being a legitimate pathway to making money...



So it's true, Americans don't understand irony.




luckyscars said:


> ... this whole notion that writing a 'formulaic'novel is so stupid. why the hell would you want to write one? most wont respectyou for it and the ones who do will likely be the kind of people whoseaffections you wont want anyhow. the goal in writing should only be one thing:to be a good writer...



The problem with shooting from the hip is that you are likely to shoot yourselfin the mouth. Ask OX, he’s shot himself in the mouth so many times he can’t eat soup.

A huge chunk of novels are formulaic: pick up an Agatha Christie or a JohnGrisham.




			
				KyleColorado said:
			
		

> ..when he expresses his desire to produce something new, something spiritual, meaningful, something ofsignificance to him, he's told patronizingly, "Oh, you don't want to do _that_,dear artist. Trust me. _That_ is rubbish. _This_ is what sells. _This _is what you were meant to create." and the artist, cliche as it may be,responds by lashing out, by tearing up the formulaic manuscript or smashing the synthesized recording, and expresses triumphantly his new found self-respect.



Don't presuppose that a formulaic novel can't be well-written.

You can write for yourself, or you can write to be read by others, it’s your choice.  

I can hear it now…’Judy, I don’t care if only one person reads it. As long as that person gets the message, it would have been worth it.’- cue music...cut to barn.

The hard truth is only four or five WFers are capable of writing a publishable ‘Literary novel’. More are capable of writing an entertaining read. Cut your cloth.


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 11, 2012)

qwertyman said:


> Don't presuppose that a formulaic novel can't be well-written.



Oh, I'm sure it can, qwerty! I was referring to the formula-artist who begins to rebel against the creative constrictions... an occurance so (apparantly) common it has, in itself, become a cliche.

A shackled dairy cow will produce milk, but the cow would be happier free.



			
				qwertyman said:
			
		

> You can write for yourself, or you can write to be read by others, it’s your choice.


I choose both!



			
				qwertyman said:
			
		

> I can hear it now…’Judy, I don’t care if only one person reads it. As long as that person gets the message, it would have been worth it.’- cue music...cut to barn.







			
				qwertyman said:
			
		

> The hard truth is only four or five WFers are capable of writing a publishable ‘Literary novel’. More are capable of writing an entertaining read. Cut your cloth.


Are you saying a Literary Novel cannot be an "entertaining read"?


----------



## BabaYaga (Jan 11, 2012)

I once wrote a 200 page long computer manual for beginners on commission. Was it fun? No. Did it pay enough to keep me off the streets a while? Yes. Would I consider it _my _writing? No. 

If a publisher wanted me to write a formulaic novel about teen vampires who go to a special school to learn magic and on the way have to unravel a cryptic mystery surrounding the birth of Christ with the help of a Meryl Streep-esque mentor, then yes, I would write it, why not? A paying job is a paying job and it beats stacking shelves at Walmart by a mile. And it stretches the same writing muscles so that you'll be fitter for your 'real' work. 

I reserve my right to pseudonyms though.


----------



## Aderyn (Jan 11, 2012)

qwertyman said:


> The hard truth is only four or five WFers are capable of writing a publishable ‘Literary novel’. More are capable of writing an entertaining read. Cut your cloth.



I thought about writing a literary novel once or twice, but made some toast instead :glee:


----------



## qwertyman (Jan 11, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> Are you saying a Literary Novel cannot be an "entertaining read"?



No, you know what I meant.

#

An author (short-listed for the Booker prize) told me his American Agent had advised him to write a Mystery/Crime novel.  The mailing list for this category is the longest, and to be on the list gets you before more readers. The Author,did so, it became a top-seller and he sold the film rights.

Did he sell his soul? No, he is a writer, that's what he does. 
Did he lose his self-respect, don't be ridiculous!

Get a grip.


----------



## The Backward OX (Jan 11, 2012)

qwertyman said:


> The hard truth is only four or five WFers are capable of writing a publishable ‘Literary novel’. More are capable of writing an entertaining read. Cut your cloth.



You've moved the stumps -who mentioned WFers in this discussion? Methinks E Annie Proulx writes an entertaining lit'ry piece now and again.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 11, 2012)

luckyscars said:


> that's why this whole notion that writing a 'formulaic' novel is so stupid. why the hell would you want to write one? most wont respect you for it and the ones who do will likely be the kind of people whose affections you wont want anyhow. the goal in writing should only be one thing: to be a good writer.



If I read a novel, was moved by it and thought it was beautifully written, and I later discovered the author had cranked out a romance novel or two to make ends meet, I wouldn’t think less of the novel or of him. The idea that he might have made some kind of artistic compromise, and therefore he’s not worthy of my respect, seems like a load of pretentious twaddle to me. And I wouldn’t really want the respect of anyone who thought less of me for doing the same thing. I’m betting that most successful writers wouldn’t care either – that most people wouldn’t -- with the possible exception of wannabe writers who haven’t really achieved much of anything themselves.


----------



## qwertyman (Jan 11, 2012)

WFers aint Newfies...and ther's soup on your vest!


