Francis Ford Coppola in an interview: An essential element of any art is risk. If you don't take a risk then how are you going to make something really beautiful, that hasn't been seen before? I always like to say that cinema without risk is like having no sex and expecting to have a baby. You have to take a risk. I’ve been writing an “out-there” story and questioning if it was too weird, and that quote spurred me to go on with it. How important is risk-taking in your creative process? How have you taken risks with plot? With characters? Can originality exist without risk? I’m starting to think taking risks is a very, very good thing.
1. Only a few things would be 'too out there' for me. There are certain things I naturally don't like in a story, but that doesn't mean someone else won't. So, ring that bell and go as out there as your heart desires. Someone will like it, I promise. 2. Taking risks is very important. I do it all the time in my writing, because I usually write dark stories and there are things I am not sure I should touch upon. But I know if I don't, I will regret it and feel like the story didn't handle the dark topics well. So, I am always taking a risk when I decide to just do it and not shy away from the topic at hand. For example, I have this old Fanfic I want to re-write I mentioned in my progress journal and there are several dark topics that I didn't address in the original. But now, in the re-write, I have to face the dark truth of the story. If I don't, I would feel like I fell short as a writer. 3. In my current work, I am taking a risk that I hope is realistic and that's having the male romance lead not be a jerk. Like it's hard to explain why why it feels like a risk, but in the romance genre, which I am not acquainted with, it's typical for the guy to be a jerk for awhile. Whereas, I have my main male character being understanding and kind to his love interest- other people not so much. But I hope he comes off as good example of positive masculinity and readers aren't wondering if he's gay. (Nothing wrong with that, but this character IS as straight as a board.) In other works, I feel I am always taking risks with the plot because I like to take the most straightforward path. It's hard to explain, but if the bad guy is plotting the downfall of the hero, they aren't going to toy with him or her. No, the goal is the get rid of them efficiently and swiftly. Which creates less openings for the hero to find a way out of the situation. Sometimes, the bad guy wins and the hero is changed forever. Also, with romance, my characters don't do the whole third act romantic misunderstanding thing. Because they are all willing to speak to one another, unless they are just a bad couple. Which also happens. And honestly, I don't think risks and originality have connection. Because writing is reshuffling a deck of tropes and characters and re-dealing them for the next round of poker. Yes, there are original stories, but all stories have been inspired by others. I think risks are made by trading in cards, or reorganizing them in a unique way to make a new type of winning hand.
In some ways it does, as to be original requires you step out of your comfort zone and try new things you haven't done before. It might work, it might not, but at least you tried. This reminds me of the combinatory theory of creativity - which says - creativity is the result of putting two things (pieces of information, thoughts, feelings, beliefs) together and in the process making something new. Einstein called it "combinatory play."
That is fair. And yes, I suppose stepping out of one's comfort zone might be seen as original. But I must bring up a counter-point, not to argue, but present a different idea: People's comfort zones vary. For example, I have seen MANY people write the story of Hades and Persephone. Some if not many writers tie themselves in knots attempting to make the characters NOT related. Hades might be adopted or Persephone's liniage is not explained at all. Or the relations are all sectioned off. Like the writer will mention that Hades and Zeus are brothers. But Demeter just seems to have appeared out of nowhere and had Persephone. Whereas, I have seen far FEWER writers just stick with the myth as is, leaving all the relations as they are. This is where I have this idea that each person's comfort zone is different, so yes, it might have to do with originality. But I think originality is not the same as a comfort zone. Because I write Hades and Persephone as originally stated in the myths, but other writers don't. But does the fact the other writers change the stories make it original? Or am I more original, because I stick with the myth as is- all relations intact? Just a thought. To me, originality is coming up with an idea or solution not used before in stories. But the problem is, all stories come from myths and myths come from religious beliefs. Pagan, Christian, Jewish, every single one. If I look at all the religions of the world, I will find similar ideas appearing in stories oceans away from one another. YES! That's exactly what it is. I think stories are a collection of blocks and adding different ones makes it unique. I think there is a difference between original and unique.
