Is Originality Overrated?

[D. Gray Warrior]

I love the fantasy genre. When I first started out worldbuilding, I took the traditional approach and built a pseudo- medieval world complete with dragons, dwarves, elves, etc, but it was tweaked a bit with my own preferences.

I then found a book on writing fantasy and the author said the medieval setting is cliched and there are thousands of other places to use for inspiration. Since then I have been avoiding medieval Europe like the plague and I get mixed signals about writing it. Often I am told that "There is nothing wrong if you want to write medieval fantasy, but there are plenty of other cultures you should use instead."


I like low fantasy (as in there is little or no magic) but it still can have fantastical creatures and such. I like Gilgamesh, Beowulf, mythology, and Warriors, to give you an idea of my preferences.

This pursuit of originality has given me headaches.
I just feel like that beyond medieval Europe, I have too many choices.

So my question to you is originality overrated?

 

[Tom]

So my question to you is originality overrated?

No, of course not!

A few years ago, I went through a creative drought that almost made me want to quit writing. That was until I realized there was so much potential outside of the generic pseudo-
Medieval Europe that I had naively assumed was the "only way" to write fantasy setting. At first I was nervous of stretching my boundaries past the traditional model, but then I found that I enjoyed creating totally original settings and cultures. Since then, I have more ideas than ever, and my writing is flourishing. Too many choices is a good thing. It keeps you from getting stuck in a literary rut.

Now if you enjoy Medieval fantasy, that's your cup of tea (or coffee) and I'll happily leave you to it. But I would encourage you to step outside your comfort zone as a writer and try branching out into different settings. You may discover you like originality.

 

[FarmerBrown]

Yes. If you have to rely on setting to tell a good story, you have a problem, and it probably won't turn out to be a good story.

Getting out of your comfort zone is good exercise (and yes, you should do it now and again), but forcing yourself to pursue originality for originality's sake will ultimately just feel forced (and will be read that way). If, on the other hand, you feel like you have an original idea and you're worried about exploring it because it's overwhelming and unfamiliar, that's different and you should definitely pursue that.

 

[WooHooMan]

It's much easier to make something "original" than it is to make something "well-written". It's also much more easy to identify and explain how something is "unoriginal" than how something is "poorly written".
There are people who think pointing-out cliches is considered a legit form of literary criticism. It's a symptom of post-modernism. It'll pass eventually.

In short, "overrated" is probably the wrong word.

(also, for the record, I don't think "medieval Europe fantasy" is as prevalent as a lot of people make it out to be. I think it's just that these people aren't often exposed to anything else)

 

[cupiscent]

To be a slight devil's advocate - if I pick up a fantasy book and it's the same-old faux-Euro-medieval setting, it has to be really good, really fast for me to stick with it. I have too many books with new vistas to explore on my to-read list to stick it out with a book that feels like a dozen other things I've already read. (I have genuinely put a book down in the last month for not doing anything original or interesting in the first fifteen pages. Then again, in the last month I was doing NaNo, and even less patient than usual!)

That said, I'm sure there's still plenty of original, interesting things to be done and stories to be told in a faux-Euro-medieval setting. Just make your setting real and important. And that will be easier if it feels natural and exciting to you.

 

[Tom]

I can just see this thread turning into in argument to rival that of Too Few Female Characters?.

That being said, originality is largely underrated, IMO. A little like what cupiscent said, not all readers of fantasy (including yours truly) are fans of the generic Medieval setting. For every one fantasy book I find with an original setting,there are ten beside it on the shelf with a generic setting. I'm really quite tired of it (to put it classic British understated). If no one writes anything outside of the generic template ever, readers become dissatisfied (which is largely the reason I started writing fantasy). Fantasy is what it is because of originality.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

...my question to you is originality overrated?

Yes & No...

Nothing is truly original. We're all building off something that came before. So, in that sense, originality is overrated. What makes a story unique is your vision, your style and voice, your different view of character, all the things that make writing an artistic pursuit. Like FarmerBrown said above, if you're banking on setting to be your defining characteristic that drops everyone's jaw, you've got a much bigger problem.

That being said, there are a lot of other, interesting and less traveled roads which may catch the reader's eye, but there is always the other side to every coin. Some readers want to read medieval settings. They're comfortable there, and they'd rather spend entertainment brainpower on your characters or a magic system than wrapping their minds around the intricacies of the Xia dynasty in the year 1810 BC.