----------



## garza (Jan 11, 2012)

Not being an artist, I see the purpose of writing as a way of making a living without having to go out and look for a day job. Sorry if that offends but it's the way I was raised. When I was a youngster my grandfather told me to find something I enjoyed doing that would make me a decent living and I'd never have to work. His definition of 'work' had nothing to do with the expenditure of energy but rather had to do with spending time doing that which one does not enjoy doing. He died when I was ten but had already created in me a love for language and for writing. By the time I was 12 I knew that being a writer was what I wanted, and from the age of 14 I have made my way in the world putting one word after another. 

People have told me that I'm not a 'real' writer because I write to make money. I don't apologise. A writer is what I am, and writing is what I do. It's what pays the rent and buys the groceries. There are more like me than you realise. We are not extremely wealthy or famous like the Grishams of the world who have creative talents we don't have, but we live quite well, thank you, and are quite happy to read a Grisham novel and be able, because of our experiences in the world, to pick out the underpinnings of the story in a way the ordinary reader cannot. And on occasion one of us will break ranks and reveal creative abilities. Hemingway is a good example.

The only long piece of fiction I've ever had published was a romance written to formula. The publisher provided a detailed outline and set of character descriptions. The writing was a matter of filling in the blanks. Years ago there was a lot of that sort of book sold in the supermarkets in the U.S. Whether that's still the case I don't know, not having been in a U.S. supermarket in many years. 

Writing that book was not a satisfying experience. I've had more enjoyment writing policy papers on such subjects as integrated farming systems, and that's not a joke. Such papers are part of the real world and can affect the lives of real people. The month spent preparing a paper of that kind can produce income equivalent to a year's work in a well-paying day job, and I don't apologise for that. 

When you read the frontline reports from journalists watching people shoot at one another and risking their lives to get you the story, consider that those are real writers who love their craft and who have no need to apologise to anyone for being paid and paid well to write. And if one of them should turn that frontline experience into a best-selling novel, more power to him. Most of us old hack writers are satisfied with the dollars. My recent efforts at learning to write fiction are fun, but are unlikely to produce anything tangible.


----------



## Chirios (Jan 11, 2012)

luckyscars said:


> yeah, movieman, you're a fool. so is qwerty for that matter. anybody who see's writing as being a legitimate pathway to making money - a 'quick buck' - clearly suffers from two delusions. firstly, that there is much money to be made in writing. sure, there's some money in it. but the fact is the majority of writers who are considered successful, and an even greater majority of writers who are considered both successful AND skilled, never make a real living from writing.



You sure about that? 

What if you make money editing movie scripts?

What if you make money writing for a tv show

What if you make money writing for an advertising company?

That's formulaic writing, that earns money, not a huge amount of money but it's a salary so I can't fault whoever does it.


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 11, 2012)

qwertyman said:


> No, you know what I meant.


I didn't, hence why I asked. My question was neither rhetorical nor sarcastic. I was genuinely curious of your opinion, as I, personally, find "Literary" fiction comfortable to write, and "Entertaining" fiction a challenge, something I've been looking to improve upon. And, seeing as you distinguished between the two, you piqued my curiosity.



			
				qwertyman said:
			
		

> An author (short-listed for the Booker prize) told me his American Agent had advised him to write a Mystery/Crime novel.  The mailing list for this category is the longest, and to be on the list gets you before more readers. The Author,did so, it became a top-seller and he sold the film rights.
> 
> Did he sell his soul? No, he is a writer, that's what he does.
> Did he lose his self-respect, don't be ridiculous!
> ...



My emotional state isn't in flux. No need to insinuate otherwise.

Your argument seems to be "Look, here's a guy who was successful writing in a certain genre, this proves that formulaic writing is a good thing."

I can just as easily cite examples of authors who wrote _sans _formula, for example Jennifer Egan's Pulitzer Prize-winning "A Visit from the Goon Squad" which one could argue does not even fit the classical definition of a novel, as it contains a chapter done entirely in Power Point format.

My only qualm with this thread, (and I admit, I at first thought your OP was entirely made in jest, but seeing how you have vigorously defended it I now am beginning to wonder) is the implication of a formula at all in regards to fiction writing.

Though, my disagreement is not with you personally, but with the notion itself: that something I enjoy as a form of self-expression can be so rudimentally deduced into a recipe of "take 2.5 characters, insert genre combination, add a splash of redemption and a sprinkle of hollywood appeal and, voila! Instant best-seller."

What then, I wonder, would be the point of writing? I could simply take a popular book, alter the character names and tweak the plot just enough to make it seem new, and then reap in the profits. I wouldn't, then, consider myself a writer, but something else entirely. And I certainly wouldn't enjoy it.


----------



## philistine (Jan 11, 2012)

As has already pointed out, there are two very antipodean, as it were, trains of thought going on here, and approaches to the craft which we all so enjoy. I understand how many of you, who make what I presume is a good living out of writing full-time, have a sort of pressure, at least every once in a while, to write... even if that means creating something to a specification, or writing a novel-by-numbers, so to speak. 



