# Do you have to be a fantasy reader to be a fantasy writer?



## solas

Another member drop-kicked this new question into my head.  The member did not ask the question but did ask me what books I have read. I have not read a lot of fantasy books lately and wonder if you have to be a fantasy reader to be a fantasy writer?  I do read quite a bit but mostly memoirs and other non fiction. This is not say I have never read fantasy...I have been an avid reader since I could read but although I believe I have a good story, I having those nasty little doubts again!


----------



## Xitra_Blud

Well, there's no rule that says you do, but I would encourage it as it could help you with developing a fantasy story and seeing what other fantasy writers have done in their stories, and you'd be able to get a sense of their voice and writing style. It may also give you some inspiration.


----------



## Roan Davidson

I think you should always read stuff in your genre--just for starters, if you don't love the genre, if you don't find yourself wanting to read it, there's no reason to write in it. Besides, you'll want an idea of what's out there, so you'll know how other authors handle things like fantasy-specific tropes, world building and magic systems.

Reading outside your genre is important too--all sorts of books can be fodder for your imagination. But I try to put the fantasy stuff at the top of my list.


----------



## Telcontar

Not a question of "having" to, but chances are you'll write better fantasy if you have read a lot of it as well. It's also rather common to enjoy partaking in the same kind of art you enjoy creating.

There are exceptions. I'm pretty sure Micheal Sullivan has mentioned that, when he started writing his books, he hadn't/wasn't reading much fantasy.


----------



## solas

Thanks Telcontar.  I wrote my first draft and let it sit for a while.  As much as I hate saying this, I got a lot of inspiration from watching television. (I go through phases.  Read, read, watch TV. Read, read, watch TV...)  All the shows I watch are sci fi, fantasy or  horror.  I picked up my first draft and read it over, realizing it was rubbish and tore the story apart.  Expanded the story and added new characters but I have read several excerpts of highly rated fantasy novels and like all books of a particular genre, they all have different styles of writing.


----------



## Devor

I'm a little surprised - usually when this question gets asked, the answer is a resounding "yes" and I'm a lone naysayer.

I don't like to say "yes," not because I think you can go without reading fantasy, but because I think you should be more careful about what you read, how you read, when you read, and why you read.  I think it can be an advantage to begin developing your story concept and your creativity skills before absorbing too many existing influences.

The key to being creative is figuring out what you would think of that nobody else ever would.  Once you're at that point, you should read as many good books as you can so you can incorporate better writing and storytelling techniques into your concept.  But you need to find at least a seed of your creativity first, and you do that by shaking everything else off and pushing at your own ideas until they start to click with you.


----------



## teacup

> As much as I hate saying this, I got a lot of inspiration from watching television.



Unless you watch shows with really bad writing, I don't see anything wrong with this  It may not help with the prose, but storytelling wise, tv/movies can be helpful, just as books are.

But no, you don't have to read fantasy to write it. I'm sure it would certainly help, as would reading outside of the genre would, but of course you don't have to.


----------



## Penpilot

You don't have to, but it certainly helps. I mean, most people say the stories they write are the ones they would want to read. Reading in the genre you write can help shape your ideas and can help you avoid some possibly embarrassing moments.

The novel that I'm outlining right now, I started scribbling ideas for it years ago, long before I heard or read Game of Thrones. In my novel I have a great wall that surrounds all the known lands. On the other side of that wall are creatures that I called The Others. Sound a little familiar?

I swore up a storm when I read Game of Thrones and found those elements in it, but I'm happy I found them. Imagine if I sent out my novel without knowing about these things. It makes me look like I'm trying to ride on the coattails of Game of Thrones when I'm not.


----------



## Jabrosky

I would recommend you simply read the kind of books you want to write.

I have come to question whether our current construct of genre is all that helpful when it comes to selecting reading material or designing stories. The problem is that genres often come loaded with connotative baggage that can constrain the range of storytelling. We stereotypically associate fantasy with magical quests in medieval Europe, mystery with forensic detectives solving murders and robberies in modern times, science fiction with spaceship battles in the distant future, and so forth. This isn't such a problem if you're content with contributing to established traditions, but I submit that there's something to be said for mixing and matching elements from different genres. Why not have your medieval story be a murder mystery, your spaceship story a romance, or even an epic quest in modern times?

You could interpret what I'm saying as advice that you should read outside your genre as well as within it. However, I would frame it as saying read whatever interests you regardless of the genre it's sorted into. For instance, if you like stories about dinosaurs (as I do), read stories about dinosaurs regardless of whether they're sci-fi, fantasy, or even Harlequin romances. Such would expose you to more different ways to portray the same subject matter.


----------



## Feo Takahari

Jabrosky said:


> You could interpret what I'm saying as advice that you should read outside your genre as well as within it. However, I would frame it as saying read whatever interests you regardless of the genre it's sorted into. For instance, if you like stories about dinosaurs (as I do), read stories about dinosaurs regardless of whether they're sci-fi, fantasy, or even Harlequin romances. Such would expose you to more different ways to portray the same subject matter.



I wouldn't necessarily recommend reading dinosaur romances.

On-topic, I've seen some spec-fic authors who refuse to admit they write spec-fic. (Case in point, Margaret Atwood, who once said she doesn't write sci-fi because sci-fi is about squid in outer space. Or Terry Goodkind, who said that if you think his stories are like Robert Jordan's, you're not old enough to be reading his stories.) They can find financial and even critical success by marketing to readers who refuse to read spec-fic, but they tend to retread ground spec-fic writers have repeatedly covered, and without the knowledge to work off of and expand on those earlier stories, their works tend to turn out inferior.


----------



## Jackarandajam

solas said:


> Another member drop-kicked this new question into my head.  The member did not ask the question but did ask me what books I have read. I have not read a lot of fantasy books lately and wonder if you have to be a fantasy reader to be a fantasy writer?  I do read quite a bit but mostly memoirs and other non fiction. This is not say I have never read fantasy...I have been an avid reader since I could read but although I believe I have a good story, I having those nasty little doubts again!



I haven't read a lot of fantasy fiction either, and i don't necessarily think that is a bad thing. Inspiration for my novel comes from Fight Club, the movie Smokin' Aces, a bit of Sin City... And it is most definitely an Epic Fantasy novel, with dragons, swords, magic and so on. i find it more interesting to be inspired from outside my genre, and i think the originality is much cleaner that way. 

I found out at a young age that i loved fantasy because of Tolkien, and have read his books many times. 
I actually find myself frustrated that it is so evident in my writing that I'm influenced by Tolkien, and i've tried to shake as much of that as possible, though the credit for my love of the genre will always go to him.

R. A. Salvadore has a row of books that makes my mouth water every time i pass them in the bookstore, and I've heard wonderful things about him, but i refuse to crack open the first book just yet. My world is still so young and fresh and evolutionary in my mind, i don't want to corrupt its originality with other (albeit awesome and well constructed) ideas. I've read lots of fiction, but very little fantasy fiction, and will not until my I've explored my world so thoroughly that ill be able to take an idea in my hands and turn it over, before carefully placing wherever i see fit. I don't want images and "easy answers" to take the place of my originality.

None of this is to fault anyone who devours FF, I'm sure there are plenty who have no trouble sorting an original idea from ones read elsewhere. My world is mine though, and i want to present it as just that.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Devor said:


> I'm a little surprised - usually when this question gets asked, the answer is a resounding "yes" and I'm a lone naysayer.



In my opinion, reading in general is crucial if you're a writer. It's no different from successful musicians. They're constantly listening to music.     

Should you read fantasy if you want to write fantasy? Yes. You should have a firm understanding of whatever genres you choose to write.      

Should you read outside the genre? Also a yes. This step helps with thinking about your chosen genres in new ways.    

EDIT: Devor, I just realized I read your post entirely wrong. We are in opposition so I had to edit.  

I've heard people say they don't like to read fiction because they are afraid it will influence their ideas. That's the whole point. You read a lot. You take this mishmash of story telling and produce something fresh, something of your own. To think anyone will come up with something original, something that hasn't been done by the people writing within the genre for the last 70 years just because they avoid influences, well I just don't get that thinking.


----------



## wordwalker

Never mind "can":

If you weren't a fantasy reader, why would you *WANT* to be a fantasy writer?


----------



## Philip Overby

> I've heard people say they don't like to read fiction because they are afraid it will influence their ideas. That's the whole point. You read a lot. You take this mishmash of story telling and produce something fresh, something of your own. To think anyone will come up with something original, something that hasn't been done by the people writing within the genre for the last 70 years just because they avoid influences, well I just don't get that thinking.



I may be attributing this to the wrong person, but I think Ray Bradbury said the way he got ideas was by constantly reading and watching movies. That obviously doesn't mean he stole the ideas, but it obviously woke something up inside of him. I used to think I didn't want my fiction "corrupted" by other ideas, but if anything reading lots of fiction has molded the style I truly always wanted. If I go back and read a lot of my earlier fiction, it's unnecessarily verbose because I thought that was the way writers were supposed to write. However, after reading all manner of fiction, I've come to my own conclusions to what I like and what I don't like as a writer. I believe personal style evolves from soaking in a wide variety of influences: fiction, news, personal experience, games, moves, whatever.

I do think it's possible for fantasy writers to be inspired by other forms of fiction obviously. It's actually good to do so. But one of the reasons I love writing fantasy is because I love reading fantasy. The two things just go hand in hand for me, but as per always everyone has their own personal way of developing their style.


----------



## Ophiucha

I'm on the fence, since obviously there are many fantasy writers who did well enough who weren't active readers in the genre. The short answer is 'yes', you can write it and do it well. You said you've read it in the past, so you know the basis of the genre well enough, and the skills of actually writing come more from reading and practice than any specific genre.

The long answer is that you can, but it's not like it ends up in a cross-genre masterpiece every time. I hate to whip out the literary equivalent of Godwin's law, but I'm going to bring up Stephenie Meyer. Not _Twilight_, but _The Host_. Meyer wrote a science fiction novel knowing little about the genre beyond a few common place films (_Star Wars_ and whatnot). And ho boy, was it riddled with clichÃ©s. But not in the way a bad science fiction novel tends to be. There's things like _Eragon_, which are bad and clichÃ© out of love of the genre. Paolini was a young writer who adored fantasy and ripped the whole lot of it off. Meyer was more naively stumbling her way through the same thought processes that every science fiction author in the world has gone through, but due to her lack of knowledge of the genre, she thought herself clever for doing so.

Obviously you do know a bit about the genre as a whole, but trends can emerge in the span of a few years and things that were once loved can become tired quickly. There's value in watching the market, at least, if you're writing genre fiction of any sort.


----------



## Devor

T.Allen.Smith said:


> EDIT: Devor, I just realized I read your post entirely wrong. We are in opposition so I had to edit.
> 
> I've heard people say they don't like to read fiction because they are afraid it will influence their ideas. That's the whole point. You read a lot. You take this mishmash of story telling and produce something fresh, something of your own. To think anyone will come up with something original, something that hasn't been done by the people writing within the genre for the last 70 years just because they avoid influences, well I just don't get that thinking.



I think maybe you're still missing something about what I was trying to get across.  I didn't say you need to be "original" - whatever that means.  I was talking about the importance of shaking off outside influences and finding your own creative core.  If you read Game of Thrones before you do that, you risk letting GRRM shape your creative core.  If you read GoT _after_ you've found that creative core, then you are in control of how GRRM is shaping you.


----------



## Chilari

I don't think you need to form a creative core free of outside influences. In fact I'd argue that the formation of a creative core requires outside influences. You can moderate initial heavy influences later with more reading from different authors, genres, styles and so on, but without reading (or watching TV or movies etc), how can you form a creative core in the first place? And then it is inevitable that the major early influences will have a large impact on your writing. But it then takes maturity, more reading, more writing, and some self-analysis in order to take that influence-heavy core and turn it into a personal voice.

I'm not sure it's possible to "shake off outside influences" - they are there whether you want them to be or not. You can moderate them with a wider range of influences as a result of wider reading and wider experiences, but you can't shake them off entirely.

I'm also not sure about this idea of there being a single point before which you haven't found your creative core and after which you have. I see it more of a process - gradual, always advancing, never quite there. All new influences form part of the shaping of that core, with varying degrees if impact, but there's no point at which you can say "that's it, I'm done, this is my voice, now and forever more, eternal and unchanging from this point forth."


----------



## Devor

Chilari said:


> But it then takes maturity, more reading, more writing, and some self-analysis in order to take that influence-heavy core and turn it into a personal voice.



First, I want to make it clear what I'm talking about.  Just like I haven't said anything about originality, I also haven't said anything about voice.

Being original is about being new.  Having a voice is about writing with fluency.  Being creative is about being _yourself,_ about finding the answer to one question:

_What do I want to do that nobody else would think of?_

Reading confuses the answer to that question by filling your head with everybody else's thoughts.  Reading is about exploring outwards instead of inwards.  It's necessary for quality, but it's a red herring in forming the groundwork of who you are as a writer.

If you want to learn to be creative, the only thing you can do is to *create*.  Reading is not creation.  It's not the same skill at all.




> I'm also not sure about this idea of there being a single point before which you haven't found your creative core and after which you have. I see it more of a process - gradual, always advancing, never quite there. All new influences form part of the shaping of that core, with varying degrees if impact, but there's no point at which you can say "that's it, I'm done, this is my voice, now and forever more, eternal and unchanging from this point forth."



You're taking my comments a little too far if you think I'm talking about some magic moment where everything clicks and that's just it forever.  I'm only arguing that reading a lot is far less important, and far less beneficial, in the early stages of your development as an author than is commonly believed.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Devor said:


> Being creative is about being yourself, about finding the answer to one question:  What do I want to do that nobody else would think of?  Reading confuses the answer to that question by filling your head with everybody else's thoughts.  Reading is about exploring outwards instead of inwards.
> 
> It's necessary for quality, but it's a red herring in forming the groundwork of who you are as a writer.  If you want to learn to be creative, the only thing you can do is to create.  Reading is not creation.  It's not the same skill at all.



I understand what you're saying, but I couldn't disagree more. How would you know you're not thinking about what others have done unless you read what they've written?

I know everyone works differently & our minds may be wired in unique ways. For me, reading doesn't confuse the issue by filling my head with the ideas of others. Reading sparks creativity. Reading engages my mind with description, character, & story. Reading gives me a cast of thousands and pictures from a plethora of foreign worlds. I can combine them, dilute them, and dissect them as I please into something fresh, something unique to me. If some aspect of a story winds up too similar to something I've read, it can be cut or further altered. 

