: What Kind of Story can Achieve Cult Status? Note: I have rewritten this question, upon realizing it was being misinterpreted. Please reread the question and provide new answers accordingly. Star

Vote Up Vote Down

Given the non-standard usage of the term "cult status" in the OP

Works that inspire unusually passionate or devoted fans do have a common denominator --they are risky, challenging, eccentric, or otherwise outside the norm. Works of this sort have an uphill battle to reach mainstream popularity. A challenging work that does become a hit is therefore particularly notable. In order to transition from a cult hit to a mainstream hit, a work typically needs to be a) exceptionally good, b) adopted as the pet project of someone with a lot of resources and/or cultural cachet, or c) happen to hit the larger cultural zeitgeist at exactly the right moment (and/or survive until the larger culture catches up --i.e., LOTR).

The reasons behind this are pretty straightforward. Work that is well-executed but safe, or less unusual, may consistently draw fans over a long period of time, but people are less likely to be passionate about it because it will be more interchangeable with other things that are widely available. What sparks intense devotion is something that feels completely unique, irreplaceable and irreplicable.

There are some factors to this that are largely out of your control --in particular, it's hard to know what will hit the zeitgeist in the future (chasing current trends is usually a losing game with a huge number of competitors). What you can (try to) do is create the best possible work, that fully reflects your own personal idiosyncratic eccentricities and unique vision. If it reflects the experiences and perspective of some under-served niche group, so much the better. That way, it's more likely to embody (a) and pick up (b). (Conversely, if you just want popularity, but not devotion, pour resources and excellent execution into something safe, non-threatening, and reflective of trends that are bubbling just under the surface of mainstream ubiquity. Just make sure to get there first.)

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

Typically a work is described as a "cult classic" if it has a smaller, but more passionate and devoted group of fans. If a work has widespread, mainstream popularity, it isn't a cult work, no matter how devoted its fans. Conversely, if it's obscure and no one is passionate about it, it isn't a cult work either. It's the combination of the two. (Arguably LOTR was initially a cult classic that later passed into mainstream popularity). And in particular, to be qualify as a "cult classic" it must maintain that profile over an extended period of time (for example, The Rocky Horror Picture Show).

Given that, what makes for a cult classic is if it a) is extremely relateable for a small niche group of people, who will identify with it in a way that the mainstream will not b) if it is exceptionally good in a relatively unpopular genre or c) if it is highly unusual or eccentric in a way that most people will reject, but that a few people will find compelling. Usually it will be some combination of these three factors.

Typically cult classics are created by idiosyncratic artists who are passionate about their own visions, and who refuse to adapt them to audience tastes and demands. So, unfortunately, if you're seeking to create a cult classic, you're unlikely to achieve it. However, if this is really your goal, your best bet is probably to find a narrowly defined, under-served niche audience, and target your work squarely at them.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

There is no formula for success - if there were, everybody would use it and it would just shift the line for what is normal and what is a success.

But the examples you outline give us a hint for what you are looking. What do they have in common? They all share two characteristics: They apply a popular and known basic frame, while pushing the boundaries in at least one way.

LOTRO expanded upon folk tales and mythology. JRR Tolkien's stated goal was to create a fictional Beowulf. So he used many parts that people know from such tales. But he also pushed the boundary on storytelling. There simply were no fantasy stories of such scope and detail in his time (and still few in ours). He made up entire artificial languages, developed an entire world in so much detail. That was new and astonishing.

Star Wars took a familiar basic story (hero, villain, struggle, good wins in the end) and pushed the boundaries not in the storytelling but the technology, the CGI, the visual impression. It created a rich world of imagination not by words but by visuals. Because it made its topic come so much more alive than comparable movies, it invited us to enrich the world yet more with fan-fiction or just imagination.

Star Trek is based on the typical episodic TV show with a fixed cast plus extras living through different adventures and difficulties. Just in space. But it pushed the boundaries of our definition of society. The post-scarcity economics but especially the egalitarianism. At the time of the original series, the mix in nationalities and ethnicities on the bridge of the Enterprise was a much bigger thing than we today realize. If I recall correctly, O'Hara was both the first black female character in a commanding position and part of the first white-black kiss on mainstream TV.

So all of them were both bold and conservative. They took something that the audience was familiar with, but went beyond that. Not too much to make it unfamiliar or uncomfortable, but enough to be bold and interesting.

This merges with what we know about personal growth - we make the biggest developments when we operate just at the edge of our comfort zones. There might be a hint there for the success recipe you are looking for.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

I don't think you can find a formula for the stories that are truly great and memorable, because what makes them great and memorable is precisely that they DON'T follow a formula. The most memorable stories are those that are original and creative.

Any time a Hollywood movie is successful, you always see a horde of imitators. These imitators almost always pick the most surface aspects of the story to copy. I read an article a few years back where they quoted some Hollywood producer saying that the success of the Harry Potter movies showed that Americans were interested in "movies about British school children", and so he was planning on making such a movie. I don't recall what his movie was or if it was successful, but his analysis was absurd at a dozen levels. At the very least I'd say that he completely missed the point of Harry Potter. I think few went to see it saying, "I want to watch a movie about British school children". More likely they were thinking, "I want to watch a movie about magic and fantasy."

But even at that, just because a story about magic was successful doesn't mean that all stories about magic will be successful, or even particularly that stories about magic are more likely to be successful. Adding some scenes about magic to an otherwise non-magic story is unlikely to improve it. It will probably make it worse.

An example suddenly occurs to me. Almost everyone is interested in sex, so lots of stories including sex scenes or subplots. I don't doubt that can help a story's popularity. But I've read many books and seen many movies where they throw in a sex scene for no apparent purpose. I recall a sci-fi story I read once about a female spaceship captain that had nothing to do with sex, except there was a scene where she's walking down the hall of the ship and then suddenly steps in to the cabin of one of the other officers, they have sex, and she leaves. There was no lead up to it and it never comes up again. It has no apparent affect on ... anything. It was like the author or the publisher just decided they needed a sex scene so they flipped open the manuscript to a random point and threw one in.

What makes some stories popular is that they are original and creative in some way, that they have interesting plots, that they have engaging characters, and that they are well written. There's no formula for that. It's more of an anti-formula. It you set out to write a story saying, for example, "people like stories about time travel" or "... about brilliant detectives" or whatever, that's of virtually no help in writing a good story. If you set out trying to apply a formula, you will almost surely end up with a trite, run-of-the-mill story.

Of course that doesn't mean that there's nothing to be learned by studying popular stories. Just the opposite. There are all sorts of tools and techniques that one can pick up. I think the tool analogy is a good one. If someone asked, "how can I paint a great painting that will be remembered for centuries like the Mona Lisa or the Last Supper?", there's no formula we could give. It would be foolish to say that because the Mona Lisa has lots of browns that therefore the secret to great painting is lots of browns. But it is fair to say, "start by learning to use a paint brush" and "learn to create the color you want by mixing paints" and so on.

(0)