Why do we like formula writing so much?

[ratscout]

Personally, I really do agree with what you said about relying on formulaic writing. Maybe it's just cause I'm old, but I really don't like how, in order to get published or noticed these days, it feels like you have to construct a story in a particular way (which really encourages writers to be as uncreative as possible). Like, a writer has to hit all of these cliche beats in order for someone to read their book or to get it published. I don't think there's any one way (genre fiction or not) that a book has to start out, or any particular rules you have to follow in order to make a successful story. It all depends on the execution.

A really great example of a book that is formulaic to its core vs. a book that come from a beautiful spark of imagination and genuine passion is Eragon vs. Dune. I know this is a really weird example, but they're what I've been reading lately so I'm going to use them, anyway.

Now, while ten-year-old me really loved Eragon, it's really hard for old me to continue reading the series because the cliches that made Eragon easily digestible to ten-year-old me kind of make old me want to blanch. It's predictable, soulless writing to its core (albeit well written, technically). It really did feel like Mr. Paolini (who I have nothing against and I actually want to read his newest book that's coming out) was just yanking out pieces and threads of what makes other series like Star Wars and Lord of the Rings great and combining them into this... book loaf XD.

Dune on the other hand truly does feel like this fevered dream of pure imagination that does not rely on "Rules" of writing and kind of just did its own thing because that's the story Frank Herbert wanted to tell in his own way. It is so much more engaging and fascinating to read because of this. Like, the book had me at the wonderful Gom Jabbar ritual.

That being said, I think so long as you are just telling the story you want to tell and not telling it because some stuffy school teacher (or some know-it-all Youtuber) told you to follow some weird arbitrary rule about writing, you'll do fine, even if you do fall into a few tropes or cliches while doing it. However, if you are purposely constructing a story to be cliched because you know it will sell, it will probably end up being pretty soulless.

Personal venting aside, I would really need to read the story to gauge whether the criticism is valid or not shrug. From the sound of it, I like the idea of introducing your characters separately (six is a lot to throw at a read in bulk) so long as you construct them as really interesting and make the reader want to learn more about them. If you want my opinion on it, I'm willing to do a read-for-read, but I won't give you a criticism without your permission, of course.

[cherrystark]

Yeah, of course. I would like that.

[CurryXSake]

While abusing tropes can be bad, tropes and formulas themselves aren't necessarily bad. They are not only entertaining, but it can also help everyone be on the same page since they know what to expect in the trope. Even the most cliche of stories can be amazing as long as they are well written with properly executed cliches. The series The World God Only Knows for example is in essence a show filled with harem cliches, but it's well written so they used it to their advantage.

There is the option to subvert the tropes, but be careful with that or else that in itself will become an overused cliche (edgy magical girls or edgy teens in robots or OP MC in another world). In the end, when writing a story it's important that you know what you want in that story so that you can balance the tropes with your ideas.

[HGohwell]

I've figured out how to say it properly: formulas = recipes that's why. Cake metaphors.

You follow the recipe, things turn out fine. Sometimes meh, but fine. You have a novel cake. But if you mess with the recipe, add different ingredients, take some out, do things in a different order, you get different results. If you don't know what you're doing, your novel cake is exploded all over your oven, or a gloppy mess or tastes disgusting. But if you know what you're doing and find the right mix and the right steps, you've made an awesome new novel cake. But I might not want to try your weird new flavour of novel cake, I might not like it, but I know what I'm going to get with the standard novel cake.

[cherrystark]

@HGohwell that is the best of all metaphors... I love it.

[nostalgicroxas]

I agree with a lot said here.
Part of the reason we have formulas for things is because of viewer attention span. Or because a certain set works. Most movies, books, and other forms of story follow the rules of: 1 - 3 - 5 - 7- 12.
Either in their events, number of characters, "points" pivotal to the plot, or otherwise.
Take for example two different yet similar approaches : Phineas and Ferb formula vs Rick & Morty formulas.

The Phineas And Ferb Formula | Cartoon Amino

The Dan Harmon Story Circle: 8 Steps to a Powerful Structure

Summary

Or boil it down to something we likely all know: Narnia.
Narnia, at it's core first and several books, follow 4 siblings with two major figures of benevolence and malevolent forces., bringing us to 6, but count in other things of importance to just the first story and you enter 7 (wardrobe), Mr Tumnus, the altar, the castle (puts us at 10), the laws of Narnia, and/or key characters like the Beavers. It's not a stretch to go in that story up to 12, while still remaining controlled at 1 3 and 5. And often in pairs or foils: Peter and Edward, Lion and Witch, Lucy and Susan, and so on and so on.