In my view, reading is essential to unique creativity. Without reading I'd be stumbling blind through the genre, unable to see the tired storylines which I think are fabulous. I say stuff yourself full of as many good stories, characters, & settings as you can. You'll be surprised what your mind can produce from all of that input. 

As I said before, I'm willing to concede that people's minds all don't operate like mine. However, I firmly believe that if you don't read a lot...and I mean a lot...you're dooming your chances of ever becoming a good writer. Art, like any creative or intellectual pursuit, is borne upon the shoulders of those who came before us.

I can't think of a single successful author who hasn't said reading a lot is key.


----------



## Feo Takahari

@Devor: I'm not sure I agree with the statement that there exist such a thing as "everyone else's ideas." Ideas don't belong to people any more than wind belongs to people. (The artist in this metaphor makes wind chimes, or possibly whirligigs--the ideas in the air pass through them, but each creation is still different.)


----------



## Devor

T.Allen.Smith said:


> How would you know you're not thinking about what others have done unless you read what they've written?



The short answer is because _originality_ and _newness_ aren't really the point, being _yourself_ is.

However, a more advanced answer is that someone who's developed their creative skills far enough can simply be that confident in their own unique creative process.

For instance, I've never read a western, but I'm pretty sure nobody's ever done Time Travelling Steampunk Cowboy Aliens!

Wait, I'm sure that's been done.  Probably a lot, actually.  Hold on.  Let me turn on my real creative process:

The element of a western I want to keep is the standoff at high noon, out in front of the saloon.  It's a very tense moment, so let me start by wanting to turn that tension on its head.  Comedy's probably been done, so let's pick a different POV character as the protagonist, so we can experience the moment as a reader with a different feeling and a different kind of tension.  Let's go with the perspective of someone who's excited.  The standoff is a good thing for this character, a _wonderful_ thing for this character.  But why?  One of these two people is going to die, and this person is happy about it.  In fact they've arranged for this to happen.  Is it because of maybe a betting pool?  Because they don't like these two people?  Because this person is a psychopath?  Because it's all fake?  Because the winner is already decided?  The "yes - and more" for each of those takes me down paths that bore me.  Now I'm stuck, so I'm going to throw in a new element.  Spys?  Aliens?  Magic?  N'eh, it's probably better if it's a random small character element.  It'll be easier to figure out why would _a person like this_ wants to do this, so let's go with the first thing that comes to mind and decide this person is a little old lady, which makes this a short story because that's as long as I think she'll carry the reader's attention.  A little old lady, looking out the window of the saloon, is excited because they've arranged for a high-noon shootout.

Suddenly I've got it.

Nobody has realized that she's started to go senile, and she's spent the first half of the short story duping these two individuals into killing each other because _she's remembering her long-dead husband winning such a shootout years ago._  That makes her excitement a wild take; the reader should be feeling very sad, which means the two characters in the duel have to be likable to the readers.  Maybe even the character's family.  And from there, the story comes together.

Whether you want to call that original or not, I'm confident that it's creative, that it's "all my own," that it's _the story I would want to *tell*_ and has nothing to do with a story I've ever read or wanted to read.  I don't need to read a western to think of it because I have a great deal of trust in my own creative process.  But if I wanted to, now it might be helpful to read through a western to make sure I've got a sense for how people talk or how the story comes together, or how those scenes might normally be written.

That is, reading would strengthen the _writing process_, but not the _creative process._  They are separate.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

So how exactly would reading westerns harm the creativity? It seems you're arguing the mind, because it may be influenced by reading within a genre, is somehow then intractably bound to write within the limits of what was read.       

I just don't understand that. Creativity & and the ability to further creative thought has no restrictions based on media one ingests. Exposure will blossom more creative thought than shutting yourself off from influence.   

Maybe your just arguing that it can be done, without reading within said genre. Well, maybe it can. However, and it seems like we both agree on this point, the writer is better off if they've done substantial reading, both within and outside the genre. So why handicap yourself?    

There's also a problem with your example. It's purely character based. You could take that example and supplant it into any other genre. The duel, or shootout, is hardly sole property of the western & the only thing that makes it somewhat genre specific is the time of day.       

When discussing reading within a genre, and the benefits that can come from that exercise, we're discussing far more than what POV to view an action scene from. In fantasy, we're discussing magic systems, creatures both unique & standard...since it's fantastical the list can go on here forever. All of these types of "genre specific" aspects can aid in the creative thinking of another writer. It's simply a means to develop more "What if...?" questions that stem the next great ideas for development.


----------



## Devor

T.Allen.Smith said:


> So how exactly would reading westerns harm the creativity?
> 
> . . . . .
> 
> There's also a problem with your example. It's purely character based. You could take that example and supplant it into any other genre. The duel, or shootout, is hardly sole property of the western & the only thing that makes it somewhat genre specific is the time of day.



Exactly this.

The crux of any story is _human_ and has nothing to do with _genre_.  Having created that crux, it's _nothing_ to use poker games, mining contracts, bourbon and outlaws as a motivation for who the characters are, how the little old lady manipulates them, or why the reader likes them.

You see it as a problem because the example stopped after 45 minutes, creating the backbone of a story.  You see it as a problem because the story doesn't feel like a western.  _But that's the point._  You don't have to be locked into what a western feels like.  That's the box you don't even need to see to find the universal elements that people care about, that are easy to shove inside it.

I could take the story above and shove it into the life of a cowboy, who's father died in that duel.  The duel is one of those lengthy prologues, and his crazy grandmother is holding the baby while she watches.  Take _that_ and follow it through in your head for a moment, and tell me there's not a compelling western there.

But you only find it by focusing on the creative process, the _internal_ process, and not by focusing on what's already out there.  _Reading_ confuses you.  Reading gives you expectations for a what a story looks like, for what a specific type of story looks like, and not what _your_ story looks like.

I'll say it again:  How many people say they're writing a story they would want to *read?*  If I'm being perfectly honest, although I read in the genre, I usually don't want to.  *I don't want to read a story; I want to tell one.*  I want to make an audience go "Wow!"  I want to my blood pressure to shoot up with nervous glee because I think someone's going to be hooked.  I want that happy _thrill_ - the _duping delight_ - of taking people off guard, screwing with their emotions, making them happy or sad or laughing or pissed when they least expect it.

_I want to entertain._  If all I wanted to do was pay homage to my favorite authors, I wouldn't see much point in doing all that work.

How can I write what I want to read?  *Reading is work* when you're a writer.


----------



## kayd_mon

I don't know if anyone said this yet, but if you don't know what moves your audience (fantasy readers), it might be harder to connect with them. I'm sure it's not impossible, but I'd wager it's less likely.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Devor said:


> Exactly this.  The crux of any story is human and has nothing to do with genre.  Having created that crux, it's nothing to use poker games, mining contracts, bourbon and outlaws as a motivation for who the characters are, how the little old lady manipulates them, or why the reader likes them.


No argument there.    



Devor said:


> You see it as a problem because the example stopped after 45 minutes, creating the backbone of a story.  You see it as a problem because the story doesn't feel like a western.


No, I don't see it as a problem at all. I was merely pointing out that you're not using genre specific elements. We are, after all, discussing if one should read within the genre they're writing in. Understanding genre specific elements is a big part of the genre's education.    



Devor said:


> "You don't have to be locked into what a western feels like.  That's the box you don't even need to see to find the universal elements that people care about, that are easy to shove inside it.


Why would you ever feel locked into telling a story by the numbers? Reading doesn't cause that effect unless the reader/writer has very little imagination.     



Devor said:


> But you only find it by focusing on the creative process, the internal process, and not by focusing on what's already out there.  Reading confuses you.  Reading gives you expectations for a what a story looks like, for what a specific type of story looks like, and not what your story looks like.


Reading doesn't confuse. Reading gives understanding. Your example espouses turning expectations on their heads. How do you subvert fan/reader expectations within a genre if you have little to no experience or understanding within that genre?    



Devor said:


> I'll say it again:  How many people say they're writing a story they would want to read?  If I'm being perfectly honest, although I read in the genre, I usually don't want to.  I don't want to read a story; I want to tell one.  I want to make an audience go "Wow!"  I want to my blood pressure to shoot up with nervous glee because I think someone's going to be hooked.  I want that happy thrill - the duping delight - of taking people off guard, screwing with their emotions, making them happy or sad or laughing or pissed when they least expect it.  I want to entertain.  If all I wanted to do was pay homage to my favorite authors, I wouldn't see much point in doing all that work.  How can I write what I want to read?  Reading is work when you're a writer.


For some reason that baffles me, you seem to think reading fantasy handcuffs a writer into this role of paying homage to their favorites, or just continuing with the same old, tried and true  storylines. This just isn't the case.  

When people talk about "writing the story they'd want to read" they're talking about introducing elements that are often unique to their way of story telling, to their way of thinking. How many times, as we're reading do we try and think ahead to potential outcomes? How many times does a reader say "Oh, wouldn't it be cool if....?" These are the pieces that come together in the forming of stories we'd want to read...stories we want to tell. Writing what you'd like to read also means the author has an understanding of what they like in a story & that there will be others like them who will appreciate the story they tell, if done well.

If you can't grasp or understand what makes fans of the genre say "Wow!" & then search for more of that author's work, you're handicapping yourself as a writer. How are you going to dupe a fantasy fan, like you say you want to, if you aren't aware of possible expectations?   

There's a lot of fantasy writers I like, lots in other genres too. I know I like what they've done if I search for their next work. This doesn't mean I feel I have to copy them or reinvent the same wheel.    

Here's another thing....most often, writers come to voice & style through emulation of their favorite writers. With enough effort, emulation gives way to original style. Our true creative selves are born from that process. If you don't have favorites within the genre that you've read a lot of, why on earth would would you want to write fantasy? If you don't read a lot within the genre, how would you determine what you do and don't like? You can say it all comes down to character, and in large part I'd agree. However, that's an oversimplification. There are elements unique to fantasy, same as with other genres. Coming up with new, creative twists requires an understanding of what has come before...what your audience has read & understood. If you don't work to gain that understanding, best of luck to you...you'll need it more than the writer who does.    

Returning to the music analogy... It's said that Jimmy Page was self taught on guitar. At one time, he was thought to be one of the premiere guitarists in the world. Self-taught or no, I guarantee you he listened to a boatload of music. I guarantee you he loved music, especially rock as that's what he wound up playing. Back in the 70s his sound was unique. You could easily tell it apart from most contemporaries. It's foolish to think he didn't have musical influences or that somehow listening to the predecessors in rock pigeonholed his creativity because he felt it necessary to pay homage. I'll bet though, he emulated his favorites before finding his own way.    

Let influences guide you. They can help to shape your style, but not in ways that restrict creativity or originality. If you don't love reading fantasy but still want to write, I'd suggest exploring other genres. This is a healthy thing to do even if you do love fantasy & that's your main focus for writing.     

Lastly, reading CAN be work if your a writer. It doesn't have to be. This is a choice. The best writing will make me forget I wanted to read as a writer.


----------



## Devor

T.Allen.Smith said:


> No, I don't see it as a problem at all. I was merely pointing out that you're not using genre specific elements. We are, after all, discussing if one should read within the genre they're writing in. Understanding genre specific elements is a big part of the genre's education.



I've discussed how easy it is to incorporate western elements into the story.  I've still never read a western.  I don't know what more you would expect from an example.

We could try any other story elements and limitations you would like, if you must have some example that works for you.  But I didn't really want to make this about "I'm super-awesome creative," that's why opened it with a bad joke.  But I needed an example, right?




> Why would you ever feel locked into telling a story by the numbers? Reading doesn't cause that effect unless the reader/writer has very little imagination.



But actually it does.  Of course it does.  We've all read story after story of the same cliches, even from people who swear they're trying to get around them.  And there's a reason for that.  *Most would-be authors have read very much and written very little*, so now they have to catch up their writing in comparison to where their reading is.  Most people have developed their writing techniques, and don't realize that the imagination is something that can be developed just as effectively.

You said "What if?"  But what-if is wrong if you're trying to maximize your creative skills.  You said "originality," but that's also wrong.  I know it because I've actually read studies on innovation which suggest that these statements hold you back.  I've had friends who studied improv and talked about the creative process, and they say those statements hold you back.

"Yes . . . _and MORE!_"

"Be yourself, what would _you_ think of that nobody else would?"

"Find the _game_ in the scene."

"Grab a few ideas and shove them together and _make them work_."

"Never think _no_, think _this is what it would take_."

"Criticize everything _in search of the best alternative_."

Those are the kinds of aphorisms that make you more creative in a raw and powerful way.  But most people don't think that way.  Most people grab some of the first few ideas that come to mind and the first few ideas for how to mix them together.  And those first few ideas come from the books you've read, and not from yourself.

I have no idea what the numbers remark is about.



> Reading doesn't confuse. Reading gives understanding.



Reading can do all of those things at once.

But if something thinks creativity is anything but an internal process, it's because they've read too much and created too little.




> Your example espouses turning expectations on their heads. How do you subvert fan/reader expectations within a genre if you have little to no experience or understanding within that genre?



Go back and re-read the example and the related comments and ask yourself, in all honesty, if I - Devor - wrote that story, having never read a western, do you think I would be successful in messing with those expectations?

Again, I don't mean to make this about me being great or whatever.  I have no doubt you could probably do the same or similar, and if not, I'm sure you have other strengths as a writer or ways in which you've developed that "creative core" in a way that works for you.  And if not that's still none of business.  But if you're suggesting a question of "How can you?" as an argument to imply that I can't, I think you have to ask yourself if I can, if you can, and what that means for the conversation.

If you must have me answer for me, I guess I could talk about the experiences that I've had which have helped, I guess.  But as a general answer, I would say by writing, doing improv, and finding ways to isolate that creative muscle - well, first by recognizing that the creative muscle exists, that it isn't a mysterious magic force that superimposes itself randomly on your brain, and that you can keep prying at the ideas you come up with until they become your own.




> For some reason that baffles me, you seem to think reading fantasy handcuffs a writer into this role of paying homage to their favorites, or just continuing with the same old, tried and true  storylines. This just isn't the case.
> 
> When people talk about "writing the story they'd want to read" their talking about introducing elements that are often unique to their way of story telling, to their way of thinking. How many times, as we're reading do we try and think ahead to potential outcomes? How many times does a reader say "Oh, wouldn't it be cool if....?" These are the pieces that come together in the forming of stories we'd want to read...stories we want to tell.



