Craig Mazin, the screenwriter of HBO's Chernobyl and the Last of Us series, once gave an awesome 45 minute lecture on his ScriptNotes podcast titled “How to write a movie,” in which he walks through how he thinks of storytelling and story structure. If you have any interest in storytelling or screenwriting, it’s a fabulous listen. (You could argue that anything that smacks of formulaic storytelling should be avoided at all costs, but I think it’s still critically important to understand the basic tenets of strong storytelling structure. And as someone who enjoys both of Craig's HBO series, I would say he’s proven he knows how to tell a good story.)
> You could argue that anything that smacks of formulaic storytelling should be avoided at all costs
One could effectively argue all good story telling is formulaic. There are certain aspects of a story that have to be in place otherwise it's just words being spewed.
I disagree with calling it formulaic. Formulaic is when the exact trajectory or beats is wholly predictable to the point where personal investment or intrigue isn't possible.
I would instead describe structure as the act of launching an arrow, and giving the reader a promise that the arrow has a target to strike.
I got to watch him talk at the LA festival of books along with Adam Higginbotham just before the series came out. Will definitely be digging into the podcast.
Same as with music theory, writing, programming, or other creative endeavors or art. The thing is that when someone creates something from their heart, from an incredible desire to create and share their vision or experience, it often ends up following some kind of storytelling guideline. And that is because stories worth listening to have a structure that makes them engaging.
The problem comes in when someone tries to analyse the structure of stories and assume that they can create a template for telling new stories. If you start with the template (or the music theory, or the best practices) you end up with something that feels formulaic and like crap.
Theories of art are always descriptive and inductive, not proscriptive or deductive.
A common aphorism for this is often "you need to know the rules to know when to break the rules". It does seem common in creative arts that the novices are not beholden to rules because they do not know them, the intermediate practitioners stick strictly to the rules because they know them, and the proficient practitioners are not beholden to the rules because they know them too well and understand the consequences of what happens when they break them.
It can be the consequences that are the interesting part. "Rules" provide structure and maps, and people like that up to a point. Sometimes it can be fun to stick to the map. Sometimes it's fun to take people off the map and make them a little uncomfortable, when you know how to reward them for taking that journey off the map with you.
Here’s a YouTube link: https://youtube.com/watch?v=vSX-DROZuzY&feature=shares
You can also find it by searching for episode 403 of scriptnotes in whatever podcast app you use.