E=mc2 – The satisfaction, or boredom, of formula writing

by Angela Guillaume

I’m sitting at my desk at 3.45am. It took me an hour to put my baby son to sleep yesterday and after that I managed to sleep 4 hours. 4 full hours! Great! For some reason when I woke up I gravitated toward my computer to write this blog. I thought about this topic – formula writing – because I’m presently reading (or trying to read, during 5 minute breaks) an Amanda Quick book, her latest. I thought of the other Amanda Quick books I have read. Then I thought about some other authors whose books sit on my shelves. I couldn’t help but admit that although I liked these books, lately, I’ve been somewhat bored or disappointed with some of the stories I’ve read.

Why is that?

I thought and thought about it, but one day it dawned on me. It’s the formula. It’s that thing many publishers use to attract readers. A certain type of character. A particular plot. Events that happen routinely at different points in the book. I have come to expect that in formula mainstream romance such as is published by Avon, for instance, there will be a sex scene between the hero and heroine around page 180 – 220 of most of these mass market paperbacks. This will indicate a culmination of the relationship between the two main characters. What follows will be a bit more emphasis on romance (one or two more sex scenes, a little less detailed than the first), and then sh** happens. Yes, then the danger that lurks around the corner finally surfaces, and the hero or heroine (usually the heroine) is put in jeopardy. Or else, something happens to bring the progress of the relationship to a halt and the characters are pulled apart. In any case, a MAJOR EVENT happens, and all hell breaks loose for a while, usually until the hero (in a few cases, the heroine) saves the day.

Entertainment is all about the packaging these days. It is so in music, TV, and movies. And this advertising model includes books. Everything must be categorized and made to “fit” a certain mold so the publisher can go after different readers with different tastes. Few publishers of popular fiction take chances these days, particularly those dishing out the mass market lines. Publishers have different lines – erotic, mainstream, historical, contemporary, fantasy, paranormal, dark, etc. That every line is managed separately is understandable because every type of story attracts a different sort of reader, yet, some publishers go beyond this to state what kind of heroine or hero they want for a particular line. There are professions to give the characters that are acceptable and others that are not. Look at Harlequin, for example. The result of this is often that one feels like one is reading the same book over and over, about the same two characters. The cover, and the title on it, may be different, but one author’s book reads pretty much like the other that succeeds or precedes it. Sometimes, the same feeling is engendered when reading different authors from the same line/publisher. Perhaps this is comforting to some who have come to expect a particular story from a particular author. After a long, hard day one may not be inclined to opt for reading which is unpredictable or displeasing. If one knows what to expect, one won’t be disappointed, I suppose. And in fact, I have been guilty at times of choosing books because I did not want to be surprised. I may have had the flu or come out of a 12-hour workday week so needed to be comforted with an easy going book…nothing too demanding and of course, one with a happy ending...but, this doesn’t have to be the be all and end all of our reading choices, does it? Sometimes we like to think, to ponder, and be challenged. Sometimes, we just want the “other” choice.

The reason publishers give for following this formula is one that finds its core in marketing. Yes, I can grasp this reasoning but… I wonder, have they lost their faith in readers that they won’t take a risk outside their set parameters? Wouldn’t they sell books if they did take a few more risks? What about talent and quality? What happened to thinking outside the proverbial box? Are readers this petty that they only read writing and plots that are formulaic? Sometimes I discover a “different” sort of author and I feel thrilled and excited about their work because it feels like the opposite of formula writing. Someone like Lisa Valdez who, to my chagrin, only produced one book. Or Robin Schone, at least her earlier books. These authors had the guts to do something different, something daring, whether one agrees with it or not. And their publishers decided to take that risk and unleash these works in the market. It’s not rocket science. One takes a risk or one doesn’t. If one does, it may just pay off.

I’m sure that even these unconventional books contain some sort of formula with respect to plot points, pacing, characterization, etc. I think that all books do and all books need to be grounded in technique to make the story coherent and readable. However, this does not mean that certain events have to happen just so in the plot. And that the events or characters in one book should be eerily similar to those in another. Formula writing should make it easy to teach the technique of writing but outside this fact, I think that one should leave room for individual talent. And by this I not only mean the author’s voice, but also the author’s ability to write something compelling, that leaves an indelible mark on a reader. This is hard to achieve when the formula takes precedence over everything else. This, coupled with the hard fact that authors are supposed to dish out a certain number of books a year, quality be damned, does not help matters at all.

Don’t get me wrong. I still love romantic, feel good books. I think they’re essential. I will continue to write them and read them (mainly I gravitate to single title now). This does not mean, however, that I shouldn’t be surprised with a theme that’s out of the ordinary even in a formula book. This would be possible if the publishers were a bit more open to change. I give you one example. A while back I pitched a story to an agent. I made the mistake (well, I was just being honest) of telling her that the tale is set in Italy. That was all it took for her to reject it. She told me, if it wasn’t set in England in certain time periods (Regency, Georgian or Victorian mainly, and some medieval), then, she wouldn’t even bother trying to sell it.

So what is your take on this? Do you ever think of this when you’re reading a book? Do you think publishers have become too restrictive by requiring this from authors? And are they wrongly assuming that readers wouldn’t want something more “adventurous,” rather than being force fed the same recipe release after release?


Angela Guillaume writes contemporary, historical and fantasy/paranormal romance.
Her debut contemporary shorts are...
Mr. & Mrs Foster - Available now at Whiskey Creek Press Torrid
Mile High to Heaven - Available now at Whiskey Creek Press Torrid

What Gets Me Interested in a Story?

It’s so much easier to tell you what doesn’t interest me in a story. The characters can draw me into the story but to keep me there the pacing better be fast forward much of the time. I don’t like huge amounts of setting and description just enough that I can picture the scene and see the characters.

Another thing I don’t like is pages of introspection. Thoughts can be boring unless it pertains to what is going on in the story. Something else I detest is reading about gratuitous sex. It’s boring, and I’ll skim through the scene so fast your head would spin. If the scene requires a love scene, then I’m all for it and if it’s a good one I’ll read it.

Something else I don’t like is the same old plot. How many times do you want to read about runaway brides, women with babies their spouses, boyfriends, etc., don’t know about, navy seals and on and on. What is wrong with writers? They read a story they like about a hero/heroine and they decide to write the same story with the very same characters. After a while it gets boring. Please come up with something new.

For instance, why can’t the hero be a soldier, sailor, marine, or someone ordinary instead of a navy seal, special ops, CIA, FBI, or mercenary? I have to admit here that I’ve done the very same thing, but the ordinary men and women in our military are brave heroes, too. It is only right to portray them as such instead of ignore them for what we think are more high profile characters.

Okay, I am going to get to what I want in a story. I want to read something with meat and potatoes to it. First, I want a hook, and I want emotion. This requires real depth to the characters and to the plot. I want to live what those characters are living and I want the plot to be believable. I want to care about those characters.

A story is good if it gives me something to think about, makes me keep reading until it is finished, and then stays in my mind for weeks, months and years. I remember the premise of a story I read years ago, but I don’t remember the title of the book. It was about survival, the people lived below ground because the air above was tainted, but there were those who survived above ground. They wanted to go underground, but the ones who were already there wouldn’t allow them to come down because they were contaminated. This could have been a movie, too, but whatever it was it always stuck with me.

The story had a great beginning (hook) and it only grew from there as there was fighting between the two groups. The conflict started immediately, it intensified and with a plausible plot that could happen in real life the story held my attention to the end. There was even a love story.

Tell me what you want in a book.

Sandy
http://www.skaymarshall.com