hile we'd all like every novel to be new and original and fresh and creative, they just aren't. Every idea has been used in the past, in one form or another, and many a novel has been written that inadvertently ripped off an earlier novel, one the second author had probably never even heard of.

That sort of thing happens, and aside from copyright lawyers, no one much cares. A more common and vexing problem (for readers, at least) are when authors cannibalize the work of others in their genre, or when authors go further and basically consume their own feces, by essentially rewriting their own work. It's a "new" novel, but it's got the same character archetypes (or characters, in sequels), the same situations, and the same formula through and through. This can be a good thing, a lazy thing, or a creatively bankrupt thing, depending on how it's done. 

In lots of genres it's expected and even required that the same character continues his/her adventures, and keeps doing much the same thing. The Lone Ranger rides down crooks and saves small towns, James Bond foils an evil supervillain's plan to destroy the world, Alya and Jondalar himbo around the prehistoric world and invent absolutely everything of use to modern man, and Lassie saves Timmy from the well and licks her balls. Continuing characters do more or less the same thing in every novel, and that's just fine, with most readers.  Take the mystery genre:

Mystery novelists churn out umpteen versions of the same story, and the new book's version of Sherlock Holmes or Hercule Poirot or Kinsey Millhone is going to be doing much the same detective work each time around. After all, no one wants Sherlock Holmes to retire and become a banker. Going in, the reader knows there's going to be a murder, and a villain, and a mystery for the hero to unravel. That's all accepted; they key then is to write an interesting story with some fun characters, a good mystery, and just enough personal info about the main character to give regular readers something new to chew on.  In this way the bar for success is set a lot lower for ongoing series, since there's a built in audience, and most of the character development has been done in previous novels. At the same time, the bar is raised by reader/fan expectations, since they have a preconception about how the hero/heroine should act, and they'll be disappointed if he/she doesn't live up to what they expect. Even if what he/she does is actually more interesting or clever or different than usual.

The dark side of continuing characters is when the author gets lazy (or dies, or sells off the rights to the characters, and the publisher hires hacks to write new cash cow books in the series) and stars recycling plots and plot elements. Or when the author simply doesn't have the talent to make up new things, and has to rely on the formula that worked before.

I've blogged about this issue several times, and here are some entries on the subject, with the date they were originally posted.

September 28, 2005

Dean Koontz

To quote myself from my Horror Novelist Overview:

I read probably 15 novels of his in the late 80's and early 90's, when I was first getting into horror.  I've not read any for the last 8 or 10 years, and from reviews I've seen I'm not really missing anything.  He is a great story teller, and the first 2/3 or so of all of his books are generally brilliant.  The problem is he tells the same story every time, with the exact same characters.

There's always a man with a troubled past, always a women he meets who is in danger and needs him to save her, and through their slowly-budding love, he'll be able to overcome his troubled past.  The enemies are always part of a huge conspiracy of some sort, seemingly too powerful to defeat, and there's almost always a sweeping, world-altering ending.  Along for the ride is usually a super smart and loveable child/animal, who has some sort of psychic powers or was made by government scientists with bionic abilities, etc.

This formula was followed rigidly in every novel of his I read, and it eventually burned me out on him, since it made everything too predictable.  I didn't notice the sameness of them all for several books, other than the "out of the blue" miraculously happy endings, but the formula for all of the stock characters became clear shortly after that, and I read a few more of his novels in pain, as I tried to ignore the obvious recycling of characters, before finally giving up on him. 

Nothing new to add to that; I've been meaning to read something new from him for a few years, just to see if he's changed things at all, but haven't gotten around to it yet.

John Saul

Thanks to a reader for sending in the following. I've only read a few pages of a couple of Saul books, (blogged about here) so I have no opinion on how accurate this is. The two books I looked in had breathless intros that certainly sound like what this reader says, at least.

John Saul uses the same characters in every book, sometimes he changes the names but I am sure that I have read books where he recycled those as well. The characters in his books are always the same, I will present them in no particular order. There will be a woman in her late thirties or early forties, she is either recently divorced or with a husband she should divorce (more on that in a moment), she has a steely resolve about her and does what she has to do to get by. There will be a child (usually male, though sometimes female) that is something of an outsider and never quite accepted by his/her peers. There will be an adult male character that is an abusive alcoholic, this is usually the husband. The archetypical characters that make up the rest of the cast are the same in every book as well. I will get to them as I go into the story line of his books (every damn one).