I'm pretty sure I've been talking about a process whereby first you try to isolate your creative core, internally, and then you open up yourself to outside forces after you understand how they're influencing you.

A lot of people pick up a book and go "Wow! That was awesome!  I want to do something like that!"  That's why we have fads.  That's why we have cliches.  That's why we've all seen so many things that we're absolutely sick of.  They dominate.  Even people who want to subvert them do it in a way that simply provides commentary on the original, and not in a way that truly creates something that's all their own, "that nobody else would ever think of."

I'm all for reading, even for spending hours on _tvtropes,_ but you have to get to that creative core.  And absorbing too many outside forces before you get there can confuse you into thinking you've found it, convince you that you're being original because you're tweaking ideas that were presented to you in the many things you've read, instead of creating ideas that are all your own.

And yes, the ideas you create are going to be familiar.  Nothing is new under the sun.  People have had shootouts, and senile old women have (probably) manipulated people into doing awful things, certainly they have in literature.  Again, that's not the point.  The point is that I decided they were the right ideas to tell a story that felt like one I wanted to tell.  I thought of them.  I invested my own energy into creating something that I could become excited about sharing.




> If you can't grasp or understand what makes fans of the genre say "Wow!" & then search for more of that author's work, your handicapping yourself as a writer. How are you going to dupe a fantasy fan, like you say you want to, if you aren't aware of possible expectations? There's a lot of fantasy writers I like, lots in other genres too. I know I like what they've done if I search for their next work. This doesn't mean I feel I have to copy them or reinvent the same wheel.



First, fans are people, and people react to universal ideas.

Second, there are other ways to acquaint yourself with genre expectations than "reading a lot."  The first one that comes to mind is "Reading _a little._"

Third, understanding genre expectations has nothing to do with your "creative core."  I've been discussing a process, and you've sometimes been responding as if I was suggesting that process stops at the first phase.  Find a way to isolate your creative ability from your outside influences.  _And then read as much as you want._




> Here's another thing....most often, writers come to voice & style through emulation of their favorite writers. With enough effort, emulation gives way to original style. Our true creative selves are born from that process.



I think there are many more layers of creativity than "style," especially if you're referring to writing style or voice. I don't question that you can absorb stronger elements of your writing voice from other writers.  It's a strawman, however, because that isn't the type of creativity I was talking about.  It would be needlessly burdensome _not_ to rely on subtle writing habits to develop your narration.


----------



## Devor

((continued from part 1 above))



> If you don't have favorites within the genre that you've read a lot of, why on earth would would you want to write fantasy? If you don't read a lot within the genre, how would you determine what you do and don't like? You can say it all comes down to character, and in large part I'd agree. However, that's an oversimplification. There are elements unique to fantasy, same as their are with other genres. Coming up with new, creative twists requires an understanding of what has come before...what your audience has read & understood. If you don't work to gain that understanding, best of luck to you...you'll need it more than the writer who does.
> 
> . . . .
> 
> Let influences guide you. They can help to shape your style, but not in ways that restrict creativity or originality. If you don't love reading fantasy but still want to write, I'd suggest exploring other genres. This is a healthy thing to do even if you do love fantasy & that's your main focus for writing.
> 
> Lastly, reading CAN be work if your a writer. It doesn't have to be. This is a choice. The best writing will make me forget I wanted to read as a writer.



I don't even understand how your statement is a response to mine, let alone to me and what you know of me from my contributions here.

I said that I read fantasy, but that it's not what I _want_ to do.  What I want to do is write a story, not read one.  Is it somehow wrong to want to put the writing first?

I don't _love_ reading.  What I love is the feeling of entertaining someone with my writing.  That's not to say I don't enjoy reading, or find an intrinsic motivation to read, as is sensible for anything you do.  But no, if I didn't want to write, I would read much less.

But I do love fantasy.  Dragons are _awesome_, the idea of power - of mystery - of surprise - of _magic_ and something new and incredible at every turn is, oh man.  The visuals, yay!  The characters?  Concepts like purity, and warfare, and corruption - who would want to find a story and be reminded about "real life" struggles when you can immerse yourself in other worlds?

But I should have expected this response, I guess.  I told my wife once I don't like cake, and she wouldn't let it go for years.  It was a talking point with guests.  The moment anyone said "Who wants cake?" she would look at me with pity, as though I had made it my life's work to rid my life of the presence of frosting.  And it's true, "I don't like cake."  It's bad fluffy bread with too much of a weird-tasting sugar on top.  But that doesn't make it this hyper-literal life truth.  A lot of cakes taste fine.

I haven't said don't read fantasy, that I don't read fantasy, that reading can't help you.  I only said, try and get past that point where reading hurts you before you focus a lot on reading.  Because reading can hurt you if you're still making the mistake of substituting outside ideas for your own.  And that's happening in far more people than will admit it.


----------



## Feo Takahari

But what if someone twenty years ago already wrote a western about a senile old lady? And what if people really liked it, so they started exploring more characters like that, and they came up with all sorts of messages and themes relating to that, iterating off that concept and using it to create new ones? And then you come along, with your story that has the same ideas as the one from twenty years ago, and no one else cares, because they've already moved past that.

This is what I see whenever somebody gets the idea to write spec-fic despite not reading much spec-fic. They come up with their _brilliant new idea_, and they create a story that shows off their _brilliant new idea_, and it just isn't as good as the stuff in the subgenre that's been exploring that idea for decades.


----------



## Devor

Feo Takahari said:


> This is what I see whenever somebody gets the idea to write spec-fic despite not reading much spec-fic. They come up with their _brilliant new idea_, and they create a story that shows off their _brilliant new idea_, and it just isn't as good as the stuff in the subgenre that's been exploring that idea for decades.



I just don't know how many ways I can say that "new" isn't the point so much as the _origin_ of the idea, of taking control of which ideas you're getting and using without having them fed to you subconsciously from an outside source.


----------



## Jabrosky

I personally am more reluctant to embrace influences when they come in the form of plots than anything else. I have no problem picking which subject matter I want to incorporate into my stories, nor do I see any problem with studying different writing styles (if anything, there are certain authors I _want _to emulate). Unfortunately I have a much harder time determining what kind of plot I want to use, and part of the problem is that I don't want to rip off too much of an existing storyline. Maybe that's worsened by the modern tendency to associate particular storylines with copyrighted movies and books.


----------



## Feo Takahari

Devor said:


> I just don't know how many ways I can say that "new" isn't the point so much as the _origin_ of the idea, of taking control of which ideas you're getting and using without having them fed to you subconsciously from an outside source.



You can say that, but that doesn't mean I'll want to read your story. Or to put it another way:

No one worth writing for is inherently interested in _you_.

Oh sure, if you get famous enough, you'll pick up a few lickspittles who'll read any rubbish you write. (I'm pretty sure these are the only people still reading Piers Anthony.) But the readers who're interesting, the readers it's a pleasure to entertain, are people who're looking for something. And that thing? Can be anyone's. Maybe they want a cool female protagonist. Maybe they like adventures. Maybe they're having identity issues, so they want to read a story about identity. So if I write a rollicking adventure with a cool female protagonist and discuss identity in the process, that's three target audiences nailed. But if the adventure isn't as good as other adventures, and the protagonist feels hollow compared to other heroines, and my discussion of identity comes off as fumbling and timid, no one will care that l wrote it _my_ way--they'll just go back to reading the authors who did it with a more interesting and thought-provoking style.

I agree that it's not about originality of premise. But that goes for originality of voice as well. What matters is how it combines--originality of the whole--and even if your voice is stolen like mine, reading more stories and getting more ideas will give you more elements to mix and match.

Edit: Looking back at what you've posted, your contention seems to be that beginning writers _can't_ consciously mix and match like I'm describing; that they'll inevitably use elements they didn't mean to use. (I think. I still don't get everything you're saying.) I think that's a fundamental misreading. When an author writes a story that's heavily inspired by Tolkien, it's probably not unconscious that he's aping Tolkien--he may not know the originator, but he likely likes that style and wants to write more things like that.


----------



## Ireth

Feo Takahari said:


> Oh sure, if you get famous enough, you'll pick up a few lickspittles who'll read any rubbish you write. (I'm pretty sure these are the only people still reading Piers Anthony.)



Anthony's older stuff is good, and I still read it. Night Mare is my favorite. Haven't read any of his newer stuff though, so I don't exactly have a point for comparison.


----------



## Devor

Feo Takahari said:


> You can say that, but that doesn't mean I'll want to read your story. Or to put it another way:
> 
> No one worth writing for is inherently interested in _you_.
> 
> Oh sure, if you get famous enough, you'll pick up a few lickspittles who'll read any rubbish you write. (I'm pretty sure these are the only people still reading Piers Anthony.) But the readers who're interesting, the readers it's a pleasure to entertain, are people who're looking for something. And that thing? Can be anyone's. Maybe they want a cool female protagonist. Maybe they like adventures. Maybe they're having identity issues, so they want to read a story about identity. So if I write a rollicking adventure with a cool female protagonist and discuss identity in the process, that's three target audiences nailed. But if the adventure isn't as good as other adventures, and the protagonist feels hollow compared to other heroines, and my discussion of identity comes off as fumbling and timid, no one will care that l wrote it _my_ way--they'll just go back to reading the authors who did it a more interesting and thought-provoking style.



If you're relying on outside influences, instead of a creative core, for page after page after page of writing, for scene after scene and character after character, then you're going to fail.

And if you think appealing to an audience is as simple as writing "rollicking adventure with a cool female protagonist and discuss identity in the process," you're going to come across as pandering and fail.

You need to be able to look at a scene and the elements going into it, and create your own path forward.  That's the only way you can possibly _*surprise*_ someone.




> I agree that it's not about originality of premise. But that goes for originality of voice as well. What matters is how it combines--originality of the whole--and even if your voice is stolen like mine, reading more stories and getting more ideas will give you more elements to mix and match.



How many times do I have to say that I'm not talking about _voice?_


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Devor said:


> I don't even understand how your statement is a response to mine, let alone to me and what you know of me from my contributions here.


The latter comments were directed at the general reader of the thread, not toward answering your post specifically. I should have made that more clear.  

We have a mutual respect for one another, and in my opinion, our debate was not a breach of that respect. I'm sorry if you feel that it was. That was not my intent.  Still, we appear to be at an impasse...and that's okay. We won't always agree.


----------



## Feo Takahari

I'm starting to think that I agree with everything you're saying and I just don't understand your wording. But if that interpretation is correct, nothing you have said contradicts anything Smith has said, in which case this whole debate has just been pointless semantics.


----------



## Devor

T.Allen.Smith said:


> The latter comments were directed at the general reader of the thread, not toward answering your post specifically. I should have made that more clear.
> 
> We have a mutual respect for one another, & in my opinion, our debate was not a breach if that respect. I'm sorry if you feel that it was. That was not my intent.



Fair enough, no offense taken.




> Still, we appear to be at an impasse...and that's okay. We won't always agree.



I hate when people say things like that because it sounds like an end to the discussion, when we don't need to "agree" for a discussion to have value.  Could we rather say that maybe we'll find fresher points to bring up next time?


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Devor said:


> I hate when people say things like that because it sounds like an end to the discussion, when we don't need to "agree" for a discussion to have value.
> 
> Could we rather say that maybe we'll find fresher points to bring up next time?



I feel that any further discussion would be circular. I understand your position, I just disagree with you. This doesn't diminish the importance of the debate. Even when I am at odds with people who have differing opinions, I can still learn because I gain a greater understanding of the opposite position.

I can understand, disagree, & and yet still see value in what was learned.


----------



## Devor

Feo Takahari said:


> I'm starting to think that I agree with everything you're saying and I just don't understand your wording. But if that interpretation is correct, nothing you have said contradicts anything Smith has said, in which case this whole debate has just been pointless semantics.



I think maybe I'm trying to isolate something, and say "work on this first," that people are usually mystified by, and don't usually isolate.  I think most people want to find their creativity through brute force, as if you can read everything, and have so many outside sources and inspirations to draw on that it won't matter that you're using them.  And that probably works for a lot of people a lot of the time.  But I think it also holds a lot of people back en route to that point.  You can hack creativity, if you know how to isolate it, and that's a far more powerful tool going forward.

But no, it wouldn't substitute reading at all levels of the writing process, and I didn't mean to suggest that it would.


----------



## Devor

Feo Takahari said:


> Edit: Looking back at what you've posted, your contention seems to be that beginning writers _can't_ consciously mix and match like I'm describing; that they'll inevitably use elements they didn't mean to use. (I think. I still don't get everything you're saying.) I think that's a fundamental misreading. When an author writes a story that's heavily inspired by Tolkien, it's probably not unconscious that he's aping Tolkien--he may not know the originator, but he likely likes that style and wants to write more things like that.



What I mean is, the first few ideas that come into your head are not your own.  They're a composite of ideas you've seen elsewhere, drawn from triggers in whatever it is you're doing that remind you of those ideas.  Those same triggers will also trigger in your reader, so you're going to miss out on the chance to surprise them.

Everyone knows that.  So what they do is take the idea that comes to them and tinker with it a little bit.  This elf, unlike other elves, has broad ears.  This time the explosion hits the wrong car.  This time the wizard is young and wears armor.

But it's still the same original idea that came to you.  Elf.  Explosion.  Wizard.  It's subverting the common elements, and that's still going to feel like _ohh, the common elements._  Ears.  Cars.  Age and armor.  And so on.

Instead, you can hack the process, reset those inspirational triggers, and change the idea which comes to you.

But I've got to get going, and T.Allen's probably right that it's time to set it aside, at least for now.  Maybe another time.


----------



## The Dark One

I've only glanced through this thread, but my 2c is as follows:

In contemplation of my own work...it doesn't really fit into any genre. My most successful books are both crime (in the broad sense) but you'd never call them pure crime. Both have numerous other influences - even a hint of surreality - even a smidgette of fantasy (one of them anyway) and that's what makes them original: crime plus more.

My other book is broadly sci-fi but again it's hard to pigeonhole as there are so many other influences (and it only slowly gets into the sci-fi). 

My point is this - what I do stretches the genre(s) or even sets up its own interstitial space between the genre silos. I'm really proud of that but here's the catch - I only slowly gather traction in terms of an audience. The people who like my stuff REALLY like it but there are some who don't seem to get into it because (I suspect) it isn't immediately what they are expect from the genre they think they are reading.

So I'm a crime writer but I never read crime (beyond Sherlock Holmes when I was a kid and a few books by Irvine Welsh and Iain Banks that flirt with the genre).

