Is there a formula?

[wam]

It was hard deciding whether this belongs here or in the TV discussion board. The BBC have been running a short series in which a political journalist explains the rules behind the writing of certain fiction sub-genre. Sandwiched between last week's detectives and next week's spies comes Fantasy. I don't think they've done this terribly well. They've come up with a whole series of "rules" that only really apply to the sub-tolkien heroic fantasy novel (or, more likely, series). The problems are that they've come up with too many of these rules and also cited a few books/series that don't really fit with the formula and, to top it off, added a few author names that don't really belong to the set either. I know this is pretty much par for the course for the BBC of late but even compared to last week's effort in the same series this was a failure.
Some of you may be able to see all or part of this show at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p040pw15 or some form of the BBC's replay facility to see what I mean.
I suppose the big question is "Is there a formula to writing a Fantasy novel?". They've only really touched on the High Fantasy/quest idea but, even then, the rules could have been better written. Taking it further, are there rules to any of the other SF/Fantasy sub-genre? Things that always must be in or you can never do in say Space Opera or the authoritarian dystopia.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Yeah, I noticed that I wasn't writing to a lot of Andrew Marr's rules, either. But I guess the point is simply that he was generalising for a general audience who aren't necessarily familiar with the genre.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

I thought it was a pretty good introduction, myself. I enjoyed it, though there was far too much GRRM. :/ I particularly liked "fantasy is a pre-Enlightenment project," a line he delivered with considerable irony.

As for, is there a formula? Yes. Best not use it though if you want any credibility.

 

[Montero]

Enjoyed it too. All due credit for having Ursula Le Guin and Philip Pullman. Thought it was a shame that there was a passing flash of a Diana Wynne Jones cover and then no mention of the Rough Guide to Fantasy or The Dark Lord of Derkholme.

 

[Steve S]

I think there are formula elements / tropes for the fantasy genre - but I'd argue writers to should first seek to know and understand these, and then look to subvert...

 

[Ajid]

I don't think there's a formula and I don't think these rules are stated in the series as being fundamental to the genres. It's just a good way to communicate similarities and the evolution of storytelling in the genre. I've quite enjoyed the programme so far but it is far to brief to felve deeply into either genre covered so far. If it was to genuinely look at the detective novel it would have needed to episodes on Arthur Conan Doyle alone and he was not the first of these writers to come along by any means. It is brief and the rules are just a journalistic method of finding commonality. I think they will make most sense when we come to spies. We will evolve from Flemming through Clancy to Ludlum I expect and with the success of the Jack Reacher adaptations I expect that will come as the conclusion. The rules are more common themes. Jack Ryan isn't a spie but I bet he gets a mention. Jason Bourne is nothing compared to Ambler but when they mention Ludlam they'll talk Bourne. He'/ looking at inspirational stories and I believe it's to inspire budding writers so i'm happy to go with it.

 

[wam]

The way the series was done there would be no point in doing separate episodes on individuals. The point was to highlight a commonality between different books/writers/series within one genre. The problem with the fantasy programme was that they tried to drag in a lot of stuff that doesn't fit with the general rules that they use to try and tie everything together. Harry Potter, although fantasy, fit better with the rules on detective fiction than the high fantasy quest that the rules belong to. Similarly, Discworld is more of a parody of the real world than a quest. On the other hand, I've seen conversations elsewhere that complain heavily about their favourite author not being included even though they didn't really belong to the same structure either.
As to the idea of who would be in the spy version, the choices above were almost entirely wrong.

 

[Montero]

@Ajid - having just watched it, no Clancy at all - or Bourne

I quite enjoyed the programme - spy novels, not read a lot, just a few, so probably at the right level for me. Interesting interviews.

 

[Ajid]

Very wrong indeed. And glad.

It stuck to the good old British spy novel. I enjoyed reminiscing but found this a little less entertaining. I ignored the "Rules" part in the other episodes but this time i did pick up on the error of the format. I saw a much better programme on BBC 4 the other night "A Very British Murder with Lucy Worsley.". This was very enjoyable and as much as I enjoy Andrew Marr she is better suited to this style of documentary.

 

[Kissmequick]

There are no rules when you are writing

You may want to reconsider when trying to sell

I know whereof I speak -- I've had several lovely rejections of "I love this book! I don;t know how to market it"