a thought about formulaic writing

I'm pretty sure an HEA/HFN (happily ever after/happily for now -- see, the terms are used so much they get acronyms) ending is required for most publishers to publish a novel as romance. Readers are expecting it when they open a romance novel. This is different from other genres, if that's what you're talking about.

I know there are some romance writers on the board who can probably answer your question better.

Personally, I don't care for recipe writing, where the author follows the exact same plot every time. I found one author who is very famous in the romance genre, but after reading three of her novels, I realized they're all identical. I read a couple more, and like you said, the names are changed, and the circumstances are different, but the main plot points are exactly the same. It got predictable! And yes, a bit boring.

I avoid this with my own work. I do tend to have a few similar details that always crop up--issues I want to explore, but in different ways. For example, in both my finished novels, I have MCs who end up pregnant and separated from their husbands, but their circumstances are vastly different, and the details are not the same. In one, the birth gets its own chapter. In the other, the birth is glossed over in a few paragraphs. I made sure to keep them distinct enough that if I had any repeat readers, they would't think I was simply telling the same story twice.

There are kaboodles of authors out there who, IMHO, write the same story over, and over, and over again. Different character names, different settings, same story. BUT, how many stories are there? Especially when limited to a genre?

I dunno. I write fantasy. Maybe I'm writing the same story over and over. Different characters, different swords, different horses. Hmmm.

sheadakota said:

Do people really like the comfort of reading the same story over and over again knowing how its going to end?

Click to expand...

I like knowing how it's going to end, but I don't want the journey there to be the same.

I'll stick up for predictability.

There are a handful of authors I read, in romance and mystery, whose books follow very predictable structures and who write essentially the same character types in every story, and that's fine with me. I don't read those authors to be surprised. I read them because I like their style, their characters, and the kinds of stories they tell. There is a certain comfort in knowing before you open a book what you're getting into.

I saw an interview with some #1 thriller writers, and I can't remember who, but one of them said that there's 2 routes you can go as a writer, writing the same type of story as before or writing something new. A lot of successful writers stick to the same type of successful story until they've cut their cut their teeth on it or gotten tired of it, then they start writing something else.

This makes sense to me because when I look at unsuccessful writers, most of them never put in the years to get really good at writing any particular type of story. And by type of story, I do mean general formula.

I agree there are certain things that you should expect when reading a particular genre. Romances should go something like, "Boy meets girl, something stands in their way, they overcome it and live happily ever after." But when it comes down to exact plot elements, I don't want to be able to predict what's going to happen, simply because I've read another book by that author.

For example. . . . An 1850s wealthy English lady meets a nobleman and they fall in love. She insists they cannot be together and resists his efforts to woo her. In time, she succumbs to his charms and agrees to sleep with him, but for one night only. Scandalous acts ensue. When morning comes, she regretfully leaves, knowing they cannot be together. Eventually, they find each other again and realize they cannot stay apart. They marry and live happily ever after. This is the plot for at least half a dozen different books by a particular author. The writing was excellent and I enjoyed the first few books. But after the fifth or sixth identical novel, I stopped reading because they were simply too predictable. It was like reading the same book over and over.

If the author had done something unique with each one, spinning the plot around, so it was a fresh take on the subject, it would have been great. I would have kept reading, thinking she was very clever. But she didn't. She changed the names, but reused the exact same plot elements over and over. Even the era and locations were the same. That's what I object to. If you want to explore different facets of the same basic plot, that's fine, but the least you can do is freshen it up, so it doesn't seem like a cookie-cutter plot.

Obviously, some people like reading the same stories over and over, with only minute changes. I'm just not one of them. To me, it feels like lazy writing. But then, I'm pretty particular when it comes to what I choose to read. My mother will read anything, she doesn't care if the grammar is flawed, or the plot is predictable. She enjoys it regardless. She would be fine with cookie-cutter plots, I'm sure. I'm just more picky, I guess.

Sometimes you can easily over-generalize plots, but then sometimes certain genres and writers do have their repetitious rut.

"Mainstream" romance, for example, I've found to be very repetitious in plot while the characters and setting slightly change. I'm not going to name names, but there are some romance writers who pump out the same stories with the serial numbers filed off and replaced.