I'm also a sci-fi writer but I never (any more) read sci-fi.

I think, that if you read a lot in your working genre, you will inevitably absorb and reproduce the prevailing tropes and themes of that genre. For many writers, that's exactly what they want.

Not me. I revel in my originality and I would rather stay comparatively obscure than read deliberately to absorb and reproduce what readers are used to reading.

And please don't think I'm critical of those that do. This is the hardest gig there is and anyone who has any kind of success has much respect from me.

Except EL James.


----------



## Chilari

Devor said:


> If you're relying on outside influences, instead of a creative core, for page after page after page of writing, for scene after scene and character after character, then you're going to fail.



I think this is where I disagree with you. I don't see outside influences and creative core as being completely separate things. I believe you need outside influences to develop creative core. How can you be creative without examples to inspire you to follow the same path, without stories to ignite your imagination? I don't know about you, but what inspired me to write in the first place was reading. I read these amazing stories, and I wanted to do the same thing. How could anyone become an author without hearing or reading stories that inspire them to write?

This reminds me of that TV show on Channel 4 in Britain a few years ago - Garth Meranghi's Dark Place. A spoof 1970s paranormal hospital show, with interviews with the "actors" and "writer" - Garth Meranghi - in the modern day as if the series was being revived. The character of the writer says in one of these "interviews" that he must be the only author that has written more books than he has read. And you just know that explains why the supposed "original" series is so embarrassingly awful.

You can have outside influences without including those influences in what you write. You say you could write a western form the point of view of a senile granny, without needing to understand the western genre. I'm not sure I agree. I'm sure you could write an interesting story, character arc and so on, but just throwing in a saloon and poker and cowboys spitting tobacco won't make it a good western. It might have the trappings of a western, and a good story at it's core, but lack of understanding of the genre could make the western parts look tacky to fans of westerns, and taint the solid core of the story as a result. I think it's possible for a reader who is a fan of a genre to tell when the author knows what they're talking about and when they're just playing with a genre. And I think that without a solid understanding of the genre, an author can never truly write something in that genre which is both a good story, and a competent representative of the genre.

Knowing a lot about the genre doesn't mean you are restricted by it though. The better your understanding of a genre, the more competently you can bend it to your will, stretch the boundaries without breaking them, and work within those stretched boundaries in a believable manner while still telling a good story.

Let me put it this way: when there's a party requiring balloons, the first balloons I blow tend to be a bit smaller. I don't know the tensile strength of this particular pack of balloons yet, and I don't want them to pop. As I gain more confidence blowing up the balloons, they get bigger. A few might pop right in my face - and then I know how big they can go. So the last few balloons are big, but not so big they'll pop in my face before I've tied the knot. That's how I see it. Without testing some balloons - and without reading widely in a genre - I don't know what the boundaries are. I might go too far, or I might unwittingly be unambitious and not test any boundaries at all. Knowing the limits allows me to make the biggest balloons I can without them exploding in my face - or write the best story I can without going so far past the boundaries of the genre that I go into the ridiculous.


----------



## Devor

Chilari said:


> I don't know about you, but what inspired me to write in the first place was reading. I read these amazing stories, and I wanted to do the same thing. How could anyone become an author without hearing or reading stories that inspire them to write?



I don't want to write because I've read stories that inspired me.  I want to write because I've been told by others that the stories I've written have inspired them.




> You can have outside influences without including those influences in what you write.



What do you think separates people who draw on outside influences, and don't realize it, from those who create their own ideas?


----------



## solas

Jackarandajam, 





> R. A. Salvadore has a row of books that makes my mouth water every time i pass them in the bookstore, and I've heard wonderful things about him, but i refuse to crack open the first book just yet. My world is still so young and fresh and evolutionary in my mind, i don't want to corrupt its originality with other (albeit awesome and well constructed) ideas. I've read lots of fiction, but very little fantasy fiction, and will not until my I've explored my world so thoroughly that ill be able to take an idea in my hands and turn it over, before carefully placing wherever i see fit. I don't want images and "easy answers" to take the place of my originality.


  I could not agree with you more on this quote.  Not that I disagree with others...I see their point but I have done substantial research on the setting, some characters (mythology plays a big part)  have numerous resources BUT this does not mean I am a good fantasy writer...or good writer period.  I thought about responding to one reply who said something like if you do not read fantasy, you shouldn't be writing it (my apologies to the member if I did not get this right!) and I went to reply this is like saying if a male/female designer doesn't wear the clothes they design then they should not be designing...poor analogy!!!  But it boils down to imagination and creativity, which I believe I have, but need to hone on writing skills and want to delete some slow pacing and expand the story more. I am an Amazon addict...I put in the search bar "best fantasy books"...now I am aware of George R.R. Martin and some others but the first one to show up is *The Book of Deacon* which I got for free on my PC kindle.  It is a bit slow but the the descriptions are so rich....and perhaps a tad overdone?  Snow, ice, injury, snow, ice injury.  BUT I wonder if I need to expand on my descriptions...actually I do and will be working on this as I edit the second draft.


----------



## solas

Chilari,





> I don't see outside influences and creative core as being completely separate things. I believe you need outside influences to develop creative core.


  Brilliant point!!


----------



## Abbas-Al-Morim

> I don't want to write because I've read stories that inspired me. I want to write because I've been told by others that the stories I've written have inspired them.



That doesn't explain why you've ever taken up writing. Because I'm sure like most people here you've grown as a writer over the years. The work you claim inspired others is most likely of much higher quality than the first stories you put to paper. Why did you ever decide to take up writing as a hobby if what inspires you is the reaction to your writing now? I'm not saying positive feedback can't be inspiring - it most certainly is! But it's not why people take up writing as a hobby. 

(I just read a few posts here and there in the debate so excuse me if my question is irrelevant or answered elsewhere. I just read Devor's post and that passage strikes me as odd.


----------



## solas

Wordwalker,                                           





> If you weren't a fantasy reader, why would you WANT to be a fantasy writer?


I LIKE to write and initially started a memoir but it became too painful so I ditched it and decided to write something a bit lighter and fantasy struck me....I consider myself to be very creative, writing, mixed media artist, jewelry designer/creator and if you saw my living-room, you would understand why I am interested in fantasy and magic (tastefully done I must add).


----------



## solas

Thanks to all who have replied. I apologize if I have not thanked every one on each thread...I didn't realize the gratitude option until the other day and I do not visit here everyday so I think I will stop posting threads for a while for that reason.  I deactivated my FB account...too distracting.  This is a great group and I am happy to be here!


----------



## Devor

Abbas-Al-Morim said:


> That doesn't explain why you've ever taken up writing. Because I'm sure like most people here you've grown as a writer over the years. The work you claim inspired others is most likely of much higher quality than the first stories you put to paper. Why did you ever decide to take up writing as a hobby if what inspires you is the reaction to your writing now? I'm not saying positive feedback can't be inspiring - it most certainly is! But it's not why people take up writing as a hobby.



I'm going to try to answer that without giving the wrong impression, writing a lengthy history, or wanting to make this about me.  Certainly I've read good books that I enjoy.  But I started writing to contribute to communities I was part of.


----------



## solas

> That doesn't explain why you've ever taken up writing. Because I'm sure like most people here you've grown as a writer over the years. The work you claim inspired others is most likely of much higher quality than the first stories you put to paper. Why did you ever decide to take up writing as a hobby if what inspires you is the reaction to your writing now? I'm not saying positive feedback can't be inspiring - it most certainly is! But it's not why people take up writing as a hobby.


  Perhaps I out of the loop here but I believe people take up writing (this can apply to _anything_ that appeals to someone, because they *want to.  Jeez I wanted to start a thread on cliches but as I mentioned before, I am not here too much. I just did an autocrit review of a chapter and they picked up pale as a ghost but it is in dialogue..do I still have to get rid of it?*


----------



## Feo Takahari

Devor said:


> What do you think separates people who draw on outside influences, and don't realize it, from those who create their own ideas?



Can you please give an example of one of these authors who doesn't seem to recognize outside influences? Paolini seems to know what he's basing his stories off of--it's just how he wants to write. Same for Weis and Hickman.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

This is not a new subject of debate for me. I have the same debate, with the same person once or twice every year. Perhaps some explanation will illustrate why I'm so opinionated on the topic.

First & foremost, let me say the following comments apply to no one in this thread....

The individual I have this debate with is a member of my extended fantasy who claims they want to be a writer and had been world building for roughly a decade...maybe 5 or 6 chapters completed in that time, none of which I've ever seen. 

This person doesn't read. With the exception of Robert Jordan's work, they refuse to read any fiction because of a staunch belief that any outside influences will damage their sense of originality. Pointing out similarities in their ideas from my own reading yields nothing but more resistance. I get the "I don't want to hear about those stories". Further, this person even refuses to read books on the craft of writing. They believe that researching and practicing differing techniques will also damage some original sense of style, which they seem to think is innately present within a writer.

Over the years, I've come to the determination this is nothing more than an excuse (or perhaps fear) to avoid the actual work of writing...the years of practice necessary to write well, in whatever style the writer has chosen.

Considering this, I suppose it's natural for me to instantly be critical of an approach to writing that claims efficacy without reading. Granted, the case I illustrated above may be extreme. Still, I often get suspicious when I hear worlds being developed for years and years while the person avoids outside influences to protect their vision. I have a hard time accepting that as truth. To be clear, I'm not talking about taking time to develop rich worlds, or even world builders disease. Rather, I'm referring to what I view as nothing more than avoidance of the work required to write, just another excuse.

I hope that explains my position more, and why I think in this manner.


----------



## Devor

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I hope that explains my position more, and why I think in this manner.



Yeah, I can understand that.  What you're describing isn't a healthy attitude, and it certainly isn't one I meant to appear to espouse.  If there's an attitude I mean to respond to, it's those who seem to have given up on creativity and seem to think they can succeed by telling the same old stories with better execution.

I understand that reading is a sacred cow, and for good reason.  Although I've meant what I said about the risks of reading having an undue influence on someone who hasn't put their creative abilities into focus, the larger point about honing your creativity could probably have been better made without coming across as an attack on reading.

Anything - planning, research, worldbuilding, even reading, even Mythic Scribes - can serve as someone's red herring and excuse for not developing all of their writing skills, from creativity to narrative voice to character development.  But none of those should be ignored as tools and skills for developing your writing.  Or keep you from writing.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Devor said:


> If there's an attitude I mean to respond to, it's those who seem to have given up on creativity and seem to think they can succeed by telling the same old stories with better execution.  I understand that reading is a sacred cow, and for good reason.  Although I've meant what I said about the risks of reading having an undue influence on someone who hasn't put their creative abilities into focus...


With that, I can wholeheartedly agree.


----------



## Chessie

My two cents: reading, in any genre, is essential to being a good writer. When I read the work of others, not only do I become inspired to finish my own, but I am able to pick up hints of style that help me figure some things out. Other writers are my teachers. If I didn't read, then it would be like trying to learn a new skill on my own. That's setting myself up for failure. 

I had to train to become a yoga teacher. I learned how to adjust students, etc by observing my teachers. I took what they taught me and adjusted it to my own style. But years of practice and observing other teachers helped me learn valuable information that now helps me pass that on to my students.

I see writing in that same way. Its a skill that is learned just like any other. We can teach ourselves a bit about playing baseball, practicing yoga, painting, whatever BUT to be successful at it and charge money for our books, its essential that we read and learn about the craft. Otherwise we are denying ourselves the process of deepening our writing skill and reaching our highest potential.


----------



## Devora

I've read very few fantasy books. Most of my knowledge of fantasy comes from Games and Movies.


----------



## ValkyrieMist

I'm guilty of this, and I've also wondered whether it's a good or bad thing. I always _mean to read more fantasy, but other books--non fiction stuff about mythology, folklore, history, sagas, fairy tales etc.--keep piling on top of them and get read first.

Thanks for asking this question; this thread is an interesting read, and I'm glad I'm not the only one who's had pangs of guilt over this._


----------



## The Dark One

T.Allen.Smith said:


> The individual I have this debate with is a member of my extended fantasy who claims they want to be a writer and had been world building for roughly a decade...maybe 5 or 6 chapters completed in that time, none of which I've ever seen.
> 
> This person doesn't read. With the exception of Robert Jordan's work, they refuse to read any fiction because of a staunch belief that any outside influences will damage their sense of originality. Pointing out similarities in their ideas from my own reading yields nothing but more resistance. I get the "I don't want to hear about those stories". Further, this person even refuses to read books on the craft of writing. They believe that researching and practicing differing techniques will also damage some original sense of style, which they seem to think is innately present within a writer.



I know a writer who is actually very good - has had heaps of short stories published and even won a very prestigious award for short stories. However, for him, the holy grail is getting a novel published and after 30 years of trying he's still nowhere near it.

The weird thing about him though, is that he refuses to redraft. He seems to believe that whatever pours out of his muse is somehow perfect and must not be disturbed.

Having read all of his stuff, it's clear to me that it is possible to be both a brilliant short story writer and a clueless novelist.


----------



## Devor

Having slept on it a bit last night, I wanted to say one more thing about creativity, a point I was getting at but never quite demonstrated.

In any situation, there's a "trigger" which is controlling the ideas that are popping into your head.  That same trigger is working in every other author, and with your readers, to give people similar ideas based on the things you've read, the experiences you've had, and so on.

If you want to be creative, and surprise your readers, you want to do two things:

 - Change the trigger that's giving you ideas so that you can get ideas that are different from the ideas other authors are getting.

 - Set up false triggers to confuse your readers.

Going back to the example I gave earlier:




Devor said:


> The element of a western I want to keep is the standoff at high noon, out in front of the saloon.  It's a very tense moment, so let me start by wanting to turn that tension on its head.



In a high-noon shootoff I immediately identified the tension, and the two main POV characters, as the trigger giving me ideas.  At this point I was still thinking about old western movies and back to the future and Rango, and I immediately thought "That's no good, I need a new trigger."




> Comedy's probably been done, so let's pick a different POV character as the protagonist, so we can experience the moment as a reader with a different feeling and a different kind of tension.  Let's go with the perspective of someone who's excited.



The moment I did that, I was getting ideas from _everywhere_.  Cop shows, cartoons, books, friendships I've had, my kids, literally everywhere I've ever seen someone get excited.  All of a sudden I was in total control of which ideas I was receiving and using in approaching the situation.

