Unreadably New? Boringly Formulaic?
The Comments to last week���s WW wandered (as well they should) onto the subject of why so many early twentieth century artistic works ��� in which literature, music, and visual arts were all included ��� became so stylized as to be enjoyed by a limited group, often, but not always, made up of those who were specialists in that particular field.
Formula
This contributed to a split between popular culture and ���unpopular��� Culture that remains to the current day���although, as heteromeles noted, very amusingly, some of the techniques of ��Culture have been borrowed by pop culture to very interesting effect.
This got me thinking about which side of the division I come down on ��� at least in regard to SF/F, a field in which I both write and read.
As a long-time reader of SF/F, there are certain books I read which ��� while not bad in and of themselves ��� simply stick too close to formula to provide me with much pleasure.�� Therefore, if they have any weaknesses at all, those weaknesses stick out, leaving me feeling worse about the book than I might have if the same weaknesses had appeared in a less formulaic piece.
Basically, I don���t much care for a novel where I can inform Jim, as I have from time to time: ���Okay.�� Here���s what���s going to happen, in this order.����� I really dislike books where characters seem churned off a template ��� something that happens all too often when a writer is either trying to catch hold of a trend or writing his/her variation on some story he or she loved deeply.
Formulaic settings, especially those that use elements drawn from some other work ��� whether Tolkien or the latest video game or some movie ��� also annoy me, especially since the further from the source material the work gets,�� the less reasonable the combinations.
Does this mean I love innovative works?�� No, not automatically, especially if I can ���see��� the author doing a variation on the Joycean ���look at me��� that I mentioned in last week���s piece.�� Literary special effects don���t impress me unless they serve the story.�� Otherwise, they���re just as much of a yawn ��� and frequently more annoying ��� than formulaic fiction.
The annoying factor in innovative works was well-illustrated by the New Wave SF/F ���movement��� some decades ago.�� Since Alan and I discussed this in a Tangent back in 2013, I won���t repeat myself. [insert link]�� I���ll just add that please don���t expect to impress me by inventing a new word or pronoun or inverted narrative style or using weird fonts.�� Been there, done that, rode that pony.�� Innovation is when these things serve the story, rather than the story being a Christmas tree on which FX lights have been strung.
When I started reading SF/F, there were a lot of magazines serving the genre ��� and this was way down from a couple decades earlier.�� Now there are hardly any, yet SF/F has never been more in the popular eye.�� My personal opinion is that the magazines began to serve not the wider readership but the narrower one that nominated for awards.�� In doing so, they lost the audience who wanted a good, ripping yarn.�� They might have won the battle of getting some SF/F recognized as Literature, but they lost their readership.�� A Pyrrhic victory, indeed.
Yet is formulaic completely horrible?�� Is new and innovative completely great?
I really don���t think the question is so simple.�� Formulaic fiction is most often attractive to those new to the genre.�� There was a series a few years back ��� I won���t name the titles, since I haven���t read the series in full myself ��� that sold amazingly well, despite the fact that just about every element in the books was transparently cut and pasted from popular movies and books of the previous decade.�� A young cousin of mine was in love with these books but, when we talked about them, he admitted he���d never read any Fantasy before, so what was derivative in the extreme to me, was new and fresh to him.
As an aside, I���ll note that there seems to be a serious glut of retold fairytales out there ��� in prose, graphic novels, on television, and even in ���fashion dolls.����� So clearly the audience for the familiar story is alive and well.
I can take pleasure in a book that has elements of formula, if the author does something fresh within the formula.�� The easiest way to grab me is with a character or set of characters I get attached to.�� Next comes an innovative setting.�� Both will keep me going through some variation of ���Character discovers he/she is the Powerful One everyone has been Waiting to Save the World.���
I���ll admit, probably because writing is my craft, innovative storytelling techniques that serve the story excite me a lot.�� A couple years ago, a friend suggested I try YA author A.S. King.�� I did.�� Her Please Ignore Vera Dietz blew me away. I���ll admit, while I told Jim I liked it, I didn���t press him to read it, because I wasn���t sure he���d like the style.
Recently, I read A.S. King���s Glory O���Brien���s History of the Future and was, again, impressed by how the narrative tricks served the story.�� But reading her books isn���t easy ��� and not just because (at least in these two examples) her main characters begin depressive.�� I couldn���t sit and read a string of her novels in a row, any more than I���d down a bunch of cups of espresso in one sitting ��� at least not if I expected to sleep without my head buzzing in circles.
So, which side do I come down on?�� Probably slightly in favor of innovation.�� There���s a reason I don���t read Romance novels.�� A variation on the same story doesn���t interest me.�� However, I���ll take a good story with not a single bell or whistle over a dull story slumming in fancy prose.
Which way does the balance between the two tilt for you?