> Oh, I'm sure it can, qwerty! I was referring to the formula-artist who begins to rebel against the creative constrictions... an occurance so (apparantly) common it has, in itself, become a cliche.
> 
> A shackled dairy cow will produce milk, but the cow would be happier free.



As I've mentioned previously in this thread, this is how I see it. I know that if and when I were to make enough money from writing _my_ work, it would be an incredibly long journey, and there may be hard times should I choose to rely on it wholly. However, rather than take the leap completely into the writing world, keeping the wolf from the door with cheap manuscripts, dime-a-dozen thrillers, romances and whatever else, I'd sooner work a crappy job, and write on the side in relative security, even if that meant taking a significant drop in salary. 

Several years ago, a painter friend of mine (who has, coincidentally, taken up writing in the interim) was commissioned by an elderly chap to paint a portrait of his wife. He'd saw a sample of his work some place or other, and offered him what was then a _very, _significant amount of money for it. The job was fairly simple, and would have been maybe a weeks' worth of work, provided he put in a few hours a day. Long story short; he couldn't do it. He couldn't paint something without having any motivation in the project. Enticed originally by the money, he realised almost instantly that he wouldn't be able to fulfil the desires of the chap without disappointing himself. 

His brother gave him a massive earful over it, as did some of his (non-artist, worth mentioning) friends. I understood instantly, as I have been in the same position. Principles like this don't necessarily belong to hacks, dreamers or people who will never see success, as I believe someone suggested, but rather people who have a somewhat stricter and more stringent passion for their work. They write what they want to write, and would sooner let their finances _et al_ suffer before doing otherwise.

I have to say I feel a vague jealousy for people who can actually write these side projects as means of making money, as they will almost certainly find it easier to live off their writing. I also have a contempt for them, too.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 11, 2012)

Contempt? Ha ha.


----------



## Jon M (Jan 11, 2012)

Kind of agree with philistine here. I just don't think I could drum up the energy to write a formulaic novel. No problem separating 'writing for dinner' from 'writing for pleasure/art', it's more that I think such a project would sap the life out of me, make writing very unpleasant -- to the point that I might be tempted to give it up.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 11, 2012)

Yeah -- I totally get that. I just don't see it as a compromise of artistic or any other kind of principles. That just comes of as pretentious to me.


----------



## philistine (Jan 11, 2012)

JosephB said:


> Contempt? Ha ha.



Insofar that the person writing such work takes pride in doing so, no matter how impossible that may seem to be.



johnM said:


> Kind of agree with philistine here. I just don't think I could drum up the energy to write a formulaic novel. No problem separating 'writing for dinner' from 'writing for pleasure/art', *it's more that I think such a project would sap the life out of me*, make writing very unpleasant -- to the point that I might be tempted to give it up.



Exactly. Painting, writing, drawing, etching, sculpting-- all of them require the gusto of inspiration, and subsequently, passion for doing, and eventually, completion-- to be able to carry out the project in any stage of its' development. Say I start painting some guy's family who I don't know, reclining on the couch; why? Why would I do it? I have no passion for such a thing, and once that realisation arrives, the death of the project follows shortly afterwards.

EDIT: I just remembered what is perhaps the most poignant of examples of this behaviour:

Mark Rothko, once commissioned to paint what was *I think* four large canvases for the Four Seasons restaurant in Manhattan, for what was a sum equivalent in todays moolah around three million USD. He turned it down for the same reason. He subsequently committed suicide, so perhaps this isn't the best example, but damnit, he stuck by his principles.

He may have gone through that wad in about three months anyway, what with the 200 cigarettes a day.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 11, 2012)

philistine said:


> Insofar that the person writing such work takes pride in doing so, no matter how impossible that may seem to be.



It’s simply a matter of taking pride in what you do -- that can apply to almost any kind of job. It’s not impossible for anyone whose sense of self-worth isn’t all tied up in the notion that he’s some kind artist and/or what other people think.

If you’re also doing what’s important to you – then I don’t see why it matters – other than as John says, it might be a drain or make writing unpleasant.


----------



## garza (Jan 11, 2012)

So then, phillistine and johnM, I presume that you hold those of us who write for a living in highest contempt. The fact that we make money doing something we love to do is, if I read you correctly, morally degenerate in your eyes. This is the attitude I mentioned in my last post. 

I'm a craftsman. I have marketable skills. Even though I call myself retired, if the FAO were to offer me a lucrative contract to research and write a handbook on, say, nutritional benefits of home gardening in developing countries, should I reject the contract because I had not been 'inspired' to write such a book? Or should I sign the contract and get started on the project? You'd better believe I'd sign. So am I to be held in contempt, seen as morally degenerate, because I agree to accept a sackful of Euros in exchange for selling my skills? 

The painter who refused to accept the commission did what he believed was right for him to do. He should not be blamed for that. On the other side of the coin, should I be blamed for saying that for sure I would have accepted the commission, and I would have painted the best picture I could paint to fulfil that commission.

