This made me think of a recent comment on a novella I have in the Beta-read phase. Apparently, it did not follow the formula that there has to be a concrete resolution at the end of the story where the good guy destroys the bad guy.
What I had done was have the good guy destroy the bad people's master plan but the bad people are still around and ready to develop another plan of conquest. The MC knows this and resigns himself to more years of searching and fighting to finally defeat the large bad cabal. He does do it eventually later in the series - with the help of other good guys. The other good guys are only able to help finish this because of the MC's earlier victories.
However, this plot is apparently incomplete because of the lack of resolution at the end of this novella - the start of the series. I am not sure if I am supposed to have more resolution at the end because that is the formula I am supposed to follow, or that it is still a good story that follows its own path.
(By the way, I tend to make my own rules on my fantasy world, making it a unique story - according to what I have read and others have told me. And that is how I want it to be.)
Genre is derivative and contrived by its very nature. Tolkien was not writing in a genre. In fact, he wasn't writing fantasy at all. He was writing a fairy tale, which is a different beast altogether. So I'm not sure that reclaiming the genre is really a feasible project. The genre is that same set of commercial rules that you protest against. If you want to break out of that, the task is not to reclaim the genre but to break from the notion of genre altogether and simply write the stories that come to you in whatever form they come. Which is exactly what Tolkien did, and Lewis as well. And, we should not fail to mention, Charles Williams, whose work is just as original and compelling if not so well known.
With as much writing as there is in the world, "formula" is unavoidable. It will happen even when no one pushes it to make money.
Why? Because people like certain things and dislike other things. This will channel writing and storytelling into what people want, as what people (as a group) don't like will simply not be popular enough to inspire more such stories.
That big business does this on purpose might increase the speed at which the problem occurs... but honestly, I'm not sure it does, since they aren't really going to get it right. They are going to get it "close enough" and mine that particular vein out, but it's not going to be truly what is exactly wanted.
Remember all the Elvis movies? Same thing happened there. His first big hit became a formula, and they tried to just run it over and over again, like taking a hit of a drug, and each one was less effective...
That works because people *want* it, and if people want it, someone will eventually provide, even if there is no big business profit angle.
Ah! Thanks for lifting this to my attention, Dominic!
I saw in the comments to her video that many, many are upset by what they say are some timeline and other inaccuracies. And they may be right. What I think is important, though, is her tracing of the commodification of fantasy, which seems pretty dead-on, from my view. Fantasy was channeled into a for-profit genre, and not allowed to exist outside it.
As a reader, it seems woke editors continue the destruction. Try reading award winners and one determines the genre including SF is now tilted toward YA. Writers must be a protected class or foreign born, if male, in order to be published. The lack of cultural continuity undermines the plot. While the situation is saving me a lot of money, I feel the lack. I also wonder whether adult SF and fantasy can be written by individuals raised in today's world without the certainties of American exceptionalism, The Founders, John Wayne, et al.
Fascinating view of publishing history by Hilary Layne. I mostly wasn't familiar with it because I quit reading modern fiction in the late 70's. I found most everything to be dreck, and my ambitions at becoming a successful writer quashed by the industry's early turn to grievance fiction.
I paid more attention to Hollywood which went through the same corporate takeovers, grind stuff out to match the formula, factories. First it was A Hero's Journey (because of Star Wars), then it was the Die Hard formula (to the absurd degree of actually timing the beats of the movies). Finally the "woke" formula where it was reduced to every other character has to be gay, and every other couple has to be biracial.
Now, I don't care. I just write what I want and put it out on the market. The era of mass-marketing of anything is pretty much over, at least for now. Very few of the SF writers of the "golden era" ever got rich. Bradbury, Sturgeon, Vance, and Asimov never got rich (Heinlein did OK, but most of that was because Stranger in a Strange Land became a hippie cult classic). Don't write because you want to get rich. Write because you want to be like the writers who inspire you like Edgar Alan Poe, Mark Twain, or whoever's stories you love.
How do you feel about how Brandon Sanderson has dealt with the issue of formula fantasy? I think he's mostly followed your recommendation to ignore it.
I've only read some, not much, of his work, and have enjoyed it. As a single author, he's landed on an approach that works for him, and his audience, and he's riding it to the bank.
I think it becomes a more systemic issue when no one has anything meaningful to share, and everyone is merely filling in the blanks for bucks.
This made me think of a recent comment on a novella I have in the Beta-read phase. Apparently, it did not follow the formula that there has to be a concrete resolution at the end of the story where the good guy destroys the bad guy.
