New Formulas

[lovecraft68]

Catch 22 as you will also find many readers like a predictable story line

The stories I have written that go against the standard tropes are lower scored than my formula syories.

Another point is if you want to try different go ahead but don't do it for someone here who if its an author in your genre is most likely upset at your impressive scores

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I have always done things differently, none of my stories are repeats. I can't understand what the point of writing a story without imagination is. I am trying to write humour. It's not easy and here gentle humour isn't accepted. I guess it has to be bawdy and outrageous. If instead of humour, I put it in under another category, it would probably do better. I find though that my stories have some commonalities and I've always worked to eliminate them. I guess it could be called "style". I suspect though that "style" is a reflection of inadequacy. It's odd how these things happen. I'm also told I need to "sex my stories up". I'm not so sure as I think they're sexy enough and well written sex needs context. I'm trying to make my stories less disjointed. I have improved in this regard massively but still have a lot to learn.

For me humor is about as easy as it gets, but most people who know say its the toughest to write. I suspect that the problem for most people is how humor must contain a dollop of ridicule and contempt and predjudice to work, and most people dont have it in them to be mean. Like Lincolns tale about the ox who was made an honorary bull. He had everything but what mattered, balls.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Catch 22 as you will also find many readers like a predictable story line

The stories I have written that go against the standard tropes are lower scored than my formula syories.

Another point is if you want to try different go ahead but don't do it for someone here who if its an author in your genre is most likely upset at your impressive scores

Scores mean youre capturing a significant slice of the reader pie but they dont reveal shit about the quality of the reader.

 

[sr71plt]

It's not that you used a formula but what you did with it, isn't it? Readers love a retake on a well-used formula or plotline. It's both familiarity (sometimes not realized until near the end, which gives the reader an extra little jolt of thrill at the find) and being able to see it in new light or from a different angle.

 

[sr71plt]

Scores mean youre capturing a significant slice of the reader pie but they dont reveal shit about the quality of the reader.

Amen to that. Which goes to the base of how I feel about the bulk of the incest and loving wife readers here. Yes, there's a big bunch of them. Would I invite them to lunch? Not very many of them, no. Just my opinion, of course. But it's what I think of every time certain people get puffed up about how well they're doing in the incest category. I'm sure they feel the same way about me and the GM category, but that just makes us equal, not them superior.

 

[LaRascasse]

Interesting thread.

To be formulaic or not...

I recently got this bit of online feedback from a very discerning anonymous reader. He/she commended me on carving out a niche for myself with erotic tragedy. But then they went on to make the very valid point that even though what I do is a change from the norm, that's ALL I do. I chose that niche because I thought I was breaking the mould. In turn, I seem to have created a new one for myself.

It gave me something to ponder. Maybe my readers have seen enough of their good guys dying in my stories. Perhaps a happy ending, riding off into the sunset, is in order.

 

[Ironiclaconic]

I think a bigger problem on Lit than formula is the lack thereof. The classic formulas work. Yes, it is wonderful when they can be twisted or reinvented (fairy tale princess in the castle needing rescue is a spunky firebrand named Leia), but nothing wrong with walking before you run.

The more common issues I see are run-on stories where the hero gets the girl and we get 10 more chapters of alternate sexual positions, or endless streams of "next I used my new-found powers to nail this other girl who previously rejected me," or tangential or repetitive scenes that do nothing to move the story forward.

I think it is far better to strive for originality within classic narrative structures than it is to throw them away without having something better.

If I were to complain about an author being formulaic it would either be because their stories had nothing going for them other than the formula (boring characters, etc.) or because they were self-plagiarizing, retreading characters and scenes that they had used many times before (see Alger, Horatio).

 

[lovecraft68]

Amen to that. Which goes to the base of how I feel about the bulk of the incest and loving wife readers here. Yes, there's a big bunch of them. Would I invite them to lunch? Not very many of them, no. Just my opinion, of course. But it's what I think of every time certain people get puffed up about how well they're doing in the incest category. I'm sure they feel the same way about me and the GM category, but that just makes us equal, not them superior.

I guess when you say you don't care about scores, you're full of crap because you mention them enough.

Personally I think they mean something, but per genre.

You can;t look at the scores of an LW author(who gets trolled relentlessly) and compare them to the ridiculous cheerleader scores of the NH section.

When I look at my scores or "H's" I sometimes look at other incest authors (the more popular ones) and see if I am matching them. It would be pointless to look at A GM author or Romance author its totally different stories read by totally different audiences.