Not being an artist, perhaps I cannot understand much of what has been said in this thread. I have certain skills. For well over half a century I have used those skill to make a living. Is that wrong? My son is a builder. From his teen years he has made a good living selling his skills. Should he reject the next commission to build a strip mall because he's not 'inspired'? I think not. But then, he's not an artist either.

Edit - Just realised I'd violated one of my own rules for writing - never use an acronym without explaining it. FAO is the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. They have substantial resources for commissioning various projects, especially those concerning developing nations.


----------



## Foxee (Jan 11, 2012)

I've approached writing in both ways, experiencing the inspiration of my own imagination and the satisfaction of creating a story that I really like (but may or may not sell) all the way to writing for a content mill which is grueling and not at all artistic - it's just a matter of arranging words sufficiently to get paid. I could imagine writing a formulaic novel if asked (and possibly bribed) though romance specifically wouldn't be very interesting to me. I've considered it and so far haven't tried it simply because it's so predictable that it makes me want to scream.

And that, to me is the main problem with formulaic novels, their predictability. I've read formulaic thrillers and action stories that I knew were somewhat standardized and yet were really good and enjoyable and could even keep me guessing. When this kind of writing is pretty bad is whenever the author has doggedly followed the formula, dutifully produced a novel, and some dip published it. When it's predicable in the extreme and shows about as much enthusiasm from the author as what they might use for a content mill, that is a bad formulaic novel.

Some authors have their own formula, too, I've noticed that Janet Evanovich's book pretty much follow a similar track each time although she keeps it overall fun and entertaining even when you're thinking, "Stephanie Plum's car got destroyed again...I saw that coming!" but still you laugh or wince because she came up with yet another creative idea for it.


----------



## garza (Jan 11, 2012)

Ah, but Foxee, you have an imagination - something some of us lack. That makes a big difference. In trying to write fiction, I realise that all such efforts are a reflection of the real world as seen through my eyes. To create something new is beyond my ability as a writer. I can observe, research, interview, remember, and report, but I cannot create.

That creative ability is what sets the artist apart from the hack. I can write, and I can sell what I write, but I cannot create a new world. I'm stuck with the one I've lived in for 71 years. 

Formulas don't bother me if they are executed properly - just at dawn in a misty rain and the blindfold declined.


----------



## qwertyman (Jan 11, 2012)

There's a confusion here. I'm arguing that a writer should have the ability to write a formulaic novel. Not that he/she has to. 

#



philistine said:


> I have to say I feel a vague jealousy for people who can actually write these side projects as means of making money, as they will almost certainly find it easier to live off their writing. I also have a contempt for them, too.



Why do you assume that a commissioned novel will be written badly?

Contempt! I don't believe you have thought that remark through.


----------



## Foxee (Jan 11, 2012)

But, Garza, I really don't think that a novel needs to be set in some different world to be interesting. I've read and enjoyed well-researched historical novels and I read John Grisham's 'The Innocent Man' avidly (and that wasn't a novel so much as a real-life story). There is nothing wrong with using the real world in fiction provided you have enough knowledge and research to bring it to life and solid interesting characters. Really, though, fiction that is set in worlds other than this should still have feet firmly on the ground in order to help the reader suspend disbelief over the more far-fetched parts.


----------



## philistine (Jan 11, 2012)

qwertyman said:


> There's a confusion here. I'm arguing that a writer should have the ability to write a formulaic novel. Not that he/she has to.
> 
> *
> Why do you assume that a commissioned novel will be written badly?*
> ...



Because that is usually the case, whether it be a novel, photograph, song, painting or otherwise. I know More commissioned, at least in some sense, Erasmus's _In Praise of Folly_, and that was a work of pure genius. However, he had almost full creative whack in that project, unlike many of the pre-designed novels people are commissioned to write, such as has been mentioned already in this thread.

I'm sorry if you believe you're more qualified to register my feelings and views more so than I.


----------



## garza (Jan 11, 2012)

So then, phillistine and johnM, I presume that silence gives consent. 

Well, so be it. I will accept your contempt, along with the cheques I receive in residual payment for works previously published but which continue to earn dollars, pounds, and Euros.


----------



## movieman (Jan 11, 2012)

Chirios said:


> That's formulaic writing, that earns money, not a huge amount of money but it's a salary so I can't fault whoever does it.



Some time back I read a blog post by a writer who'd written a number of movie novelisations as well as his own novels. I forget who it was, but from what I do remember they paid around $40k for 2-3 weeks work.

Hands up all those who'd turn that down?


----------



## yingguoren (Jan 11, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> I see Phillistine's point.
> 
> And, ironically, it's something you see in books (and movies) time and again.. the author/musician/painter/filmmaker/actor finds himself at the end of a corporate leash, told how to construct his craft, and, when he expresses his desire to produce something new, something spiritual, meaningful, something of significance to him, he's told patronizingly, "Oh, you don't want to do _that_, dear artist. Trust me. _That_ is rubbish. _This_ is what sells. _This_ is what you were meant to create." and the artist, cliche as it may be, responds by lashing out, by tearing up the formulaic manuscript or smashing the synthesized recording, and expresses triumphantly his newfound self-respect.
> 
> And the publisher/agent/corporate fat cat responds by yelling "You'll never work in this town again!"