If I wanted, having conceived the story, I could still have gone back into the heads of the duelers and it would have felt very different and "creative" from any other shootout you've seen, because I conceived it from wholly different triggers.

Now let all that sink in for a moment, as that's the big take away.  *Change the trigger, change the ideas you get.  Then use the old triggers to trick the reader.*

But I will make a brief point about reading, and why it's relevant to this situation.  Because I _haven't_ read or watched a lot of westerns, _I had no problem recognizing that the ideas I was receiving were stale and why they were being triggered by the common theme._  It was easy for me to see what I needed to change.

It's a lot harder for me to be creative when I'm telling a story about wizards, for instance, because I have no idea where the ideas I'm receiving are coming from.  The idea of the wizard triggers ideas from so many places that I have trouble identifying the triggers, or recognizing whether changing something is actually giving me brand new ideas.  I can, usually, but only because of experience and effort - the task itself is much harder.

Had I read a lot of fantasy early on, I don't think I would have been able to teach myself how to be creative.  The challenge of seeing that path of ideas and where they're coming from is just so much easier when you know you're getting those ideas from Tolkein and D&D and the few other things you've seen.

That's why I try to stress focusing on creativity early on.  The other skills and benefits from reading can be picked up later.


((edit))

In a shout-out to Chilari and others who are arguing about the concept of creativity, let's specifically call this concept *ideation*.


----------



## Feo Takahari

I still don't feel like I can relate to what you're talking about. Like, if you don't want to write Tolkien wizards, write anime wizards, or Discworld wizards, or wizards from the Magister trilogy. They're all different kinds of wizards, and they all have different impacts on the story. (It sounds like you're trying to not write wizards from any of those stories, which seems kind of pointless to me--if you have something new to say about them, say it, and add to the conversation.)


----------



## Devor

Feo Takahari said:


> (It sounds like you're trying to not write wizards from any of those stories, which seems kind of pointless to me--if you have something new to say about them, say it, and add to the conversation.)



"Wizards" is just a simple example.  Usually you've got like ten elements going into a scene, and you've got to figure out how they work together.  But the idea of the trigger is still the same.  You're likely to be seeing the same set of outcomes everyone else is because you're seeing the same triggers, and those triggers are reminding you of a similar set of source experiences.  Find a new trigger, and you'll find a different set of ideas to create that outcome.

((edit))

Reading will give you more source experiences, which is great, but that can make it harder to learn how to manipulate the triggers.  You might be getting more ideas than everyone else, but they're still the same kind of ideas everyone else is getting because the triggers are still the same.


----------



## Devor

So for instance,

Wizard Azulo enters a Troll cave to fight the troll.  What happens?

Right now I'm thinking wizards - Magic, staff, robes, spells, items, so on.
I'm thinking trolls - ugly, tough, clubs, weapons, maybe some kind of riddle, maybe guarding a treasure chest.
I'm thinking caves - dark, damp, rocks, deep tunnel chasms, maybe it leads somewhere.

That is, boring, simple scene. If the wizard is a good guy, and the troll a bad guy, maybe he kills the troll with magic, maybe there's a rock slide.  Maybe the troll wins, so sad.  The obvious twist is to subvert all that, make the troll a good guy too, or a minion with intelligence, or a covert riddler, let them have a talk.  Maybe you throw in something totally new, or you think "What's the troll doing?" and give him a magic cauldron, making him a witch.

You can keep going, but that's sort of the basic set of ideas based on those simple triggers.

Instead, what I'm going to do is manipulate the triggers.  In fact, I'm going to manipulate a hidden trigger:  _Enters._  Let's make it _crawls_.  The wizard _crawls_ into the troll's cave.  Now what do you get?

The wizard is doing subterfuge, and the troll is up to something nefarious.
The wizard is injured, and the troll is a doctor.

Now I've got way different ideas than everyone else does.  Let's go with the first situation - the troll is up to something sneaky.  But I can even drop "crawls."  It makes it too obvious.

I'm going to stop, now, but you can see where that's going?


((edit))

Darnit, I couldn't stop.  That happens sometimes.

I said above that a choice was a wounded wizard crawls into a troll's cave, and the troll is a doctor.  After I posted I saw that the original statement had "to fight" the troll, so I wondered why a wounded wizard would fight a troll doctor.  I also said espionage.  I went with both.

Now I have:

_An evil wounded wizard sneaks into the cave of the troll healer, the greatest medicine-man in the country, to murder the troll and steal his healing ointments, but discovers that the troll is up to something sneaky._

There, that's my creative take on the opening sentence.


----------



## Philip Overby

I should just write this down somewhere and copy and paste it every time I discuss something, because the point above for me goes back to execution. 

So here's my copy and paste job: "Execution trumps all." 

If you have a wizard go into a cave and kill a troll, maybe your vision of that is boring. However, someone else may take that said boring idea and mold it into something significant. You can still do wizard goes in cave, kills troll and make it interesting in the hands of different writers. Hell, that may even be a good challenge. Take something that sounds boring on the surface, don't subvert it, and see how it turns out in the hands of different writers. The Jim Butcher Challenge toyed with that in some ways, but it may have been able to go deeper by giving everyone the same concept and seeing what each person came up with. Say wizard goes into a cave and kills a troll. Everyone has to use that. Some may say, "Well, that's just a contest in who can create the least boring story out of a boring, plaid out concept." I look at it as an opportunity to create something engaging without attempting to subvert. Is it possible? I think so. 

Now in regards to your wizard is injured and the doctor is a troll scenario. Sure, that would probably pique my attention more on the surface. But say take that concept and put it in the hands of a beginning writer and put the wizard kills troll story in the hands of master fantasist. Is the troll doctor story going to be better than the nefarious troll story simply because it subverts tropes or not going with the obvious route?


----------



## Devor

Philip Overby said:


> Is the troll doctor story going to be better than the nefarious troll story simply because it's subvert tropes or not going with the obvious route?



You actually ninja'ed an edit because I added that the wizard discovers the troll up to something sneaky.

But execution wasn't the point.  The point was honing your creativity.  I absolutely reject the idea that you can expect to succeed as an author based solely on having a better execution of the same story; however, execution isn't the point.  The potential for surprising the readers is much greater when you can find a way to give them the wrong expectations of what's going on.

And as I just demonstrated, the _trick_ to creativity wasn't mysterious or difficult at its core at all.  In fact it's very learnable.  Take the same sentence - "Wizard Azulo enters a Troll cave to fight the troll" - and now change _enters_ to a different verb, like _dives._

_Wizard Azulo dives into a Troll cave to fight the troll._

What ideas do you get now?  Can you tell a better story now that you have those new ideas?

Why _wouldn't_ you want to learn that kind of skill?


----------



## Devor

Devor said:


> _Wizard Azulo dives into a Troll cave to fight the troll._



*sigh*

I hate when this happens.

 - The wizard is escaping something as he dives into the troll cave, so maybe the troll is the cause or source of what he's escaping.
 - The troll cave is under water.
 - The wizard is flying, and dives from the sky.

Add those to the doctor/espionage scenario, and we get:

_An evil flying wizard is wounded by the troll's giant crow and dives at high speed into the island cave of the troll doctor, intending to murder the troll and steal his healing ointments.  But before he casts his killing spell, he learns that the troll is also up to something nefarious._

It's getting a little unwieldy now, but whatever.


----------



## Philip Overby

I guess I get what you're saying, but surprising readers doesn't necessarily mean it's better. It has the potential to be better depending on whose hands it's in. There are probably thousands of authors who have become successful based on executing the same kind of stories in slightly different ways. 



> I absolutely reject the idea that you can expect to succeed as an author based solely on having a better execution of the same story; however, execution isn't the point



See: Shakespeare. And umpteen others. 



> Wizard Azulo dives into a Troll cave to fight the troll.
> 
> What ideas do you get now? Can you tell a better story now that you have those new ideas?
> 
> Why wouldn't you want to learn that kind of skill?



I actually wrote something similar to this a while back. It started with the idea of a skydiver attempting to kill a dragon before she hit the ground. The idea itself I thought was cool and different, but when I finished it, it wasn't so hot. This goes in the execution column. 

On the other hand, I'm writing a story now about sky pirates trying to elude a ship with a magic cannon. I started this story with the idea of a magic canon, which probably isn't terribly original. But the story so far is more captivating to me because I'm just executing it better than I did the other story.

The creative process allows for lots of cool things to happen or new ideas to birth, but I don't see how you think execution doesn't play a part in something being successful or not. Super awesome creative ideas don't mean jack if they don't form what you want them to form. Which I suppose in itself, is something writers have to learn. Everyone gets a kernel of an idea different ways. Sometimes the great idea becomes great story, evolving out of several subversions and twists. But sometimes it becomes an incomprehensible mess.

I don't know if all that makes sense, but it's 4 am where I'm at. Time to go dream of wizards and trolls.


----------



## Feo Takahari

Your approach: what if the wizard sneaks into the cave? 

My approach: I read a story where the hero snuck into the cave. What if my wizard does that?

It's six of one and half a dozen of the other. But if you're working off other stories with a sneak for a hero, you can mimic the best things about that kind of story rather than having to discover them all yourself. 

The word I keep coming back to is "iterate." Why reinvent the wheel? (Unless, of course, you've never seen a wheel before--I do think there are stories that haven't been told or have been lost.) Reading more will _always_ give you more tools, and if you don't like a tool, you _always_ have the choice to set it aside and use something else.


----------



## teacup

> I've seen people give up on a lot of key writing concepts, like description or romance or character arcs or worldbuilding or planning or all sorts of things. But this is a first.
> 
> Surprise is one of the biggest joys in life. How can a writer give up on delivering a full emotion to a reader?



I don't think Phil said to give up on it.



Surprising readers can be good, but as Phil said, it doesn't necessarily mean the writing is better. 
Alone, it doesn't make a story/writing good. But it being used with other techniques, with good execution, is what leads to a good story/writing.


----------



## Devor

teacup said:


> I don't think Phil said to give up on it.



That may have been unfair on my part.  But Shakespeare's audience had never heard of the stories he was copying, and very little of the subject matter he was writing in.  Again, as a first-time fantasy writer, you're not going to have that advantage.  Your target audience is going to be people on their fiftieth fantasy book because you're not starting out popular enough to reach people who are any less into fantasy than that.  You need creativity, and creative judgement, I would say, almost more than anything.


----------



## teacup

> You need creativity, and creative judgement, I would say, almost more than anything.



I would say that it's good to have that and to read a lot. I don't see why you'd have to have just one or the other.

And though creativity and creative judgement is a big part of it, if you can't execute it well, it will all fall flat.


----------



## Devor

teacup said:


> I would say that it's good to have that and to read a lot. I don't see why you'd have to have just one or the other.



Reading too much early on can make it harder to learn creativity later if you're not developing it from the get go.  It floods you with ideas and makes it more challenging to sort out where they are coming from and why.  However that stopped being the main point I was making several pages ago.


----------



## Jackarandajam

Since I can remember, since before I remember where I ever saw a Dragon, I've been slaying them, or riding them, or sneaking around them. 

The dragon used to be the row of blueberry bushes behind our house, It's nest of eggs the sandbox, and my sword a hickory branch with the leaves stripped off. 

It might have been a picture in a children's book, or some glimpse of some movie or T.V. show that told me what a dragon was and basically what it looked like, but I will never remember where it's image really originated from. 

As far as I'm concerned, it has always been there.

I've defeated tribes of evil Druids in hand to hand combat, stormed castles, defended lone cottages from the onslaught of dark armies, all before the age of, oh, nine. I could speculate where such ideas came from, but the ideas were new and exciting to me then, and they're new and excited when they come to me now.

I created them, as best as something can be created, and my imagination that knew no bounds then still grows. 

Were my ideas then just a mish mosh of different things i'd seen or heard? No. 
Did i have to know what a dragon was to imagine one in my story? Yes.

I have stories to tell. great, glorious stories that chill the bones and warm the toes and wrinkle the brow and tear the eye.

they will inevitably be founded on the ideas of other stories i have loved, but the imitation stops there. 

There is no need to WORRY if another wizard in another story crawled or charged or sailed or danced or somersaulted into the cave, because if i had been writing that wizard, whichever idea i chose would have been mine. 

It is equally ILL practice, in my mind, to write something because another author did it and it worked, and to write something ONLY because no one else has. If you're only writing for fame, or money, then fine. 

I don't think any great author would argue that being passionately in love with the story you're telling is a huge help in writing something other people will love as well. 

There is a program now, that comes up with formulas for hit music. it reads patterns and sounds and effects, and puts out a formula that artists can follow to produce money making music. 
Thats one of the saddest things i've ever heard, and I salute any band who refuses to use it. I condemn those who do, as entertainers perhaps, but not artists.


----------



## Feo Takahari

Devor said:


> Reading too much early on can make it harder to learn creativity later if you're not developing it from the get go.  It floods you with ideas and makes it more challenging to sort out where they are coming from and why.  However that stopped being the main point I was making several pages ago.



I was reading _Ender's Game_ when I was six years old. I read continuously from then on. But by the time I was eighteen, I had only written one story that wasn't for a school assignment.

When I was eighteen, I wrote _The Silent Girl_. I'm not going to argue whether it's a good story or a bad one--half the people who've read it think it's oddly cute, and the other half think only a sick freak could write something so twisted. But I don't think you could pin it down and say "This story was obviously inspired by this!" or "This story was obviously inspired by that!" It's very much its own entity, not despite but because I read so many different stories and incorporated elements from so many different sources.

I'm going to venture that if I had consumed less media, I would not have been able to write _The Silent Girl_. I certainly wouldn't have come up with the premise if I hadn't spent time on fan forums for _Heroes_. In fact, if I had tried to "find my voice" and not consumed so such media beforehand, I don't think I would ever have finished a story at all!


----------



## Jackarandajam

Vox Day is a great example of an author who wrote fantasy fiction based on the conglomeration of a bunch of existing ideas. It's Rome, and France, and Vikings, just in an alternate universe with goblins (based on hispanics) and elves, based on what everyone assumes elves are like. 

He even says that he read GRRM's fantasy, and decided that he could "do it better." 

That's fine, and I don't fault it's existence. it's just not at all what I am striving for.


----------



## Ireth

Somewhat on-topic: what are people's thoughts on characters acknowledging the stories or other media your works shares elements of? My WIP Winter's Queen started out as basically "let's take the core premise of The Hunter's Moon and turn it on its head", and as I kept writing I realized it shared a lot of the same plot and structure as Finding Nemo -- a young protagonist is taken from their widowed, overprotective father; said father teams up with an ally to get the child back, encountering friends and foes along the way.

