So, You were writing a paragraph about something, but then you realized it's from another book you've read a few years ago. Or that you've used a style or technique from another writer, before realizing it. or even how you use your own techniques to make it more interesting. because technique can serve as a mask for no-ideas what so ever. how do you approach your own originality? is it important to you? Today, in every artistic dimension(literature, Music, Art, Films) there are oceans of replicants, clones, and other robotic and non-original contents. especially in mainstream, where one formula is successful-everyone wants a piece of it, so they clone it. sometime the reason for this is like above-the need for money to survive. and sometimes its just lack of inspiration. which now relates to how inspiration acts on us. Suppose someone watches a movie, and then gets "inspires" by it, so he writes a novel. Do you think it's a legitimate way of being inspired? or from reading a book. we all get inspired from good books, even the masters. but do they copy ideas or techniques? I feel there is a very thin line from being a cloner, than one who is really learning from the arts and then makes it its own. The bottom question is, How do you deal with your own originality? especially when you realize you've only come up with just another mock up version . do you rewrite it entirely? do you ignore and count on your writing style? do you search for the seeds that were "You", the most original angle of viewpoint? What would you do!
We are all influenced by what we read, watch, listen to, etc. So it's certainly a legit way of getting inspired. I am inclined to believe that early in his writing career, a writer's style is going to be close to that of another writer (most presumably a writer he looked up to). That's only natural. There certainly are cases where two authors use similar styles but are still unique in their own way. Just take William Faulkner and Cormac McCarthy for example (you can throw in Toni Morrison as well). Both Morrison and McCarthy were heavily influenced by Faulkner's style, but both still manage to be very unique. At this point in my life, I'm not too worried about being different in terms of style. I know that eventually I'll develop my own style and uniqueness.
I have come to the conclusion that this is something that most writers at some point struggle with. Where do your influences end and where does your own voice begin? My own view is that inspiration is an intensely personal matter, and so there are no "illegitimate" ways to be influenced. But, what do we mean by "influence"? Do we mean that seeing a scene in a film or play has moved us to want to include a similar scene, issue or interaction in a story we want to write? Do we mean that we want to write exactly the same story in exactly the same style, with changes only to place names and time? Do we like a given structure and sequence of events so much that we decide to write all our stories with the same structure and sequence of events? Do we mean that the underlying theme is so compelling to us that we want to write on that theme as well? Or that one writer wrote a novel in a given genre that was so compelling that we decided we wanted to write in that genre as well? All of these could be called "inspiration". Some cross the line, some don't. My advice - keep reading and keep writing.
I have no idea what influences my style honestly. I know what influences my plots and characters but they're usually from my life.
Our influences are collected in a melting pot. Because (I think @JayG will disagree with me here) we learn style mostly by reading other work. The more fiction we read, the more unique our style gets, as it is tailored to what we selectively prefer. I read a lot of King and Crichton growing up. I would be lying if I said that they hadn't affected my style, in fact, they created my style. Of course, outside of the melting pot mentioned above, we have our own complex personality that greatly changes the work. I find it hard to believe that someone could accidentally and noticeably emulate a famous author. I know that's just for the sake of argument, but if someone is easily and fully inspired by that one piece of work, I doubt that it will still be close to the original inspiration past page ten. Assuming it makes it that far. Writers finish the things that are personal, not borrowed. I'd really like to see an example of what you mean here. If you're saying that your outline is very similar to that of another story you just consumed, I'd suggest letting it sit for three months. In that time, elements from life experiences will brew. Those elements will just be begging to go in that novel of yours. Your story will probably become totally different, but still retain whatever magnetized you to it in the first place.
I concur as well. In the early 2000's I read almost exclusively Sophie Kinsella/Madeline Wickham and I know for a fact it rubbed off on me. I still have trouble writing in 1P/Past because I'm so used to reading/doing everything else in present tense.
@Okon Totally. that kind of inspiration, however legitimate by some, isn't a sustainable "seed" for writing. I've come up with lots of ideas that diminish very fast, can't be developed at all. because you don't have the energy to infuse it. the cause for writing can't be all technique or to impress others. obviously. but when you practice, or try to come up with something new, fast, those thin lines might be mistakenly crossed. which relates to your next point: I've started writing a short story inspired by Voneggut's sirens of titan. which is actually another version of hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, in a way(and there are probably lots more examples). kind of humorous perspective over the way of existence/universe etc. not very original of me, but I found this topic interesting for me to write about continually. I guess I just need to focus on what's best, and stop worrying if I copy, because there are so many different angles on one thing.
