# Formulaic Fiction



## Kyle R (Nov 2, 2015)

*for·mu·la*
_ˈfôrmyələ/_
*noun*

A method, statement, or procedure for achieving something.








Formulaic fiction. Some say it's reliable, producing consistent results. Others say it's limiting, creating forced or predictable stories. Others, still, say it doesn't matter, as long as the reader enjoys it.

How about you? What do you think of fiction written to formula? :encouragement:


----------



## JustRob (Nov 2, 2015)

Is a formula a plot that is used more than once or simply one aspect of a plot that gets reused? The film _Forbidden Planet _was allegedly based on _The Tempest, _substituting science fiction for magic. It's considered to be as much a classic as Shakespeare's original. What about _The Magnificent Seven_, based on the old tale of the seven samurai? The enjoyment in a story is as much in the style and context of the telling as in the story told. Also a formula is something that the reader discovers in the reading and until they do there is no issue. I read many of Anne McCaffrey's dragon books before I noticed the formulaic aspects, the modest women who nevertheless succeeded in life, the impetuous young men and older father figures, but these regular constructs didn't detract from enjoyment of the stories. After all, isn't it promoting formulaic writing to suggest that a story should have a beginning, a middle and an end?


----------



## movieman (Nov 2, 2015)

Formula writing hasn't hurt... well, pretty much every bestselling writer around.

Readers like formulas, because they know what they're getting when they buy the book. Writers like them because the book is easy to write when you just have to come up with a new riff on an old formula.


----------



## Bishop (Nov 2, 2015)

I think that most readers, or at least a good 90%, don't even recognize formulaic writing on average. And frankly, writing can be formulaic, but still be great. It depends on what it does to make itself unique, despite the formula.


----------



## bazz cargo (Nov 2, 2015)

Please tell me we are not back to the Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. Perishing formulas. 

Me, I don't care about either, as long as it is interesting.


----------



## Bilston Blue (Nov 2, 2015)

It's as rancid and offensive as formulaic pop music or formulaic house building or formulaic town planning. I think writing something like this would be worse than reading it. Whatever happened to the "creative" in creative writing?


----------



## ppsage (Nov 2, 2015)

Formulaic covers a lot of ground and that minimal similarity which defines a genre (say like glittery vampire super hero romance) is not enough of a template to write much of anything without the author still providing a gob of homegrown verbiage. Whether the verbiage is worth crap is still beyond the bounds of formulaic. ----------- What I more think of as a formula is an author who has once tricked herself into finishing something using that same trick over and over. It reminds me of something Eliot once wrote:
So here I am, in the middle way, having had twenty years—
Twenty years largely wasted, the years of _l'entre deux guerres
_Trying to use words, and every attempt
Is a wholly new start, and a different kind of failure
Because one has only learnt to get the better of words
For the thing one no longer has to say, or the way in which
One is no longer disposed to say it. And so each venture
Is a new beginning, a raid on the inarticulate
With shabby equipment always deteriorating
In the general mess of imprecision of feeling,
Undisciplined squads of emotion. And what there is to conquer
By strength and submission, has already been discovered
Once or twice, or several times, by men whom one cannot hope
To emulate—but there is no competition—
There is only the fight to recover what has been lost
And found and lost again and again: and now, under conditions
That seem unpropitious. But perhaps neither gain nor loss.
For us, there is only the trying. The rest is not our business.​


----------



## Pluralized (Nov 2, 2015)

Kyle R said:


> How about you? What do you think of fiction written to formula? :encouragement:



There's a reason we structure our tales around the principles of drama. It's so people will care. Whether audience or playwright, whether author or reader. Story serves as outlet and entertainment when done right. The formula is so baked-in by now in our culture that we can't help but think in terms of tension and character, struggle and resolution. When we step beneath all that, in my realm, we get into some volatile territory which must be explored carefully but is not without reward. Sometimes, though, staying down there means never coming up for air and lifetimes pass without bursting through the topsoil, wriggling trophies in hand.


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 3, 2015)

I may be out of date on this (I am in so many others :-(), but I've always considered formulaic writing to be when you're reading a story and start wondering where Samantha is - and then remember that Samantha was in a different book. Not to pick on Romance, because I understand it's changed since I quit reading, but that's exactly why I quit reading them many years ago. That was the time frame when there was a destitute young woman, typically the daughter of a widowed minister or vicar or other church person, and she ended up going to some exotic location to be a nanny, and fell in love with the rogue son/nephew/male relative. They fought constantly and then some disaster occurred and they accepted their destiny. Change the names and location and you had a "new" book.

The thing is, I've started re-reading some of those old favorites, and it's kinda fun again. Sure, the stories are basically the same, but they're fine when I just want some light entertainment instead of "deep" reading. It's reading to relax, basically, and I don't see anything wrong or low-brow about that. I do think it does the author a disservice, when they keep pumping out such stories instead of challenging themselves to stretch the boundaries, and readers probably do like I do - burn out after a while and seek greener pastures. And I know I don't buy "new" books by authors who do this - I just re-read the ones I've already got. 

So, in essence, it's not, IMHO, the optimal way to write, and I hope I never fall into it, but I'm not going to come down too hard on writers who do it. It allows them to make a living, and that's what we all have to do, one way or another.


----------



## popsprocket (Nov 3, 2015)

Nicholas Sparks makes a freaking fortune out of formulaic writing.


----------



## handsomegenius (Nov 3, 2015)

I think it's good to understand formulas and why they work and use them intelligently and with discretion.

I follow formulas all the time in my work writing, but always for a reason.

Language itself follows formulas so there's no dispensing with them entirely.


----------



## Bishop (Nov 3, 2015)

popsprocket said:


> Nicholas Sparks makes a freaking fortune out of formulaic writing.



I sometimes wonder if Mr. Sparks realizes he's using a formula. I might be a jaded weirdo, but I imagine him sitting at a desk, writing identical plotlines with some minor details changed thinking, "OMIGOSH this is so original and so amazing, it's so much better than the last plot twist in my book! This time, instead of cancer, it's lupus!"

Wait...

*thinks*

*Lightbulb turns on*

THIS IS WHAT I'VE BEEN DOING WITH SPACE SHIPS AND EXPLOSIONS FOR YEARS!

...My life is a lie!


----------



## popsprocket (Nov 3, 2015)

Bishop said:


> I sometimes wonder if Mr. Sparks realizes he's using a formula. I might be a jaded weirdo, but I imagine him sitting at a desk, writing identical plotlines with some minor details changed thinking, "OMIGOSH this is so original and so amazing, it's so much better than the last plot twist in my book! This time, instead of cancer, it's lupus!"
> 
> Wait...
> 
> ...



I imagine him sitting at his desk, using the Find and Replace function in Word to turn one novel into the next.

"Let's see... Jessica can become... 'Anne'? No no no, not Anne, oh, I know! Sophie! Yes, that's good, now I'll just send this off to my publisher and then count me some fat stacks."


----------



## JustRob (Nov 3, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> The thing is, I've started re-reading some of those old favorites, and it's kinda fun again. Sure, the stories are basically the same, but they're fine when I just want some light entertainment instead of "deep" reading. It's reading to relax, basically, and I don't see anything wrong or low-brow about that. I do think it does the author a disservice, when they keep pumping out such stories instead of challenging themselves to stretch the boundaries, and readers probably do like I do - burn out after a while and seek greener pastures. And I know I don't buy "new" books by authors who do this - I just re-read the ones I've already got.



My angel is grateful for those remarks. When I read this out to her she said too much with elation for me to quote it all, but the gist was "Thank heavens that there's somebody there who understands this, that sometimes you just want to relax and read something from an author who is predictable and you know that they'll give you what you expect of them." She reads a lot of books, far more than I do, and many by the same authors, so the inevitable formulaic nature of such works clearly does not deter her. 

What do many readers like to read? What do you want to gain from being a writer? Formulaic writing definitely has its place. Otherwise don't rush to give up the day job.

I don't frequent the challenge forums much, but isn't there a challenge there involving participants writing to a predefined plot? If not perhaps there ought to be as it would illustrate how writing to a formula is just as demanding as any other form.

P.S.
 Totally off topic, I always struggle to type "forums" as my schooling in Latin screams "fora". I recently watched a TV programme where the presenter was walking around Rome talking about its ancient history and he said "forums" at one point. I protested out loud to the TV. Isn't there something about "when in ancient Rome do as the ancient Romans did"? If not there ought to be.