Setting, characters, style, and any other aspect of literature you can think of...they're all choices and every choice comes down to one simple consideration. What would you want to read?

Take a moment and think about that. What do you want to read? Whatever that is, that's the story you should be writing. Not only will it be enjoyable for you as a writer, it will be genuine to your reader. Your not so unique in this world that there aren't others just like you clamoring for the same type of story. Trust me, they're out there looking for the same thing.

Give it to them.

 

[Svrtnsse]

Originality is definitely overrated. That's not to say that it's not important, just that it's not as important as it's sometimes made out to be.

At present, I'm a firm believer in that ideas are basically worthless and that it's what you do with them that matters.

Being original is good, great even, but there are things that are by far more important and the sometimes seem to be overshadowed by the demand for originality.

To me, it's more important that the setting feels alive and believable, than that it's new and original.

There's a saying; something along the lines of "familiarity breeds contempt". I'm sure that applies to fantasy literature as well, but familiarity also brings comfort and safety and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

At present, I'm a firm believer in that ideas are basically worthless and that it's what you do with them that matters.

I agree. Here's an extension of this thinking I've been mulling over lately....

If there is no true originality left, is it actually the outstanding execution of an idea that feels like originality?

 

[Philip Overby]

If there is no true originality left, is it actually the outstanding execution of an idea that feels like originality?

This is probably true. For example, sometimes I trace popular books/stories like this:

1. The Lottery by Shirley Jackson
2. Battle Royale
3. The Hunger Games
4. Other stories with similar dystopian themes

I find the difference may be more or less violence, the way the idea is executed, the setting, the characters and their motivations, etc.

The execution trumps the originality every time. I think of it like if you asked a swordsmith to make a sword for you. You gave them all the kinds of material you wanted to use, how you want the blade shaped, the hilt, everything. Give it to ten different swordsmiths and they'd all take your idea and forge it into something unique. Sure, some may look similar, handle better, be sharper, etc. but they'd all be based off that one idea.

However, and this is a big however, I do think striving for originality isn't a bad thing. This doesn't necessarily mean scrap all ideas that aren't original in your mind, but try to put something that you think hasn't been done before. If you think something is original, sometimes it makes you more passionate about the project than if you thought it was cliched or whatever. I go into my writing blind in some regards and I pull from sources I know in other regards. If I think what I'm writing is pretty different, but still familar in some aspect, it makes me much happier as a writer to know that:

a. This is probably pretty good.
b. It's familiar enough that it won't alienate readers.
c. It's entertaining to me so it may be entertaining to someone else.

 

[Ryan_Crown]

As the famous saying goes, "Creativity is the art of hiding your sources" (or something to that effect). And I think there's a lot of truth to that. Regardless of how "original" you may think your work is, when all is said and done, what you write is going to be inspired by your personal experiences -- books you've read, movies you've seen, people you've met, events from your life. Whether you're conscious of it or not, all of these things will inform your work.

To me, originality is taking all of these experiences/ideas that inform your writing, and using them to create something that is uniquely you, to tell a story that may be very familiar to other stories we've read before, but still approaches that story in a way that only you would do, or in a style that is very much your own. And if that means your story takes place in a setting we've all been in many times before (aka medieval Europe), so what? As long as the story your telling is your story, and written in a compelling enough manner to engage your readers, that's what matters.

I think you have to reach a serious level of cliched "been done a thousand times" before you have to really worry about being "unoriginal". The key is in the writing. A totally unoriginal setting or main character or plot can still make a good story if it is well-written; by the same token, a completely original, never been done before story is still going to be a waste of time if it isn't well-written.

 

[Incanus]

My answer is both yes and no as well.

I've been finding that many original ideas come about by taking two familiar ideas that have never been combined before, smash them together, and then extrapolate the consequences. I think that this is pretty ideal--the best of both worlds, familiar items seen in a new light.

I have no problem with the 'European medieval' setting. I'm using it myself, but I'm doing something with it I've not seen before (which doesn't necessarily mean it hasn't been done ever, just that I've not come across it myself). On the other hand, my world will have no elves, dwarves, orcs, dragons, etc. My magic system is semi-original, semi-familiar (or so I think).

I believe that if a writer successfully makes the setting redound back onto the theme, or themes--and it rings true--few will complain about the unoriginality of the setting.

 

[Guy]

Reminds me of a response a publisher supposedly gave to an author after he submitted his manuscript:
"Your story is both good and original, but the part that's good is original, and the part that's original isn't good."