And, is there anything wrong with that? IMO, no. Sure, you might not like it, but it doesn't mean other readers don't. Sometimes people enjoy reading the same thing--with slight changes--over and over again. Hell, look at television--half the programming is just rehashed--but people still watch it like crazy. Why? Because producers and viewers are sometimes scared to venture out into new territory; to leave their comfort zone where things already work.

Orianna2000 said:

I agree there are certain things that you should expect when reading a particular genre. Romances should go something like, "Boy meets girl, something stands in their way, they overcome it and live happily ever after." But when it comes down to exact plot elements, I don't want to be able to predict what's going to happen, simply because I've read another book by that author.

Click to expand...

Pretty much my thoughts.

Ages ago, I tried Anne McCaffrey's Brain and Brawn ship series, about a future where the brains of humans with severe birth defects are used as computers powering starships (and, later, cities and such.) The first book, The Ship Who Sang, was fresh and exciting. Book 2 (PartnerShip) brought on a co-author; the names had changed, but it looked rather familiar. When I finished reading Book 3 (The Ship Who Searched), with yet another co-author, I gave up on them. The MC was significantly different, and it could've made for a neat story, but by this point I could pinpoint exactly when a particular plot element would occur before I got there. Nothing that was unique about the heroine or her situation was exploited, as she was forced into the mold of the previous brainships. I see there are more titles in the series, but how many times can you read the same exact story?

I'm of two minds on this. I like both thrillers and cozies, for example. Thrillers should take me anywhere and do pretty much anything and I'm along for the ride. Just don't kill off a series lead in a series and I'm good. In a standalone, kill 'em all off and it's still good.

But for cozies, I prefer the routine, even though it's somewhat formulaic. Same town, same characters, just different mysteries featuring different town folk and then back to square one. But no big changes, please. It would ruin the entire series. Weird, I know.

I'm a fan of romance, so I know to expect the road to HEA formula. But yes, there are some formulas/tropes I'm just done with and won't touch unless I know something about it makes the book stand out. I'm sure if one has had success and the fan bases expects another book in that vein, it's hard to steer far off course. But then again, what do I know? haha

All stories pretty much boil down to "Someone has a problem. Someone does a lot of difficult, dramatic things to overcome the problem or die trying. Or fail in such a way that the reader sympathises with them for giving up."

[/iconoclast]

Coconut said:

This makes sense to me because when I look at unsuccessful writers, most of them never put in the years to get really good at writing any particular type of story. And by type of story, I do mean general formula.

Click to expand...

This struck a chord with me. Genres tend to have patterns because certain things tend to work well for the readers of them. To become a master of manipulating one of those patterns is a thing worth working at--and it's something you won't be unless you do work at it.

Probably the real masters of a genre are the ones who manage to stick to the important points over and over again, but effectively pull the wool over the audience's eyes, so it feels fresh every time.

I might be thinking of John Hughes' screenplays while I type this.

Was it Kristan Higgins?? haha

Her stories are all the same: Woman falls in love with her brother-in-law. Throw in a pet and someone dying, which is what brings the love interest back to her after a fight.

The end.

I've stopped reading her books because they're the same. Yes, romance does tend to be more formulaic, but when it's pretty much the same characters and plot, just with a different name, it's boring.

I just recently started reading another author. The very first story I read was part of an anthology (?). (I'm not sure if that's what it's called. Different authors, but the stories are connected in some way.) Anyways, I enjoyed it. Lots of voice in her writing.

So I read another of her stories, also in an anthology thingie. Looked mighty familiar...

Seeing how they're both parts of an anthology thingie, I figured she probably borrowed the plot to make things go faster. So I gave her one more chance and read a full-length novel. And it was very different and very strong writing.

So sometimes there can be similar books from an author, but it might be the odd case. But then others with the cookie cutter books, it seems to be the norm and those get old fast.

I think it can work...if they're just in it for -- dare I say it? -- the money. A reader discovers this new author, likes the book, reads more of their books. Then discovers they're pretty much the same book, just in disguise. So they get bored and move on. But there's always a revolving door of new readers. So the author can remain popular despite having written essentially the same thing over and over again.

sheadakota; said:

Then I started to look objectively at my own work and wondered if do this as well. I never thought I did, but I do seem to put my characters in jeopardy time and time again- the way I do it is different, but I do it in all of my work. ( My covers are all very different though)

Click to expand...

What's the point of a novel without characters being put in jeopardy? (that goes for thrillers, romance, literary or any other genre you care to name).

