Same old, same old

[stacer]

We've had conversations on here before about how some fantasy is the same old story in new clothing. Recently, some critics have been saying that about children's literature as well. Since I am interested in the intersection of these two genres, maybe it applies more in my field than any, but I'm curious what everyone here might say about the first letter to the editor here, applying it to whatever kind of novel you read. Does it apply? Here's a quote that hit me:

I am particularly concerned with the novel, which is suffering from what I call The Formula: Put your main character in a pot of hot water. Turn up the heat. Turn it up some more. Put the lid on. Let her fight her way out.

This is often the advice I hear for beginning writers, and I've never thought of it as a formula before. What do you think?

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

uhm... it's ONE type of novel. It's the type of novel people are interested in.

There are plenty of other novel types and styles. But how many people do YOU know who read Ulysses? And how many of those really enjoyed it?

True, it's interesting to see other patterns, if you really enjoy reading a lot and analyzing it, but I don't see a lot of market for much besides variations on that, esp since there is such a huge set of possibilities in that framework for many different kinds of stories.

Plus, if I can be permitted some ego, I think my own manuscript, The Dark Blade, doesn't follow that trend. I'm not SO ego-filled to think that I'm the first person to get away with it, or the only one doing it now.

[stacer]

I think it also depends on how you're looking at what you're reading. The book that the letter-writer suggests is a breakout from that mold, Charlotte's Web, is actually an interesting subject. The letter-writer says that the main focus goes from Fran (the little girl) to Charlotte. Yes and no. It always stays on Wilbur, who is really the protagonist we're worried about. Will Wilbur be ham?

As far as children's literature goes, though, I think this is a good point: "We should 'be wary of our boredom,' [Nodelman] says, because children themselves are new to reading and not yet jaded by the conventions."

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

mmmmmm..... ham.....

[Eagle Prince]

I thought when we were talking about fantasy stories being alike, it was the farmboy becomes superhero.  Not that they all followed some kind of story model (ie intro, rising action, climax, coda).  And that letter is a perfect example of why you should pay attention in English class when they talk about writing conventions.  Her thoughts were all over the place, it was a little confusing and had no real point.

[Eagle Prince]

Here's a quote that hit me:

"I am particularly concerned with the novel, which is suffering from what I call The Formula: Put your main character in a pot of hot water. Turn up the heat. Turn it up some more. Put the lid on. Let her fight her way out. "

This is often the advice I hear for beginning writers, and I've never thought of it as a formula before. What do you think?

What I think is novels are not suffering from "The Formula".  Its also really vague and you could probably ram a lot of books into looking like they use "The Formula" that don't.  So if there is a formula, I don't think this is it.  And if you wanted to be a good writer, you shouldn't worry about following some formula (or purposely going against it for whatever reason).  Instead of wasting time studying this formula, you should be spending it learning how to write.

There is this thing called classic literature that they make you study in school.  They do that so you can see various writing conventions in practice.  They are conventions for a reason.  Sometimes people get too focused on abstract ideas that they forget those conventions, and while they might think its going to make for something very clever, in the end its just bad writing.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

some kind of story model (ie intro, rising action, climax, coda)

Okay...I'm having trouble telling "turn up the heat, put the lid on" apart from just the standard plot model.

If a story doesn't have a plot (i.e., Napoleon Dynamite, which I saw last weekend mostly because it was recommended, and one of the producers is in my ward), I have much more difficulty enjoying it.

But anyway what are some ways to follow the plot model without using "turn up the heat"?

[stacer]

That's what I'm wondering. Like I said, I've never really thought of it so much as a formula (what I didn't say is that I agree--that's plot). The letter suggests that switching protagonists in the middle of the story is a good idea, but that's one of the things that bothers many readers about Charlotte's Web, if you do see the protags as Fern and Charlotte (which I don't).

I think half her argument is that the protagonist in children's stories doesn't always have to be a child, which is a valid point, but doesn't really translate to other types of literature.

[Eagle Prince]

Okay...I'm having trouble telling "turn up the heat, put the lid on" apart from just the standard plot model.

Hmm... "pot of hot water" = conflict (man vs man, man vs nature, etc); "Turn up the heat.  Turn it up some more. Put the lid on" = rising action; "Let her fighter her way out" = climax

So I go back to my argument that "The Formula" is way too vague to 1) be considered a formula, 2) be considered a problem.  Check out my formula, there are too many stories suffering from what I call "Protagonists", they are these central characters to a story and basically all books have them.  Next we'll attack sentance structure.  'Check out this book, it follows no writing conventions.  Sure, nobody can even read it, much less understand it, but its so innovative.  A true classic.'

The only specific thing mentioned would then be too many stories with children as the main characters.  Ah yeah, don't think that's a problem either.  I'm no expert in the field of children's literature, maybe there is a high ratio of kid books about kids.  So what?  You can't just say kids reading about kids is a problem without a better reason than "variety".  On top of that, I have a hard time believing there are no other kinds of children books being published.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

well, to be fair, a huge chunk of adult fantasy features children as protags, at least a t the beginning. This is because, however, most books in fantasy are about coming of age in some way, learning to cope with power, learning responsibility, finding there's a larger world out there, discovering and grasping your destiny - ideas identified with growing up. So it's a natrual response to have characters that start out immature, even physically as well as emotionally, and grow into the ideal. See. there's this thing called dynamic characters too. Which I think we should do away with. No one should ever learn from their experiences.

(quiz: guess where I turn sarcastic in the above paragraph)

Anyway, considering the ideas being used, why is it a problem to use children? Not all books with dynamic characters use children protags, but it's hardly a problem to do so since that's the metaphyscial idea being used anyway. Dynamic characters who change for the better, who improve themselves, are maturing. It's natural to signal it with a physical maturation as well. Of course, it becomes ironic if they become more emotionally immature, and makes quite a different statement with a static character. I don't think that readers or writers will ever tire of talking about growing up, even if it's just a side subject, because it's universal. You're always getting older, so we need to confront it. including it in your work doesn't make the work less interesting or good. In fact, ignoring that it happens would do damage to most novels.