Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Comments on What's the difference between time-tested and formulaic?

Parent

What's the difference between time-tested and formulaic?

+6
−0

Maybe this is all in my head, but it seems that novel writing for a lot of genres has become mainstreamed to the point of formula. We have articles, podcasts, and books telling us how to:

  • Create likeable characters by increasing their sympathy, competence, and humor sliders
  • Invent just enough worldbuilding details to suggest a bigger world
  • Write a hero's journey

And then once stories started feeling cliche, we added a new objective: subvert tropes by not adhering to formula.

Is this a sign that we've taken things too far? I'm all for analyzing why writing works, and I'm a die-hard plotter who loves a good 3-act structure. But I feel that there's a point at which we're writing to check boxes, not to build compelling stories. A point at which we've focsued-tested the art away.

I'm looking for smarter minds than my own to comment upon this: how do we determine the difference between something universal - an archetype, a useful pattern - and plain formula? How do we know whether the specific technique we're using serves the story or just appeases that one writing blog we read last week?

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

0 comment threads

Post
+3
−0

Without looking at the other answers, I'd say it depends on audience. Some people are happy with formulaic. Write what they want, regardless of it being a formula, and they are happy to buy it and read it.

To a certain extent, I'd say the publishing world runs on marketing. Maybe it was not always like that? But for this audience, it seems "okay" to write to formula.

And then, of course, our beloved Mark Baker once said: Write what has been written, only different. (or words to that effect.) So--I think that means a story should be recognizable and also somewhat new. Sort of what you are asking here. It is a useful idea.

Personally, I think a story needs a reason to exist. So if a story feels like a clone of something else, then it's not a story I want to tell. I want to play with stories that have layers of things going on. The one I'm working on at the moment is turning into something of an action story, but that's not why I'm writing it. That's just its form. It's got all the stuff I want it to have--an emphasis on climate change and people and so on--and it has characters and goals and actions toward goals and stakes and more. To some extent, it's formulaic. But those things are also good for holding interest, or at least for following an existing road map. And they provide another layer beyond 'action story.'

But until I found a question for the story to ask, it felt flat despite all that. Maybe that question I wanted in the story, is theme? I don't know. I realized I needed, in addition to the above, for this story to have a reason to exist. That came into being through ... theme. The question (theme) is whether we are more effective as many individuals taking individualized action, or as a unified whole agreeing to do a single thing. The answer really could go either way. So, that--a question of some sort woven through a story--is what makes something interesting to me.

Layer.

I also, independently of all that, think that writing is a decent way for me, again personally, to learn some new tricks. Voice. Perspective. Persuasion. Dialog. Description. A little poetry. You might find writing satisfying if you are growing as a writer through doing it.

If you hate what you are writing, look at all the parts to it.

Last thing. No one asks why paint new paintings; why try to emulate the masters, why learn color balance and harmony and whatever when it comes to visual arts, in the form of paintings. I think the same applies here. Whatever passion or inspiration you imagine painters drawing upon to creat a new work of art, perhaps that is what is missing if you aren't feeling it for your 'word-painting.'

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

General comments (1 comment)
General comments
icanfathom‭ wrote about 4 years ago

+1 for "A story needs a reason to exist." That's the most concise way I've heard for determining if a story is meaningful or just checking boxes.