The prologue of any John Saul novel will tell you exactly what is going to happen in the book itself. The prologue is generally a short and extremely over dramatic event from 100 years or so before the story starts to take place. Whatever happened in the prologue will happen to a character in the story itself, very near the climax (thus making it a bit anti-climatic, I think), there is no such thing as subtle foreshadowing in his work; more like he smacks you in the head with a brick to make sure you understand.

There will be a curse (though it is rarely called such) on either a particular Home, a particular Surname, the second born son of the third born daughter of the maid's sister, etc. The curse will only start to work its magic once the Mother and child have moved to a new community, which is usually always the ancestral home of either her or her husband's parents (in the case of family curse). Other times it is an old spooky house that no one will buy because of the events that happened there 100 years ago (the Home curse). Still on board? I know this is pretty tough to follow.

The story always starts with moving to the new location. If the husband is still in the picture it will be because he has made his umpteenth vow to stop drinking and being abusive and settle down somewhere where no one knows him. If the husband isn't in the picture it will be a Mother and child moving to a new place to make a life for themselves, free of the abusive, alcoholic husband/father. Now the curse can start to work its magic.

The Mother will remain the same for the entire story, still with a steely resolve, doing what she has to do to get by (which makes you wonder why she didn't divorce the husband earlier in some cases, why she is still married to him in others). At this point the story could go many ways, but it sticks to one of three scenarios. 1) The husband gets hit by the curse and does evil deeds. 2) The child gets hit by the curse and does evil deeds. 3) The addition of the family, to the new community, causes a neighbor to do evil deeds. It is all preordained by the prologue. 

Whichever character is going to be the psycho will start to have subtle changes in behavior. Since it is usually the child, it will be explained away as difficulty adjusting to the new area and making new friends. The child will have an arch rival (even if the child isn't the one who goes psycho) that is such an asshole that you can't believe anyone like that exists; The rival will be far too sadistic to be an actual person. Sure, we all played a few pranks when we were in high school, but did you ever kill the new kid's pet, rip out the guts and put them in his backpack? I never did, but that is exactly the kind of over-the-top, sadistic stuff that the rival will do. My best guess is that the rival is meant to be so inherently evil that you will suspect him/her rather than the primary character. That worked for the first 2 or 3 novels, now I would genuinely be shocked if Saul were to write a book where that evil bastard was actually the psycho.

The mother's job will keep her away from the house most of the time. This will give the Husband or child plenty of time to get completely whacko without her knowledge. Speaking of which, if the husband is still around he will have gone back to drinking and being abusive by now (no surprise). He will have his own enemies based on either his reputation or his surname (see prologue) that keep him from getting anywhere in the new location. They just don't seem to fit in in this new place.

Now the prologue really comes into play. If the person in the prologue was killed by his/her child, that means that the child is going to kill his/her parents in the story. If the person in the prologue witnessed someone he/she knew being murdered, that means that the husband is going to go insane and kill his wife, child, or both. If the person in the prologue witnessed someone they did not know being killed, that means that the whole family will likely be killed by a creepy neighbor (who is usually into vodoo). If the person in the prologue found anyone's body, after said person had committed suicide, then the child or husband will also commit suicide. All because of the unnamed curse, you see.

Okay, I guess I have to admit that he has at least three different story lines there. Still, three story lines for more than 20 novels isn't exactly a high number, is it? The story lines aren't really that different anyway, only who turns out to be the psycho (and I keep saying psycho instead of killer since some of the time it is only the psycho who actually dies). If you have read any one John Saul novel you will know the plot of every John Saul novel. The family in despair is always the same, though the gender of the child is sometimes different. There is always a curse, it is always started by moving to a different location. The characters are exactly the same in every novel; the mother is static, while the other characters undergo changes, some good, some bad. 

That all being said, you really should try to get through at least one Saul novel: Exactly One. Any more than that and you will see how sickeningly repetitive it is. Thankfully I read most of them when I was fairly young and it was the page turning aspect that drew me to them. They are not page turners in the 'lots of action and impending doom' respect, but more the 'well I read these three pages in his last book' respect.

I have lost interest in John Saul by now, probably at least twenty-five novels (not to mention the serial Blackstone Chronicles) into it. If he were to come up with another concept to use for his next dozen novels I might read them as well.