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 3, 2015)

_Pixar_'s writers follow a specific formula, which is why I believe they're so reliable for parents to turn to when looking for a film their kids will love. You know what to expect from them and know you won't be disappointed. Why fix something that isn't broken?

(If you want a glimpse of their formula, you can see a walkthrough here: http://www.writingforums.com/threads/151224-Crafting-Act-1-Pixar-Style)

At the same time, their stories are all built with such different concepts, characters, and even genres that, unless you're a writer, their formula is probably invisible to you.

So, to me, formula writing can be pretty great, as long as the seams stay hidden, or you apply creativity to make the beats unique. Or heck, maybe it doesn't even matter if the seams stay hidden, or if the beats are creatively employed. Sometimes you love a story so much that you want to read another just like it. And another. And another . . .


----------



## bazz cargo (Nov 3, 2015)

Why do things get stuck in my head? 

Amnesiac discovers they are a super spy. Bourne, Long Kiss Goodnight and loads of others. 

Weedy kid gets bullied, meets mentor, learns to kick the bullies asses. 

And on and on. 

There is nothing wrong with a formula, it can be fun playing with or subverting it. 

"Luke, I am your dentist."


----------



## EmmaSohan (Nov 3, 2015)

Formula: The main character already is dating the handsome star athlete so she doesn't appreciate the guy who is obviously right for her, he stays hopelessly attracted to her no matter how badly she treats him, then they get together for the last chapter.

I understand why that works, but I am tired of it. I understand why the best possible ending for a detective novel is the heroine being captured by the killer, but I'm getting tired of that too.

I would not have started a changing-places book if I had known that was what it was, but it turned out to be good. One was a figure skater, the other a hockey-player, and the combined differences and similarities made it a good book. (_Being Sloane Jacobs_)


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 4, 2015)

Hmm, I'm wondering if there's some confusion between formulaic writing and basic plots. Some of the examples in this thread have puzzled me, because they seem more like "Boy meets girl; boy loses girl; boy rescues girl; happily ever after" - but there are thousands of books written with that "formula" that are not at all alike. As I noted in my earlier post, to me, using a formula means using a lot of the same details and just making more or less cosmetic changes.


----------



## JustRob (Nov 4, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> Hmm, I'm wondering if there's some confusion between formulaic writing and basic plots.



I did originally question what the term meant. It's very easy to plunge into discussion without defining what the words mean, but as writers we probably frequently assume that words mean what we think they do when in fact they may mean something else to others. It's our faith in language that enables us to think that we have agreement when it may just be consensus. I suggested that a formula might be an entire plot or a component of a plot but you appear to see it as almost an entire synopsis. With that much variation in points of view it's no surprise the attitudes to formulaic writing expressed here also vary.

Have we discovered that there is no set formula for formulaic writing then, if you see what I mean?

As an information technologist I've often used relatively abstract terms in my posts, words like "device" and "construct", to refer to the chunks of plot structure that we use. I suppose that formulaic writing involves relatively large constant constructs containing the generic events within the plot and maybe a fair amount of detail surrounding them. That then leaves the settings, characters and objects to be inserted into these constructs. 

It would be an interesting exercise to write a formulaic story, as one sees it, using the generic terms without substituting specific elements so that it is actually the template for all the similar stories. I suspect that this would look much like a storyboard but purely in text. For example "Character A on the trail of the MacGuffin encounters character B alone on a vehicle and they fight. A receives sufficient injuries to hinder him/her while B escapes." (If you don't know, now look up "MacGuffin".) The interesting question would be how much entertainment could be obtained simply by reading the template story without the decorative specific details being inserted. Which of the following is the more intriguing? "Character A had a distinctive facial feature" or "Marcel du Fontaine had a prominent wart on his nose." Is this what is meant by formulaic writing then? 

Perhaps I'll try writing a short story like that some time, a sort of reader's colouring book or rather writing by numbers I suppose where the reader chooses how to colour in characters A and B and choose the type of vehicle. With this technique one can see how _The Tempest _and _Forbidden Planet _might originate from the same stable even though they are in different genres. If the same author had written both would anyone have minded about the similarities? In fact is formulaic writing only frowned upon when it all originates from a single author? Can we all have a stab at rewriting _The Tempest _without being criticised for it if we do it well enough and with enough originality?

I must start compiling my list of generic terms. 

"Isolated location" - 
Examples - an island (The Tempest, Ten Little **...**), a planet (Forbidden Planet), a train (The Orient Express)

"Vehicle" - 
Examples - a train (The Orient Express), the moon (Space 1999) ... *What?!
*
Perhaps this formulaic writing has more scope than first appears.


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 4, 2015)

I guess the easiest way for me to define formulaic is to look to movies.

Shark attack movies (excluding the original Jaws). Giant animal attack movies. Tornado movies. Earthquake movies. Asteroid movies. SciFi Channel movies in general.

You know as soon as you meet them which characters will die, which characters will fall (back) in love; how the various characters will be killed, maimed, or injured; sometimes you can even figure out what the Deus ex Machina will be.

Authors have success with one story, so they just keep rewriting it. That's their "formula" for success. That's different from genres, where we know and expect basic types of characters and basic plots, but the variety within those boundaries is tremendous. Just reusing one facet of another novel in the same genre is not necessarily formula - it's taking the idea and going a different route with it.


----------



## movieman (Nov 4, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> Hmm, I'm wondering if there's some confusion between formulaic writing and basic plots.



I'm not entirely sure of the difference myself.

Is Lester Dent's Master Plot a formula, or a basic plot?

Or, if I read a Clive Cussler novel (at least, one his older ones), I know it will start with a historical mystery involving the sea, the mystery will intrude on the modern world, Dirk Pitt will be dragged into it somehow, and it will be cleverly resolved by the final chapter. Is that a formula, or basic plot? Sells well, either way.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Nov 4, 2015)

I think in Cussler 's case it a basic formulaic plot that he developed.

I would also add this....

In the case of the Discworld novels, would Terry Pratchett be called a writer of "literary fiction?"

If not, that would be a pity.


----------



## ppsage (Nov 4, 2015)

You can always tell literary fiction because there's study questions.


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 5, 2015)

movieman said:


> Is Lester Dent's Master Plot a formula, or a basic plot?



It wasn't a basic plot; it was a fairly good example of how formulaic writing could work, I guess, but every writer would find their own "formula" if they were going go that route.


----------



## handsomegenius (Nov 5, 2015)

The "fish out of water" protagonist is a great formula in books and cinema, especially in any sort of fantasy, sci fi, psychedelic or other convoluted setting. When you have a whole bunch of weird and elaborate shit going down that needs to be explained, then explaining it to that character is also a good opportunity to explain it to the audience. Imagine how dense and annoying the original Star Wars trilogy would have been without everyone around Luke Skywalker telling him what's going on.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Nov 9, 2015)

Bilston Blue said:


> It's as rancid and offensive as formulaic pop music or formulaic house building or formulaic town planning. I think writing something like this would be worse than reading it. Whatever happened to the "creative" in creative writing?



BRAVO .... BRAVISIMO.
OH MY GOD I am so sick of this topic.  Or rather the denial of the putrid nature of the formula.  
Why can it not be admitted once and for all that the formulaic structure is the dumming down of literature?
Or let me go out on an egotistical limb and say that the recognition of patterns is a essential part of INTELLIGENCE.  So yeah, I consider myself to be pretty damn smart.  I stopped reading most pulp fiction commercial type paperback fiction while in my teens.  (With a few exceptions ... those that were able to transcend the formula while still following some elements of it.)

This is not to say that recognizing the structure and learning it is the bane of the creative writer.  Being a slave to it is.

David Gordon Burke


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Nov 9, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> Hmm, I'm wondering if there's some confusion between formulaic writing and basic plots. Some of the examples in this thread have puzzled me, because they seem more like "Boy meets girl; boy loses girl; boy rescues girl; happily ever after" - but there are thousands of books written with that "formula" that are not at all alike. As I noted in my earlier post, to me, using a formula means using a lot of the same details and just making more or less cosmetic changes.



Have to agree.  Similarity in plots and plot point would be 'Tropes' I believe.
I use the term 'formula' to talk about the idea that 'The Inciting Incident must occur on page 17' as is the belief for writing movie scripts.  Etcetera.  

David Gordon Burke


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 9, 2015)

David Gordon Burke said:


> So yeah, I consider myself to be pretty damn smart.  I stopped reading most pulp fiction commercial type paperback fiction while in my teens.  (With a few exceptions ... those that were able to transcend the formula while still following some elements of it.)