However, what I feel is telling is how are you doing in a specific genre. If the bulk of an authors stories are in a particular category and they are lower than average or at best average I think that is telling of an author's work, especially when many in that genre have very good scores.

So when certain authors tout all their real world success and how experienced and professional they are and can;t score an H in their "chosen" genre, I tend to think they're not as good as they think they are.

I would also never take them to lunch.

 

[hoo_hoo_boo]

I think a bigger problem on Lit than formula is the lack thereof. The classic formulas work. Yes, it is wonderful when they can be twisted or reinvented (fairy tale princess in the castle needing rescue is a spunky firebrand named Leia), but nothing wrong with walking before you run.

The more common issues I see are run-on stories where the hero gets the girl and we get 10 more chapters of alternate sexual positions, or endless streams of "next I used my new-found powers to nail this other girl who previously rejected me," or tangential or repetitive scenes that do nothing to move the story forward.

I think it is far better to strive for originality within classic narrative structures than it is to throw them away without having something better.

If I were to complain about an author being formulaic it would either be because their stories had nothing going for them other than the formula (boring characters, etc.) or because they were self-plagiarizing, retreading characters and scenes that they had used many times before (see Alger, Horatio).

Agreed. Particularly about runons.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I think a bigger problem on Lit than formula is the lack thereof. The classic formulas work. Yes, it is wonderful when they can be twisted or reinvented (fairy tale princess in the castle needing rescue is a spunky firebrand named Leia), but nothing wrong with walking before you run.

The more common issues I see are run-on stories where the hero gets the girl and we get 10 more chapters of alternate sexual positions, or endless streams of "next I used my new-found powers to nail this other girl who previously rejected me," or tangential or repetitive scenes that do nothing to move the story forward.

I think it is far better to strive for originality within classic narrative structures than it is to throw them away without having something better.

If I were to complain about an author being formulaic it would either be because their stories had nothing going for them other than the formula (boring characters, etc.) or because they were self-plagiarizing, retreading characters and scenes that they had used many times before (see Alger, Horatio).

Agreed. And also, guilty as charged, but I dropped the series when I realised it. I keep thinking that I could reuse the characters in something with a plot...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I guess when you say you don't care about scores, you're full of crap because you mention them enough.

Personally I think they mean something, but per genre.

You can;t look at the scores of an LW author(who gets trolled relentlessly) and compare them to the ridiculous cheerleader scores of the NH section.

When I look at my scores or "H's" I sometimes look at other incest authors (the more popular ones) and see if I am matching them. It would be pointless to look at A GM author or Romance author its totally different stories read by totally different audiences.

However, what I feel is telling is how are you doing in a specific genre. If the bulk of an authors stories are in a particular category and they are lower than average or at best average I think that is telling of an author's work, especially when many in that genre have very good scores.

So when certain authors tout all their real world success and how experienced and professional they are and can;t score an H in their "chosen" genre, I tend to think they're not as good as they think they are.

I would also never take them to lunch.

But no one knows what the scores mean. Hitler murdered 6 million Jews, did they get lower scores than Aryans on something? Number of reads may be a better barometer.

 

[sr71plt]

I think it's interesting and challenges creative juices to bring characters from other works into new works. Lawrence Durrell did this in spades in The Alexandra Quartet, even bringing different aspects of plot into later books.

So, I'd never say never about much of anything.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

I think there are two different conversations going on here with insufficient differentiation between the two. The OP brought up this issue in the context of adhering to personal formulas and writing, essentially, the same story over and over albeit with the names and places changed to protect the innocent. A tangential conversation has sprouted regarding literary formulas within certain genres and whether/how it is advisable to break from them. Some argument and commentary appears to be confusing the two concepts.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Agreed. And also, guilty as charged, but I dropped the series when I realised it. I keep thinking that I could reuse the characters in something with a plot...

Its okay if writers wanna crank out hula hoops in other colors. Writers like W.E.B.Griffith sell the same plot millions of times. Same characters, same villains, same Barbie girlfriend. It never changes. And he's rich. For some of us corn flakes every morning is a novel experience every time.

 

[sr71plt]

So when certain authors tout all their real world success and how experienced and professional they are and can;t score an H in their "chosen" genre, I tend to think they're not as good as they think they are.

Or that someone(s) with pea-sized brains are doing a hatchet job on them--which is easily done on Lit. and that some obsessed folks show they obviously would do as part of their attack package.

I'll go with JBJ on this one. It doesn't mean shit in what happens in the real world. And since I'm happy with what's happening in the real world, I can just revel in how much effort the haters have to put into their campaigns for naught.

