I really cannot believe that people are wasting their time on this thread! I am so sure it was a troll from the start.
Things like that are merely a product of natural and/or scientific advances. In essence, they are the same as many things that have already happened. Taking the NSA for example, spying is nothing new. This has been around since at least the Ancient Romans. Cicero's letters were intercepted from time to time. He was, of course, very furious. And the concept of macrological/micrological power (which is a good way to look at modern society and government agencies) has been around since at least Nietzsche. So really, other than the technological aspect, there's nothing new here (which is perhaps one reason sci-fi became so popular in the 20th century). The fear of impending doom has been around as well, perhaps the best known example being the plague in the Middle Ages. Granted, global warming is a bit different in that man has a part in his own destruction, so that part is, as far as I know, new. If you want more proof, just take a look at some of the works of the ancient civilizations. Plato continues to be as influential as ever, and some of his theories are used in political philosophy (as well as a few other branches). The Greek poets and playwrights are still read and studied and understood. If nothing was being repeated, a lot of the works from the Ancient World would seize to hold our attention, but that's not that case. Like I said before, it's a combination of repeated things and new things, though I would argue that repeated things are far more common. In the context of this discussion, this doesn't matter, however. An idea/concept doesn't make or break a piece. Art isn't judged on ideas; it's judged on the execution of ideas.
It also depends on how one defines "original ideas." I believe a few other people have already mentioned and discussed this in this thread, and I agree with those who said that it's subjective.
I agree that more things might be repeated than new thins introduced, but it's still a mix. As for the last paragraph, some people will agree with this, others won't. It all comes down to your level of discernment. If you strip two things down eventually anything will resemble the other. I don't believe this is fair. Some times even subtle differences are significant and can't be ignored. Maybe it just depends on the sensitivity of ones palette. The princesses can go on lamenting over a single pea and the commoners can stick to their gruel.
I still believe it's more how you handle the idea that makes it original. You take Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - it's not an original idea because every kid on the planet has dreamed of falling asleep in a chocolate factory. But it's presentation is kick-ass ( even in the mediocrity of it's repetition. )
Can't we all just agree that if we took every story known to man and stripped them to the bare bones, they'd all be alike? A plucky little orphan learning life lessons from a wise (if not eccentric) mentor while in the middle of a crazy adventure isn't exactly an original idea. You could do a billion things with that idea. Ideas are unoriginal. Your interpretation of that idea is original.
First off, if you read the forward to Infinite Jest, you'll know that people better versed in literature than either of us, believe for a fact that some novels cannot be stripped down. Infinite Jest is the example of course in that forward. Is Ulysses by James Joyce not original if you strip it down? Can you even strip that down? I don't have to give you a hundred examples of truly original novels to prove my point, just one. I already gave you two. Yes, most works, when stripped down, will resemble each other. Not all works. If your works are not original, that's OK. Most aren't. But don't try to bring down others who might truly have original ideas.
Yes! I'm reminded of a quote by Marcel Proust: "The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes."
I'm starting to think what we have here is a (subconscious) insecurity. "All stories when stripped down to their most basic level are the same. Therefore, originality does not exist." This line of thinking negates the fact that some novels are more original than others. Its a spectrum. Here's some psychology. Most people are NOT original thinkers. Most people learn through imitation. That's why trends exist and why people can be bossed around. Some people, however, do not learn through imitation, but through creation (or abstraction). These are the sort of people who go on to create computers or develop new theories. Then the rest of us copy them. Most stories are straight up knock offs. Some stories are truly different, and a decent number of stories are "fairly" different. The gross generalization that "all stories" are essentially the same levels the playing field for those who know deep down that their story is trivial, cliche, and overall pointless. Mervyn Peake, author of Gormenghast, is a more original fantasy novelist than Weiss and Hickman, the authors of Dragonlnce series. I don't care if they both have characters, a setting, and conflict. One is more unique than the other. It's not all "essentially the same."
Dude. Where did the .5 materialize from? You can't go from whole numbers to fractions simply by subtraction. If you could, THAT would be quite original...
Yesterday, you thought everything boiled down to just addition. Today, it's addition and division. Should I get you a chair to prepare you for what you might discover tomorrow?
I could respond that this is a stupid reaction. But I won't. However, it is both belligerent and disingenuous. The purpose of the statement is to direct novice writers away from the obsessive fear of having their storyline in ant way resemble another story line. It's an obsession which can destroy a would-be writer. For all practical purpose, the adage is true. Originality lies not in the broad strokes, but in the details. The nuances of character, the finesse in establishing and presenting scenes, the emotional content - these are where a story, and an author, truly shines. Throwing down the gauntlet by insulting the assertion, and by inference, those who promote it, is a low tactic.
It all depends on how deeply you want to simplify what it means to be a new story. I hate the 'man vs nature, man vs machine, man vs himself simplification crap I had to swallow through film school. Hell, you could define every story as being simply: stuff does or does not happen to a lifeform, object, or other. New stories are created all the time. It's how we choose to simplify what constitutes a story that leads people to the misconception that nothing 'new' can be created. It's those same people that don't dare to be bold and just write all the same hack crap that IS a retelling of other stories. Saying there are no new stories is not a fact, its a justification for being uncreative. That's why new writers should worry that their story has been told before, because they should challenge themselves to be creative, and not just use 'oh there's no such thing as a new story' as a lame duck excuse for not achieving.
I could respond that this response is inspirational and true, but I won't. However, it is bland and cliche. Why would you train or suggest to a neophyte author that originality is not necessary? As with cooking, methodology doesn't change (much), but recipes differ in every kitchen. So, in short, learn style, but don't copy stories. Maybe here is where we meet the difference between an artist and a wordsmith, an original and a copycat in camouflage. Don't trust me, though; I am but a new author myself and am not yet published; then again, neither are the ones saying it's ok to be unoriginal.
It's about stroking ego and building confidence, but really it's about as pointless as a 'participation award.' Play to win, but if you lose, just be happy you gave it your best shot. Giving it your best shot is what matters, and you can't do that unless you're setting out to achieve.
@Selbbin That's exactly it. Pointless trivialization of stories to make them appear the same. It reminds me of the ancient days when philosophers used to classify things into arbitrary groups . It's meaningless.
Art is derivative. Nothing about the human experience begins in a vacuum. In fiction, it is technically accurate to say there are no new ideas, since all ideas derive from something. But there are new people. There are new voices. There are new cultures and religions and ideologies. So each work of art is original, when you think about it. Because art is entirely subjective. Your ideas don't exists as a story, not even after you've put them on paper, until someone else reads them, until someone's brain brings the story to life, and in doing so, brings their life, their culture, their religion, their ideologies and their experiences to the table. The argument about whether or not there are new ideas or if a story is original... is functionally irrelevant. Tell a great story, one you were compelled to tell, and to someone it will be new, it will be excitimg and original. No story is original. But every story is orignal.
