Speculative Fiction and the Value of the Formula
Originally published at Grasping for the Wind. Please leave any comments there.
In book reviewing and literary analysis the term “formula” or “formulaic” has become something of a mild pejorative. To have your novel or short story deemed formulaic is to have your novel be dismissed as not a worthwhile read, you are seen as being commercially motivated, and usually as lacking any creativity in your writing.
This is, to my mind, an unfair assessment. The formula is an important part of literature, and should not be so derided. In particular, this is important in the speculative fiction genre. It this genre that includes science fiction and fantasy novels. This genre is oft dismissed as formulaic except for a few standouts (like Tolkien, Asimov, Wells, Huxley, and Bradbury) whose work moves into the realm of “literary” fiction.
The Formula
The formula is the necessary baseline for all fiction. It contains the “standard set of plot devices, themes, and stock characters, and a style similar to other novels or short stories in the genre.” (ArticleWorld) Without it, we wouldn’t be able to classify what is fantasy and what is science fiction, or mystery, or romance. Professor William Warner at UC Santa Barbara, as part of a 2002 class called “Introducing Science Fiction: A Genealogical Approach”, found seven traits of formula fiction:
1. The main characters are parsed into heroes and villains, the good and the evil.
2. Action, incident and plotting take precedent over ideas or character.
3. In formula fiction the big payoff in reader pleasure comes from the surprising and wonderful reversal that answers the question “how will things turn out?”
4. Formula fiction is rife with didactic messages, often enforced by the plot.
5. Formula fiction, as its name implies, follows pre-established formulas that require no justification on grounds outside the fiction.
6. Formula fiction accommodates incompleteness, fragmentariness, or last-minute revision.
7. With formula fiction the basic exchange is entertainment for money. (Dr. Warner’s Notes)
Yet none of these seven traits says that formula fiction is actually bad fiction or bad writing. Yet this is what is often meant by calling a novel “formulaic”.
Piers Anthony, author of the immensely popular Xanth series and author of over 140 books, has this to say about formula fiction. “I don’t want ever to be guilty of what my critics claim: doing formula without original elements.” (Interview with Crescent Blues) Inherent in this statement is the admission that Anthony does use a formula to write his novels even if each one incorporates some original elements.
David and Leigh Eddings are a husband and wife fantasy author team known for their use of formula. Their New York Times Bestsellers are all very similar in tone and plot, yet each is an enjoyable novel. In the introduction to The Rivan Codex, Eddings sets out what he believes is the formula to writing a good epic fantasy novel.
1. The Underlying Theology (Polytheistic/Monotheistic/Buddhist/Other)
2. The Quest
3. The Magic Talisman (Holy Grail/One Ring/Magic Sword/Jewel)
4. The Hero: Galahad the Pure, Gawain the Brave, Perceval the Dumb (Naive), or Lancelot the Heavyweight Champion of the World
5. The Resident Wizard (Gandalf, Merlin, Belgarath)
6. The Heroine
7. The Villain (usually with some diabolical agenda)
8. The Companions (generally a multicultural crew who can protect the hero until he defeats the villain)
9. The Romantic Interests for #8. (Both 8&9 must be well-rounded groups, with individualized personalities and flaws)
10. The kings, queens, emperors, generals, courtiers and such, who make up the governments of the world. (From the Wikipedia entry for The Rivan Codex.)
And on a very old FAQs sheet from 1994, Eddings is quoted as saying “…the basic formula for fantasy. Take a bit of magic, mix well with a few open ended Jungian archetypal myths, make your people sweat and smell and get hungry at inopportune moments, throw in a ponderous prehistory, and let nature take it’s course.” (See here.)
And even though both of these authors have admitted, are even proud of, writing formulaic fiction, they have been both professional and commercial successes.
The Value of the Formula
There are three reasons why I would think that formula fiction is just as valuable to the reader as any “high” or “literary” fiction.
1. “High” cultural genres also rely on formula. Every fiction piece, save the very first relies in some way on the stories and works that have come before. In fantasy, we are learning more and more that while J. R. R. Tolkien might have been the first to popularize fantasy, he wasn’t the first to write. In Tales before Tolkien Douglas A. Anderson finds many instances of fantasy works before Tolkien’s publication. In the same way, other works of fiction rely on what came before, and what is eventually called a “trope” of fiction. Additionally, if something has no formula, it cannot be teachable, yet writer’s workshops proliferate, and literature is a commonly accepted degree from colleges and universities. If even the “high” or “literary” seems to lack formula, that only shows the writer’s skill with the formula, rather than the lack thereof.
2. Just because something is predictable or repetitious does not mean that it cannot be enjoyed. For instance, Wizards of the Coast works hard to put out fiction based on its role-playing worlds. Each novel is has a particular setting and follows particular rules, thereby making it formulaic, but each author within the shared world creates something new. And these books are immensely popular even outside of the Dungeons and Dragons crowd. The same holds true for short story collections gathered around a theme. Although each story has a “formula” or prescribed set by the editor or publisher, he/she can write something different within those sets of rules. Pick any book considered formulaic by the “in” crowd of critics and readers and think about your own reaction to it. Did you enjoy it? Was it a nice piece of fiction to curl up with after a hard day? Did you feel that it was formulaic before or after you read other people’s opinions? Just because a book has a formula does not mean that the reader cannot enjoy it, even if he or she knows it is formulaic. People’s pleasure seems like a good enough reason to value the formula in fiction.
3. Finally, there is commercial success. I mentioned like David and Leigh Eddings and Piers Anthony and their formula fiction already. Yet these writers are commercial successes. Or look at Terry Pratchett. His works have a certain formula to them, (I point you to Going Postal and Making Money as prime examples of this.) yet his books are sold worldwide in many languages. Although commercial success is not necessarily an indicator of quality, it does point to the fact that the reader doesn’t particularly care if a writer is formulaic, so long as he is witty, interesting, or simply engaging. Such commercial success shows that the books have value to the author and publisher. Without it, so called “high” fiction would likely never get published. The funds generated by the formula fiction funnels into other areas of literature.
Conclusion
Readers of speculative fiction should not listen to the pejorative use of the word “formulaic”. It is a highbrow way of saying that the novel is good enough for the masses, but not good enough for those of us with a literary education. There is nothing inherently wrong with the formula in fiction; it is the author’s use of it and the reader’s reaction to it that matter most. Let’s have authors be willing to say that they use a formula, whether derived themselves or from the works of others, and let’s have readers say that they enjoyed a book, so what if the author has a formula for writing it?
In a sort of related post, SF Signal compares the new and original with the formula for Science fiction TV shows. They lean more towards the new being better, but point out that new is often unsuccessful, where as what the tried and true formula brings is popular with fans.