A midlister who's on the NYT list? If that's being a midlister, then ninety-nine + percent of writers will never see the midlist.

This aside, when a writer's books are all the same, it has nothing to do with formulaic writing, it has to be with the writer not using her imagination and writing something new each time.

Regardless of genre, pretty much all novels are formulaic in structure, and even in plot. There's nothing wrong with this. This is as it should be. It's up to the writer to include new elements withing this formulaic structure. There are genres where you can pretty much change teh names and produce a "new" novel, and it's the norm within these genres. But even in these genres, a good writer does more than this, but without changing the basic formula.

Anyway, don't confuse formula with every novel being the same. It simply isn't true. Every novel is the same strictly because the writer keeps writing the same story over and over. Different story does not mean different formula.

I'm a huge Hardy Boys fan - I've read as many of them as I can get my hands on.

You notice the sameness more when you discover a writer with a bunch of books in print and read them all in a short time. If you'd read the books when they came out once a year, you'd be less struck by it, having read plenty of other things in the meantime.

I think we come to different authors for different things. Stephanie Plum is going to destroy a car, and mostly I enjoy that.

But then I do like reading someone else for a while.

Some people like more predictability in their stories, some like a lot less. I think the writing world is large enough that both kinds of readers can be satisfied.

I hate to say what other writers "should" write, as if my standards are or should be universal. To do so seems arrogant to me. (And I'm pretty damned arrogant, to be honest!)
So far all the books I've written are about super-heroic characters. At each new book I consider the particular superior traits they have, and try to work out how that is going to hurt as well as help them and my story.

How do they solve the problems of being (for instance) a couple of dozen times as strong as ordinary humans? Among other issues, how do they learn to control their temper? And if some people need saving, how do they use their superior strength in such a way that it does not arouse curiosity?

Plus, really, what good does being super strong do anyone? There aren't any jobs which require it. It's not going to incite admiration; more likely it will incite fear, envy, and hatred.

Plus, super strength (if one wants to be realistic) must cost SOMETHING. (I solve that by having my super characters having to eat more food. And having waved my hands at the problem, ignore it and hope my readers don't think too much about my "solution"!)

I was just thinking about this yesterday. A lot of my stories end very similarly. The MC goes through some weridass existential change. In one story, a character makes a wish and his body dies but he merges with a forest and becomes this forest. Another character dies, but his ghost remains as a character. Another character ends up loosing his ability to feel emotions.

They all happen to be male protagonists, and they all lose their humanity by the end of the story. I was just thinking about it, and I realize that's becaues that's what I enjoy thinking about and exploring. This is a topic that's really interesting to me, so I write about it.

I think it's normal (to an extent) for authors to have similar characters and themes and bring up repetitive issues. If an author is a good writer, I have no issue with repeating themes/repetitive problems appears in their stories.

Formula writing is different, though. If an author is constantly repeating the same story - to the point where the story gets stale - then they should find ways to be more creative. I think it's pretty normal for similar themes to appear in an authors writing, but they can do this without repeating the exact same story.

All in all, it really matters to the reader. At what point does a story become stale? Each reader has a different threshold. I think us, as writers, have a lower tolerance for this stuff than the general reader but I could be wrong.

I read every single Warriors installment. 'nuff said. If it's a good story, why not.

sheadakota said:

Do formulaic books work? Is it what people want to read?

Click to expand...

Yes and yes.

We can all sit here and turn our noses up at what sells for some people but if it's working and readers are reading these books, then there's obviously something to them beyond just the formulaic comfortability.

Just because we don't see it or we don't like them, doesn't mean others don't.

It's selling. And it's being read.

Monica McCarthy is like this and I gobble up all of her books the moment they come out. She's the only author I feel uses the same formula over and over and over, yet I love the stories because regardless of the impossible circumstance she's put them in, they still end up with a happily ever after. And I get to see old characters in new character stories. Regardless, as a reader sometimes I need to think that all I need is hard work to make things work and her books give me that.

Now I think I'd hate it if that were all I read, but typically I'm more into fantasy & scifi.

Yep, they work.

However, the best novelists tell a story so well that we don't always notice how formulaic their plots really are.

Even if a novel is written and published using the formula (or Storytelling Blueprint as I call it), it's up to the author to deliver a unique plot that moves readers in a seamless way (where they don't see the Write-Rinse-Repeat syndrome).

Full disclaimer: I started as a panster but turned into an outliner several years ago.