So only dumb people read that stuff, huh? Or do we switch from dumb to smart and back again depending on whether the book is on your approved list?

You don't like certain types of books. We get that. We all have our likes and dislikes. That doesn't make someone smarter or dumber. Might try thinking about that, and include in your cogitation the idea that a lot of people read a wide variety of books.


----------



## Bishop (Nov 10, 2015)

David Gordon Burke said:


> BRAVO .... BRAVISIMO.
> OH MY GOD I am so sick of this topic.  Or rather the denial of the putrid nature of the formula.
> Why can it not be admitted once and for all that the formulaic structure is the dumming down of literature?
> Or let me go out on an egotistical limb and say that the recognition of patterns is a essential part of INTELLIGENCE.  So yeah, I consider myself to be pretty damn smart.  I stopped reading most pulp fiction commercial type paperback fiction while in my teens.  (With a few exceptions ... those that were able to transcend the formula while still following some elements of it.)
> ...



You know, some of us write in campy, formulaic styles because that's what we enjoy. Doesn't make us less intelligent. Just means I like easy escapism. I've got a degree in English with a focus on British Literature. Trust me, I've read and mastered the greats. While I recognize genius, it makes me yawn. Pew pew, boom boom excites me. I enjoy melodrama, camp, trite, and sometimes, cliche. I recognize the pattern, I just also enjoy it.

But pardon me, I must be unintelligent; you abandoned that in your teens. Then again... Shakespeare wrote in formulas... so I know I've got at least one guy to bro-fist for it.

In reality, what you're talking about has nothing to do with intelligence. It's opinion. I know very, very smart people who enjoy trite novels. I know a physicist who's mad about Katy Perry. My wife's an English teacher, and she loves a good formulaic fantasy epic. Deep down, we all love McDonald's--don't even try to deny those fries, they're literally laced with crack. Sometimes, the lowest common denominator is just really really fun. I'm making this point less to try and open your mind and more to make anyone else ashamed of their guilty pleasures feel a bit better about them. It's okay to like whatever you want to like, and insinuating that intelligence is indicated by what you feel like reading after a hard day? That's just ignorance in of itself. Saying what you read/write is 'smarter' than what I read/write? That's just sad, like a high schooler trying to one-up someone to impress... well, no one.



Bilston Blue said:


> It's as rancid and offensive as formulaic  pop music or formulaic house building or formulaic town planning. I  think writing something like this would be worse than reading it.  Whatever happened to the "creative" in creative writing?



Dunno. I kinda enjoy reading _and _writing it. Guess I must be pretty rancid... Ah well. I'm still having fun! Also, I suppose all that world-building and character work I've done isn't creative--I mean, let's be honest, my plot is a classic sci-fi formula, so it's all uncreative garbage. Nothing redeeming about any of my novels, I suppose. Good thing I never published, eh? I'd be put away for years for my crimes against humanity!


----------



## voltigeur (Nov 10, 2015)

I remember a TV show called Hart to Hart it was so formulaic that you could set your watch by the show! 20 min after the hour they would close in on the bad guy, At 35 after they would be tied up, escape promptly at 47 min after the hour. _AND_ at 55 min after the hour the butler would deliver some stupid pun. :joker:

Depending on how you define formula in writing, you can make an argument that all literature has a formula. I'm assuming for the purpose of this post we are talking about the pulp fiction low level romance rags that grace the Grocery store isles. 

I remember in my high school creative writing class an author came to visit and he talked about writing this type of lowly work. Why? Because it pays!

He explained: In the 70's in my home town you could comfortably support yourself on $600 a month. Each one of these trashy gems sold out right for $500 to $700. Your first few could be written in a week. (Even before computers.) Once you got the formula down you crank one out in 3 to 4 days. He was publishing 2 a month. That means on his serious work he could write full time 2 to 2 1/2 weeks a month! 

While the rest of us tried to squeeze an hour a day of writer's block ridden misery caused by job stress. (Not looking so bad now huh?)

Plus (and get this {wink wink}) When you approach a publisher about your real work? You have a publishing history! "Sir I have48 books traditionally published and I always cover my advance." (never mind it is peanuts). 

So raman noodles for thought?


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 10, 2015)

David Gordon Burke said:


> I use the term 'formula' to talk about the idea that 'The Inciting Incident must occur on page 17' as is the belief for writing movie scripts.  Etcetera.



Formulaic writing can be flexible. Anyone who tells you the inciting incident "must" happen on page seventeen is probably a bit inexperienced with writing to formula (or overly dogmatic).

Also, regardless of what formula's being used (superhero origin story, romantic comedy, coming-of-age story, et cetera), the writer's still the writer. Meaning, they still have all their intellect, creativity, and imagination at their disposal to apply to the formula. To twist it, perhaps. To reinvent it. Or to pay homage to it and celebrate it. Heck, maybe to stick to it, beat for beat, but simply do it better than it's ever been done before. :encouragement:


----------



## Newman (Nov 10, 2015)

Kyle R said:


> *for·mu·la*
> _ˈfôrmyələ/_
> *noun*
> 
> ...



If you can find a "formula" and can write good stories to it, you're golden.

I mean, Tolkien didn't go off and write a romcom.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Nov 10, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> So only dumb people read that stuff, huh? Or do we switch from dumb to smart and back again depending on whether the book is on your approved list?
> 
> You don't like certain types of books. We get that. We all have our likes and dislikes. That doesn't make someone smarter or dumber. Might try thinking about that, and include in your cogitation the idea that a lot of people read a wide variety of books.



Once again with the pick and choose and read into it what suits an arguement I didn't make.
I have mentioned and you have argued against the dumming down of the average reader.  I consider it an issue.  You have denied it exists.   

One who recognizes the pattern and still enjoys the ride ... ok, to each his own.  I for one do not bother with these kinds of 'guilty pleasures' as there are so many genuine pleasures to discover in the world.  But if that rocks your boat, great.

But getting unconsciously pulled in time and again by the same tired formula ... ??? Yeah, that's just plain dumb.  I read looking for a unique and intimate literary experience.  I am not looking to read (or write) something with all the literary pizazz of the box of popcorn you eat at the latest Rob Schneider flic.  

*Insanity*: *doing the same thing over and over* again and expecting different results.

Hear about the blonde who got a book for Christmas?
"But I alread have one," she said.

I still hope that some writer will surprise me.  If not, why bloody read or write at all?  Cause conforming to reading formulaic fiction is like looking for sexual satisfaction and intimacy on some youtubexxx web site.  It's just not the real thing.  

David Gordon Burke


----------



## Bishop (Nov 10, 2015)

David Gordon Burke said:


> But getting unconsciously pulled in time and again by the same tired formula ... ??? Yeah, that's just plain dumb.  I read looking for a unique and intimate literary experience.  I am not looking to read (or write) something with all the literary pizazz of the box of popcorn you eat at the latest Rob Schneider flic.
> 
> *Insanity*: *doing the same thing over and over* again and expecting different results.
> 
> ...



So... now because I write with a general formula, my work is akin to a Rob Schneider movie or pornography? Also, _what's wrong with liking Rob Schneider or pornography_?

You say she's 'picking and choosing' among what you say... but everything you're saying is an insult to a certain methodology. Literally calling readers of formulaic fiction insane by posting that definition is not 'misinterpreted'. It's you literally saying that reading formulaic fiction is akin to insanity.

I highly advise you to think about this, because what you're saying devalues not only the stuff you're classifying as "dumbing down", but it devalues anyone who even remotely enjoys it. In other words: _Just because it's not for you doesn't mean it's wrong/stupid._ I don't like rap music. That doesn't mean it's inherently inferior to music that I do like. Your attitude is the reason that people are ashamed of their reading. I have a deep dislike of 50 Shades of Grey, but I try hard not to rag on people for reading it. Why? Because they like it. If that's their thing, fine--they're not hurting anyone or even the state of literature just because of their preference. 

Also, insinuating that all writing must be some form of new or original or genius or high-minded piece of literature is just asinine. So if it doesn't match some magic definition that you have, it's worthy of the garbage bin. There's an old saying that everything is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. It works with literature too. Works have the value that readers assign to it. A book that I throw out could just as easily change my neighbor's life upon reading. That doesn't make me a better or smarter person just because I tossed it in the bin. Nor does it make him a better or smarter person for having accepted it.

You're trying to make a bold statement that tries to quantify and un-quantifiable quality of art. And in doing so, you're saying you're smarter than people who you probably are not smarter than. Because if you were, you'd know that what you read is not a concrete indicator of intelligence. Nor is what you watch, what you listen to, what you masturbate to--anything. Preference and opinion are simply that. Trying to make judgments about people because of it just makes you look like a jerk.


----------



## Ariel (Nov 10, 2015)

*Please refrain from name-calling or making this personal.*


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 10, 2015)

David Gordon Burke said:


> *Insanity*: *doing the same thing over and over* again and expecting different results.


Hmm. I'm not convinced that fans of formulaic fiction are expecting different results. I think they're expecting similar results. They know what they like and they want more of it. More, more, more!  Ideally, it's given enough of a spin to be unique and refreshing, but still within the same familiar vein.

Or, as the late, great Blake Snyder said, "Give me the same . . . only different!" :encouragement:


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 11, 2015)

David Gordon Burke said:


> *Insanity*: *doing the same thing over and over* again and expecting different results.




I think of that every time I get into certain "discussions"...


----------



## aj47 (Nov 11, 2015)

Books are like food. Different cooks prepare the same food different ways.  So when you order an old favorite at a new restaurant, you expect it to be familiar, only different.

This is why retellings of fairy tales are big.  It's the same story, with a twist of lime.


----------



## Ariel (Nov 11, 2015)

I think of genre books as something to tide me over between the heftier literature I read.  I sprinkle in poetry and I study all of them.  There's a surprising amount you can learn from formulaic genre fiction.  They can expand your vocabulary, make you more empathetic to others, and give you strange information just as a reader.  As a writer I've learned pacing, dialogue, and plotting from formulaic fiction.

As a writer you have to study all kinds of writing and as a reader you sometimes need a break from the (just as formulaic) literary "heavies."


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 11, 2015)

I really wish we could move on from the idea that genre fiction is somehow a lesser form of writing than literary fiction.


----------



## ppsage (Nov 11, 2015)

Not a lesser form of writing. Writing is too diverse for there to be meaningful lessers and mores. But a lesser form of art. Mostly. Which only matters to a handful of people. I'm past it now.


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 11, 2015)

ppsage said:


> But a lesser form of art.



It's not a lesser form of _anything_. It's like saying watercolors are a lesser form of painting than oil.


----------



## LeeC (Nov 12, 2015)

If you'll please excuse my interjection, I see in the context of ppsage's response that this opining is purely subjective as we humans are so prone to. One person holds one perspective, another a different perspective, nobody is right or wrong, each merely standing by their guns. 

It all kinda reminds me of bible thumpers coming to the door and me saying the only heaven I was interested in was where my dogs went. They had the sense to let this sinner be and go on to someone they might win over. 

In the end what is there but the babble of differences that fade into yet more differences  Me, I respect each of your opinions, whether I agree or not. Restating convictions over and over isn't going to change that.


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 12, 2015)

LeeC said:


> In the end what is there but the babble of differences that fade into yet more differences  Me, I respect each of your opinions, whether I agree or not. Restating convictions over and over isn't going to change that.



True enough! Though, sometimes disagreements produce great insights.

I'd be more concerned if people _stopped_ challenging each other's opinions. Because you know what's worse than disagreement? Silence. Once silence happens, it means people have stopped caring.

Here's hoping authors keep caring about writing enough to have more passionate disagreements. Argue away, I say! That's where the magic happens. :encouragement:


----------



## LeeC (Nov 12, 2015)

True enough Kyle  It's not like in real life where the influential get their political lackeys to send in the tanks. My point is that when we run out of ways to support our opinions, what purpose does it serve to repeat them ad infinitum beyond hearing ourselves talk?


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 12, 2015)

LeeC said:


> True enough Kyle  It's not like in real life where the influential get their political lackeys to send in the tanks. My point is that when we run out of ways to support our opinions, what purpose does it serve to repeat them ad infinitum beyond hearing ourselves talk?



I think there's a difference between repeating ad infinitum and having a discussion. There's a difference between supporting an opinion and challenging another. And of course, if one tires of a discussion, it's allowable to move on to something else.


----------



## Sam (Nov 12, 2015)

ppsage said:


> Not a lesser form of writing. Writing is too diverse for there to be meaningful lessers and mores. But a lesser form of art. Mostly. Which only matters to a handful of people. I'm past it now.



A lesser form of art, you say? 

Let me ask you this, then: I recently penned a 7k academic paper on a very esoteric novel that most readers would have never have heard of, let alone have read. In the process, I had to seek out supplementary criticism in order to write my paper, a task made significantly more difficult by the fact that critical material on this book was beyond scarce. I only found one peer-reviewed article on-line, written in Russian, by a professor who was no longer living. I paid for the download fee, printed it out (all 30 pages), and travelled to Trinity University to have it translated by a professor of linguistics. 

While I was there, he introduced me to two other texts in Russian (one by the same author) that he felt might have been of use to me, which he translated as well, and gave me a rare edition of the novel with a foreword by the author that explained the reasons behind his writing the story. Of those four items, probably a combined total of five people had ever read them in English. Ipso facto, I was the sixth. 

My question, therefore, is this: does the fact that I've read something that 99.99% of the English-speaking world has never laid eyes on make me more intelligent, more clever, more educated, or more refined (from a reading perspective) than those who haven't? 

I think you'll find the answer to that question will tell you whether something is a 'lesser' form of art because it's more popular or more widely read.


----------



## Ariel (Nov 12, 2015)

I don't think it's lesser in any way.  I think it makes your reading more _specialized_, Sam.  I don't think ppsage was saying any form of writing is lesser than any other.


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 13, 2015)

What was said was that it was a "lesser form of art" - which doesn't seem significantly different to me.


----------



## Sam (Nov 13, 2015)

amsawtell said:


> I don't think it's lesser in any way.  I think it makes your reading more _specialized_, Sam.  I don't think ppsage was saying any form of writing is lesser than any other.



You're correct on the first part, but I didn't put the words in ppsage's mouth. 



			
				ppsage said:
			
		

> But a lesser form of art



I think it's pretty clear-cut, and while I understand where he's coming from (I've bashed _Fifty Shades _and _Twilight _a time or two, myself) I also understand that reading either of those does not dumb you down or make you less intelligent than someone who hasn't. 

Stupid reality TV can dumb people down. Crappy television in general can dumb people down. Reading a book has never been synonymous with dumbing someone down. I would take a reader of _Twilight _over a watcher of crappy reality TV all day and every day. 

If you're a reader, you're okay in my eyes.


----------



## Kevin (Nov 13, 2015)

> like saying watercolors are a lesser form of painting than oil.


 How about 'paint by numbers'? Is that a lesser form... because you follow the numbers? And numerically (no link to the prior), watercolors _are_ a lesser form. They don't have to be, but in practice they are, numerically. I actually own some watercolors, watched the artist work with them, have tried myself, so I don't have anything against them, but... the vast majority of actual watercolors are done by beginners/children.

So... are most formulaic works a lesser form than non? Are there not a lot more formulaic works on the 'published' shelves, than non? Maybe not, but when an author produces the same or similar story over and over, does it not show(in the work) a lack of creative skill and a simple (less complicated; less thinking involved) mode of writing? Isn't he simply 'filling in the numbers', and isn't his creative skill simply a changing out of paint numbers, like changing paint number 14 for number 15 (but number 14 would work, too, as it has already been done)?


----------



## Ariel (Nov 13, 2015)

As far as characters and storylines go _all_ writers work with the same archetypes.  Video games, movies, tv shows, and books all work with the same storytelling basics.

If you step back and take a broad look at all these forms of writing--they're all formulaic.


----------



## Plasticweld (Nov 13, 2015)

A favorite bible verse of mine Ecclesiastes  1:4-11   A good writer will work everyday to prove this verse "Wrong"


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 13, 2015)

Kevin said:


> And numerically (no link to the prior), watercolors _are_ a lesser form. They don't have to be, but in practice they are, numerically. I actually own some watercolors, watched the artist work with them, have tried myself, so I don't have anything against them, but... the vast majority of actual watercolors are done by beginners/children.



Numerically, the vast majority of writing is done by beginners/children. As to watercolors being lesser (regardless of numbers, which really has no bearing on anything), I'm sure Andrew Wyeth and Vincent Van Gogh would disagree with you.

As to paint by numbers, yes, I would agree if one is actually talking about _formulaic _writing and not simply writing stories to fit within a particular genre.