The core human characters are from 20th/21st century Earth, and as such would be familiar with Pixar's films and O.R. Melling's books. Would it be awkward for the father's ally (in this case his older brother) to point out the similarity of their own quest to Finding Nemo, perhaps even going so far as to tease him with the nickname 'Marlin'? Or in the case of the kidnapped protagonist, making reference to The Hunter's Moon, which she will have read, and how that story is very different than her own situation?


----------



## Devor

Feo Takahari said:


> When I was eighteen, I wrote _The Silent Girl_. I'm not going to argue whether it's a good story or a bad one--half the people who've read it think it's oddly cute, and the other half think only a sick freak could write something so twisted. But I don't think you could pin it down and say "This story was obviously inspired by this!" or "This story was obviously inspired by that!" It's very much its own entity, not despite but because I read so many different stories and incorporated elements from so many different sources.
> 
> . . . . .
> 
> I'm going to venture that if I had consumed less media, I would not have been able to write _The Silent Girl_.



The question isn't one of _consuming different types of media_ but of _reading fantasy to write fantasy_.  A direct comparison would be if you had read "oddly cute, sick freak" stories as an inspiration for "The Silent Girl."  But that's not what you did if you're saying it's its own entity.

You're drawing on idea sets B, C, and D to write in category A.  That's not the same as writing fantasy while drawing on the same idea set as everyone else who's writing in fantasy.




> In fact, if I had tried to "find my voice" and not consumed so such media beforehand, I don't think I would ever have finished a story at all!



. . . . once again, this is not a discussion about finding your voice.


----------



## Feo Takahari

Devor said:


> You're drawing on idea sets B, C, and D to write in category A.  That's not the same as writing fantasy while drawing on the same idea set as everyone else who's writing in fantasy.



_Buffy the Vampire Slayer_ is fantasy. _Perdido Street Station_ is fantasy. Even _Princess Tutu_ is fantasy. None of those give the same idea set as Tolkien-style fantasy. (For that matter, Tolkien doesn't give the same idea set as today's "Tolkien-style" fantasy!) I guess if you only ever read, I dunno, _Dungeons and Dragons_ tie-in novels, you might not have many different types of fantasy to draw from, but I don't think anyone on this site limits their media consumption _that_ much.


----------



## Steerpike

My personal feeling on the matter is that it helps to be well-read in the genre you want to write in, so you have a familiarity with the genre in which you wish to inject yourself, and are aware of tropes, conventions, expectations, and the like (not that you have to adhere to them, of course).

I also think reading heavily outside of genre is invaluable. Read classics, read fast-paced thrillers, read detective/mystery novels, read Romances. The successful authors in each of these genres is doing something very well that could be drawn upon (in terms of technique) in your own writing.


----------



## Devor

Feo Takahari said:


> I guess if you only ever read, I dunno, _Dungeons and Dragons_ tie-in novels, you might not have many different types of fantasy to draw from, but I don't think anyone on this site limits their media consumption _that_ much.



I really feel that you're being deliberate in misunderstanding me at this point.  Nothing that I've said has been in any way shape or form designed to discourage anyone from reading anything.  All the way back in my first post I said:



> I don't like to say "yes," not because I think you can go without reading fantasy, but because I think you should be more careful about what you read, how you read, when you read, and why you read. I think it can be an advantage to begin developing your story concept and your creativity skills before absorbing too many existing influences.
> 
> The key to being creative is figuring out what you would think of that nobody else ever would. Once you're at that point, you should read as many good books as you can so you can incorporate better writing and storytelling techniques into your concept. But you need to find at least a seed of your creativity first, and you do that by shaking everything else off and pushing at your own ideas until they start to click with you.



Nothing about my opinion has changed throughout this discussion, and nothing about that statement encourages you not to watch _Buffy the Vampire Slayer_ or read _Princess TuTu_.  If you want to be a writer, nothing I can say is going to stop anyone from picking up a book, nor should it.  Instead my point has been a resounding encouragement to *focus as early as possible* on developing your own creative abilities *because it gets harder to do if you wait*.


----------



## Penpilot

Here's my experience with outside influences. And I don't think it's uncommon. When you're starting off as a writer, you're easily swayed by everything you read or see. You want to take all the good ideas you see and kitchen-sink them into what ever story you're working on, regardless of it really fits or not. And the thing is you don't really know if it fits because you're just learning the ropes, and don't really know how to define your story yet. You just know that's awesome and want to do something like that.

These influences can definitely ruin a story or two for you. I used to have to be careful about what author I read because I would unconsciously pick up on their voice and it would make its way into the way I wrote.

But I still read things and I watched things and I let all those tidal influences tug me all directions. And I learned how to handle them. I developed filters. I learned to judge the influences and used them on my current work when appropriate and set them aside when not. I learned to play with those ideas. I understood what the standard direction to go was and I tried to see what other directions were possible. Sometimes I go with the expected and sometimes not. But always, I try to do something interesting with it. Dare I say creative with it?  For myself at lease, I don't think it has hindered my creativity at all. And I have a bucket full of unused ideas because of it.

This is the way I look at it. New writers should write to tropes, write the expected simple story. Those are the baby steps, before running. They allow a writer to accumulate the fundamental skills without worrying about originality or creativity before moving on to bigger and better. If a writer learns to finish, learns to write using a structure, and can avoid the purple prose, that's a foundation for creativity. Once a writer has a firm footing on the basics of writing, regardless of their derivative output, their minds are free. They no longer have to worry about finishing, structure, or prose style. They can simply focus on making their stories interesting. They can focus on being creative.

And I don't think it gets harder to be creative. If anything conforming to boring standard tropes feeds creativity. It makes one wonder if there's anything better. It's like if all a baker makes is boring white bread, over and over for years. Eventually they're going to daydream of making different types of bread. And because they're so familiar with the process of making white bread, they'll understand intimately how certain changes to the recipe will affect the result. At the very least, it will make them want to experiment. But instead of experimenting willy-nilly, they do it from a place of understanding.


----------



## Feo Takahari

@Devor: at this point, all I can say is that it's not at all deliberate that I don't understand what you're talking about. I give up.


----------



## The Dark One

Ireth said:


> Somewhat on-topic: what are people's thoughts on characters acknowledging the stories or other media your works shares elements of? My WIP Winter's Queen started out as basically "let's take the core premise of The Hunter's Moon and turn it on its head", and as I kept writing I realized it shared a lot of the same plot and structure as Finding Nemo -- a young protagonist is taken from their widowed, overprotective father; said father teams up with an ally to get the child back, encountering friends and foes along the way.
> 
> The core human characters are from 20th/21st century Earth, and as such would be familiar with Pixar's films and O.R. Melling's books. Would it be awkward for the father's ally (in this case his older brother) to point out the similarity of their own quest to Finding Nemo, perhaps even going so far as to tease him with the nickname 'Marlin'? Or in the case of the kidnapped protagonist, making reference to The Hunter's Moon, which she will have read, and how that story is very different than her own situation?


My surrealist/sci-fi novel THEM is (to some extent) a parody of 'the sacred quest' so Tolkien comes in for a major kicking all the way through. The narrator occasionally likens his current situation to Frodo's, numerous chapter titles are taken (or subverted) straight from LOTR, numerous lines of prose or dialogue are lifted straight from LOTR...there's even an argument between the main characters about the deus ex machina intervention of Gwahir near the beginning of the story, and then the penultimate chapter is called 'Gwahir Enters the Sammath Naur'. The last chapter, of course, is The Grey Havens.

BTW, Devor...I am very annoyed with your trigger analogy. I use it all the time, but take it much further in acknowledgment of the fact that I know what sort of life and literary experience readers bring to my story and I use that all the time. For example, smell is a really powerful sensory trigger. When I want to leave a reader with a really powerful image, I'm going all out to engage their senses to dredge something out of their own experience that fits into the gaps I deliberately leave in the narrative. (I call it button pressing.)

Way to ruin my secret trick man.


----------



## Sheilawisz

Speaking from personal experience, I can say that you do not have to be a Fantasy reader to be a Fantasy writer... at least, it's not necessary to be an avid reader and explore dozens of Fantasy novels before writing your own story.

Many of the members of Mythic Scribes have read so many Fantasy books that I had not even heard about before joining this community, and sometimes I feel that I should be trying to read more. My Fantasy reader experience is limited to:

1- The Fellowship of the Ring.
2- The Neverending Story.
3- Gulliver's Travels.

4- The Harry Potter series.
5- Alice in Wonderland.

6- Don Quijote de la Mancha, where the characters (living in real world 17th Century Spain) talk about Fantasy elements from Knightly novels that the main character loves, including powerful Dark Wizards capable of riding clouds, teleporting from one side of the world to the other and turning entire armies into animals.

7- The first of the Twilight books, which is a type of Fantasy as well.

I believe that what you _really_ need to be a Fantasy writer is to have a powerful imagination, and also the ability to take your readers out of this world and plunge them deep into your own... Fantasy writing is not as easy as many people out of our genre like to think.


----------



## ThinkerX

Sheila-

Is your limited fantasy reading by choice, or because of a lack of selection? I ask because I've come across posts from others here and elsewhere saying that fantasy/sf books are pretty much not available in their countries.


----------



## Sheilawisz

ThinkerX, my experience with reading Fantasy is limited because of a lack of selection, indeed.

Fantasy literature is very popular in the U.S., where you have many talented Fantasy authors writing series that are almost unknown in most other countries. I have the feeling that English language dominates Fantasy a lot, so if you want to write Fantasy and be successful, English is the way to go.

It can be a good thing to have read few Fantasy works, because I have been influenced much less than other writers and that has allowed me to create a style that is my own.


----------



## Chessie

Sheilawisz said:


> It can be a good thing to have read few Fantasy works, *because I have been influenced much less than other writers and that has allowed me to create a style that is my own.*



I don't see this as being the case, though. Being a reader of all genres helps to expand your imagination. I don't think that reading dampens my artistic flame at all. Its deepened it.


----------



## Jackarandajam

example:
I have never read a fantasy book that breaks down how a magic system works. Ever. Have no idea how anyone goes about doing that. 

Now, i could do one of two things, NEITHER of which would be wrong. 

I could read several fantasy books that describe in detail their system of magic, then come up with my own...
Or...
I could come up with my own.

The problems with the first choice.
1. There will be almost no way to create a magic system that is not SOMEHOW based on the ones i read up on.
2. whatever possibly ingenious and groundbreaking system i would have come up with on my own has probably been lost forever, because my frame of thinking has now been influenced to proceed in somewhat of a certain way.

The problems with the second choice.
1. There are brilliant authors who have already done the hard parts; i can easily take the framework they created and fill in the gaps however i please, and it would still be nicely original, and would still require lots of creative process to personalize.
2. The risk exists of creating something that so closely resembles someones else's method, I look a fool.


If you asked a marine to sketch up a completely original gun, he would do so by purposefully avoiding the designs of guns that he knows to exist.

If you found some native in the middle of nowhere who miraculously had never seen or heard of a gun before, and only vaguely described it and how it worked to him, whatever he came up with would be original by default. it may closely resemble an existing gun, but would undoubtedly be original.

Neither of the two have shamelessly copied something that they know to exist; the marine took an idea and made it his, and the native came nearly as close as possible to creating something solely with his mind.

I, personally, would rather see the natives sketch.


----------



## Philip Overby

This continues to be an interesting discussion so I figured I'd throw my hat back in for a minute.

I would say I'm "decently read" in the fantasy genre. No, I haven't read a lot of the classics and I'm probably not up to speed on every single new writer, but I'd say if you name drop someone, I either know who they are or I've read them. This is mostly because I've been reading fantasy since I was about 13 or so, starting with the Dragonlance books. I didn't read The Hobbit until recently, and I've only read a handful of Conan stories even though I love the character (which is strange in itself).

So when I sit down to write a fantasy story, two things usually happen: 

1. I want to write something I'd like to read and I imagine that others might find entertaining.
2. I want to write something that people may say, "That was fun/cute/interesting/disturbing/different/weird etc."

Those are my two main goals. I feel like in order for me to achieve those goals, I need something to measure that against. For example, if I set out to write a weird story, I may want it to include elements of H.P. Lovecraft with a dash of China Mieville. Their books essentially become part of my "toolbox." I have authors to reference if I want to create a certain mood. 

Now if I've never read these authors, where am I getting my version of weird from? It would have to be from personal experiences. Like one time a spider laid eggs in my ears and they formed a colony inside my head. Empires actually rose and fell inside my ear. 

Now wait...that didn't happen. Yes, I just pulled that out of nowhere. However, this is based on what my concept of weird is. Partly it comes from hearing about weird or horrible things. However, it also comes from my notions of stories with non-human characters acting like humans (Watership Down, Animal Farm, etc.) If I hadn't read (or seen the movie, in some cases) those books, then I feel like I may be missing a part of the toolbox that I may need to write this particular story. I want to see what others are doing with these kind of stories so I can:

a. Not completely copy them
b. Put my own spin on them
c. See what they do both right and wrong

While I could certainly write a weird fantasy story without any knowledge of fantasy books, it feels a little like trying to write an essay on biomedical engineering. OK, that may be stretching it, but with absolutely no knowledge of biomedical engineering I'm either going to write something completely genius that no one ever considered without references, or something completely nonsensical that falls apart.

So for me, anyway, I like reading fantasy, therefore I like writing fantasy. However, if I ever decide to really have a go at hard SF or mystery, I think it's probably a good idea for me to know what came before me.


----------



## Jackarandajam

Philip Overby said:


> While I could certainly write a weird fantasy story without any knowledge of fantasy books, it feels a little like trying to write an essay on biomedical engineering. OK, that may be stretching it, but with absolutely no knowledge of biomedical engineering I'm either going to write something completely genius that no one ever considered without references, or something completely nonsensical that falls apart.



I completely agree (with the whole post, not only what I quoted). 

One thing to remember as well though. even writers such as myself, who are not avid fantasy readers, still have a thorough understanding of what fantasy is. I haven't read many, but I've read a few. I've seen movies and read comic books and looked through weird old books of curiosities. I've read bulfinchs, the Poetic Edda, Grimm's and so on. From those few sources, I may not know "what fantasy readers are expecting these days," but I don't necessarily think that's such a bad thing.
Stylistically, guidance can be brought in from anywhere. Charles dickens for character development, Jules Verne for description, Jane Austen for drama... 
 I will know when I'm done with the editing process whether or not my book is a good, exciting read. It will be fantasy, though based on mostly age old sources.