Does anyone else have a sudden fear of laying in bed incapacitated and having their legs smushed by a psychotic nurse?

I always thought King wrote that novel based on an experience of being told to write something that he didn't want to write.


----------



## philistine (Jan 11, 2012)

garza said:


> Well, so be it. I will accept your contempt, along with the cheques I receive in residual payment for works previously published but which continue to earn dollars, pounds, and Euros.



Bragging about money, really? Anyway:



garza said:


> So then, phillistine and johnM, I presume that you hold those of us who write for a living in highest contempt. The fact that we make money doing something we love to do is, if I read you correctly, morally degenerate in your eyes. This is the attitude I mentioned in my last post.
> 
> I'm a craftsman. I have marketable skills. Even though I call myself retired, if the FAO were to offer me a lucrative contract to research and write a handbook on, say, nutritional benefits of home gardening in developing countries, should I reject the contract because I had not been 'inspired' to write such a book? Or should I sign the contract and get started on the project? You'd better believe I'd sign. So am I to be held in contempt, seen as morally degenerate, because I agree to accept a sackful of Euros in exchange for selling my skills?
> 
> ...



You seem to be taking great offence to something which I meant virtually none whatsoever. My first post on the topic was very much how I felt, and how it would go against everything that I stood for. Such a view is typically that of artists, exclusively, though having gone into writing some time ago, it obviously hasn't left me, and applied itself with the same stringency to my literary work. This isn't a bad thing, of course.

By your own admission, you are not an artist, so you cannot understand what I am talking about. You can try of course, and the logic may very well be sound should you try and imagine where I come from. It won't, however, ever make any real sense, and leave you grasping at straws at how someone can willingly turn down monetary gain for something which assuredly, they could accomplish without busting their arse too much.

The intel about your son and his building projects was, in essence, a _non sequitur_.

And to the guy who made the ridiculously base assumption that everyone would sell their soul for money; nope, no I wouldn't. If I was going to write a screenplay, I'd do it in my own time, for free, and if anyone wanted it, they could have it.


----------



## yingguoren (Jan 11, 2012)

qwertyman said:


> A huge chunk of novels are formulaic: pick up an Agatha Christie or a JohnGrisham.




Agatha Christie's not the best example. Only a handful of her novels are formulaic. Most of them - even her earliest books - subverted the typical features of the murder mystery genre. She is a good example of someone who evolved her writing style and expertise in a specific genre.


----------



## yingguoren (Jan 11, 2012)

movieman said:


> Probably the same way that people who spend their days stacking shelves at Walmart live with themselves. There's nothing wrong with working for money and if you write the next Da Vinci Code you won't have to worry about money for the rest of your life.



There's nothing wrong with doing any type of job for money, as long as someone takes pride in their work. And I think that's the real problem with writers of formulaic novels. Writing purely for money, with no enjoyment or use of creativity, is like the equivalent of shuffling bits of paper to look busy and making sure you get paid at the end of the month.

I was recently approached by someone who had seen examples of my writing on another website. They wanted to get a group of writers together to produce 4 or 5 books a year. The fact that they praised my writing, which takes time and commitment to produce to a decent quality, and then said that they would want me to write 5 pages a day, just lacked logic. If I tried to produce 5 pages a day, on top of my day job, then it would not be the same quality of work that had interested them in my writing in the first place.

I had to turn it down. I would prefer to keep my part-time job as a postman and write what I want to write.


----------



## movieman (Jan 11, 2012)

luckyscars said:


> yeah, movieman, you're a fool.



That's good to know.



> anybody who see's writing as being a legitimate pathway to making money - a 'quick buck' - clearly suffers from two delusions. firstly, that there is much money to be made in writing.



The reason I specificially mentioned Dan Brown is because I read a while back that after reading some kind of popular thriller/mystery novel, he said 'this is easy, I can do better than that' (or words to that effect) and wrote his first novel. 'Da Vinci Code' was his second, wasn't it?

So if the article I read was true, then he's become quite wealthy by following his delusion.

BTW, I didn't see any sign of your second delusion in your post.



> but the fact is the majority of writers who are considered successful, and an even greater majority of writers who are considered both successful AND skilled, never make a real living from writing.



Every time I've seen someone try to determine how many people really do make a living from writing, they seem to come up with a figure of several thousand in America alone. Obviously that's far less than the number who make a living stacking shelves at Walmart, but I suspect you'd be hard-pressed to find more than a few thousand writers you could call 'successful'.

The idea that 'only two hundred writers make a living from writing' (or whatever version is going around today) is a myth which falls apart as soon as you look for any data to support it. Of course the people who do make a living are primarily those who write what people want to read and don't wait years between novels because they're worried that they're writing something 'formulaic'.



> that's why this whole notion that writing a 'formulaic' novel is so stupid. why the hell would you want to write one? most wont respect you for it and the ones who do will likely be the kind of people whose affections you wont want anyhow.



