I have been trying to decide whether there is really a difference between a text that is highly structured, such as a sonnet for example, and a text that follows rules of composition that are formulaic. I have a suspicion that the difference may be limited: when we like the text we say it is structured, and we use the term formulaic when we want to be derogatory. However, the suspicion nags – can it really be that simple?

What set me down this track was a binge read of the Sherlock Holmes short stories. I don’t think it is controversial to say that Conan Doyle constructs most of these stories to a tight formula. The reader knows (and finds comfort from the fact) in outline what is going to happen at each stage of the story. Everything will be neatly wrapped up in a couple of thousand words. Some of these structures derive from the medium Conan Doyle was using – the magazine story – while others are self-imposed. They aren’t the rules of the genre, because Conan Doyle was pretty much inventing the genre himself. For me these stories – and there are exceptions of course – feel formulaic, as if the writer is providing the reader with what he assumed they wanted. We know that Conan Doyle eventually came to resent Holmes because of this.

But the rhyme structure of a sonnet is prescribed. The Harry Potter stories follow a rigid formula, but this doesn’t stop them being compelling. So what is the difference between adherence to form and writing within structural constraints? In a formulaic text the author is aware of the clichéd nature of the structures they are using. It is simply easier to allow the text to run along well-worn grooves. In a structured text the forms are there to guide the construction, not to govern it. The author can step outside the lines at any time. To offer some examples: Shakespeare’s most famous line – “To be or not to be, that is the question” – is an eleven syllable line in which the stresses can go almost anywhere we want them to. Anyone watching a Shakespeare play who thinks “What wonderful iambic pentameters” is really missing the point. In school we are taught that a sentence must have an object and a verb. But Charles Dickens opens ‘Bleak House’ with a one-word sentence – “London.” in which the reader is given almost completely free choice in the implied verb. Greater writers break rules. In a formulaic text the structures hold the text together, and without them it would just be a string of sentences. Conan Doyle could and did deconstruct his form – most famously when he killed off Holmes – but for too many of his stories he is on auto-pilot.

I am sure there’s more to this issue than the ground I have covered here – what do you think? I confess I have been tweaking this post for weeks trying to get the ideas straight on paper, and am close to giving up and just posting in the hope that someone might have some more insight on the issue than I have been able to muster!