Elizabeth Boyce with some interesting insights into the nature of formula:
My comment there was:
The problem with formulas of all kinds is when the writer pushes the characters around like pawns on a chessboard, to fit the demands of the formula, or, in other words, when the writer loses track of the structure and instead uses it as a substitute for thought, planning, and character development. A formulaic story in any genre, whether it’s a car-chase movie or a Spenserian sonnet, doesn’t offer anything beyond the formula to satisfy the reader.
For me, the part you mention about how lack of communication causes the problem is what revolts me about far too many romances these days. Any problem that can be solved by one good conversation is not a real problem and the story that hinges on that isn’t a “real” story. It feels artificial and yes, formulaic. Because we all know life isn’t that simple or that easy.
But it occurred to me after I posted that comment that the relation between formula and story isn’t that simple or that easy, either. Lack of communication on many levels is an integral part of many stories, not just romances. Still, a story where the obstacle is some misperception on the heroine’s part, and the conflict is resolved by her acquiring correct information, feels false to me. Is that just me, or is there a real storytelling issue here? Because I love good romance, stories where love helps a couple conquer the real, serious, difficult complications of life.
Ultimately, this comes down to whether the author did it well or not. If it stands out as a false miscommunication, then comes the “novels that can be solved with a simple conversation should be shot” rule, but miscommunication is a reflection of humanity. You’ve probably heard the line about assume? Don’t assume. It makes an ass out of you and me. The only stories that don’t have some level of miscommunication are the basic black and white ultimate evil ones, because if everyone is a hero in their own eyes, and what is heroic is a matter of record rather than assumption, there is no possibility of conflict.
The trick with miscommunication is to make it plausible. It needs to rest not on a simple assumption, but on an assumption for which ample evidence piles up which, seen through the lens of the assumption, is damning in its own right. It’s difficult to do well, but those are often the best stories regardless of genre.
Good point. Erin and I were discussing novels we could think of where this device works, and we only came up with two: Heyer’s The Nonesuch and Jane Austen’s Northanger Abbey. Well, all of Jane Austen, really. And in both those cases, the tendency to assume and judge is an integral part of the heroine’s character.
And you’re right, everybody does it to some extent. It’s an essential aspect of character development. What are the character’s blind spots? How does that affect the plot?
I just think it’s extremely rare for it to work well as a plot device or even a major plot component. Clearly events will be filtered through the character’s perceptions and that will change their behavior, which will change the plot, but that’s not the same thing as having the entire plot turn on misunderstanding as a central element. (The person I dislike and resent most, and have since high school, is a very nice person who I understand all too well. I resent her because she mirrors my own flaws back at me so clearly….)
And that border of plausibility is different for each person too, which makes judging, like everything, subjective.
LOL on your nemesis. Yes, being a mirror image of us is the best way to hit all our hot buttons because it’s intrusive somehow.
Very true that it’s subjective. I was thinking more in terms of the risks the writer is taking and the difficulties of making it work really well, but it seems like it might be one of those non-problems that don’t bother most readers. Like head-hopping, which most people don’t notice until it gets really bad or confusing.
Exactly. If it’s done very badly, everyone notices it and there’s no question that it’s a flaw. But when those sensitive to that aspect notice but the rest do not, then it’s subjective.