Then take it into something of another book series: Percy Jackson. As a whole, the series is 5 books long per "series", which each book having about 3 sets of important things to be done, centered around a single (either for the book or for all 5, the second in a 'to be revealed' state until the later bit of book 4).

Breaking up storytelling into bits and bobs of numbers or formulas makes sense not just as a writer but as a reader. It gives you things to relate to. Getting back to Narnia, scenes involving Edward usually involve either the two older siblings, or just him and Lucy, and reveal if the child is either in a combative or relaxed state of being, neither being always the same and does change in just book 1. Read "the Dawntreader" book and you have a very different Edward who oddly enough still swings from those two states and usually with the same formula: a scene of 3 or a scene of 2.
Generally, unless it's a visual medium, usually a movie, it's hard to convey conversations spread across more than 3 characters without you stopping to go "who was that again?" unless you're really fresh up on the materials.
Percy Jackson series by comparison can have easily 8 people to a scene but if you notice, they're paired up, and are equally quiet or loud in the conversation. Something Harry Potter books did but less so since it normally had just 3 characters in most scenes being "active".

Another example that's become kind of an expectation would be in the Tales of series games, where it's expected that you'll have a battling party of 6, if not 8 characters, and will have interest in at least that many other characters central to the plot. Symphonia is one large cast of characters that not just has 8, but 4 unseen central characters, 4 in the sequel, and at least 2 others of great importance to the first game's plot. Nevermind that it's basically a confirmed sequel of Phantasia which boasts 6(7~8) important characters all on its own. And they're introduced to you in batches or groups. Which is what Narnia and PJ both do. You don't meet all of the Narnia siblings in one giant battle for the world, or know there's a talking lion involved (spoilers??) for a while - in fact, that there's a talking lion at all is (as theorists put it) there as a construct for both the young readers, readers in general, and the children in the story to recognize pure benevolence and kindness (in religion).
((Which is oddly another thing that generally follows that set of numbers I pointed out before of 1 through 12. One god, three wise men, number of apostles. It also is a theory, forget where I read it, that we as humans interject things to stability into our works of art - ie a table stands with 4 legs, a table stands with 3 legs, cannot stand with 2 legs. Or is mimicked in nature, number of leaves on a plant's single branch, number of petals around a flower, number of fruit to a flower.))

I've lost my point in all this.... but I think what I'm meaning to say is that we use formulas for all kinds of writing and be it the simple 1 2 3 set-up, an essay set up, or the more complex set-ups that Phineas and Ferb or Dan Harmon use, or The Hero's Journey, they're all needed or have a time and place. As one of my college professors told me once, it's best to learn the rules before you go about breaking them.

[gmaximin]

Aside from @HGohwell recipe metaphor, which focus on the writer side, I’d add another image that might focus more on the reader side:

My daughter needs a sleeping light, because black and the unknown scares her. It’s a natural phase though, but it’s the way it is.
On the other hand, I feel oppressed if my bedroom isn’t pitch black, light makes my nights too reasonable...

So that’s how I see this, some readers like their light, it’s comforting, usual, predictable, and let’s face it, very efficient because it’s a time polished solution so you don’t get disappointed. If my ambition as a creator is to entertain a wider audience, using a formula would probably be a safer bet...

Other readers might expect new experiences, but it’ll probably be a hit or miss, because this pool is likely smaller (generally older) and this audience might have a wider range of expectations (expert syndrome). I might find this more stimulating as a creator, but then I know that I statistically limit my audience (unless I’m a genius, and even then, geniuses are often recognized after their passing).

Good thing though, is that there are thousands of formulas... as @NickRowler mentioned earlier, different cultures have different formulas too, so some can hit both groups... i once wrote an epic in French mimicking a king gesar story (classic oral epic from central Asia), and it worked surprisingly well despite being very formulaic in style and content.

[domisotto]

I also want to point out that a relationship between each writer and each Trope is very individual. Just like the readers, we like some, we dislike the others. It is important not to let these personal preferences in the way of judging what’s a ‘good’ trope and what is not.

Some writers may naturally adore the trope you hate, and they will have a higher possibility of success with it because they love writing it and adress to the audience that love it too.

A writer who writes for the audience and knows how to locate them and connect with them on social media will always be more successful than the one who does not belong with ‘their’ crowd of any crowd.

That absence of ‘my’ crowd is something that plagued me for all 3 years I have been trying to get ahead in the online world, despite of all the learning and growth I’ve undergone

[DukeOfOool]

I believe that using formulas to express specific things and ideas; to ease the conveying of complex story structures; is like many said already like using grammar properly. One needs a firm grasp on those things, so the formula doesn't govern your story, but your story governs the formula.

