Must a novel be formulaic?

Hublocker said:

OP here. I've been reading novels since 1963.

Click to expand...

Then why don't you have your own answer to this question?

People try and break the 'formula' all the time and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Examples that I've run across includes the protagonist trying something super risky, dying, and that's right where the story stops. Maybe you can do that and make it interesting, but it tends to be an extremely unsatisfying, even if 'realistic' conclusion.

There's a reason why that basic 'formula' exists. Following it gives you the basic outline of a satisfying story. You can tell a story where the height of the action is in the first third of the manuscript, and the last two thirds is extended denouement, but breaking the formula and making it satisfying to the reader is harder to do. There's a reason why the 'formula' exists in the first place. It provides a framework that by its very structure people find satisfying.

The question to ask yourself is what kind of story are you shooting for? What kind of feel does it have? What drives your story? Who might your audience be? Why does it need to break with the formula you described above to make it work?

I can think of novels, even in a genre that is often accused of being as formulaic as SFF, that have unhappy endings, for instance. Killing off major characters, even protagonists, or messing them up so badly they might as well be dead, is pretty trademark in the subgenre known as Grimdark, for instance, as are "evil" protagonists.

But you don't have to go that far to find novels that break molds in most genres. There are some genres where a happy, or emotionally satisfying at least, ending is expected and needed. Romance is one, where the couple should be alive and optimistically together at the end. And with mysteries, one needs to know who the killer is by the end. But not all genres require rigid formulas. Stories with bittersweet, or even sad, endings are common.

And as others have pointed out, literary fiction (and a lot of what is considered upmarket, and genre fiction with literary elements) is all about departing from conventional story structures and characterization.

One question I have is why you are asking this question. If you've been reading novels since 1963, you are older than I am and you've surely answered this question repeatedly over the years. Are you asking whether novels must be formulaic to succeed specifically in today's markets? Or are you asking this because you've been in an argument with someone about this issue and are looking for confirmation of your own viewpoint? Or are you looking for validation for an idea you have for a story without being more specific and disclosing what you actually want to do that departs from the formula you outlined above (and why you think doing so could be challenging in this particular case)? Or are you looking for confirmation that writing stories that some deride as formulaic is okay also?

Of course, just because something can be done (and has been done) doesn't mean it should be done in every case, or in your particular case.

Hublocker said:

Does a novel have to follow the standard formula?

You know what I mean; you have a protagonist, he encounters a problem, he has to achieve some goal, there is a crisis that stops him, and he attempts to overcome it, fails, tries again, and after several efforts, setbacks and possibly other complications succeeds. Happy ending.

Click to expand...

I suppose what I'm wondering is why you're asking the question?

I'm seeing assumptions made in all the answers in this thread based on different motivations they ascribe to the original question (doesn't read enough, uncertain newbie author, just wants to start a discussion, etc.). If you're looking for a particular answer or direction you want the discussion to go, expanding a bit on what you're truly looking for might help.

Hublocker said:

I wanted to initiate a discussion.

Of course this place is famous for people getting pissy in their replies, so I am not surprised.

I better stop now before I write something impolite.

Click to expand...

That's probably what went wrong then. You wanted to start a discussion, but

Does a novel have to follow the standard formula?

You know what I mean; you have a protagonist, he encounters a problem, he has to achieve some goal, there is a crisis that stops him, and he attempts to overcome it, fails, tries again, and after several efforts, setbacks and possibly other complications succeeds. Happy ending.

Click to expand...

you posed it as a very simplistic question. So that was always going to play badly. But perhaps you could re-frame the question to create the discussion-starter you wanted? (Although maybe it would just turn into the old lit-v-genre thing. Still - we haven't done that for a while... )

why not drive the discussion away from the personal, and into the general? or make those intentions clear much sooner?

This question comes up quite a lot for a variety of reasons, so most people are going to assume, without more of context, that your reason for asking will be whatever reason the last person had for asking. Or whatever reason they most commonly see.

also...