I think this conversation has taken on several different faces. 
Do you have to read in order to write? A resounding YES.
Do you have to have some fathoming of what your genre is to write in it? I think we all agree the answer is yes.

maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like "weird" stories are a more specific genre than fantasy. I know if I was to write a weird story, I would be highly concerned that it wasn't going to be weird enough for the weird hardened fans of the genre.
With fantasy, it's about excitement, romance, intrigue... Elements you can find in other genres as well.


----------



## Devor

Jackarandajam said:


> I could read several fantasy books that describe in detail their system of magic, then come up with my own...
> Or...
> I could come up with my own.
> 
> The problems with the first choice.
> 1. There will be almost no way to create a magic system that is not SOMEHOW based on the ones i read up on.
> 2. whatever possibly ingenious and groundbreaking system i would have come up with on my own has probably been lost forever, because my frame of thinking has now been influenced to proceed in somewhat of a certain way.



This is the problem that I've been trying to get at.

It's not impossible, at all, to be fully creative and shake off the _undue_ influences.  It's a skill that can be learned, if you work at it.  You can create a unique magic system, even if you've read a million books doing the same thing, if you have been sharpening that creative muscle from the beginning.

It's not a choice between being creative or exposing yourself to more materials.  It's a choice between ignoring your creative skills to work on everything else, or working on your creative abilities early and often.


----------



## Abbas-Al-Morim

Devor said:


> It's not impossible, at all, to be fully creative and shake off the _undue_ influences.  It's a skill that can be learned, if you work at it.  You can create a unique magic system, even if you've read a million books doing the same thing, if you have been sharpening that creative muscle from the beginning.
> 
> It's not a choice between being creative or exposing yourself to more materials.  It's a choice between ignoring your creative skills to work on everything else, or working on your creative abilities early and often.



This is only relevant if you assume originality is still an option. But I believe that it is impossible to be 100% original. There's billions of stories out there, the result of millenia of human imagination. But there's so many stories that no matter how creative you get, you'll find another story that is very similar in nature. It's even possible to find a historical precedent for the story you're writing. Since most of our fantasies take place in an equivalent of medieval Europe, it's easy to see that European history is a big factor in most of our writing. 

What's the difference between writing something and knowing what influenced you during the creative process or writing a story and not knowing about the abundance of stories that share similarities with your work. That's why your point is mostly theoretical in nature and has no practical value to me. 

That being said, I don't believe it's possible not to be influenced by _something_ before you start creating stories of your own. Because before you can write (or just imagine) stories you need an education. You have to learn language first. Your parents will tell you stories and read books to you. Before you can be creative, you have to learn language. And as you learn that language, you'll come into contact with stories and events and other things. Your own life too will be a source of inspiration. So before you can even begin to work on your creative abilities your imagination will be tainted by your own experiences and the stories your parents tell you. So there's *always* an influence. That's why I think you're wrong. But as I said, for me this discussion has no practical value as I believe it is impossible to be 100% original. All our stories are a mishmash of other stories. 

You might be the first person to write the butler as the murderer but you're not the first person to write someone unexpected as the killer. Someone else might have written the maid as a killer. And that person might have drawn from history, or another story.

(Note: I do not claim that it has always been impossible to be original. I'm simply stating that after 6000 years of human civilization everything has been done and said to a degree. So you might be slightly original, but your work will always show large similarities to other works.)


----------



## Devor

Abbas-Al-Morim said:


> This is only relevant if you assume originality is still an option.



"Originality" is not the point.  Originality is a strawman.  The concept of creativity is not about whether the idea _resembles_ something else, but whether the idea _originated_ from something else.  I mentioned a wizard fighting a troll above, and I came to the idea of a wounded wizard sneaking into the cave of a troll healer.  If you've ever played Warcraft, or any number of RPGs, you know that a "troll healer" isn't original.  But I know that I didn't get the idea from Warcraft.  I got the idea from wondering why a wizard might crawl.

I made sure that I was playing with a different set of ideas than anyone else approaching the same task.  If somebody thinks this way consistently, the opportunity for surprising someone emerges around every corner.  Not because the idea is "original," but because it is "creative."  It emerged from a different place than the ideas which surface from the triggers that are currently being worked with.

That is, this troll healer isn't creative because a troll healer is just so "Wow amazing and different."  It's creative because it was conceived from a source that had nothing to do with trolls.

So yes, creativity is possible regardless of your outside influences if you develop the relevant skill.


----------



## A. E. Lowan

Jackarandajam said:


> If you asked a marine to sketch up a completely original gun, he would do so by purposefully avoiding the designs of guns that he knows to exist.
> 
> *If you found some native in the middle of nowhere who miraculously had never seen or heard of a gun before, and only vaguely described it and how it worked to him, whatever he came up with would be original by default. it may closely resemble an existing gun, but would undoubtedly be original.*
> 
> Neither of the two have shamelessly copied something that they know to exist; the marine took an idea and made it his, and the native came nearly as close as possible to creating something solely with his mind.
> 
> I, personally, would rather see the natives sketch.



I'm going to pick on you here, Jack, because you came up with a great example.  Maybe it was an unfortunate analogy, but I'm going after it, nonetheless.

The marine would sketch a gun with an original design, and, let's just assume that he has enough skill to draw a full schematic, if that gun were manufactured, it would work.  Why?  Because he knows guns.

The native could draw an interesting sketch, but he couldn't produce be a usable schematic, and it would not result in a workable weapon.  Why?  Because he has no idea how a gun is supposed to work, how it is assembled, how it fires - any of the finite details that go into the engineering of a firearm.  He has no idea what he's doing because he's never seen or heard of a gun before, and his idea, while interesting and probably original, just won't work in the face of reality.

Everyone in this discussion is making valid points.  Yes, it's possible to be very creative without reading extensively - little kids do it all the time when they play "pretend."  And that's one of the best things about being writers - we get to play pretend for a living!  And, yes, creativity is something that beginning writers should nurture from the start.  But so is reading.

We need to read in our genre, as much as possible.  And we need to read outside our genre, too.  And we need to read non-fiction like fiends, because writers do homework for a living.  As writers we should be voracious readers.  And by "reader" I mean "consumer."  That includes other media, such as movies and TV and games - our genre, speculative fiction, is one of the most diverse in entertainment.  We need to read to know what has gone before us.  We need to read to grow our creative minds, to add, as Phil said, to our "toolboxes."  We need to read to remember why we write.

And a very good reason to read is that it just makes learning the craft of writing easier.  The reason the native with the sketch of the gun had no hope of success was because he had never trained in the art of gun-smithing.  Word-smithing takes no less training, no less practice, no less research both through reading other writers and through reading books on the craft.  Anyone can sketch an interesting gun, and anyone can come up with an interesting story idea, but the work and skill are in the execution.  I can't say that enough times - it's all about the execution.  Ideas are cheap - with practice they become like rabbits, and you can't stop them from reproducing.  Execution is what matters.  And writers learn by writing, and reading, and then repeating.

But the most important reason to read within the genre, to know what's going on in our field, is one I actually haven't seen mentioned a lot yet in this post.  _Our readers are reading._  If we don't know what's out there, if we don't show familiarity with what they are familiar with, it _will_ show and they _will_ know.  The Emperor has no clothes.

Who wants to walk naked down the street?


----------



## Devor

A. E. Lowan said:


> The marine would sketch a gun with an original design, and, let's just assume that he has enough skill to draw a full schematic, if that gun were manufactured, it would work.  Why?  Because he knows guns.
> 
> The native could draw an interesting sketch, but he couldn't produce be a usable schematic, and it would not result in a workable weapon.  Why?  Because he has no idea how a gun is supposed to work, how it is assembled, how it fires - any of the finite details that go into the engineering of a firearm.  He has no idea what he's doing because he's never seen or heard of a gun before, and his idea, while interesting and probably original, just won't work in the face of reality.



There's kind of an interesting aside to this that might be a good case for reflection about the subject matter.

One of the deadliest weapons of its time wasn't built by your typical gun manufacturer.  The Gatling Gun was built by a doctor.  He had experience making _machines,_ but none making guns.  So he created pretty much the first "machine gun."

Why is that relevant?  He was able to do it because he had more passion than any other gun manufacturers.  As a doctor, he thought that if the weapons were more deadly, there would be less of a need to have a big number of troops there firing them.  He thought a bigger gun would save lives in the long run.  His motivation came from his own internal passion to create something powerful.

Does that mean he never took apart guns and studied them?  No.  But it means that his careful study of guns came _after_ his desire and ability to create one and not from being wowed by a gun he's already seen.


----------



## Penpilot

Devor said:


> I mentioned a wizard fighting a troll above, and I came to the idea of a wounded wizard sneaking into the cave of a troll healer.  If you've ever played Warcraft, or any number of RPGs, you know that a "troll healer" isn't original.  But I know that I didn't get the idea from Warcraft.  I got the idea from wondering why a wizard might crawl.
> 
> *snip*
> 
> That is, this troll healer isn't creative because a troll healer is just so "Wow amazing and different."  It's creative because it was conceived from a source that had nothing to do with trolls.



Let me see if I'm understanding you right. Using your troll example, both writers got from point A to B but one writer was influenced, given a shove in a direction, compared to one where the writer wandered and found their own way to point B. And because of this, the uninfluenced writer was more creative or was forced to be more creative. Is my understanding correct?

If it is, then I still think the influenced writer has an advantage in creativity. They're getting from point A to B quicker, and they know that path is a well trodden path. Now instead of wasting time exploring old trails thinking they're new, they can begin cutting new ones using creativity to find a new point C.

I think my stance is why waste time trying to reinvent the wheel from scratch with the intent of improving on it when you have access to the original schematics? You can just take the original schematics, study them, and improve on them instead of doing all that extra work.

To carry the analogy further. Imagine going down to the patent office with this "new" wheel invention and having someone say, "Sorry, but this has already been created and recreated many times, and with better designs." Now there is the possibility that the new design is revolutionary, better than any previous design because they were uninfluenced, but think that would be less likely to happen.

I think someone quoted this above already, but I think it bears repeating. 



> If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.


----------



## Abbas-Al-Morim

Devor said:


> "Originality" is not the point.  Originality is a strawman.  The concept of creativity is not about whether the idea _resembles_ something else, but whether the idea _originated_ from something else.  I mentioned a wizard fighting a troll above, and I came to the idea of a wounded wizard sneaking into the cave of a troll healer.  If you've ever played Warcraft, or any number of RPGs, you know that a "troll healer" isn't original.  But I know that I didn't get the idea from Warcraft.  I got the idea from wondering why a wizard might crawl.
> 
> I made sure that I was playing with a different set of ideas than anyone else approaching the same task.  If somebody thinks this way consistently, the opportunity for surprising someone emerges around every corner.  Not because the idea is "original," but because it is "creative."  It emerged from a different place than the ideas which surface from the triggers that are currently being worked with.
> 
> That is, this troll healer isn't creative because a troll healer is just so "Wow amazing and different."  It's creative because it was conceived from a source that had nothing to do with trolls.
> 
> So yes, creativity is possible regardless of your outside influences if you develop the relevant skill.



I'm confused. How does your reader know where the idea came from? Why would he enjoy it more, knowing it did not originate from a video-game? Or is this all a matter of pride? So at the end of the day you know you put in all the creative work and did not let outside influences do the heavy lifting? 

Why would reading Fantasy somehow stifle your creativity? Or make it harder to be creative? Just because something inspires me doesn't mean I can' twist the concept around, turn it on its head and then tinker with it till it's mine. Anyone can do that, even if they've read a lot first and then later started being creative themselves. I'd even say those who read have got a leg up because they're exposed to a lot of ideas, all of which are potential _starting points_ for the creative process. You gave the example of a mage entering a cavern. If I were to read that story, it'd prove an excellent starting point to create a similar scene of my own which would then make me thing about the how and the why. Which would then result in a similar brainstorm like your own. 

Please let me know if I've got it right this time. I've only read your last few posts before responding so I might get things wrong.
*
Also, the post above me raises some excellent points!*


----------



## Devor

Penpilot said:


> Let me see if I'm understanding you right. Using your troll example, both writers got from point A to B but one writer was influenced, given a shove in a direction, compared to one where the writer wandered and found their own way to point B. And because of this, the uninfluenced writer was more creative or was forced to be more creative. Is my understanding correct?



That example isolated a single element and didn't look at the entire scene.  Most people looking at "Wizard enters troll cave to fight the troll" wouldn't think of a _wounded_ wizard trying to sneak into the cave.

The short answer to your question is "yes," the "troll healer" is more creative when it's created by an author who chose his or her own path to getting to that idea than it is by an author who pushed at troll until they stumbled upon healer.  Originality is not the objective of creativity so much as _taking control of the ideation process_.

But the long answer is that, when taken as a whole, the two authors would not get to the same point.


----------



## Devor

Abbas-Al-Morim said:


> I'm confused. How does your reader know where the idea came from? Why would he enjoy it more, knowing it did not originate from a video-game? Or is this all a matter of pride? So at the end of the day you know you put in all the creative work and did not let outside influences do the heavy lifting?



If two people look at the same situation, they're going to think of similar ideas based on a shared set of experiences, and come to similar conclusions.  One person with more experience may have a broader set of ideas that come to mind, but the triggers remain the same.  Those same triggers are at play in your writing.  The triggers that are giving you ideas about how a book should progress are at play for a reader.

If you understand that process, you can do two things:

1 - Change the triggers that you're using to generate ideas, and suddenly you've got a slew of new ideas to incorporate.

2 - Use the original triggers to manipulate the reader's original expectations.

If you're using this creative process effectively, you will be able to surprise your readers.  And that's one of the biggest things that a reader is looking for in a book.




> Why would reading Fantasy somehow stifle your creativity? Or make it harder to be creative? Just because something inspires me doesn't mean I can' twist the concept around, turn it on its head and then tinker with it till it's mine.



If all you're doing is taking an idea and twisting it around, then you're not being creative.  You're working with the original trigger, and therefore with the same set of ideas that would occur to your readers.

If that's all you're doing, then you're still at "My trolls have bigger fangs."




> Anyone can do that, even if they've read a lot first and then later started being creative themselves.



Clearly I disagree.

A large part of being creative is practice and experience.  It's about pushing yourself, not about listening to me bark about triggers.  If you see a troll and you're flooded with ideas, you might think you're being creative when you're not.  You might have a hard time seeing the triggers, seeing that the wide range of ideas you're seeing has a common source, or even realizing that there wholly different ideas that you can use.