I'm sure Dan Brown is really upset that no-one respects him as a writer. He probably cries into his margarita every day as he lounges by his pool.


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 11, 2012)

qwertyman said:


> So it's true, Americans don't understand irony.




i'm not American FYI. i'm british. i've actually said that a few times on this forum. i live in America but i lived in the UK until my early 20's. but top marks for sweeping generalizations anyhow.



qwertyman said:


> No, you know what I meant.
> 
> #
> 
> ...



he may not have lost his self-respect, but i assure you he probably didn't feel as proud of his work as he might have if he'd written something he actually wanted to write. note, i never once said that it wasn't important for people to like your work. it is, at least if you intend on being a great writer. success is important. without readers you can't make an impact and without an impact you will never be a great writer. but there's a big difference between writing something for people to enjoy and writing something 'formulaic'. the fact is most of the most popular books were not written the way you describe. don't patronize your readership by assuming you know what they want. think of a book like War Of The Worlds by H.G Wells. it may not stand out as being original in today's sci-fi heavy world, but at its time it was about as out there as you can get. nothing about it was formulaic. and, guess what? it was hugely popular then and even more popular now. good writing sells, and even if it doesnt then people still love it. because its GOOD. it's very unlikely a book written with any kind of 'formula' in mind will ever be decent.

i write in a genre that, as far as i know, no writer has ever tried. i won't go into detail, but it's anything but formulaic in the way you describe. that's not to say it's stunningly original since, like almost everything, if you strip it down it's probably made up of hundreds of 'borrowed' aspects from established genres. and yeah, when i'm writing i do try to make certain things palatable to a reader. i try and make the characters empathetic, the scenarios believable, the antagonist(s) frightening and the scenes attractive. but i don't do this for any other reason than that i want the reader to be immersed in the story. and i sure as hell don't do it to sell books. it's not formulaic because i am not writing it to a formula. if it ends up seeming like it is then that's entirely incidental to the process.


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 11, 2012)

movieman said:


> The reason I specificially mentioned Dan Brown is because I read a while back that after reading some kind of popular thriller/mystery novel, he said 'this is easy, I can do better than that' (or words to that effect) and wrote his first novel.



so what? that doesn't mean a damn thing. i first started writing because i felt i could do better than the stuff i was reading. that doesn't mean i felt i could sell more books. it meant i felt i could write better, and write things people would get more out of.





movieman said:


> Every time I've seen someone try to determine how many people really do make a living from writing, they seem to come up with a figure of several thousand in America alone. Obviously that's far less than the number who make a living stacking shelves at Walmart, but I suspect you'd be hard-pressed to find more than a few thousand writers you could call 'successful'.
> 
> The idea that 'only two hundred writers make a living from writing' (or whatever version is going around today) is a myth which falls apart as soon as you look for any data to support it. Of course the people who do make a living are primarily those who write what people want to read and don't wait years between novels because they're worried that they're writing something 'formulaic'.



there is no data to support that. even if the number was several hundred thousand that's almost certainly a tiny percentage of people who write fiction professionally, which is what we're talking about. most people who make a living from writing may write 'formulaic' stuff. but so what? if you want to make a living for writing then write cook-books. that's like saying 'five hundred thousand people in america drive vehicles for a living' and using it to support an argument that it's easy to be a race-car driver, when in reality four hundred and ninety nine thousand of those people are driving box trucks and taxi-cabs. it obscures the fact that the 'real deal' is not a money spinner for the overwhelming majority.


----------



## Sam (Jan 11, 2012)

_Mod Note: Please keep replies related to the topic and not the people posting. Thank you. _


----------



## garza (Jan 11, 2012)

phillistine - The one long piece of fiction I've ever had published was written to formula. It wasn't very good. I'm trying to learn to write fiction now, and suspect that if I worked by a formula it would be easier, but probably no better than that other one.


----------



## The Backward OX (Jan 11, 2012)

inappropriate


----------



## Jon M (Jan 11, 2012)

garza said:


> So then, phillistine and johnM, I presume that you hold those of us who write for a living in highest contempt.





garza said:


> So then, phillistine and johnM, I presume that silence gives consent.


No, it just means I've been asleep/away from the computer for the last twelve hours.

I don't hold anyone who writes for a living in contempt. I'd even like to do it, if I could find the kind of writing job that wouldn't suck me dry. That was my point, really. I couldn't do write-for-hire and I've avoided doing it because I sense it would turn my hobby -- which I love -- into a job I despise. I already got one of those. Don't need another.


----------



## BabaYaga (Jan 12, 2012)

Ok. I gotta defend the 'professionals' here even though my work doesn't sound as interesting or useful as garza's. 

I  write for a living and while (like any job) there are lots of days I  don't have any fun, I couldn't imagine doing another 'crappy' job to  make ends meet while keeping my talent preciously stored away in a box,  only to be dragged out when there's a new LM prompt on the forum. I do  have respect for that very Ann Rayndian way of looking at the world, but  I don't see how doing another, unrelated job for 8 hours a day and then  going home to try squeeze an hour of writing out in the evenings would  make me any better at writing or any happier on a day-to day basis. 