Also writing to become famous and writing for fun is very different. Yes, when you want a fast and popular hit, churning out cliché-ville is very easy, but unsustainable in the long term. I would rather find a idea you like and then look which market spaces you can inhabit with it. If the idea is more or less marketable continue, if the idea is too niche or even hated maybe not.

Generally every creator has to make multiple attemps before creating a hit, so I think formulas are also liked, because one doesn't need a big personal connection to the theme. One can just write something in a certain direction and look if it sticks.

[domisotto]

Also writing to become famous and writing for fun is very different. Yes, when you want a fast and popular hit, churning out cliché-ville is very easy, but unsustainable in the long term.

It is also impractical, because the disappointment of NOT making it with a popular trope is far more bitter pill to swallow than not making it with an obscure genre or plot trope. Because you no longer have an excuse for failing.

[DiegoPalacios]

Different stories have different expectations.

Some stories work better while being predictable. An example of this is a romantic comedy. You know the couple will end up together, but the journey of them getting to know each other, bond, and the funny situations in between, is what the readers are looking for.

However, other stories rely on being unpredictable and on clever twists. If you can see the twist of a mistery comming from a mile away, or if the twist is nonsensical and comes out of nowhere, it loses what makes it interesting.

[DukeOfOool]

Yes, or if by the time your story gets traction the hype for THE trope has already faded and is now considered mass-produced trash.

Actually I don't know what is worse, writting something you like and failing or writting something with the plan to succeed and failing.

[domisotto]

I would argue that Yuri on Ice worked for me as a romantic comedy and a sports drama because it didn't check-marked the tropes. They didn't end up together, he didn't win.

[domisotto]

The more you write the less failure stings, because you get used to everything. But sometimes it manages to surprise you, lol. "Damn, I had no idea romantic fantasy can do THAT badly! That's gotta be some kind of achievement."

[DiegoPalacios]

Good point!. A mix of genres or a deconstruction can work differently from what normally works in the genre. Defying said expectations can make wonders if the writer knows what they are doing.

[DiegoPalacios]

Actually I don't know what is worse, writting something you like and failing or writting something with the plan to succeed and failing.

I would say the latter is worst. On the first one you at least have fun.

Of course, either way it can be a valuable learning experience.

[domisotto]

The main thing is that both are survivable.

‘Fail again, fail better’ is always the mantra. Not being frightened of failure is crucial for a writer.

[DukeOfOool]

And don't forget the dwarf fortress motto: " 'Losing is fun!' -Sun Tsu"
Every failure is an error less in the next try.

[nostalgicroxas]

True, but then it checks the boxes for many of the "unhappy ending" or "not satisfying ending" tropes. That example specifically is one of the few I can argue was made, and functions entirely off of, and for the fanbase. Many fans of that show I've talked to largely don't reference the show at all, and instead talk about theories, fanfics, and other fan-created works that create the bulk of "canon lore" that most fans accept. The show on it's own without any knowledge of the fandom created centric universe leaves a show that doesn't know quite what it wants to do, and leaves me wondering how many writers were involved / ie Escaflowne has many episodes that had multiple writers to get stuff moving, and that show suffers from too many cooks in the kitchen.

[MorganaMevil]

We like formula writing because we like formulas. It’s how the human mind is built—it’s how the world is built. Think about architecture. Houses can look very different from one another. Some have one story, some have six stories. Some half basements, attics, and lofts. Some have open concepts, some don’t. Some have a living room, a family room, a game room, a media room, and a study. Others just have a small space where all of those activities occur. You have Victorian, craftsman, MCM, modern, traditional, country, ranch, cape cod, colonial, and so on and so forth.

But, there’s a certain flow to a well-crafted house, no matter how young, old, expensive, or cheap. There’s a practicality reflected in the bones that keeps it up and creates a logical progression of rooms. In the “olden days” the kitchen used to be tucked into the back corner of the house almost out of sight because the help cooked food in the kitchen and you didn’t want them disturbing your guests. Nowadays, the kitchen is supposed to be seen from the living room in order to allow the individual(s) preparing the food to interact with the rest of the people in the main room. Architecture reflects living and is formulaic because there are certain designs that just fit life.

I’m not saying a generic “formula story” is good writing or the only way to write. You just need to have the bones of certain foundations to keep your house up and to make the flow feel natural. You can meet those requirements and be completely unique. Never doubt that.

(Sorry. I’m an architecture enthusiast. Please forgive my extended metaphor.)