On the other hand, Saul sold this guy 25 books. I'd be damn happy to sell you all one book, at this point.  In Saul's defense, try thinking up 25 original plots in like 20 years?  

Here's what Marty had to say about the "similarities" between Dan Brown's Angels and Demons, and his later novel, The DaVinci Code.

Hey there,

I'm a long-time reader, first time writer (LTRFTW). I read your review of Angels & Demons, and although I agree that it is an entertaining, engrossing novel, it's not as original as you might believe.

The plot of The DaVinci Code is identical to that of Angles & Deomons! In order to really see what I'm talking about, it's necessary to read both novels yourself, but I'll try to explain without giving away any of TdVC's plot. Please forgive the acronyms. As you said in your reviews, A&D features multiple ritualistic murders, the threatened obliteration of an entire country, the potential death of a major world religion, secret societies that go back 500 years and new scientific discoveries that will change the world. This is all well and good, but give TdVC a read-through, and you'll find that it features...multiple ritualistic murder, the potential death of a major world religion, secret societies that go back 500 years and new scientific discoveries that will change the world. The only different thing is the lack of a threat to a country.

Another reason: TdVC has the EXACT SAME character archetypes as A&D. I read TdVC first, and I was able to predict the villain by page 75. Other archetypes include the confused female protagonist, the wise father of the aforementioned female, the tough, by-the-book policeman, and the knowledgeable companion. The list goes on and on. All of these characters interact in the same ways in both novels.

Don't get me wrong, I still love both novels...but they are pretty formulaic.

I can believe it, and I saw similar comments to this in the various negative A&D reviews on Amazon.  People saying it was basically Brown's test run for DaVinci, or that he obviously reused the same formula for his big later success.  I'm still interested in reading DaVinci, even though I feel like I'll pretty well know what's going to happen before it does. That might be a problem, since I though the surprising and clever and intricate plot of A&D was what made it work (since the writing and characters are pretty average) and if I don't have the plot pulling me along through DaVinci, and I'm not Christian or a religious scholar so I'm not really fascinated by the "redefining Christianity based on secret early writings" elements what does that leave me?

I guess I'll find out when I get my hands on a copy of the book, which should be by next weekend, with any luck.

As for formulaic writing by the same author... it's not as if Mr. Brown here is some sort of exception. Plenty of authors have made a career off of writing the same novel over and over again, just changing the character names and locations. Hell, some genres are basically that; see the romance novel, several thousand of which can be found in your local bookstore.  There are also requirements for most genres; mysteries all pretty much kick off with a crime, run through the rogue's gallery of suspects, introduce the brilliant but idiosyncratic detective, follow his investigation as he/she works around the bumbling police, and end with his/her brilliant explanation and unveiling of the killer, who is always the last person you would have suspected. Which means that all of the regular readers figured it out by page 200.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing; familiar formats in books (not to mention TV shows, movies, blog entries, etc) have evolved over time and are still used since they're good ways to present the material. Some authors break them successfully, others break them and produce a confusing book that feels out of order and scattered. And it's entirely possible to write a story within the usual format of the genre, and still fill it with surprising details, interesting characters, etc.

As for authors who reuse the same formula... well, that's nothing new either. Besides the obvious cases like romance writers or detective story writers, how about my recent favorite blog topic, Harry Potter? I'm about 1/3 of the way through book 4 (which feels slow and bloated and overlong already, and I've got 500 pages to go) and so far all 4 books have followed the exact same path. They start off with Harry home with the muggles and bored, throw in a few weird things as he prepares to leave for school, introduce some dangerous threat to him and/or the school, and then follow his school year with occasional flashes back to the dangerous threat while he and his friends are the only ones doing anything about it, and end with a big show down that he triumphs in before going off home for another boring summer.