All said and done, in the real marketplace, Literotica is a pretty small reflecting pond--with a lot of mud swirling around in it.

And it's really interesting (I won't say amusing), Lovecraft68, how much obsession you put in here on the forum perception of how well my writing is going.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I think there are two different conversations going on here with insufficient differentiation between the two. The OP brought up this issue in the context of adhering to personal formulas and writing, essentially, the same story over and over albeit with the names and places changed to protect the innocent. A tangential conversation has sprouted regarding literary formulas within certain genres and whether/how it is advisable to break from them. Some argument and commentary appears to be confusing the two concepts.

Someone asked for the counterpoint.

 

[sr71plt]

I think there are two different conversations going on here with insufficient differentiation between the two. The OP brought up this issue in the context of adhering to personal formulas and writing, essentially, the same story over and over albeit with the names and places changed to protect the innocent. A tangential conversation has sprouted regarding literary formulas within certain genres and whether/how it is advisable to break from them. Some argument and commentary appears to be confusing the two concepts.

So, what else is new? But, yes, on a personal level, I don't see why a writer wouldn't do both--keep playing their bread-and-butter formulas (e.g., John Gresham, Tom Clancy, Dan Brown) and add zest to their life and enjoyment in writing by pursuing new areas of writing content and technique as well.

 

[SevenSquared]

When I look at my scores or "H's" I sometimes look at other incest authors (the more popular ones) and see if I am matching them. It would be pointless to look at A GM author or Romance author its totally different stories read by totally different audiences.

I don't think comparing scores is that useful, even within a genre. I think anybody in this thread could write a story that got an 'H' if that was their goal. Just pick a category (it doesn't even matter which one too much as long as you are familiar with the stories in that genre) and write a fairly bland and formulaic story that presses all the right buttons for that audience and avoids the things that attract one-bombs. As long as the spelling and grammar are decent (they don't have to be perfect, not by any means) and the story is long enough that the people who don't like it lose interest before the end, they will get >4.5.

Of course, you could argue that the real achievement is turning those 4.5s into 4.7s and 4.8s, but even there I think comparisons are mostly not useful. While it is much harder to crack 4.7 than it is 4.5, the stories that do it aren't necessarily the best ones. Sure, some of them are, but just as often they are ones that are chapter x>3 in a series (so the readers who would down-vote it have already been filtered out), or it's a story by an author that has tons of existing fans (non-cynical verision) or alt-accounts/friends (cynical version) so the story gets 30-40 5* votes before it has even started. The best stories are often ranked much lower because the author either has a troll/rival author on their tail, or they dared to break the mold and do something a bit different in their story, which 80% of readers loved, but the remaining 20 one-bombed it into obscurity.

 

[PennLady]

uh, just from a readers stand point...

That's one of the major reasons that a LOT of us stick to / favorite a given writer. Its because we LIKE that formula and want more of it.

For example, I primarily read lesfic. If one of my favorite lesfic writers were to write a story about her heroine getting a bunch of man dick, then she would prolly no longer BE one of my favorites.

Why couldn't she still be a favorite lesfic writer? Just b/c she writes one story out of the genre -- outside of your comfort zone -- that ruins all her past work? That says more about the reader than the author.

Yes, many people like a formula and I'm not excepting myself. However, formula gets boring after a while, at least for me. I've been reading Anne Perry's Thomas Pitt novels (Victorian England murder mysteries) and on the tenth or so, I'm realizing I need a break, as the last few have been -- you guessed it -- more formulaic than I prefer. Not that they aren't good, but like I said, it's a little boring right now. I'm sure I'll go back at some point and read the rest of the novels.

Y'all can write whatever you damn well please. Knock yourself out. I WOULD recommend that you do your experimentation under a different pen name though. Otherwise don't be surprised when you start losing your reader base because we expect loyalty in return.

Writers don't owe "loyalty" in theme or formula. As Bogart said, "The only thing you owe the public is a good performance." If you don't like the story, fine, but that doesn't mean it's no good, and it doesn't mean I'm throwing any "loyalty" away. It just means I'm trying something different, and if you can't respect just that, then well, too bad.

There is also the “Hallmark Movie,” formula:
They meet.
They grow close.
Thirty minutes before the end, they fight.
Five minutes before the end, they reconcile and smooch.

And there is indeed something comforting in formula. I'm sure many of us have watched a favorite movie b/c we want our favorite version of that formula, or reread books for the same reason.