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 13, 2015)

Kevin said:


> So... are most formulaic works a lesser form than non? Are there not a lot more formulaic works on the 'published' shelves, than non? Maybe not, but when an author produces the same or similar story over and over, does it not show(in the work) a lack of creative skill and a simple (less complicated; less thinking involved) mode of writing? Isn't he simply 'filling in the numbers', and isn't his creative skill simply a changing out of paint numbers, like changing paint number 14 for number 15 (but number 14 would work, too, as it has already been done)?



Depends who you're asking! 

To me, the use of a formula itself doesn't automatically dictate quality, skill, or even the events of the story.

Let's take a television series, for example. _Mad Men_, _Breaking Bad_, _Vampire Diaries, __Game of Thrones, __Grey's Anatomy_, _The Walking Dead_, et cetera . . . Any one-hour television series. These are all written to formula. And yet each episode is different, too, even while following the same template. Characters grow and change. Situations progress. Themes are explored. Viewer emotions are toyed with.

Fans of these shows will tell you that certain episodes have made them laugh, grip the edges of their seats, or even brought them to tears.

Does the formulaic nature of these shows mean that the writers lack creativity, skill, or quality in their writing? I, personally, don't think so. If there _is_ any lack of creativity or skill occurring, it's the fault of the writers themselves.

Honestly, I think many formula writers would tell you that finding new, compelling ways to use their formula is, quite often, more challenging than it is easy. :encouragement:


----------



## Bishop (Nov 13, 2015)

Kevin said:


> How about 'paint by numbers'? Is that a lesser form... because you follow the numbers?



Actually, there's some insanely difficult paint-by-numbers kits out there, and some people produce beautiful works with them. Are they as timeless as Picasso? No. But even strong literary writers will rarely reach a level of notoriety akin to Hemingway. But it's not a lesser form of art. Easier? Sure. Simpler? Sure. 'Lesser'? Not so much. Because while the artist doesn't need to draw the outlines, they still have to work the coloring, and coloring and painting is an art in of itself.

We even have a word and occupation for it. Colorist.


----------



## JustRob (Nov 13, 2015)

Bishop said:


> Actually, there's some insanely difficult paint-by-numbers kits out there, and some people produce beautiful works with them.



How big are the numbers then and do they have any decimal places? I can see that one might have to spend a while mixing up a 14.82 just to fill in a few specks on the canvas.

56, no 57 posts in this thread now? Could someone please write a formula for the posts so that I can save some time and just fill in the blanks and tick boxes, or would that be considered bad form? Oh no, that question has already been asked here I suppose. Better still then, add a poll. That couldn't be controversial, could it? Oh, is it still Friday the thirteenth? Forget it then.


----------



## Kevin (Nov 13, 2015)

Mr. K- Many versus most... hmm. An important distinction. Okay, put out your hands, here's the ruler. No flinching or you get it again. 
Shadow- I love my watercolors. No, I didn't paint them, I bought them, and I do not dispute that the medium of watercolor can be used with great skill, my point was that most watercolors... well, never mind. Anyway, I was wondering if most formula stories, those where the author _starts_ with a formula are... 'junk'?  And when I say junk I mean they lack depth, creativity, originality... when compared to the other. And yes, we all like our junk, well, many of us do. 

Bish- I'm reminded of poor Banky in Chasing Amy. He was just the inker.


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 13, 2015)

Kevin said:


> Anyway, I was wondering if most formula stories, those where the author _starts_ with a formula are... 'junk'?  And when I say junk I mean they lack depth, creativity, originality... when compared to the other.



Well, again we have to go back to what is "formulaic" and what is "standard". Standard is what is expected for a book in a specific genre - westerns will take place in the Old West, have cowboys, etc, versus SciFi or Romance. Readers have certain expectations for each genre - that's not formula, except in the most basic sense. This is different from formulaic, as I noted in my earlier post. So yes, they can be junk, using your definition, but that doesn't mean they don't fulfil a need or purpose among readers - so they still have value.

I mean, one can claim that a genre is, in and of itself, a formula for writing, but then one looks in depth at the variety of stories written within any given genre, and it's pretty obvious that using "formula" is just not relevant.


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 13, 2015)

Kevin said:


> _. . . when an author produces the same or similar story over and over, does it not show(in the work) a lack of creative skill and a simple (less complicated; less thinking involved) mode of writing?_


Not necessarily. It could simply mean the author's found their niche.

If I become a master at crafting _katana_ swords, should I abandon them and start making amateurish bows and arrows, just for the sake of variety? :encouragement:


----------



## EmmaSohan (Nov 13, 2015)

Sam said:


> I think it's pretty clear-cut, and while I understand where he's coming from (I've bashed _Fifty Shades _and _Twilight _a time or two, myself) I also understand that reading either of those does not dumb you down or make you less intelligent than someone who hasn't.



_Twilight _is a romance, but it does not quite follow the traditional formula at the start. Or at the end. I tried to resemble _Twilight _in my WIP on those points, and I ended up with a book I really like, and it's hard to find any other books like that.

Meyer did not follow traditional PaG in her writing -- too many ellipses and dashes. I still have not found anyone who writes supporting narration exactly like her.

And I was reading some website I now cannot find, and it talked about two types of I think urban fantasy, and described _Twilight _as brillantly melding them. (I could not understand the discussion, it was over my head.) But my impression is that Meyer was copied, not copying.

So, whatever criticisms Twilight might deserve, I am not sure formulaic writing fits.

Or, there is a joy in finding, if not a new genre, at least a new sub-sub genre or a twist on a genre. (Or for me, if not an obviously different use of PaG, just a slightly different use of PaG.)


----------



## ppsage (Nov 15, 2015)

> I think you'll find the answer to that question will tell you whether something is a 'lesser' form of art because it's more popular or more widely read.


Not sure I'm taking the point of the whole Russian thing? ----------- We'll never get the definitions straight, genre vs literary, so it's really moot, but, given that to my personal satisfaction, genre fiction is  -- mostly -- lessor art than literary fiction. Doesn't matter to me how many people read it, it matters what it's about and how it's expressed. Authors often transcend genre though, as the form matures.


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 15, 2015)

ppsage said:


> Authors often transcend genre though, as the form matures.



Well, gee, at least there's hope for us then.


----------



## ppsage (Nov 15, 2015)

> Well, gee, at least there's hope for us then.


I thought most of the fiction 'writers' at this site did not aspire to 'art?' To be artists. That's what they say, time and again. They say they want to just tell the story, without art. Art is often deemed pretentious, on this site. The word literature is rarely used, it's always the ubiquitously sanitized 'writing.' Why be offended at my saying a goal is not achieved, which is not pursued? I'm always confused by this. Personally, I don't think there's hope for any of us.


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 15, 2015)

ppsage said:


> I thought most of the fiction 'writers' at this site did not aspire to 'art?' To be artists. That's what they say, time and again. They say they want to just tell the story, without art. Art is often deemed pretentious, on this site. The word literature is rarely used, it's always the ubiquitously sanitized 'writing.' Why be offended at my saying a goal is not achieved, which is not pursued? I'm always confused by this. Personally, I don't think there's hope for any of us.



Please don't pee on my boots and tell me it's raining. You mean that you think genre fiction is not as good a literary fiction, and we all know it. Forgive me if I express my opinion of your opinion.

Personally, I read and write both; I put as much effort into writing one as I do the other, and find as much value in reading one as the other. I can't help but think those who look down their noses at either are missing out.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Nov 15, 2015)

At this point all I can really do is refer to one of the lines in my signature...

If someone doesn't want to read what I write, how am I supposed to stop them?

Some people won't be reading my work because it isn't "literary." That term seems to be somewhat arbitrary anyway.

Well, if some won't read my work for that reason , the  they aren't the ones I would be writing for anyway.

My goal for my writing is simple. I want to write things that are entertaining and fun. I will leave the literary writing to those who wish to do it and the readers who enjoy that kind of thing. 

I know nothing of writing to a "formula" and I really don't care to right now. I saw where someone mentioned an "inciting incident" should be in a certain spot. Mine, as far as I can tell, is on page 3 or 4. Any formula references for that one? 

Why on Earth does it even matter whether a person wants to read literary or formula writing. Isn't the whole idea getting people to read in the first place?

Some may feel intellectually superior because they read "literary" fiction. 

But why should I give a rodent 's rear end about that? 

If they don't want to read my stuff because it isn't up to their standards, then so be it. I will continue to write what I write to the best of my abilities. That's all I need.