This  is obviously just my opinion, but even though I have always wanted to  write fiction (and mine is still far from great), I don't think I would  be able to write the way I do now if it weren't thanks to the experience  and confidence that my un-fun writing has given me over the years. I  sometimes need that emotional distance to be able to learn technique and  in doing this work, I have learned a lot. And not just about writing. I  did a series of scripts and videos about coal mining. Now I know things  about coal mining. The same for paper making, insurance, investment  banking, plastic toy molding, car manufacture, professional wrestling,  social media, telecommunications in Africa, beer brewing, sugar cane  farming, hospice management and a bunch of other stuff. 

I like that I don't have to work _in_  any one of these industries, and yet I get to see them up close, learn  about them and about the people who make them possible- and I get to  practice my craft by doing stuff for them. And they pay me. It's not a  hardship and I don't feel drained. I like learning new stuff about  subjects that I would not otherwise think about, because I like learning  about the world- I think it's the stuff 'life experience' is made of  and I always thought that you needed oodles of that to be a good writer.  I certainly wouldn't describe my career as simply  "shuffling bits of paper to look busy".

I get that, given the  choice between writing a book you don't really want to, under the shaky  promise that there might be cash in it one day, or writing the book that  you _do_ want to write with the same chances of turning a profit, you would  rather devote your time to doing what you want. There are only so many  hours in the day and there is only so much energy in the human soul. But I honestly  think that if the 'formulaic' book had a nice fat cheque at the other  end of the cover, I know I would be able to do it and yes, I would take  pride in doing it, because I take pride in _everything_ I do. And  that's not because I have detachable principles, its because I believe  its important to find and instil quality in whatever you do, whether  that's writing a press release or scrubbing a toilet. You can blame  Robert Pirsig and Victor Frankel for teaching me to think like that. 

Just for the  record, I do have principles, but I keep these distinct from subject  matter. I could write a tome on the different kinds of washers  required for indoor plumbing, no problem. I'm not wild about the subject  matter, but indoor plumbing is not against my principles. If someone  asked me to write 'The Animal Abuser's Guide to Kicking Puppies', _that _ would be against my principles. 

I don't  think real success is measured by how much money you make or how many  people queued up outside the bookshop for your novel, its whether you  wake up every day feeling like you are happy with what you are doing and  that you are getting closer to the person you want to be. Writing some  stuff you are proud of, or that helps people in some way is also pretty  sweet. Whichever path you feel is the right way to get there for you,  probably is the right path for you. I'm not going to complain about  having less competition. But to suggest that me and my peers have 'sold  out' because we choose to be able to pay our rent with our abilities  instead of taking a clock-watching position in silent protest of the  commercialization of art... that's unfair. None of us would send any of  our work to publishers ever if we didn't want our art to be  commercialized just a little. 

Anyway ladies and gentlemen, that is my rant.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 12, 2012)

Good one, BY. I’m betting your post will be largely ignored because it’s based on actual experience and common sense -- as opposed to fluffy notions about artistic principles. I understand, because I’ve written for a paycheck. People who haven’t just don’t get it.

An awful lot of judging in this thread – mostly based on guesswork. The idea that making a living from doing something you’re good at and that others see as valuable is selling out or a compromise of some sort  is a joke.


----------



## Notquitexena (Jan 16, 2012)

garza said:


> Ah, but Foxee, you have an imagination - something some of us lack. That makes a big difference. In trying to write fiction, I realise that all such efforts are a reflection of the real world as seen through my eyes. To create something new is beyond my ability as a writer. I can observe, research, interview, remember, and report, but I cannot create.
> 
> That creative ability is what sets the artist apart from the hack. I can write, and I can sell what I write, but I cannot create a new world. I'm stuck with the one I've lived in for 71 years.
> 
> Formulas don't bother me if they are executed properly - just at dawn in a misty rain and the blindfold declined.



I've been reading along the thread, sort of agreeing with most comments, but this post drew me to reply. Of course you can create a new world! Yes, it will be based on what you have experienced and read about, but one of the reasons I love reading and have begun writing fantasy is that I can make the world I want to exist, exist.


----------



## The Backward OX (Jan 16, 2012)

> Originally Posted by *garza*
> 
> 
> Ah, but Foxee, you have an imagination - something some of us lack. That makes a big difference. In trying to write fiction, I realise that all such efforts are a reflection of the real world as seen through my eyes. To create something new is beyond my ability as a writer. I can observe, research, interview, remember, and report, but I cannot create.
> ...


M’lud, members of the jury, I present to you irrefutable evidence showing the prisoner *garza* to be lying in his teeth when he claims to lack the imagination needed to write fiction:



> Originally Posted by *garza*
> 
> 
> When I had my stroke the DOC (Doctor in Charge) wrote out a long list of medication which he assured me I would have to take and keep taking or I would die in a few months. When I showed the list to the owner of the farmacia he whooped, did a little dance, and shouted to his wife, 'Ahora podemos enviar al muchacho a la universidad'. So I told him never mind and to sell me a box of 500mg aspirin tablets. I have taken two a day for about nine years.