I agree with Pennlady. There is a difference between “formula” and “formulaic.”
Story formulas do get tediously boring. If you know the ending before you start, why bother? Formulaic writing is all right as long as the writing style is easy to read and fits your tastes. You simply have to find original twists that aren't telegraphed or stretch the boundaries of reality.

But if find the twists, it's not formulaic, is it? I'd say in most cases it's the how of getting to the end that's important, and when the "how" is too often repeated, then yes, it's boring.

So, what else is new? But, yes, on a personal level, I don't see why a writer wouldn't do both--keep playing their bread-and-butter formulas (e.g., John Gresham, Tom Clancy, Dan Brown) and add zest to their life and enjoyment in writing by pursuing new areas of writing content and technique as well.

A small example of this is Nora Roberts, who writes romantic mystery novels under the name JD Robb. It's hardly a secret, but I'm sure a lot of people who like her "Nora Roberts" books probably wouldn't like the "JD Robb" books. I like both.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I don't think comparing scores is that useful, even within a genre. I think anybody in this thread could write a story that got an 'H' if that was their goal. Just pick a category (it doesn't even matter which one too much as long as you are familiar with the stories in that genre) and write a fairly bland and formulaic story that presses all the right buttons for that audience and avoids the things that attract one-bombs. As long as the spelling and grammar are decent (they don't have to be perfect, not by any means) and the story is long enough that the people who don't like it lose interest before the end, they will get >4.5.

Of course, you could argue that the real achievement is turning those 4.5s into 4.7s and 4.8s, but even there I think comparisons are mostly not useful. While it is much harder to crack 4.7 than it is 4.5, the stories that do it aren't necessarily the best ones. Sure, some of them are, but just as often they are ones that are chapter x>3 in a series (so the readers who would down-vote it have already been filtered out), or it's a story by an author that has tons of existing fans (non-cynical verision) or alt-accounts/friends (cynical version) so the story gets 30-40 5* votes before it has even started. The best stories are often ranked much lower because the author either has a troll/rival author on their tail, or they dared to break the mold and do something a bit different in their story, which 80% of readers loved, but the remaining 20 one-bombed it into obscurity.

Like I said elsewhere, if youre gonna be a bull balls are all that counts. If youre an ox honorary bull awards dont matter.

 

[sr71plt]

I've been reading Anne Perry's Thomas Pitt novels (Victorian England murder mysteries) and on the tenth or so, I'm realizing I need a break, as the last few have been -- you guessed it -- more formulaic than I prefer. Not that they aren't good, but like I said, it's a little boring right now. I'm sure I'll go back at some point and read the rest of the novels.

Good to hear. I'd been feeling guilty not reading farther into that series.

But I find Anne Perry interesting in her own right. You did know, didn't you, that she is an infamous murderess in New Zealand in the early 50s? The movie Heavenly Creatures is about a murder case where she and a friend murdered the friend's mother. I think Kate Winslet played the Anne Perry role in the movie.

 

[NaokoSmith]

I don't think comparing scores is that useful, even within a genre. I think anybody in this thread could write a story that got an 'H' if that was their goal. Just pick a category (it doesn't even matter which one too much as long as you are familiar with the stories in that genre) and write a fairly bland and formulaic story that presses all the right buttons for that audience and avoids the things that attract one-bombs. As long as the spelling and grammar are decent (they don't have to be perfect, not by any means) and the story is long enough that the people who don't like it lose interest before the end, they will get >4.5.

Of course, you could argue that the real achievement is turning those 4.5s into 4.7s and 4.8s, but even there I think comparisons are mostly not useful. While it is much harder to crack 4.7 than it is 4.5, the stories that do it aren't necessarily the best ones. Sure, some of them are, but just as often they are ones that are chapter x>3 in a series (so the readers who would down-vote it have already been filtered out), or it's a story by an author that has tons of existing fans (non-cynical verision) or alt-accounts/friends (cynical version) so the story gets 30-40 5* votes before it has even started. The best stories are often ranked much lower because the author either has a troll/rival author on their tail, or they dared to break the mold and do something a bit different in their story, which 80% of readers loved, but the remaining 20 one-bombed it into obscurity.

Breaking the formulaic mould (mold? - american) for devoted readers is difficult to judge. I went against the grain in my own Non Human stories (not just for the hell of it). It's difficult to tell whether the writing was any good because the commentators are boggled by the fact that I didn't write what they were expecting. The ratings are all over the place. I think it's a good sign to have scraped by with anything over a 4 after messing with the formula so much.