So the Harry Potter books are very predictable in format and style, but this is useful to Rowling since she knows how the material will be presented, and she can just work on adding or altering details in it. More wacky hijinks with the various teachers, more cruelty and bullying from Malfoy, another dangerous animal Hagrid can't see the harm in, etc. The only thing that really changes is the big mystery/danger each time, and that's always a minor element of the book, at least in terms of how many pages are devoted to it before the conclusion. Her familiar format certainly isn't hurting sales, and on the contrary, it's a big selling point of the books. In this world full of chaos and boredom, it's fun to escape into Harry's far more interesting world, and see him return to the wonderfully fun school he attends. I'd certainly have loved reading about his adventures at Hogwarts back when I was bored and fidgety in elementary and middle school. Not so much in high school, since I was too alienated and into weird stuff and needed horror fiction and death metal to get through the day. (Though my problems never drove me to smoke or drink or drugs, so how serious could they really have been?) As an adult I can embrace my childishness enough to enjoy the HP novels without thinking that I'm not cool for enjoying them.

Lots of other authors are quite formulaic as well; Dean Koontz certainly, as I discuss on the very outdated and insufficient excuse for a Horror Novelist page.

There's always a man with a troubled past, always a women he meets who is in danger and needs him to save her, and through their slowly-budding love, he'll be able to overcome his troubled past.  The enemies are always part of a huge conspiracy of some sort, seemingly too powerful to defeat, and there's almost always a sweeping, world-altering ending.  Along for the ride is usually a super smart and loveable child/animal, who has some sort of psychic powers or was made by government scientists with bionic abilities, etc.

This formula was followed rigidly in every novel of his I read, and it eventually burned me out on him, since it made everything too predictable.  I didn't notice the sameness of them all for several books, other than the "out of the blue" miraculously happy endings, but the formula for all of the stock characters became clear shortly after that, and I read a few more of his novels in pain, as I tried to ignore the obvious recycling of characters, before finally giving up on him.

Another easy example is Anne McCaffrey in her Dragonriders of Pern novels, which I enjoy and read as a teen, and then again more recently, even though I have no real respect for the quality of them. Some of her books are more adult-oriented and varied, but several that have teens at the main character do just the same thing. Kid who feels like an outsider, oppressed by his/her stodgy parents or society until they run away to live on their own, and only then can their true talent blossom as they discover something new and amazing and achieve eventual acceptance and happiness.

Just off the top of my head, this is the plot of Dragonsong/Dragonsinger, Dragondrums, The White Dragon, The Masterharper of Pern, The Dolphins of Pern, and it's a featured element in several of her other stories. Why? Because it works well, and readers love the archetype of the young person sticking to their internal convictions and going off on their own to do something important, and proving to the doubters that they were right.

A Maiden's Grave, by Jeffrey Deaver

The date on this one isn't relevant, since it's a review of a book that came out in 2000 and that I read years later. Read the full review for more detail, but since my lack of enjoyment of the book was largely due to it repeating themes and characters from other works by the author, I thought it bore quoting here.  The following excerpt is from my review, linked above:

The story doesn't suck, and the characters aren't bad, and there is some tension, and there were things that could be considered scary and suspenseful. It had all the elements of a successful novel, and I'm not sorry I read it, but it just wasn't very good. Oddly enough, you might enjoy it more if you've not read much/anything else by Deaver, since then it will seem fresher and more original to you. The characters were mostly original, as was the plot. The elements of the plot were not though, and I saw most of the twists and character betrayals coming well in advance, simply because those types of things and twists always happen in Jeffrey Deaver novels.

I was surprised how unsurprising the novel was, since while he uses the same few tricks over and over again in his Lincoln Rhyme novels, they work there. I know that in every Rhyme novel the criminal will be a scheming genius, that he'll appear to have Lincoln and his team outwitted and beaten several times, and that Lincoln will make some brilliant deduction at the last instant to save the day. I still enjoy them though, simply because the twists and turns are so clever. In A Maiden's Grave there were not very many twists, the ones that came along weren't really all that clever, and they were also familiar. Unfortunately.

...

I thought the big twist, the one the whole novel was building towards, was telegraphed hundreds of pages in advance. This was probably due to my having read several other Deaver novels, so I've grown wise to his, "it will be the last one you would have suspected" trick. I more than suspected literally 250 pages in advance, and was therefore not surprised what happened, when it happened, or how it happened.

The odd thing is that this novel was very different in setting and characters and plot from Deaver's Lincoln Rhyme mystery/thrillers, and yet it felt very similar as various plot archetypes were reused. At least in terms of the plot twists, it felt more like a Lincoln Rhyme novel than most of the Lincoln Rhyme novels do, if that makes any sense.

Return to the Writing Main Page.

All site content copyright "Flux" (Eric Bruce), 2002-2007.