The "Epic Story" formula

I found this on a comic writers web page - I've heard this before, but to see it was a bit depressing, I must confess.

Are we really so predictable? And if one doesn't follow this formula, how certain can they be that they will have a story people will be interested in.

I still believe that any story fitting this mold can be good if written well, and even better, a story can include elements of this, but be much "larger" and include more plots (and plot twists), themes, characters, storyline.

http://www.saber-scorpion.com/comics/sywbaa_formula.php

Apart from the obvious classics (LOTR, Star Wars), I don't have much liking for most of those stories...'flashy' fantasy with glitzy magic and cheesy names has never been my thing. Realistic stories with the occasional spark of the paranormal is how I like it. Stuff like 'the dark lord' just sounds silly nowadays. Yes, Tolkien had the things I've just criticised - but note that the story is told from the point of view of the hobbits, the mundane and 'real' characters. Had he told it from the point of view of an elf, I think the story would have lost much of its charm (which is probably why I didn't enjoy the Silmarillion much).

As for the question...I've never felt the storyline had to be creative, or even important. It's the dialogue and the settings and the actions that make a story interesting. To me, the plot exists merely to provide us with these things. Look at your own Legelot story - without being rude to you, the (current) plot isn't that original is it? A downtrodden people rising up against their oppressors...we've seen it before, in Spartacus and God knows how many others. But it doesn't need to be original, because what makes your story great is the lush description and the way the events unfold and the effect on the characters (and of course, the great illustrations).

So in summary - it's not what happens, it's how it happens.

When one considers the nature of fantasy, it should be obvious that there are more ideas for a fantasy story then a non-fantasy story, which is bound by the rules of the real world.

The problem with fantasy today is that is has become derivative and commercialised. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings was the single most successful work of fantasy back in the middle of the century, when the mainstream public was just discovering the genre. LOTR has a winning formula, so many tried to make money by copying this formula. At first this was extremely successful as demonstrated by the game Dungeons and Dragons. the novel Sword of Shannara by Terry Brooks and even the original Star Wars movie.

As a result of this, most people today regard fantasy just as it is in Tolkien's formula. With the farmboy, the darklord, the mentor figure, the dispossessed monarch, elves/dwarves, the quest etc. The formula itself is very basic and can be made to seem original over and over again. The problem is that the corporations have milked it for all that it is worth. To many, fantasy writing is not an art, it is a method used to make money. The vast majority of the stories cited in that list are the back-stories of video games; they are just wrapping paper to make the product look more interesting to the consumer. Junk like this made up 99% of fantasy in the 70s to the early 90s. Authors do not need to use the formula to be successful, in the late 90s through the 00s most have been moving away from it.

There's an unlimited number of stories that you could write, this multiplied by the fact that you could add fantasy elements which are also unlimited in number. It’s ludicrous to think that we fantasy is bound by Tolkien’s formula. The genre got along well enough without it for the last 5000 years.

100% agreed, don't feel limited by what's come before.