Lawrence's The Alexandria Quartet, as mentioned by Pilot, which breaks its own mould by having four different genre novels about the same set of events, is not a best-seller and rarely to be found in airport bookshops. Even less well known is The Avignon Quintet, in which characters from a book being written within the book wander in to chat to the character who is an author. Those two are great attempts to break up classic novel-writing styles even if they're not selling much - the great Amazonian world's version of ratings.

LaRascasse - your idea of a happy ending is one where the bride is transported to a dungeon by her new mother-in-law for fun and games before escaping in a Lynx Mk8 helicopter! Google have obviously stolen your brain and replaced it with that of an android from Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.

Thanks Lovecraft, for this thought-provoking thread, which I've found really a helpful place to reflect on these issues.

 

[jomar]

Don't sweat it too much Cruel...J. K. Rowling made a fortune on formula.

 

[sr71plt]

Breaking the formulaic mould (mold? - american) for devoted readers is difficult to judge. I went against the grain in my own Non Human stories (not just for the hell of it). It's difficult to tell whether the writing was any good because the commentators are boggled by the fact that I didn't write what they were expecting. The ratings are all over the place. I think it's a good sign to have scraped by with anything over a 4 after messing with the formula so much.

Lawrence's The Alexandria Quartet, as mentioned by Pilot, which breaks its own mould by having four different genre novels about the same set of events, is not a best-seller and rarely to be found in airport bookshops. Even less well known is The Avignon Quintet, in which characters from a book being written within the book wander in to chat to the character who is an author. Those two are great attempts to break up classic novel-writing styles even if they're not selling much - the great Amazonian world's version of ratings.

LaRascasse - your idea of a happy ending is one where the bride is transported to a dungeon by her new mother-in-law for fun and games before escaping in a Lynx Mk8 helicopter! Google have obviously stolen your brain and replaced it with that of an android from Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.

Thanks Lovecraft, for this thought-provoking thread, which I've found really a helpful place to reflect on these issues.

SevenSquared is an alt of Lovecraft? Interesting.

Yes, if you're looking for Lawrence's Alexandria Quartet in an airport store, you won't find it. It was written by Durrell. That said, how many other four-volume sets of novels published in the late 50s have you found in an airport book kiosk?

Also, the quartet was a best-seller. Probably just before you were born. And it's still selling. Which leads back to . . . how many four-volume sets of novels from the 50s can you still buy in new editions in bookstores?

 

[PennLady]

Good to hear. I'd been feeling guilty not reading farther into that series.

But I find Anne Perry interesting in her own right. You did know, didn't you, that she is an infamous murderess in New Zealand in the early 50s? The movie Heavenly Creatures is about a murder case where she and a friend murdered the friend's mother. I think Kate Winslet played the Anne Perry role in the movie.

Actually I did not know that. I remember the movie being out (haven't seen it yet), but didn't read much about it. I'm curious to see it, as it was directed by Peter Jackson and got good reviews, but I haven't gotten there yet.

I don't know how far you got into the Pitt series, but they follow roughly this pattern: murder is discovered; Pitt is assigned; Society is involved; Pitt's wife must go undercover somehow to find things out; she does; murderer is found. What I find more interesting is the idea of trying to solve mysteries like that without all the tools we have now, and to some degree b/c of the low esteem in which police were held. So many characters say they will tell the police what they think is relevant. It's an interesting if frustrating change from the police procedurals we have today.

I've read two of her other series, also Victorian murder mysteries, about another policeman, William Monk. This may get formulaic as well, but the first two are good. The hook there is that Monk has amnesia and he does not get his memory back at the of book one (or two); in fact, he ends up off the force and becoming a private detective. So at the moment, there seems to be more room for less formula (if you will) in that series.

Breaking the formulaic mould (mold? - american) for devoted readers is difficult to judge. I went against the grain in my own Non Human stories (not just for the hell of it). It's difficult to tell whether the writing was any good because the commentators are boggled by the fact that I didn't write what they were expecting. The ratings are all over the place. I think it's a good sign to have scraped by with anything over a 4 after messing with the formula so much.

I have said, and stick by it, that the writer should write the story they want to tell. If it sticks to established formulae, no problem, just tell it well. If it does not, don't worry too much about reader reaction. If they are boggled, well, they are boggled. It's not your responsibility to continually not boggle them.

Thanks Lovecraft, for this thought-provoking thread, which I've found really a helpful place to reflect on these issues.

It is a fun thread, but credit where it's due -- Cruel2BKind started it.