What I had done was have the good guy destroy the bad people's master plan but the bad people are still around and ready to develop another plan of conquest. The MC knows this and resigns himself to more years of searching and fighting to finally defeat the large bad cabal. He does do it eventually later in the series - with the help of other good guys. The other good guys are only able to help finish this because of the MC's earlier victories.
However, this plot is apparently incomplete because of the lack of resolution at the end of this novella - the start of the series. I am not sure if I am supposed to have more resolution at the end because that is the formula I am supposed to follow, or that it is still a good story that follows its own path.
(By the way, I tend to make my own rules on my fantasy world, making it a unique story - according to what I have read and others have told me. And that is how I want it to be.)
Genre is derivative and contrived by its very nature. Tolkien was not writing in a genre. In fact, he wasn't writing fantasy at all. He was writing a fairy tale, which is a different beast altogether. So I'm not sure that reclaiming the genre is really a feasible project. The genre is that same set of commercial rules that you protest against. If you want to break out of that, the task is not to reclaim the genre but to break from the notion of genre altogether and simply write the stories that come to you in whatever form they come. Which is exactly what Tolkien did, and Lewis as well. And, we should not fail to mention, Charles Williams, whose work is just as original and compelling if not so well known.
With as much writing as there is in the world, "formula" is unavoidable. It will happen even when no one pushes it to make money.
Why? Because people like certain things and dislike other things. This will channel writing and storytelling into what people want, as what people (as a group) don't like will simply not be popular enough to inspire more such stories.
That big business does this on purpose might increase the speed at which the problem occurs... but honestly, I'm not sure it does, since they aren't really going to get it right. They are going to get it "close enough" and mine that particular vein out, but it's not going to be truly what is exactly wanted.
Remember all the Elvis movies? Same thing happened there. His first big hit became a formula, and they tried to just run it over and over again, like taking a hit of a drug, and each one was less effective...
That works because people *want* it, and if people want it, someone will eventually provide, even if there is no big business profit angle.
I'm not as adverse to formula as some. I think it's a essential and excellent playground to develop mastery. Wax on, wax off.
The billionaire peeled off his shirt. He had been working out at the gym, and it showed!
lol
It's my goto comment. Applies to 90% of substack discussion threads. Combines literacy, billionaires, sexual discovery, and self-improvement.
lol
Ah! Thanks for lifting this to my attention, Dominic!
I saw in the comments to her video that many, many are upset by what they say are some timeline and other inaccuracies. And they may be right. What I think is important, though, is her tracing of the commodification of fantasy, which seems pretty dead-on, from my view. Fantasy was channeled into a for-profit genre, and not allowed to exist outside it.
Let's hope a new dawn is coming soon.
yes, I saw that too. But I agree that there's enough thematic truth in there for us authors to take note.
As a reader, it seems woke editors continue the destruction. Try reading award winners and one determines the genre including SF is now tilted toward YA. Writers must be a protected class or foreign born, if male, in order to be published. The lack of cultural continuity undermines the plot. While the situation is saving me a lot of money, I feel the lack. I also wonder whether adult SF and fantasy can be written by individuals raised in today's world without the certainties of American exceptionalism, The Founders, John Wayne, et al.
Fascinating view of publishing history by Hilary Layne. I mostly wasn't familiar with it because I quit reading modern fiction in the late 70's. I found most everything to be dreck, and my ambitions at becoming a successful writer quashed by the industry's early turn to grievance fiction.
I paid more attention to Hollywood which went through the same corporate takeovers, grind stuff out to match the formula, factories. First it was A Hero's Journey (because of Star Wars), then it was the Die Hard formula (to the absurd degree of actually timing the beats of the movies). Finally the "woke" formula where it was reduced to every other character has to be gay, and every other couple has to be biracial.
Now, I don't care. I just write what I want and put it out on the market. The era of mass-marketing of anything is pretty much over, at least for now. Very few of the SF writers of the "golden era" ever got rich. Bradbury, Sturgeon, Vance, and Asimov never got rich (Heinlein did OK, but most of that was because Stranger in a Strange Land became a hippie cult classic). Don't write because you want to get rich. Write because you want to be like the writers who inspire you like Edgar Alan Poe, Mark Twain, or whoever's stories you love.
Charles de Lint. If he had his own formula, I liked it. Jack L. Chalker, I think his nightmares would have scared the Saw movie villain . . .
How do you feel about how Brandon Sanderson has dealt with the issue of formula fantasy? I think he's mostly followed your recommendation to ignore it.
I've only read some, not much, of his work, and have enjoyed it. As a single author, he's landed on an approach that works for him, and his audience, and he's riding it to the bank.
I think it becomes a more systemic issue when no one has anything meaningful to share, and everyone is merely filling in the blanks for bucks.