----------



## aj47 (Nov 15, 2015)

Genre fiction sometimes wins literary awards.  'Nuff said.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Nov 15, 2015)

Bishop said:


> But even strong literary writers will rarely reach a level of notoriety akin to Hemingway. But it's not a lesser form of art. Easier? Sure. Simpler? Sure. 'Lesser'? Not so much.



Can I mention that I have bowed out of this discussion largely because we seem to have a massive issue on all threads and it is working double overtime on this thread.  There is something within the English language ... and I am not a University educated guy that can label this gramatical issue, but it has to do with speaking in Absolutes.  Is is a hard fact or is it a possible?  As writers we might be wise to pay attention to that little detail both in our debates and in our writing.  

Taking that last statement, particularly the bit ´It is not a lesser form of art´- wouldn´t it be wiser to state that ´It doesn´t necessarily mean that it is a lesser form of art´ ... Obviously, the mere ´following´ of a pre-established formula or pattern can be a first step towards NOT creating something original, towards creating a blatant rip-off or cheap knock-off - hence (possibly .... notice I say possibly) ´LESSER.´  So as I tried to state numerous times when I was involved in this debate, the trick may be in following some parts of the formula and other parts no, but all the while transcending the formula.  
Or to break it down even further - Original - More ... Copy - Lesser.  Fool the reader into thinking it´s orginal while still copying?  Genius.  

David Gordon Burke


----------



## Tettsuo (Nov 16, 2015)

Doesn't all writing fall into formulaic at this point?  I mean, every thing there is to say has been said.  So, if you work is similar to another writer or a number of other writers (most likely), doesn't that make your writing 'formulaic' to someone?

This is all silly to me.  The only valid question is - Is this book good or bad?  Did I enjoy myself?

A book can be 'original' and still suck.
A book can be 'formulaic' and rock your sock off!

This reminds me of literary and genre distinctions.  Either can suck.  Just because one is listed as literary does not make the writer better.

The proof is in the pudding!


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 16, 2015)

Tettsuo said:


> This is all silly to me.  The only valid question is - Is this book good or bad?  Did I enjoy myself?



Agree. Especially when the definitions get so broad they could cover anything anywhere at any time. Kinda like saying someone outlines if they plan the next sentence.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Nov 17, 2015)

astroannie said:


> Genre fiction sometimes wins literary awards.  'Nuff said.



Some examples?  

Seeing as everyone and his dog is an award winning author these days (not to mention bestseller) Which awards?

David Gordon Burke
PS.  Not that I doubt it is true.  I would however like to read some award winning genre fiction ... I´d be willing to bet this are not the transparent formula prescribed by Literary Agents and the ´How to get published´ media.


----------



## Bishop (Nov 18, 2015)

David Gordon Burke said:


> Some examples?



Genre: Horror.

https://www.google.com/search?q=stephen+king+awards&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8


----------



## Gavrushka (Nov 18, 2015)

Perhaps I'd be a better writer if I was a little more analytical! My head does tend to spin a bit with just how many labels we can apply to the creative process, and perhaps that's why I shy away. I just write, listen to criticism, learn and then write again.

I realised my 'balance' was wrong when I was trying to place a fantasy novel, just two weeks ago, and couldn't find many agents willing to consider it...

...And then I found out what 'speculative fiction' meant... :upset:


----------



## Kevin (Nov 18, 2015)

> I would however like to read some award winning genre fiction


 The Sci-Fi genre has a bunch of awards. Don't know if would like Sci-fi, but they've been giving them out since... forever. Lets see... 62 years for the "Hugo" (called something else now I think), and 50 years for the "Nebula". I'm sure there's others but I seem to remember reading a lot of stories those award winners.

And I don't equate genre with formula (except for the formula genre).


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Nov 18, 2015)

astroannie said:


> Genre fiction sometimes wins literary awards.  'Nuff said.



Here I go again.  By stating that Genre fiction wins literary awards I assumed that meant awards for being literary, not for being genre.  
With all due respect, there are some genre novels that transcend.  Stephen King winning a Horror genre award is like McDonald's winning a fast food award.
How about naming some genre fiction that transcends ... regardless of awards.  That I'd be impressed by.

I'll throw out the first one.
The Witching Hour by Anne Rice.
What genre is it?  I'd have to say it is a gothic / horror novel but it is so much more than that.  
Historical / Romance / Gothic / Suspense ... Probably my favorite novel by Anne Rice.  Sadly, the sequels didn't do it justice and it finishes up with a lame melding of the Mayfair witches with her Vampire brood and turns into some silly sci-fi ish tripe.  But that first book is AMAZING.

Others that transcend. (by transcend the genre I don't mean to dump all over the established norms a la Twilight) 

The Godfather by Mario Puzo.  At the time not your run of the mill crime novel.
Catcher in the Rye .... Not you average coming of age novel.  I know, so many people hate this novel.  
Both the Laurence Sanders Deadly Sins series and the Spencer series by Robert B. Parker transcend the detective novel in many ways.  Not your typical hard-nosed detectives and not your typical situations.
How about First Blood by David Morrell?  Yeah, the Rambo book.  Not your typical Vietnam war novel.  

We've been going around on a few threads about all this ... my final note.  Reading the pattern will only get you familiar with the pattern and how to copy it. Reading the novels that break out of a pattern will teach you the trick of how to think out of the box and find your own way to break the pattern.  
Between Bestseller and Break-out Novel I think the latter gets a lot more respect these days.  


David Gordon Burke


----------



## Bishop (Nov 19, 2015)

David Gordon Burke said:


> Here I go again.  By stating that Genre fiction wins literary awards I assumed that meant awards for being literary, not for being genre.
> With all due respect, there are some genre novels that transcend.  Stephen King winning a Horror genre award is like McDonald's winning a fast food award.
> How about naming some genre fiction that transcends ... regardless of awards.  That I'd be impressed by.



If you'd clicked the link I posted, it showed many awards of a "literary" nature, spanning a dozen genres and age groups, etc. etc. etc...

But let's look at this from a different angle. Take a look at Pulitzer winners in fiction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulitzer_Prize_for_Fiction

How many of those have you read? How many of those are on your shelf? I'm betting it's under 10. This, to me, is why pop fiction is far more important culturally than literary fiction. It defines us as a culture. Literature of the caliber you're talking about is what stiff conservatives claim is deep. But the books that get read by people are pop fiction. Sure, Stephanie Meyer won't go down in literature the way Led Zepplin went down in music... but King will. Patterson will. Rowling will. Those names will be remembered for a lot longer than the Pulitzer winners. Pulitzer winners might have beautiful, literary prose with deep themes and a lot to say about our world. But the books that actually emotionally connect to us as a people are the ones we read by the fire, that we can't stop turning the pages of, and we can't wait to run to work the next day and force it on our friends.

I'm not saying one should strive to be poppy. Nor am I saying strive to be literary. In fact... what I say is: be yourself. Write what you would want to read and write it as best you possibly can. Don't worry about popularity or reception, just put your passion into it. Then you're getting the most out of your own writing, and that's all that really matters. Because the people who get good at things like writing, music, art... they do it for themselves. Picasso got sick of drawing picturesque portraits to perfection and decided to jack things up. King wanted to scare people.  The Ramones didn't want to learn how to play their instruments. They did it for themselves, and that's what made them great at what they did.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Nov 19, 2015)

Who the hell is Led Zeppelin? Spelling error? The Pulitzer Prize in Music in 1971 (the year of _Stairway to Heaven_) was won by Mario Davidovsky, Synchronisms No. 6 for Piano and Electronic Sound.


----------



## Terry D (Nov 19, 2015)

Literary fiction _*is*_ a genre...


----------



## Bishop (Nov 19, 2015)

Terry D said:


> Literary fiction _*is*_ a genre...



Yeah but it doesn't have laser gun fights, so count Bishop out.


----------



## Kevin (Nov 19, 2015)

> Who the hell is Led Zeppelin?


 I think you just got 'a-egged' (Zeppelin irrelevant to youth-culture?! *sigh*)


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Nov 21, 2015)

I did click on the link.  But the majority of it was about Stephen King.

My book shelf had 19 of those books on it.  And a bunch of others written by those same authors.  
People may remember James Patterson years after he is gone, but will they remember what his books were about?  Even one of them?  I´m sure I´ve read a few .... have no idea which nor what they were about.  Just like at the cinema ... occassionally I remember the film.  Rarely do I remember the Popcorn.  

