Into the Fire

Passionate thoughts about the world of writing and the Power of God

recent posts

about

Passionate: right or wrong. Writes love stories with a passion. Raw Romantic Redemptive

Yes or No?

 

Formulaic fiction is exactly what it claims to be. It follows a specific formula. That formula is expected and appreciated by its fans and complained about by its detractors. Some fans can be unaware of exactly why they enjoy it—that being it’s fairly easy to figure out without too much speculation, and they know what to expect from the story such as it wraps up tidily at the end while providing predictable moments of conflict and tension along the way. Generally speaking, there’s very little surprise involved.

 

If a reader picks up a novel to be entertained, formulaic fiction is geared to meeting that demand. The formula speaks to the style of novel, not necessarily to the voice. However, when there’s a specific pattern in storytelling, things like word count play a major role, and language tends to be fairly lean and less “literary” than those novels which go off the beaten path.

 

Nothing wrong with formulaic fiction if it’s what you choose to read.

 

I’ve learned in the past year that formulaic fiction is not my favorite. Too much of it feels like cheap burgers ingested for days at a time due to budget constraints. I know that sounds insulting, but after reading so much of it, I’m tired of the easily figured out plots with predictable characters in situations which seem formed by brainstorming sessions asking “What if . . .?”

 

So, yes or no as to formulaic fiction?

 

 

 

Father, let us write for you. Direct our words, lead us in your ways. Always. In the Name of Jesus, Amen.

Posted in

8 responses to “Yes or No?”

  1. Brenda Avatar
    Brenda

    I don’t have a problem with formulaic fiction. Because to me, all fiction is formulaic in some form. And what seems formulaic to one reader is not at all bothersome to another.
    In addition, to me, formulaic goes hand in hand with an author’s branding. They become known for a certain type or series of books. Charles Martin writes really good books–but they are formulaic. You know exactly what you’ll get.
    Another example: The Hardy Boys books—those beloved blue spines that I grew up reading and quite frankly STILL love to read. There is nothing original there–each time the boys are guaranteed to solve a mystery, they aren’t going to take wild character swings, but you love the stories because of the very strong sense of family that is promoted in them and because it’s simply wonderful to read clean adventures that don’t keep you up at night with forays into the really seedy side of life.
    Zane Grey, my favorite author, is formulaic.
    There is nothing new under the sun. If books were completely original, than only one romance novel, western novel, suspense novel, etc would have been written and that’d be the end of it. Yet the kazillions of books published over the years prove that readers want to read it–again and again.
    Books are really written soap operas, regardless of their genre.
    Even for those few writers who do seem to write somewhat off the beaten path of mainstream probably are considered formulaic in their own way.
    Which leaves the question–so why, then, do some of us have such a hard time finding books to read? I guess not enough people have yet latched onto our formula. 😎

    Like

    Reply
  2. Nicole Avatar
    Nicole

    Brenda, you make excellent points. I should’ve specified that certain formulaic fiction in bunches leaves me wanting something much “deeper” and less predictable, I suppose. For lack of a better description . . .
    The style of some formulaic fiction is exactly what people expect. Hero/heroine in trouble with rescuer present and accounted for with villain clearly defined, attraction inevitable, danger, and problem solved victoriously.
    Heck, I write formulaic love stories, but I need depth in the characters, writing that takes chances, people who invoke real emotion, and even the circumstances can be mundane if the “real” shows up in spades.
    I totally agree “There’s nothing new under the sun.” But . . .
    People feel most of the same things when faced with love, grief, danger/fear. It’s when we get under the surface of basic emotion and inside the heads and skins of characters that life gets depicted as it truly is. And don’t get me wrong–I love plot driven novels, but characters make the difference for me, I guess, and some formulaic fiction presents them . . . formulaically.
    Does that make sense?

