Perhaps, perhaps not. Surely it's possible to write a piece that wouldn't be considered formulaic, without overreaching or making it necessarily complicated.
I'm with you both on this as well. Simple straight forward doesn't necessarily mean formulaic. But, formulaic definitely means simple and straightforward
@123456789 Hmmm... not wanting to split hairs, but I find myself respectfully disagreeing with you. There are many different formulas, some might be considered horrendously convoluted—not simple or straight forward in the least—others might be simplistic. I find the notion of absolutism when it comes to writing, a complete hindrance. For me, it all boils down to: Does it work, or doesn't it? And if you don't give it a go, you'll never know.
@obsidian_cicatrix I'm not invested in this particular stance, just throwing around ideas FYI- You're probably right.
@123456789 I wasn't having a go—not at all. I just like to keep an open mind. Personally, I like it when someone says something I don't agree with. It really gets me thinking and questioning my own beliefs, and that's never a bad thing.
"I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to argue any longer." *slaps down money* "That was never five minutes just now." "Yes it was." "No it wasn't" That's the general character of internet argument, though around here you do find a few who will take a more thoughtful look at things
It's difficult to say if the reader would feel 'cheated' by the MC dying. Readers like so many different things. Plus writers seem to do all they can to break rules as soon as one is set down. The only problem I think you could come across is the change in narrator after the death. Perhaps if you title the chapter with the new voice 'Epilogue' or call it Part Two or Aftermath etc. something to really separate it out from the initial narrative and this could work. Death is a natural part of life, it should be a natural part of fiction too. That said, if all the MCs I read about start dying I might start to get miffed.
This has been an interesting thread. I'm glad to see the distinction between writers who write to write and those who write to sell. I hope I got that right? (OK, enough bad humor...) Really though, writing is every bit an art of expression as it is a craft and far more so than it is an industry. The massive industrialization of writing is what has produced successful, yet largely ineffective books (by which I mean non-compelling, repetitive, trendy literature). I was at Barnes & Nobles and I saw a new genre has popped up thanks to the success of Twilight and similar works: "Teen Paranormal Romance." In other words, a genre devoted to popular facsimiles that people know will sell. We cannot assume that all readers read the same or like the same things in a story, and the writer's job is to write the story they have as best they can. As a reader, I don't appreciate two different books telling the exact same story. I can live with similarities, and will probably still enjoy them. But my aim in picking up a different book is to find a new story with similar enough elements to the previous that I still get the same thrill. When it comes to writing, I'm the same way in that I want to explore different experiences, even if it means I have to write something I know is a far-reaching challenge. I'm fortunate enough that I made nearly every beginner mistake in my first major work and have it to look back to as a perfect example of what not to do. But it is also an example of having a vision and trying to push boundaries. Ideally I'm just learning how so I might be able to actually write that story in a way that wouldn't scar readers. To @JJ_Maxx I actually really like your idea. I'm assuming we will already know who Westley is before jumping to 3rd person around him. I have no problem with first person past, though I'd just assume the narrator was actually telling the story dead. It would be a small question of, "Wait, so what is the present tense of the story if it's in past tense the narrator died at the end? Where is he now?" But that question would not bother me. And depending on how late in the story this happens, I could see the last chapter being an epilogue because of the break away from the normal sequence of narration. But that's just my thoughts. Good luck to ya!
te="mammamaia, post: 1160626, member: 373"]it can work, but only if the narrator is telling the story either in present tense, or in past tense from the afterworld, such as was done so well in 'sunset boulevard'...[/quote] Or if it is told in past tense at the very point of death.
I find that life provides all the disappointments I need. Killing MC? I'd want at least a hint of his likely death early on. Countless MCs are on the verge of death -- actually killing them though? Why would I want to grieve over a pretend character? Unless I hated him, but then I wouldn't be reading the last chapter. Leaving me to sulk at the end of book tells me you only cared about your own emotions , and that's too much like some relationships I've had. I wouldn't come back.
So much for Macbeth, then, and almost every other tragedy ever written. Who would have guessed that Shakespeare only cared about his own emotions and not his audience? And how about fictional biographies, which follow through somebody's entire life. Fair enough if you don't like it, but there are many excellent reasons a writer might want to do it.
Yes. Lot's of good books where the first person narrator dies at the end (or in one recent case, before the end). Naming that one is inherently a spoiler, so I won't do it. But it is important to recognize that no book will appeal to everyone. The fact that you don't garner universal appeal is no reason not to pursue a particular path in story.
I like the concept, though I find the excerpt to be somewhat confusing. Perhaps more context is needed.