David Gordon Burke


----------



## Terry D (Nov 21, 2015)

Okay, so you want genre novels that "transcend" genre? _Dune_ by Frank Herbert (SF), _The Shining _by King(Horror), _The Stand_ also by King (Horror), _The Maltese Falcon_ by Dashiell Hammett (Mystery), _Outlander_ by Diana Gabbeldon (Romance),_ Pride and Prejudice_ by Jane Austin (Romance), _The Call of the Wild_ by Jack London (Adventure). 

I don't get your point. Is it that really good genre writing is rare? Well hell yes it's rare! Really good writing of any sort is rare -- even in the 'literary' genre. Just because a book falls into a genre doesn't make it formulaic. There's plenty of good fiction out there in every genre if one is willing to look for it. Still can't find something to meet your standards? Then write it.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Nov 21, 2015)

Terry D said:


> Okay, so you want genre novels that "transcend" genre? _Dune_ by Frank Herbert (SF), _The Shining _by King(Horror), _The Stand_ also by King (Horror), _The Maltese Falcon_ by Dashiell Hammett (Mystery), _Outlander_ by Diana Gabbeldon (Romance),_ Pride and Prejudice_ by Jane Austin (Romance), _The Call of the Wild_ by Jack London (Adventure).
> 
> I don't get your point. Is it that really good genre writing is rare? Well hell yes it's rare! Really good writing of any sort is rare -- even in the 'literary' genre. Just because a book falls into a genre doesn't make it formulaic. There's plenty of good fiction out there in every genre if one is willing to look for it. Still can't find something to meet your standards? Then write it.



Just to clarify.  The thread is about formulaic fiction.
I don´t believe that all genre fiction is fomulaic ... but the tendency is often there to follow the standard literary agent formula.  Yes, that also happens in a lot of literary works as well but I´d venture that genre leans a more toward the commercially maximized standard pattern.  
So I imagine that many people have stated ´Genre´ in this thread when they meant ´Formulaic.´ Which in itself speaks volumes.

Ahhh. Another one.  The Damnation Game by Clive Barker.  IMHO maybe his best.  A long, slow burn that starts out as a story of a guy getting early parole from prison and ends in a strange Horror story about an immortal.  Just plain weird and creepy.  

On another note, the marketing of genre fiction in itself may take a lot away from the value of a book.  I mean if you have already figured out what it´s about thanks to the pigeon-holing of the marketing campaign, plus the cover etc....?  Well, where´s the fun in that?  

David Gordon Burke


----------



## Terry D (Nov 21, 2015)

As I mentioned earlier, there is no "standard literary agent formula." I've never seen an agent suggest a formula for any genre. Agents target work that is unique because it will be easier to sell.


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 22, 2015)

David Gordon Burke said:


> So I imagine that many people have stated ´Genre´ in this thread when they meant ´Formulaic.´ Which in itself speaks volumes.



It only speaks volumes if one pays attention to your imagination - because I don't think anyone has said "genre" when they meant "formulaic", or even "formula". 

But :deadhorse:


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Nov 25, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> It only speaks volumes if one pays attention to your imagination - because I don't think anyone has said "genre" when they meant "formulaic", or even "formula".
> 
> But :deadhorse:



My point was that formula is a different thing to different people.  I went back and reread some of the earlier posts and as early as the 4th reply and the 5th, (yours) members were linking the concept of formula with genre.  

As I am not a university grad with a degree in literature, I am not able to mention exactly who, oh so long ago, taught that all stories are the same and that authors are just refrying the same story again and again.  But there is a commonality to all stories.  Would one consider that a formula?  

There are standards to each genre.  One could also consider those to be formulas.

Throughout this thread I have tried to clearly state my opinion that regardless of genre, there is what one could call a modern or commercial formula.  The first sentence, first paragraph, first two pages, inciting incident, three act etc. formula which many sources have stated is the only way to get the attention of a Literary agent is the formula I have been speaking of in this thread.

David Gordon Burke


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 26, 2015)

David Gordon Burke said:


> The first sentence, first paragraph, first two pages, inciting incident, three act etc. formula which many sources have stated is the only way to get the attention of a Literary agent is the formula I have been speaking of in this thread.



Then there is no formula, because every agent is looking for something that another agent is not. Having three acts will not make one speck of difference in getting the attention of an agent if the writing within those three acts is crap. Having the first page or so boring as hell, or written incomprehensibly, will definitely cause an agent to toss the thing, but having them well-written is not the "only" way to get an agent's attention, either. I don't know who or what these sources are, but if they actually state "This" is the _only _way to get the attention of an agent, they're full of s***t. I would consider that perhaps you misunderstood them - either that or you need to find other sources.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Nov 26, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> Then there is no formula, because every agent is looking for something that another agent is not. Having three acts will not make one speck of difference in getting the attention of an agent if the writing within those three acts is crap. Having the first page or so boring as hell, or written incomprehensibly, will definitely cause an agent to toss the thing, but having them well-written is not the "only" way to get an agent's attention, either. I don't know who or what these sources are, but if they actually state "This" is the _only _way to get the attention of an agent, they're full of s***t. I would consider that perhaps you misunderstood them - either that or you need to find other sources.



I am curious.  Your veiled message seems to be that I am the only person who has read these guidelines or 'Formula' and as such, I must be misguided.
And to extrapolate ... It is not a boring first page that is the point.  It is a McDonald's style slogan style of writing that either hooks the reader or the whole book is thrown in the wastebin.  This is the recommended formula in book upon book, web-site after web-site.  yeah, I know, I need to look for other sources.  Not my point.  I never prescribed to the formula they recommend ... I rail against it.  

I would also add .... all agents are looking for the same thing ... a best$eller.  To many, this means a formula.  

My point is that whether directly or indirectly, so many people think of it as the only way to write good fiction.

David Gordon Burke


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 26, 2015)

You really believe this, don't you? You really, seriously think that writing a story where the first few pages don't bore the reader to tears is writing "McDonald's" style and that agents want the same old thing, over and over and over.

Wow.


----------



## Jeko (Nov 26, 2015)

> I am not able to mention exactly who, oh so long ago, taught that all stories are the same and that authors are just refrying the same story again and again. But there is a commonality to all stories.



Christopher Booker, not so long ago.



> Would one consider that a formula?



No. 

It's more about how we _read_ stories than how we write them, from what I've read. People's minds naturally follow the semantic syntax stories in one of only a certain number of ways. We write to guide them entertainingly and not obtrusively, and we are never limited to just one of those 'basic plots'.

The Lord of the Rings, for instance, has pretty much every basic plot woven into it.

One trick to writing is to realise that you already know these basic plots yourself (and the more you read, the more they'll fill up your subconscious storyteller's toolkit), and not to necessarily _approach_ them formulaically - that is, consciously think of formulas - but to _feel _them as you work. Your writer's ear can work on a macroscopic level.

If you want your readers to view your characters as real, you need to realise them yourself. To do that you need to become so familiar with the 'tools' of the trade that you don't think once about _what_ you're using, but only the goal of using it, like a blacksmith doesn't keep thinking about his hammer but rather the sword being shaped; like drawing a straight line by eye requires you to _not look at the pencil_.

Call them 'formulas' if you want to, but if you're good enough at using them, you shouldn't have to ever have them in mind. Else your work will likely reek of artifice, as so much popular fiction does today, best-seller or not, unless you're playing around with the nature of artifice on purpose.

You should also learn the difference between 'genre fiction' and 'genre', and acknowledge that the foundation of modern storytelling rests in the ancient _traditions _(there's a word this thread could use) of storytelling patterns - which scholars then identified as _genres_ - which were in their own time already being played around with. 

'Genre' is more or less a series of _expectations_ built up as or before the narrative begins to unfold. A novel that never plays with those expectations is either boring or some not necessarily explicit variety of pornography. Everything else you read will affect the 'norm' in some way, subtly or overtly, to stand out and be memorable. 

That's why agents pick things up: not because they stick to a formula, but because they set up expectations - through genre and other devices - and then _use_ those expectations as part of the joy of reading. You can use or confuse 'formulas', 'genres', 'traditions' etc of the field of literature your novel would find its way into and still perform incredibly with the nature of expectation.