 

[skip.knox]

Originality is not overrated, it is ill-defined.

Do we mean original in plot, original in style, original in formatting?
Do we mean original in that it's new to me, or original in the sense of unprecedented in all of literature?
Do we mean original in that it stirs me as a reader regardless of whether someone can find parallels to other works?
usw.

Finally, I have to ask: why are you asking?

When I hear this question raised, sometimes it's merely idle talk. Sometimes it's an individual expressing uncertainty about their own work. Sometimes it is by way of asking follow-up questions. Sometimes something else entirely ... dare I call that original?

In any case, to keep the thread from going thither and yon, it's worth asking, why are you asking?

 

[spectre]

originality is not overrated, BUT it isn't as regularly seen as you might think. Often times originality comes in the form of a parody of something someone else did, but people love it because if you think about this sentence and I write if you panic about this test, obviously two words can change the entire feeling you get from one sentence, from one scenario. Real originality isn't easily achieved and it's something I'm struggling with because God help me everytime I think of a plot it reminds me of a plot, and every time I think of a conflict it reminds me of a conflict, it can be overwhelming but just keep making things your own and the story can be vastly different than what other people are doing.

 

[Xitra_Blud]

This sounds like another case of "tropes vs clichés". Here is an article I think you will find interesting: Author's Echo: Tropes vs. Cliches

The way I see it, the medieval setting is no more than a trope. Whether or not it is overused is subjective (I personally enjoy the medieval setting and read most fantasy for that reason). However, I think it is in the way a story is told that sets apart a cliché from a trope. Yes, the medieval setting has been done time and time again, and always will be, but it is in how you tell the story that sets it apart from others. My opinion of the author you are referring to is that he is taking personal preference and using it as criticism. A lot of critics seem to fall into that trap and I would disregard what he says on that subject, but I do agree with what a lot of people on this forum is saying. Originality is not what I would call overrated and can be very good if told right. I do encourage you to not be afraid to step outside of your boundaries, but don't be ashamed if what you enjoy writing is what you enjoy writing. There is nothing wrong with common tropes if told well.

 

[K.S. Crooks]

It depends on how much originality you mean. Everyone uses something that has already been created. It saves time and make certain things easy to accept. You mention having dragons, dwarves and elves none of which are original, although you may put your own twist on them. Having these allows you to present the feeling of your world with things that people already know and accept to be true...in a fantasy context.
The originality comes with the small details of your characters, setting and plot. If you tell people to draw a fairy most will look similar to Tinkerbell, if yours looks more like bulldogs with fins then they are original. Think of being original like creating a new ice cream flavour. All ice cream starts with cream, sugar, salt and ice. What changes is the ingredients used to make the unique flavour, whether it is vanilla, caramel, strawberries or everything put in rocky road.
Choose where you want to be original then borrow everywhere else. Hope this helps.

 

[acapes]

The balance of originality and familiarity is the struggle between comfort and excitement I reckon, and my reading choices reflect that, depending on what I'm in the mood for.

So I guess I'm saying that I think originality above all else probably isn't enough - we're going for 'fresh' or 'unusual' rather than 'alien' when it comes to storytelling.

 

[Mikelo]

Huh. A difficult question that already has some great answers. I suspect that some of the posts above are right, and it's more about the execution than originality.

I've been reading a fantasy trilogy called Obsidian and Blood by Aliette de Bodard. It boasts a setting we don't often see: Tenochtitlán. In fact, it weds Aztec (er, probably more accurate to say Nahua or Mexica) religion, myth and history with fascinating results. So I ate up the first one, even though the characters and plot didn't grab me.

On the other hand, I love the Dragon Age setting, which is largely a twisted and intriguing take on Medieval European history and religion. Likewise, Game of Thrones/A Song of Ice and Fire captivates me in part because of the way Martin uses and twists European history. And heck, I even love sitting down to a traditional D&D/Pathfinder game--so there you are.

So for me, it's not how original your setting is, or whether it's overused or underused. I can get hooked either way. I suspect, though, that you have to love your setting in order for me to catch your enthusiasm for it. If what you know and love is low fantasy with European antecedents--well, that's probably what you should be writing.

 

[Mythopoet]

"Even in literature and art, no man who bothers about originality will ever be original: whereas if you simply try to tell the truth (without caring twopence how often it has been told before) you will, nine times out of ten, become original without ever having noticed it." ~C.S. Lewis