Monday, March 31, 2014

The Three Sure-Shot ways of writing a Blockbuster Novel!!

Over the last one year, I've read over Eighty novels according to GoodReads (The Widget you see on your right here on this blog); and that sort of qualifies me to become a writer critic! And more importantly, it cracks open the formula to writing *blockbusters*. These books may be good or not, but they're sure to become successful - like many of our formula films which make their producers insanely rich!


There may be a Part II to this post, but for now, here are 3 formulae which make up probably 70-80% of all novels that get written!

1. A single fact

Michael Crichton wrote a novel called 'State of Fear', which I remember reading several years ago. I also remember writing a review of it, but can't seem to find it on my blog now, but anyway, the theme is that Global Warming is a myth, and that we are actually on our way into an ice age!! This single assumed 'fact' has thousands of publications in its support, and that led Crichton to craft a story around the concept.
The problem with writing a novel based on a single fact is that the writer will naturally want to lead his readers to agree with him, and for that to happen, there's quite a bit of lecturing and proof-showing that needs to be done. Through the protagonist, the author takes us deep into the world of climate research, and actually has printed several research findings as parts of the book!
The Da Vinci Code takes pretty much that route. The simple fact of having found a code embedded within Da Vinci's work was the crux of writing the book, and to his credit, the writer manages to craft a story with well-developed characters. While writing Inferno - again with a single-line plot - the writer hasn't been as lucky!
Several authors take that route quite regularly, and because they're based on some semblance of truth, they manage to become talking points - leading to almost-certain commercial success.

2. Make it dark

Contrary to public opinion, books that are all goody and happy don't sell all that much. They get relegated to afternoon reading sessions in rural regions. The real money is in the books which are dark. Psychological problems, Crime driven by poverty, Lunacy, Death of loved ones, Drug-addled violence, it is all in the open in our novels. And they sell. Authors like James Patterson have made a regular factory of these novels - I think he writes one every week or something! And each of them goes on to become a bestseller and reaps profits for the publishers. 
As if dark wasn't enough, there are now 50 Shades of Grey as well! 
In the guise of 'reality', authors can push in as much muck as they want into their pages. One would imagine the world is already at an advanced stage of cancer if all that is written in these novels were true :) Characters get killed suddenly, so that there is a continuation of the series. Children get to be kidnapped, tortured, ah! what not. The darker it is, the better it sells.
No wonder it is an awesome time to be the Bad Guy in our stories. They get to do things which normal people can't even talk about, bowing to societal pressure! Loads of creative evilness in the offings! The same continues in our movies, and that takes us on to Formula 3

3. Write a Movie

Here's a tweet first - 
There are tons of Chetan Bhagat trolls on Twitter, but to give credit where it is due, it doesn't take more than falling down the stairs and its experiences afterward that are needed to craft a Bhagat novel ;)
And since it is based on events, visualizing it into a movie becomes easy, which nowadays runs in the mind of our writers right from the day they begin writing their book. 
Why only Bhagat? There are dozens of writers who write with a movie in mind. Cinema fans can accurately predict what's going to come next in the book (if they read it, that is), because its a potboiler on paper! No wonder many of these books indeed get chosen to be made into films, and surprise - the writers get onto the set as screenplay consultants or get co-credited as writers along with the dialogue folks. The best of two worlds, really. 

Like I mentioned in the beginning of this article, there could be a part II of this book - but that'll probably take time, as most of the novels I lay my hands on have been falling into these three formulae alone :) Or could just be that my book selection is quite rotten! So if you're a wannabe writer, work hard just for your first book, because it won't otherwise be accepted by the good publishing houses. After you have a decent book on your hands, you can just choose a formula from above, and be on your way onto the Jaipur Lit Fest stage :)

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

The Middle of Middle!

About 360 Million years ago, the tadpole-shaped being had to make a decision. Whether it wanted to continue being in water, or if it wanted to move to land. For a while, it dawdled on the cusp, becoming an Amphibian. But a few years later, it took to the land, and evolution has never been the same ever again. Modern Humans appeared on the scene about 200000 years ago, and what has fuelled their evolution to the smart being typing this article today is the ability to take a side and make it work, each time they were faced with two or more options.

We have always celebrated people who've taken a firm path and have made a difference. We have been taught in personality development sessions that those who don't stand for something fall for anything. Mahatma Gandhi and Mohammed Jinnah took firm stands, and they're fathers of their respective nations. 

But after independence, something changed. Through the generations, we've been taught that the skills we must possess are those of taking the middle path and of being diplomatic. We have lost our ability to listen to a forceful opinion - however well it could be presented. Taking the middle path became fashionable. The way we treat thought leaders (unless the rest of the society agrees with them already) is quite rotten!

And as we often do, we created a new set of words to make ourselves sound cool, and we created an Urban Dictionary to change the usages of other words. Leadership and Diplomatic became synonyms. Liberal meant being accepted, and Taking strong sides meant being shunned. Talking about problems in our area became cynical, and promoting causes in faraway continents made you sociable.

I'm not sure if this is a global epidemic, but in India atleast, no one could possibly have missed this. 

Being Left wing or Right wing is not acceptable to the population at large. You have to be a liberal, and there are stages of liberalism now. 50 Shades of Grey is real, and it is living in India. Neo-Liberal, Ultra-Liberal, Liberal-Classical, no end to our creativity in coining new terms!

From the days of Poorna Swaraj (when nothing else would do), we've stooped down to considering fourth fronts as a viable alternative? What made us so terrified of taking a side?

I think the answer lies in our ability to discern. We are so afraid of our society and its tremendous ability to shun people for the least of faults, that we have trained our intellect to not delve deep. Mediocrity has become the order of the day, and for a whole generation, its become a lifestyle.

To take sides, we have to ask ourselves questions.  To take sides, we need to know their driving philosophies. To know about their philosophies, we need to spend time to read and to understand. That ability is lost in most people. So there is problem number one.

We are so terrified of taking a stand, that we have grown accustomed to bearing with mediocrity. Honestly, there are anyway no staunch Left and Right that exist today. Even in what we have taken to calling Left and Right, we've created a middle path, and the middle is always mediocre. Always. But that's ok with us. Our jobs, our education, our movies, our achievements. Mediocre is the new 'It', and all hail It!

Not just politically; Bureaucracy and Babudom have become so ingrained in our upbringing, we banter words like Diplomacy, Balance, Negotiation, Sensitivity, Win-Win as soft skills in colleges and the corporate. The words are all fine, but what isn't is the intention with which we want our people to learn these. We don't want strong opinions. Right from kindergarten, we keep hammering the edges, and the youngster comes into the market dull edged. Then we tell him that he isn't sharp!

Even editorials, those shining beacons of journalistic excellence, have mostly lost their edges. When titles like 'India Crosses the moral line of no return if Narendra Modi becomes Prime Minister' come up as editorials, we know we're in a bad shape. What is wrong with crossing lines? Evolution evolved only because we crossed lines. Why do we want our people to stay within a set of lines? And who drew those lines? 

Amphibians - Turtles, Crocodiles, Snakes - have remained as they were millions of years ago. We humans kept burning lines as we evolved. There are no Neanderthal men anymore. We crossed a line, and became Homo Sapiens. India and Pakistan split; and they grew in their ways. The area in dispute - POK - has been like that for decades.

There is nothing wrong with taking a side. Being in the middle of the middle is where the rot happens.