> Originally Posted by *garza*
> 
> 
> What the fellow said was, 'now we can send the lad to university'. In truth he didn't say that out loud in my presence.





M'lud, members of the jury, anyone who can portray a character as saying such and such, and subsequently admit the guy never actually said it, has a perfectly good imagination. M'lud, members of the jury, I ask that the prisoner *garza* be given the maximum punishment of writing one piece of fiction per week for the remainder of his days.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jan 16, 2012)

That is most unfair Mr. Ox. Garza presents as an honorable and truthful human being, we should accept what he says, that he has no imagination. That remark may well have been plagarised, or at least constructed to a formula for humor which he has read somewhere, I see no reason to disbelieve him and think that he has ever had any original thoughts or imagined anything concerning anyone of either sex in any sort of situation. Just because writing robots are rare does not mean they do not exist, after all someone wins the lottery most weeks, a most unlikely event.


----------



## garza (Jan 17, 2012)

M'lud - Against the advice of counsel, I volunteer to take my place in the box and defend myself against these allegations that I do, indeed, possess imaginative abilities sufficient to create, from the whole cloth, works of fiction, whether of great length or of few words, which can be considered to have any merit, redeeming qualities, or value for the entertainment or edification of the discerning reader. In evidence I shall offer within the next 48 hours an original short work to be publicly posted for all to see. This shall be a work created anew, without reference to any other efforts of mine. It is, by the clock, now 22 minutes past the noon hour, Co-ordinated Universal Time, and said proposed work shall be exhibited no later than this same hour of the day, two days hence.


----------



## The Backward OX (Jan 17, 2012)

172,800...172,799...172,798...


----------



## garza (Jan 17, 2012)

Done. See 'The Fugitive' in the Fiction board. Three hours from cold start to finish. It's not factual, but it is true in the sense that fiction ought to be true. But no imagination was required. The incidents and conversations are typical of what I've heard and seen in real life.

Is this a story written to formula? Is it real fiction? Does it have any redeeming value? Is it even worth reading? Would not a person with a good imagination be able to make much more of the incident and conversations reported?


----------



## RomanticRose (Jan 17, 2012)

philistine said:


> On a serious note: I can't understand how people who do such things (farming a series, for example, purely motivated by money) live with themselves. I consider writing to be much more than just a way to make a quick buck; heck, the creation process as a whole, and I think those who don't must be seriously lacking something inside.



What I lack inside is the willingness to do something other than writing for a living.

By the way, there's no such thing as a "quick buck" even in formulaic writing.


----------



## garza (Jan 17, 2012)

There is no 'quick buck' for anyone, even for those writers who have a special gift. For them, as for everyone, a great deal of effort goes into getting that first best seller to market, and perhaps, if what I've been told is true, an increasing amount of effort with each succeeding book. 

Notice I make the distinction between 'effort' and 'work'. Work is what you can be paid to do when you don't like doing it, as in a boring day job. I can't speak with experience on the subject of this kind of work, never having had a day job.

Effort is what you put into doing what you love to do whether anyone pays you or not. 

My suspicion has always been that it's jealousy that motivates those who disparage people who get paid to write.


----------



## Foxee (Jan 17, 2012)

garza said:


> it is true in the sense that fiction ought to be true.





> But no imagination was required.


 False!



> The incidents and conversations are typical of what I've heard and seen in real life.



True-to-life does not mean that the story came from anywhere but your imagination. If you aren't reporting something that happened but making up something that _could have happened_ you've just used your imagination.

Congrats!


----------



## garza (Jan 17, 2012)

Ah! I feel like the scarecrow in 'The Wizard of Oz'. Do I really have a brain, complete with imagination? 

Okay, if that's true, tell me how to write so everything dosen't sound like either a news flash on the wire or an op-ed piece in 'Time'?


----------



## Foxee (Jan 17, 2012)

garza said:


> Ah! I feel like the scarecrow in 'The Wizard of Oz'. Do I really have a brain, complete with imagination?
> 
> Okay, if that's true, tell me how to write so everything dosen't sound like either a news flash on the wire or an op-ed piece in 'Time'?


Have you forgotten The War of the Worlds? It was fiction but sounded realistic enough that it caused a panic. So why would writing how you write be bad, again?  Go with it, Garza, and if you decide you see ways to change your style as you write fiction, read fiction, and get critiques...then do! For now I don't have any problems with how you write.


----------



## Terry D (Jan 17, 2012)

I agree with Foxee, Garza.  The short piece you posted in the Fiction area was, in my opinion, very good.  The spare style gives the story a nice edge.  It says to me, "this is a truth".  I like that.


----------



## The Backward OX (Jan 17, 2012)

I’ve already commented on The Fugitive and I’ll repeat here that I think your problem is a lack of understanding of the ways in which writers use the word “imagination”.

Quite recently I posted something on this site which has the appearance of fiction, yet a number of those who read it have commented that it seems as if it may have been drawn from life. This is what writers do. You’re no different.


----------

