Post History

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?