It's an interesting thing. When I had my manuscript critiquing service I offered clients who needed a boost, and seemed like they would benefit from it, a challenge. They would write a 1000 word story to spec, with certain simple rules: It was to be first person (later changed to third, but they didn't know that). The setting was an eatery of some sort, location unspecified. Two people were together at a table, gender unspecified, talking. As a result of the conversation one person challenges the other to solicit a kiss from someone not at their table but visible from it, reason and gender unspecified. The person in question must talk with the selected person, place unspecified, outcome unspecified. What was specified was that all the senses must be used, and the reader must know the protagonist's reason for doing/saying anything, as that person knew it. It was, in reality, an exercise in point of view presentation. We would kick it back and forth until POV was clearly the protagonist's and the story flowed well. You would think that given the rules and the situation the stories would be very much alike. In fact, I was amazed that none of the stories were at all like another, as for setting, the protagonist's response/behavior, etc. People got slapped, kissed, and politely refused. One character got up her nerve and made her pitch only be told that the man in question wanted an introduction to the other person at the protagonist's table. We modify our style when we find someone else we feel is more effective, of course. That's true in any profession. But from what I saw, we all start with a unique voice and way of viewing a story and the characters in it. And if we're actually in the protagonist's POV it's that character who has the biggest effect on style. As the puppet master, and being the bastards we are, we keep screwing with our protagonist's plans. We set their house on fire, have people beat the hell out of them, and trip them just when they feel they've caught their balance. So what we're learning from reading others is how to be a more clever bastard than we already are. I love writing. It's more fun than pulling the wings off flies.
Trying to be original is not always the best thing to do. If you're trying to be original - and only original - you might as well not write, because I'll bet you somewhere, at some time, some person has already written what you are trying to write. You'll notice, though, that that's never stopped people from writing or creating something else; for all the comedies, tragedies, adventures, fantasies, and romances people have already conjured up, more and more are still being made. A person's reaction to anything is where originality comes from. I believe that's the reason why people continue to create things, despite them already having been made in some fashion or another. So whenever I begin to question if my story is original enough, I tell myself what I've just written here, I check to see if the writing has the feeling I want it to, and I adjust it accordingly. In the end, the story should be free to be what you want it to be, not shackled by what others have done.
if you like generalizations, yes. maybe. I don't. this is good. ignore being "original" and stick to the plan/feel.
I have a unique style, which is to say that my writing is always grammatically correct but the things I say aren't usually phrased the way that's common. For instance, instead of "boil the kettle" I write "set the kettle to boil". Or instead of "to get rid of the irritation" I write, "to rid of the irritation". Editors all the time point this out to me, but honestly this is just my style. My question is, at what point does a style simply become incorrect syntax or structure? I imagine readers would be turned off by this as it could be disruptive to the flow of the text.
If you're writing just for your own enjoyment, it doesn't matter. If you're writing with the hopes of others reading and enjoying a work, the more disruptive your writing style/syntax/structure interfere with that, the fewer readers that will read your work. Maybe there's a niche of readers that will just love it, or maybe it'll grow on readers that have an interest. Or maybe readers will turn away and read something else they're more apt to enjoy. When the writing interferes or the style interjects itself into the storyline, disrupting the moment or experience or flow of the story or readers, then it becomes a concern. Of hand, I would say that those who favor 'literary' works as opposed to 'genre' works may be more of your target audience, if style and alternate use of words and wording that change the flow of a story is the focus or intent.
Are you getting your meaning across clearly? Your first example - the "boil the kettle" makes sense only if one is trying to sterilize or clean the kettle. What you would write ("set the kettle to boil") makes perfect sense and is used often in my neck of the woods. In your second example, what you would write ("to rid of the irritation") is awkward, almost incomplete to me - it's like "rid who/what of the irritation"? Phrasing doesn't have to be dull or predictable - but it does need to be clear. Look at it as a pleasant curve in the road versus a speed bump.