    Like

    Reply
  3. Brenda Anderson Avatar
    Brenda Anderson

    As a math person, I always think of math equations when people mention formulaic fiction. When doing math problems I don’t want to figure out an easy X + X = 6 problem, I want a problem with multiple variables, one that challenges me to think.
    I agree with Brenda above, to an extent. Most fiction likely follows some formula, but I want to read a book that follows a calculus-type equation rather than simple algebra.
    A few years back I read a 3-book series by a popular author. When I put the 3rd book down I realized I’d just read the same book 3 times. Sure, the characters had different names, occupations, & goals, BUT the sequence of events, the getting in trouble & out of trouble & falling in love & breaking up, etc., was exactly the same. In essence, it was a simple A + B = C formula. I can’t read her works any more because I’ll know exactly what to expect.
    I love it when I have no clue where there author is leading. I love it when books don’t turn out the way I anticipate. Now, if a book’s plot is written like the quadratic equation, that’ll be interesting.

    Like

    Reply
  4. Brenda Avatar
    Brenda

    Yes I agree, it’s nice when you read something that gives you the unexpected. As a general rule, math gives me a headache *-) but that brings up another point, mathematically speaking, the percentage of truly unusual books will always be very low.
    That gets to the heart of what we’ve discussed here several times. Publishers are always seeking books that are “the same, but different” and often, as we know, they end up being more toward the “the same” side and less toward “the different”.
    I think that’s why I rebel against the oft-quoted addage that writers should read everything they can get their hands on. Yes, obviously we need to know the market, but I think telling aspiring writers to read to oblivion is counter-productive. Every writer has to choose their own path. But for me, I’d rather read selectively, then spend the rest of my time striving for that elusive “unusual” book. At least, as unusual as it can be given how subjective a thing that is.

    Like

    Reply
  5. Nicole Avatar
    Nicole

    Brenda A., I’m the farthest thing from a math person you could find except I did really like the formulaic geometry–hated the plane stuff. However, I could probably name the author you quit on because I did too. If I’m not mistaken, that author is a huge bestseller so what do we know?
    I’m with you. I need hope in the end to be satisfied, but I don’t need the perfect ending and certainly not the “perfect” characters. However, there again if there isn’t something redeemable and minimally likeable about the protag/heroine, forget it: I probably will not like the book much if at all.
    Great analogy with the formula in the second paragraph. (Algebra was never simple to me! Thank the Lord I had the best teacher ever and somehow managed to get straight As. Couldn’t do an algebraic problem now if my life depended on it, I suspect.)

    Like

    Reply
  6. Nicole Avatar
    Nicole

    Brenda, I’m becoming far more selective than I’ve been in the past. 2009 was an excellent year for CBA publishing. 2010 not so much. I’m tired of feeling so-so at the finish of so many novels, thinking I might just have wasted my time. I don’t blame you for searching for what you really want, Brenda.

    Like

    Reply
  7. dayle Avatar
    dayle

    Nicole, do you think you “see” the formulas because you read so much and you study story structure?
    I can’t watch most tv shows because of this. I know what’s going to happen. I see the plot clues and the plants. You’re right, the only thing that can provide interest are the characters.

    Like

    Reply
  8. Nicole Avatar
    Nicole

    Dayle, I know it’s because I read so much and that winds up being my study of story structure. I tend to like those stories which take an unusual risk, use a different style, precisely because it’s so much more fun to ride along.
    And with TV series, I follow the ones I like solely because of the characters and their ability to gain my emotional investment. It’s very difficult to work innovation into a series after 4 or 5 years without introducing new characters. If those new characters don’t have the right appeal, it’s usually a swift end to the series. When they added Laurence Fishburne to CSI and brought back the character Sarah Sidle, they bought a few more years for that series.
    Take “Bones” for example. I think last year and the first few episodes of this year took Dr. Brennan backwards in her character. The final episode before their Christmas break, they attempted to make her “human” again. It was a brave and meaningful performance by Emily Deschanel. This is their 6th season, and if they don’t at least get her back to her 4th season of emotional progress, I don’t know how much longer the series will last.
    If you follow a strict formula in your writing, your characters have to be exceptional to sustain my interest. At least that’s what I’m learning about myself.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment