Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenMonkey
I don't see what you said about "formulaic genre fiction" wouldn't apply to non-genre fiction.
|
What I said wouldn't apply to non-genre work because I was referring to the most formulaic products of specific genres, and any work that formulaic would be genre* by definition.
*
generic is the proper term, but loaded with negative associations
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenMonkey
All I'm saying is that standard fiction relies much more heavily on plug-in roles and constructs of society, more so than the sci-fi and fanstasy genres, and I find it less creative and more formulaic as a side effect.
|
...reality is formula? No, no--depiction of reality is
more formulaic than using character, plot and setting templates derived from past works in a genre? That point is self-refuting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenMonkey
I don't read a lot of mainstream fiction - but for movies, I'll tell you - formulaic is how I would describe a lot of action movies from Hollywood, for example. Having robots, elves, detectives, vampires, etc... doesn't have anything to do with how formulaic something is. I don't understand the correlation at all.
|
Again, action-thrillers are a genre, and yes, quite a formulaic one, though not on the order of mystery or romance novels, or "Wizard takes young hero on a journey in the company of elves and dwarves" fantasy.
And yes, using templates from past works ("robots, elves, detectives, vampires, etc) is the
definition of formula. The mere presence of an established type, be it "elven archer" or "policeman," is only one piece of the puzzle, but if the plot and character arcs also unfold according to established templates, then yes, you have a quite formulaic work on your hands.