Dude, I got this awesome idea. There's this orphan and things go to shit and he's got to fight the dark lord and things look bad for him, You mean like in Harry Potter? Yeah, but it turns out he's the chosen one Like in the Matrix? Yeah, but, it turns out the dark lord is his father! Like in Star Wars? Yeah but, at the end of the book he gets to sleep with three chicks at once! Like in Wheel of Time? Dude, did I mention that in this story the hero is three parts Red-speckled Elf, a brand new race invented by me, and that his father has purple hair, which is entirely unheard of for the Red-speckled elf race? That's pretty damn original. Also, I swear to god my setting is different. It utilizes Asian mythology!
I think people say things like that for many reasons, such as: 1. They actually believe it's true. 2. They're actually trying to help newbies to stop worrying over whether their idea is "original" or not and to simply write. 3. They're trying to prevent newbies from falling into the trap of constantly trying so hard to be original as to end up simply making it ridiculous, cliche, or simply something that ends up not working when simpler ideas may have done the trick or, sometimes, done it better. To some extent, there are only so many human themes and everything must be written within our realm of human experiences. With globalisation also comes a sharing and merging and exposure to previously shocking or unusual ideas, to the point where very little can surprise us anymore. Within these boundaries, it's probably true that there's a finite number of general themes or basic plots that can exist. However, to write or think or live within those boundaries as though there really is nothing new under the sun is just as much of a mistake, I think. We're only as limited as our own imaginations, and looking at cultures and thinking across the globe tells me there can be great and very unique ideas around and, given time, perhaps we could still develop more ideas with the same quality. I think too much stock's been put into being original sometimes, but in reading human stories, we usually want familiarity - something that resonates with our souls. For it to resonate, somehow it must be familiar. I guess in the end, it really doesn't matter. Truth is, if you didn't see it coming, then you've probably, actually, finally, stumbled upon something new. I don't think our rational human mind would allow us to create something completely original consciously because we're too bound by what we're taught and how we've experienced life and what we already believe. I think, if you ever do write a completely, brand new story - you'd probably not realise it as such yourself. So, just write. Who cares in the end how many stories there are out there, if the story's been told before, if anyone believes originality can exist anymore? I only want to touch souls, and originality doesn't necessarily guarantee you that anyway.
I'm with Thirdwind - execution of ideas is definitely key. I think there is room for originality or for something to seem fresh and original but I'm not sweating on seeking out an original idea ( I think when it happens it will be more fluke than anything ( even Fifty Shades of Grey is not original - Beatrice Small was doing the same thing thirty years ago - bondage, sleaze, dippy heroines and all. ) I worry more about bringing originality to familiar ideas and making them clear and believable. Even if you do come up with an original idea you can't rest on your laurels and let it hold up on it's originality you still have to breath life into it. The story I just finished a while ago The Worms of Wicher-Woo - I would categorize as original but it's also familiar too. I think when some sets out to try and be original that's when it's going to backfire. I think the only way to be original is to be yourself - if most writer's did that their would be less clones & copycats and better stories.
Inception wasn't original to you? The idea of a novel conflict is intimidating, I get that. But to say that there aren't people pushing the envelope of originality at all is a little harsh, is it not?
Even if you accept the premise all the stories have been done before, it begs the question: It had to be original at one point in its development. That is unless you believe stories are older than the Universe.
No, Inception was not original when it came to conflict. It was man vs. himself for the most part. There are only basically five different types of conflict in stories: Man vs. himself Man vs. Man Man vs. Fate (including a higher power) Man vs. Nature Man vs. Society There will not be anything original not included on that list. All stories can fit in one category or another. I think you are confusing plot vs. conflict.
I remember an English teacher i had once who told me "Originality is just unnoticed plagiarism. Do your own thing, have fun with it." it really stuck with me. i dont mind reading a story a million times, i really only care about the characters, can i relate, do i become attached to them. that is what really matters to me.
I will agree with that. The point I was trying to make is that, even though there are no new conflicts, there is always opportunity for new presentation. I sell cars man, and the honest truth is that they are all the same. Literature is the same way. Books and their basic premises' are all the same. But one's particular bells and whistles might be more suitable for certain patrons if the presentation is unique, or tailored to their needs.
lol. I'm a technician at a dealership, that is defiantly something a salesman would say, but i have to agree. The ford Explorer sport track is a truck based off the explorer. the explorer is an SUV based on the ranger truck. Same engine chassis and service manual. 3 completely different customer bases
So, because your story contains a man vs man conflict, it cannot be a unique idea? Does that mean humans aren't original because there were animals before them?
Any service or work for sale works the same way. No, he was simply trying to say that if you look at every single story ever told, their conflicts fall into one of these descriptions, which I believe is as true a statement as any. I don't understand the correlation between your human being question and what he was implying though. Humans aren't a work of art, and comparing people to books will only serve to confuse others. If your man-vs-man conflict is a war or property dispute (a war on a macrocosmic scale), racial tensions, sexism, involuntary servitude (slavery), or a sporting event, then no, your conflict is not unique. The details surrounding your conflict could be unique, but there are only so many problems we face as people. And since the world of literature centers around problem resolution, indirectly, I'd say that means there is a hypothetical limit to the extent of our species-wide creativity.