----------



## Newman (Nov 26, 2015)

This seems to be pertinent: http://www.vox.com/2015/11/26/9803138/creed-review-movie-rocky


----------



## Terry D (Nov 27, 2015)

This really shouldn't need to be said, but there is a big difference between a story's structure and a formula. Using a framework like the Hero's Journey, or writing to a three act structure is NOT being formulaic. It is simply choosing a design around which you will build your novel. I've seen many books which describe useful story structures, but I've never seen one which suggests placing action 'A' at page such-and-such, and introduce this sort of character here, or here. That would be writing to a formula.

Skilled chefs build there meals around proven combinations of textures and flavors. They may create varied or even unique dishes, but those foods are still dependent on known combinations of sweet, salty, acidic, sour, bitter, smooth, crunchy, creamy, etc. They know how each ingredient will work with the others; their dish has a structure. A recipe is a formula. I can't say there are no books, magazines, or agents who don't suggest writing to a recipe, but I can say I've never come across one.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Nov 27, 2015)

I think it should be said, however, that there are always chefs out there who are breaking away from the known combinations of flavors and textures. They create new dishes and ideas by going against the grain and putting different things together to see how they will work. 

Doing that creates some seemingly odd, but very satisfying experiences for a foodie.

Perhaps, in a way, DGB is searching for the same kind of experience in his reading?


----------



## ppsage (Nov 27, 2015)

Knowing Kyle (and dissolutely following his pedagogy) for lo these many years, I'd venture that what he means by formulaic IS something like a three-act structure, with a schedule for character type and introduction, and standard methodology for scene creation, and plot points listed to tick off. The story idea is pushed into, and its evolution is shaped, by this formula. I'd venture that he, at least, could write a readable (and maybe salable) book this way, or maybe already has. I think of it something like dog show paces, where the animal shows off its ability to perform by running through all those hoops and rails and stuff. You still have to write, but you do it within this familiar and practiced course. One person, who I know wrote this way, was the noted detective writer Ross Macdonald (rl Kenneth Millar). His formula was much deeper than plot, character and setting which are included, and a sort of a notion of beats, and of types of scenes, but all this at an abstracted level, so he had to create new plots and new characters and new settings and chase them through the course. The notebooks he kept, planning a book, are marvels. Pumped out, one per year, some of the gems of noire detective style. They demonstrate some capacity to carry the heavier freight of fiction: philosophy, metaphor, theme. I count them as something on the order of Dickens or Twain: clever and entertaining stories with a little meat to chew on, but not particularly nutritious (to keep our metaphor going). Funnel cake.


----------



## PhunkyMunky (Nov 27, 2015)

I have been working on several stories but one in particular has me fired up again. I've been considering how I want to approach this, as evidenced in my own thread regarding how to open the story. I have been working around the idea that the Hero is an expert, the villain is an expert, and something happens that gets the villain to notice and concern themselves over the hero. 

I saw this thread and looked at it just now and Googled "Formulaic Writing" and saw that, in part, I had already begun this process unknowingly. Now I think I will use it more earnestly, now that I know what it is. I don't see any reason someone can't follow, even loosely, a basic formula in their writing. Especially if writing in series, because it helps you to quickly lay out what you want to happen. Everyone organizes their work in some way, even if it's just in chapters. 

Well, I may try it with some sort of Fan Fiction and see what I think of it. Or on the current story, even with that if I dislike it, I can just start again. No biggie. 

Either way, with so many replies, I haven't gone through them all. But for the OP, I don't have an opinion, really as I just learned what formulaic writing is, but I'd like to thank you for making me look it up!


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Nov 27, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> You really believe this, don't you? You really, seriously think that writing a story where the first few pages don't bore the reader to tears is writing "McDonald's" style and that agents want the same old thing, over and over and over.
> 
> Wow.



See that's an extreme black and white interpretation of my statement.  Nor did I state that they want the same thing.  I didn't ever state that the first few pages should be boring.  A wild misrepresentation of my earlier posts.  How about we keep it to what is stated, shall we?  
But I do believe that it's supposed to be a book, not a video game.  It's not Lethal Weapon 17.  

There is nothing boring to me about a well presented premise, an intriguing opening situation or just a quirky character.  It doesn't have to be action.  It doesn't have to grab me by the throat.  It doesn't have to do much more than set up a stange premise.  But I don't suffer from ADD.  I like to read for reading's sake and sometimes I'll read something even if it's a bit hard to get through.  Most of the best books I've ever read were a struggle.  

The thing that I find most interesting about your arguement is that in the past you have rallied against my opinion that the general public and specifically the book buying public have been ' dumbed down. '  It seems to me that the simple thrill of opening a new book and wondering what it will deliver is interesting enough.  Your support of the 'Marketing Slogan' McDonalds type opening seems to contradict the so called intelligence you imbue the average fiction reader with.  

I just recently reread Stephen King's 'On Writing' in which he talks about pacing of a story.
There is the action based novel and that's all well and good but there is also the slow burn.  A novel that climbs to higher heights because it slowly builds tension.  Like a good poker player or a blues guitarist, they don't show everything they have in their hand right away.

Also, you misquoted me.  You left out the bit about .... a bestseller.  Are we to believe that they are not in the business of making huge wads of cash?  

DGB


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Nov 27, 2015)

Terry D said:


> This really shouldn't need to be said, but there is a big difference between a story's structure and a formula. Using a framework like the Hero's Journey, or writing to a three act structure is NOT being formulaic. It is simply choosing a design around which you will build your novel. I've seen many books which describe useful story structures, but I've never seen one which suggests placing action 'A' at page such-and-such, and introduce this sort of character here, or here. That would be writing to a formula.
> 
> Skilled chefs build there meals around proven combinations of textures and flavors. They may create varied or even unique dishes, but those foods are still dependent on known combinations of sweet, salty, acidic, sour, bitter, smooth, crunchy, creamy, etc. They know how each ingredient will work with the others; their dish has a structure. A recipe is a formula. I can't say there are no books, magazines, or agents who don't suggest writing to a recipe, but I can say I've never come across one.



Thank you.  Structure ... or in the case I have read so many times, a bestseller structure is what I have been trying to get at.  There are many structures to choose from or one could invent their own structure.  While all the stories may have already been told, the 'How' is still in the author's hands.  At least if he is brave enough to be true to his own vision.  

David Gordon Burke


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 27, 2015)

Okay, so structure is not formula, so at least we've gotten that far.

As to misinterpretation, I do not "support of the 'Marketing Slogan' McDonalds type opening". I have no idea where you got that. Nor have I seen any "formula" that demands "action", at least in the way you seem to mean it. Replace "action" with "interest" - ie, something has to happen to pique the interest of the reader - and again, that's just common sense.

And yes, I've railed against your "readers are dumb" stance in the past, and your posts here seem to be just another way of saying the same thing. Hence, my lack of patience. One can't help but wonder why, with the obvious disdain you have for readers, writers, and publishing in general, you bother to write at all.


----------



## Jeko (Nov 27, 2015)

> my opinion that the general public and specifically the book buying public have been ' dumbed down. '



The writer who thinks he's writing for dumb people is a bigger idiot than any of them. He'll never, ever sell the way he could if he wrote for the actual audience we have at our disposal today.


----------



## voltigeur (Nov 28, 2015)

When I think of formulaic writing I think more about the writing that is so predictable and ridged with the same results over and over. It's not about genre, while Romance is the genre that first comes to mind not all romance is written that way. I don't think there is any fiction out there that doesn't rely to some extent on formula anymore than there are chefs who doesn't use a recipe. The problem comes when the formula over rides creativity. 


While I hope I never have to write this way I know of several authors that can write full time putting this stuff out on the grocery store check stand while they write their real stuff under another pen name. If I had the choice between writing full time and working a full time job while I get that first novel out guess I'd decorate the grocery store. (One author claimed he could write 4 hours a day and crank one of these out every 2 months. Six publications a year. (Royalties only last about a year.) 

Writing formulaic fiction is definitely not what I aspire to.  But if it pays the bills and helps me publish the good stuff then I might do it. (would never admit it tho.)


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Dec 4, 2015)

Formulaic writing is fine until you recognize it.  Once you do, every book feels the same, every movie feels the same, and every song feels the same.

I don't know how valid it is, but I've recently decided there are three levels of mastery.  In the first level, you don't recognize the mechanics of things, so everything is fresh and new and exciting.  In the second level, you've discovered the mechanics, so everything begins to appear similar.  And in the final level, you're so attuned to the mechanics that you can now look beyond them and appreciate the nuances, making everything appear different once more.

As long as the majority of your audience is at the first or third levels, formulaic writing is just fine.


----------