Of course this place is famous for people getting pissy in their replies, so I am not surprised.

Click to expand...

... reads as a passive aggressive jibe.

Nooo we did lit versus genre recently... didn't we? Wait, I can't remember. All the arguments blur into one.

I think someone almost mentioned lit vs genre, but we got away with it.

A question plopped at the beginning of a thread without explanation is a big amorphous splat. We're all looking at it, wondering is it abstract art, a Rorschach test or has someone just dropped their coffee?

If a discussion is intended, maybe kick it off with some discussion.

Hublocker said:

I wanted to initiate a discussion.

Of course this place is famous for people getting pissy in their replies, so I am not surprised.

I better stop now before I write something impolite.

Click to expand...

You already did. Mostly though you're betraying levels of ignorance and discourtesy that are not helping your community reputation.

You know that part in the The Newbie Guide to Absolute Write where we ask you to respect your fellow writer?

You failed. Completely. There's a list of other writing forums here.

Why don't you go check them out while you spend some time in the corner reading closely. You might start with Northrup Frye. Anatomy of Criticism. Frye's thesis is that there are four central myths that repeat themselves in endless variations. He's outdated of course, but he doesn't make a lot of assumptions about his reader. Or go read some Vladimir Propp.

In any case you need to spend some time thinking about how you want to be perceived by other writers.

Hublocker said:

Thanks for the list. Best advice I've received here.

Click to expand...

You're really not catching on.

Hublocker said:

I wanted to initiate a discussion.

Click to expand...

Okay, so why didn't you answer my question? You say you've been reading since 1963, so you should have plenty of examples of novels that followed formualas, and ones that didn't. So what was your take on each?

*edit* Yerk, okay then, never mind.

That seemed extreme.

I'd say that "you have a protagonist, s/he has a problem, attempts to solve it, fails or succeeds, the end" is so far from a formula to make the word meaningless. To be any broader, you'd have to ask "does a novel have to have words in it?"

Happy endings are not mandatory. If you think all novels end with them, I'm pretty sure you haven't read a lot.

Twick said:

I'd say that "you have a protagonist, s/he has a problem, attempts to solve it, fails or succeeds, the end" is so far from a formula to make the word meaningless. To be any broader, you'd have to ask "does a novel have to have words in it?"

Happy endings are not mandatory. If you think all novels end with them, I'm pretty sure you haven't read a lot.

Click to expand...

I agree. There are formulas and formulas though. Sure the protagonist has to solve a problem, deal with conflict, and have some change in perception (ie growth). Then there are formulas like "merry band of misfits set out to save the world || universe," and "young person who is a bit of a rebel joins the army (or space cadet force), succeeds and becomes a star." If you read a lot some of those old type 2 formulas get tiresome - BUT, they became formulas because they work, draw readers, and are popular.

The "formula" most often used for building stories is so often used because it mimics real life, and so is very compelling.

Everyone is faced with problems large and small every second we live. Often we "automate" solutions to them, such as how to get to work or school each morning. That way we only have to think about the exceptions to our usual routine.

A story starts with a stable situation, maybe good, maybe bad. We get news of an incident that upsets our routine: an invading army is nearing our village, an old flame has come to town, we've lost our homework or our kid has left her homework at home. We decide to solve the problem, then come up with a plan of how to find and apply a solution - maybe as simple as drop everything and run away.

As we apply our plan we meet obstacles. We deal with each, directly by confronting the obstacle, or indirectly by avoiding it. We may have to try several times with each obstacle before meeting with success of some sort. We may have to replan. After the last obstacle we succeed or fail, and decide to quit trying. This is the resolution of the story. Our life returns to a stable situation, maybe better than at the start, maybe worse.

This "formula" is almost infinitely adaptable. Even children know it, and can spin very elaborate stories to explain how they were sent to the corner bodega to get milk and bread and returned with only chocolate stains on their shirt.

So, yeah, if you want to sell a story, 99.99% of the time you're going to have to use this popular "formula."