I understand the message @Lewdog was conveying concerning the limited number of possible conflicts. My follow up question was an attempt to start defining what an original idea is. If we deconstruct the idea of a story down to its fundamental building blocks and measure originality by not sharing any common traits whatsoever, then yes, I can concede that there are a limited number of ideas. There was one original love story and every other love story was in some way copying that first one.
Nothing is original, but there are always new ideas. There's always a different character, an unexpected ending, a new twist, an unseen theory, a revolutionary topic. If you can't pull an idea out of nowhere, take a walk through your neighborhood. Call a friend. Listen to music. Take a college class for kicks. Try cooking. Go skydiving. Just mix it up to get the ideas. I'm turning my head left as I type this and I see a horizon; an unseen horizon. There's always something beyond my sight that's new for me to write about. Write something silly. Watch a TV show and try to convert it into a book for writing practice (I did this for about five minutes with the first episode of Lost. It didn't last long, but it could have worked had I had patience). Write something so vile that no one would ever read it and if they did you'd end up in a mental institution. Try a different genre. Start writing your train of thought for ideas (I actually had someone write their own thoughts down for me and I got incredible ideas like that). Pick up a book and mimic it. Write something so treasonous that you end up on all the government watch-lists. Look at the news, pick up a story, and try to narrate it as if you were there. The worst anyone can say is, "I don't like it." And do you know what you do after that? You start writing again, to start the process from scratch.
You are all looking at this the wrong way. The point of being told that "there are no original ideas" is so amateurs stop getting so hung up on their "super-awesome original ideas - I can be a writer!" and just write the story. While all ideas can be traced back to a mythic archetype of some sort, it's the quality of the prose, the richness of the voice, and the characters and their individual conflicts and resolutions which that are worth more than an idea. Show me a writer who has a unique idea and I'll show you a writer who never finished a manuscript.
Nope, if you look at my first post in this thread I said there can be original ideas, but there is a difference when looking at originality. The plot can be different, but the conflict which is essential to every story, can not be unique.
Which is your definition of original as pertaining to this argument? Yes, you can have original ideas, or no, because the conflict cannot be original, the story cannot be?
A story is made up of several parts, and if one of those is original, then the story is original. I was simply pointing out that many times people confuse conflict with being the entire story, and those can not be original. When broken down to the bare bones, there are only five types of conflict so that part of the story will not be original.
It is not the primary job of a writer to come up with great ideas. The skill of putting thoughts into words does not correlate with the skill talent gift luck of having good thoughts to put into words. A writer is not special. For every skilled writer who thought of an interesting and "original" story, imagine how many people thought of their own interesting stories but did not have the skill to share them effectively with the world. It is the primary job of a writer to take good ideas, whether or not they come from the writer's mind, and to package them in a form that is appealing to the public. A writer is a specialist in using a crude tool (language) for purposes for which it is ill suited but unfortunately necessary. Note that this means there is naturally a huge disconnect between writers and readers. "The writer has done a good job" does not necessarily correlate with "the book is worth reading." I would rather read an interesting book written by an unskilled writer than read a book that is written in an appealing style but is not about anything in particular. The writer's primary question is not "is my book worth reading" or even "is my book great literature", but rather "am I doing justice to this idea?" This is the opposite of my philosophy toward movies, wherein "interesting premise and themes" is just a small part of the whole package. A movie is a huge endeavor that results in an aesthetic product where "well-executed" and "worth watching" are nearly synonymous, but a book is a quick and dirty way to communicate thoughts. See how this principle relates to the following responses: Good advice, depending on how it is meant. If it means "if you come up with an idea that interests you, then you should write about it without worrying about how original or unoriginal it is", then certainly. If it means "only write about ideas that you came up with", then it does more harm than good because if writers follow this advice, then for every writer who actually comes up with a great idea as a result of such self-restraint, there are many writers who hold themselves back from the opportunity to contribute something important to the world (and thus fulfill their purpose as writers) by retelling an old story in a style that the public is more inclined to read, or by extending an old idea in an interesting direction (e.g. fan fiction). There are plenty of high concept books that are worth reading because they are more interesting (forget about the word "original") at the core than "a love story between a male and a female". Examples: schoolboys stranded on an island, trying and failing to civilize themselves a man turning into a giant cockroach and being locked in his room a woman cursed so that no one can form memories of her a demon mentoring his nephew in the art of tempting a man animals on a farm overthrowing the human farmers and being betrayed by the pigs who led the revolution a corpse reanimated with the mind of a sensitive person and the body of a monster Vladimir Nabokov certainly may have done a better job as a writer, but that does not mean his book is worthier of the reader's time. "Good literature" can be defined in different ways. I prefer not even to touch the term. (Actually, I have not read Lolita; I am using the title not to refer to the book itself, but rather as metonym for any well-written book about a banal premise. Forgive me if it is a poor metonym.) I sometimes say something like "there are no new ideas" in response to critics snobs who criticize good books for unoriginality. But now that I think about it, I will admit that such a response misses the point. This is the real point: given two books about the same idea, I do not give a shit which one was written first; I only care which one executes the idea more effectively. And even then, if they are about the same idea, then they are probably very close to each other in terms of "worth reading".