When it doesn't 'work'. Sounds kinda simple but it is in a way. If a good number of people are telling you it doesn't work than you should review what you're doing. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe the meaning is muddled. Maybe it doesn't work for the scene you're trying to construct - not that that style doesn't work but doesn't work for a particular scene. Here's a snippet from Kathe Koja's novel Skin - It's quirky, feels broken, but it works and most important it works for the story. I think the main thing about style is letting it work for what you're writing, not to let it work against it. Choose a style that fits story, the character's voice and don't leave out reader expectations. It's no use trying to write like Chuck Palahniuk if you're writing Danielle Steel stories. It only works if you're the next Francesca Lia Block.
As a general rule, I'd say "different" writing becomes "bad" writing at the point you do it only to be different.
The following is a quote from: Dhalgren (1975) by Samuel R. Delany, Published by Bantam Books, Page 01. All you know I know: careening astronauts and bank clerks glancing at the clock before lunch; actresses cowling at light-ringed mirrors and freight elevator operators grinding a thumbful of grease on a steel handle; student riots; know that dark women in bodegas shook their heads last week because in six months prices have risen outlandishly; how coffee tastes after you've held it in your mouth, cold, a whole minute. A whole minute he squatted, pebbles clutched with his left foot (the bare one), listening to his breath sound tumble down the ledges. Beyond a leafy arras, reflected moonlight flittered. He rubbed his palms against denim. Where he was, was still. Somewhere else, wind whined. ----------------------Notice the unmistakably unusual syntax choices Delany makes. They are grammatically correct, though arguable as to being idiomatic. ...how coffee tastes after you've held it in your mouth, cold, a whole minute. See how cold is an interruption of syntax. It would almost seem to be a dangling modifier, as if it is meant to modify the verb hold and not the noun coffee. ...A whole minute he squatted, pebbles clutched with his left foot (the bare one), listening to his breath sound tumble down the ledges. The flipped syntax of the first clause and the strange use of breath sound as a noun phrase where anyone else would have written sounds of his breath or something to that effect. ...Where he was, was still. Somewhere else, wind whined. Who speaks this way? No one. Yet notice how beautiful is the economy of word in the description. ----------------------It has to work. Delany is a tough read because he makes these kinds of unusual choices from page one to page done, but once you grok his reasoning, you know that nothing is trite or quaint or precious. It's all very purposeful and crafted like Michelangelo with a chisel and hammer.
The more idiosyncratic your writing style is, the more likely it is that the majority of people will turn away from it. If this doesn't bother you, then go ahead. There are a lot of writers out there whose works are respected, but whose books have never been an easy read. A classic example is James Joyce. Or Salman Rushdie. One writer whose idiosyncracies MADE her reputation—which is respected and much deserved—is E Annie Proulx. At first you go ...what? And then you can't put her down. Her style is so lively it's sometimes tiring to read, but never boring, never dull, and always filled with images and outlooks that are totally unique. If I could write like that and still make sense, I'd die happy. If, on the other hand, your 'style' appears laboured and 'crafted', and is annoying to the readers you are aiming at ...well, I'd re-think it a bit. Is it style over substance that you really want to be remembered for? My own particular preference is to disappear, and make the reader forget all about me. I'll always sacrifice style for story. However, I realise that's not what many other authors strive for. So good luck whichever way you go. Just make sure you're developing 'style' for the right reasons. You want to show somebody something they've never seen before, or present an idea in a way they've never thought of before. Or use rhythm and the sounds of words so they ring like poetry inside your prose piece. If, however, you're just thinking ...oooh how clever I am ...then I'd be wary.
After a certain point, it's a matter of opinion. It also depends on the reader's experience with different literary traditions. Take, for example, this passage from Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian: He certainly has an odd way of writing, doesn't he? Sometimes you have to read his passages multiple times just to understand what's happening. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Literature is supposed to be challenging. However, at the end of the day, what he writes is understandable, and that's the important thing.
I don't think his writing is odd at all. On the contrary I find this to have so much more meaning and description than if it were written in a more simple, generic way. It has quality I feel.
I actually don't find his style to be unusual. He's long-winded and would happily be embraced in any circle of Spanish writers (our literature is replete with three-quarter-page-long sentences) but I wouldn't exactly call his syntax or structural choices out of the idiomatically expected. Hm. I don't say this to invalidate your example, but only to illuminate that perhaps a goodly part of the answer to the OP's question does lie in one's preference, exposure, and perhaps one's own idiolect and how far the writer strays from that.