> I'd even say those who read have got a leg up because they're exposed to a lot of ideas, all of which are potential _starting points_ for the creative process. You gave the example of a mage entering a cavern. If I were to read that story, it'd prove an excellent starting point to create a similar scene of my own which would then make me thing about the how and the why. Which would then result in a similar brainstorm like your own.



But the thing is, as an author you're not called upon to be creative just once.  You're called upon to do it repeatedly throughout your book.  Once you open a story with "mage enters cavern," the idea's out of the bag.  The readers have your triggers.  If your creativity stops there, they will be able to pick up on where your book is going.

It's not a one-and-done conception process.  If you've got a scene with your main characters talking about the plot. Why is _your_ version of this scene going to be any more interesting than the thousands of other authors writing almost the exact same scene?  You've got to manipulate the triggers.  You've got to rely on your creativity to write.


----------



## Jabrosky

The story I just penned down definitely had influences. It started out in my mind as a classic "guy goes into ancient ruins to find treasure and experiences the supernatural" scenario, with the Egyptian trappings of the ruins bound to remind people of the _Mummy _movies. However, I didn't want to regurgitate any particular variation of that common scenario. Instead I chose to build my own product around a theme that fascinates me but doesn't appear all that often in your stereotypical mummy story (at least not that I know). The end result was a story that may have hatched from a derivative egg but then evolved into its own creature.

I guess the point I mean to advocate is that it's a good idea to both draw from influences and tweak them as much as you like to design your own product.

It might be of interest that the big theme I used for my story came from reading outside any genre of fiction. Non-fiction can be a treasure trove for ideas that no one has copyrighted.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Jackarandajam said:


> If you asked a marine to sketch up a completely original gun, he would do so by purposefully avoiding the designs of guns that he knows to exist.


I am a Marine. Though I left service in 1996 the saying goes "Once a Marine, always a Marine". I have extensive knowledge of firearms, design, function, & practical use (antiquated & modern).

If I were to design my own, I wouldn't avoid the designs of guns already in existence. Quite the contrary. What I would do is employ the best features of preceding firearms in the new design, while at the same time trying to improve on those features -OR- I would try to find new alternative features to overcome the shortcomings or flaws in previous designs.


----------



## Penpilot

Devor said:


> Originality is not the objective of creativity so much as _taking control of the ideation process_.
> 
> But the long answer is that, when taken as a whole, the two authors would not get to the same point.



I'm not sure I'm understanding exactly what you're saying. So I'm going to try to restate what you're saying and hopefully the pseudo mathematics doesn't confuse things. 

Let's take two authors Author-1 and Author-2

Let I(1)...I = all influences from reading.

Let Z(1)...Z = all ideas

Let X(1)... X = all paths taken given Z idea or ideas.

Let Author-1 be the influenced author.

So if Author-1 has influences I(1), I(2), I(3) and has idea Z(1), they will more likely to take the well trodden paths X(1), X(2), X(3), and the reader will more likely see this coming because they've experienced the same influences and will draw the same conclusion.

But Author-2 has no influences from reading, so when he has idea Z(1), they will more likely take different paths X(4), X(5), X(6), and this will more likely surprise the reader. 

Is this what you're saying?


----------



## solas

> If you don't have favorites within the genre that you've read a lot of, why on earth would would you want to write fantasy?


  Because I love to write and I love to be creative....what better genre is there to test, to have fun, to explore, to cross the boundaries of your creativity than fantasy?!  I am reading Wonderbook  *The Illustrated Guide to Creating Imaginative Fiction*...I highly recommend it...sure I am still in the beginning of the book and have yet to read that reading fantasy is a great source of inspiration!  But with that said, I am sure it will pop up tonight when I return to reading it but there are so many sources to crack open your imagination other than reading fantasy books. I am not saying reading them is not good but I do not think it gives an author who reads fantasy an edge over another author who does not.


----------



## Abbas-Al-Morim

Devor said:


> If two people look at the same situation, they're going to think of similar ideas based on a shared set of experiences, and come to similar conclusions.



I'm not sure how relevant this point is, but this is blatantly false. Individuals are unique both in the experiences they've lived through and the way they think. Only the parts of the human psyche that are the result of evolutionary biology are shared by (most) of us. 



> One person with more experience may have a broader set of ideas that come to mind, but the triggers remain the same.  Those same triggers are at play in your writing.  The triggers that are giving you ideas about how a book should progress are at play for a reader.



Not sure what you mean by "_triggers_". If it's a new term you've just introduced I'd like some clarification. If you've already given a definition of "_triggers_" then I'd appreciate it if you could point me to the appropriate post. 

*I'll assume triggers are the starting point of the creative process.* 



> If you understand that process, you can do two things:
> 
> 1 - Change the triggers that you're using to generate ideas, and suddenly you've got a slew of new ideas to incorporate.
> 
> 2 - Use the original triggers to manipulate the reader's original expectations.
> 
> If you're using this creative process effectively, you will be able to surprise your readers.  And that's one of the biggest things that a reader is looking for in a book.



Yes, the unexpected can be very satisfying for the reader, provided the suspension of disbelief isn't damaged. That being said, you don't really explain why those who use an external source of inspiration aren't able to use this system (as effectively). 



> If all you're doing is taking an idea and twisting it around, then you're not being creative.  You're working with the original trigger, and therefore with the same set of ideas that would occur to your readers. If that's all you're doing, then you're still at "My trolls have bigger fangs."
> 
> Clearly I disagree.



What? That's a very narrow-minded definition of creativity you're using here. Does this mean you do not count parody and satire as creative expression? Because the very essence of a parody is the comical enlargement of a situation. You take an idea and then you twist it around to make it larger-than-life.

I couldn't disagree more. Maybe you've misunderstood what I mean by twisting an idea around. Twisting an idea around means making changes small and large, using other sources of inspiration to rework the initial inspiration into something of your own. It's definitely a creative process as you're associating ideas and building something new and personal. 



> A large part of being creative is practice and experience.  It's about pushing yourself, not about listening to me bark about triggers.  If you see a troll and you're flooded with ideas, you might think you're being creative when you're not.  You might have a hard time seeing the triggers, seeing that the wide range of ideas you're seeing has a common source, or even realizing that there wholly different ideas that you can use.



So basically you're stating that because one source inspires me, my imagination will now be influenced by that source only? I agree to a point. I remember - back when I was just starting as a worldbuilder - reading a book or watching a movie and then building my own world and later discovering it was very similar to the one in that inspired me. But that only happened when I started a new project and as soon as something else inspired me I'd start making some changes here and there. Most projects take a while and so there are multiple things that inspire me. I think reading that book is very valuable to me, especially in the long run. It's like carrying a satchel filled with ideas and concepts from all the stories you've ever read. You're influenced by *all of them* and that means you're influenced by a mishmash of ideas and concepts. Creativity is drawing from those experiences and using those experiences to make something new. 



> But the thing is, as an author you're not called upon to be creative just once.  You're called upon to do it repeatedly throughout your book.  Once you open a story with "mage enters cavern," the idea's out of the bag.  The readers have your triggers.  If your creativity stops there, they will be able to pick up on where your book is going.
> 
> It's not a one-and-done conception process.  If you've got a scene with your main characters talking about the plot. Why is _your_ version of this scene going to be any more interesting than the thousands of other authors writing almost the exact same scene?  You've got to manipulate the triggers.  You've got to rely on your creativity to write.



I'm sure something new (or something old!) would inspire me soon enough. I'd think of an old book I read, I'd read something new or watch a good movie and *bam!* And I'm not saying I can't be creative without proper inspiration first - I don't believe in a muse. But when you're thinking of new plot devices and such, you'll be influenced by the wealth of stories stored in that great library we call the unconsciousness. The bigger the library, the wealthier your stories will be. And if you haven't read any Fantasy, then you'll draw from all the other stories you've read, lived and heard of. You'll always be influenced by stories you know and making a conscious effort to avoid external inspiration won't change that. All those things you'll come up with will still be the result of one external source or the other.


----------



## solas

Thanks to ALL who have responded to this thread!!  This is a very thought provoking group!!  And although I may disagree, I respect *everyone's* opinion!  :balanced:


----------



## Devor

Penpilot said:


> I'm not sure I'm understanding exactly what you're saying. So I'm going to try to restate what you're saying and hopefully the pseudo mathematics doesn't confuse things.



Okay, let's give it a shot.

I was an econ major and took Calc III, so the math shouldn't be a problem.




> Let's take two authors Author-1 and Author-2
> 
> Let I(1)...I = all influences from reading.
> 
> Let Z(1)...Z = all ideas
> 
> Let X(1)... X = all paths taken given Z idea or ideas.
> 
> Let Author-1 be the influenced author.
> 
> So if Author-1 has influences I(1), I(2), I(3) and has idea Z(1), they will more likely to take the well trodden paths X(1), X(2), X(3), and the reader will more likely see this coming because they've experienced the same influences and will draw the same conclusion.
> 
> But Author-2 has no influences from reading, so when he has idea Z(1), they will more likely take different paths X(4), X(5), X(6), and this will more likely surprise the reader.
> 
> Is this what you're saying?



No.

Author 1 has story elements x, y and z in front of him.  These story elements trigger idea set A{1....n}, where A represents the author's experiences seeing those elements in other works.

Author 2 has those same story elements in front of her, x, y, and z.  These story elements trigger idea set B{1....m}, based on her experience with seeing those elements in other works.

Let n > m.  Author 1 has read more books.

However, Author 2 is unhappy with idea set B.  She recognizes that it's too small.  Consequently, she explores story elements t, u, v and w to trigger idea set C{1.....p}.

Where idea sets B + C > A.

Meanwhile, Author 1 is satisfied with idea set A and uses it.

However, readers also have access to idea set D{1......d}.  Such that:

D might be < or > than A, but D < B + C.

I doubt that worked for you, but I tried.


((edit))

This example is actually unfinished, which was obvious to me on reread but I've got three kids in the room with me, and got distracted at the end there.

The reason I said "No" is this:

Author 1 = larger initial idea set, but that idea set more likely to be seen the reader.

Author 2 = smaller initial idea set, finds supplemental ideas that might be unexpected by the reader.

This doesn't preclude the possibility that Author 2, over time, acquires a larger initial idea set.  It just means that, working with a smaller initial set, _they were forced to learn how to find supplemental ideas in a way that Author 1 was not._

Author 1 does not acquire said skill.


----------



## Penpilot

Devor said:


> I doubt that worked for you, but I tried.



Actually, that did work. I don't know if I'm convinced, but I'm pretty sure I know what you're saying now. It's something I'm going to have to mull over.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

I had come to an understanding. Now I'm once again thoroughly confused.  

Thanks for introducing calculus to the conversation.


----------



## Jabrosky

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I had come to an understanding. Now I'm once again thoroughly confused.  Thanks for introducing calculus to the conversation.


I thought the same thing. I glaze over anything mathematical.


----------



## Devor

Abbas-Al-Morim said:


> Not sure what you mean by "_triggers_".
> 
> . . . .
> 
> *I'll assume triggers are the starting point of the creative process.*
> 
> . . . .
> 
> Maybe you've misunderstood what I mean by twisting an idea around. Twisting an idea around means making changes small and large, using other sources of inspiration to rework the initial inspiration into something of your own. It's definitely a creative process as you're associating ideas and building something new and personal.



A trigger, in this context, is a concept which causes you to think of other related concepts.

If I say "wizard," and you think "staff," that's not being creative.  You didn't create the concept of a staff as it applies to the wizard, it was "triggered" in your head by past experiences with the concept.

If you take the idea of a staff, and you play with it, you're _probably_ not being creative because you're manipulating an idea that was given to you.  You're making it smaller, or longer, or giving it an extra feature, or transforming it into a "sword" that does the same thing plus a little more.  That is, ideas that many people will readily derive from the idea of a "staff."

But I say probably because even "staff" has some implied triggers which can be changed.  Magic focus.  Weapon.  Power.  Old.  I can change these, and I can find a set of ideas that are very different.  I can change "old" to "young."  "Weapon" to "tool."  "Power" to "nonchalance."  And "Magic Focus"?  Like the power goes from wizard to staff to the world?  Let's drop that.

Now I'm working with very different ideas than those typically implied by the word "staff."  I don't even need to go beyond the very first thing that comes to mind now to demonstrate the difference, as my first thought is an iPad with a stylus.  Converting that into a fantasy, I give my wizard what looks like a piece of magic chalk and a flat stone with a fancy description, who sits and draws and casts fireballs that appear amid his enemies without his even looking up.

In this example I changed the triggers and unlocked new ideas, giving me a tremendous amount of _choice_ in creating the wizard I wanted to create.




> What? That's a very narrow-minded definition of creativity you're using here. Does this mean you do not count parody and satire as creative expression? Because the very essence of a parody is the comical enlargement of a situation. You take an idea and then you twist it around to make it larger-than-life.



Parody and Satire work on this very same principle.  By presenting a normal concept alongside a different set of triggers, it appears new and surprising to the audience.




> I'm sure something new (or something old!) would inspire me soon enough.



Wouldn't it be cool to control _when_ and _what_ will inspire you?


----------



## Feo Takahari

Devor said:


> If I say "wizard," and you think "staff," that's not being creative.  You didn't create the concept of a staff as it applies to the wizard, it was "triggered" in your head by past experiences with the concept.
> 
> If you take the idea of a staff, and you play with it, you're _probably_ not being creative because you're manipulating an idea that was given to you.  You're making it smaller, or longer, or giving it an extra feature, or transforming it into a "sword" that does the same thing plus a little more.  That is, ideas that many people will readily derive from the idea of a "staff."
> 
> But I say probably because even "staff" has some implied triggers which can be changed.  Magic focus.  Weapon.  Power.  Old.  I can change these, and I can find a set of ideas that are very different.  I can change "old" to "young."  "Weapon" to "tool."  "Power" to "nonchalance."  And "Magic Focus"?  Like the power goes from wizard to staff to the world?  Let's drop that.
> 
> Now I'm working with very different ideas than those typically implied by the word "staff."  I don't even need to go beyond the very first thing that comes to mind now to demonstrate the difference, as my first thought is an iPad with a stylus.  Converting that into a fantasy, I give my wizard what looks like a piece of magic chalk and a flat stone with a fancy description, who sits and draws and casts fireballs that appear amid his enemies without his even looking up.



Part of my problem with all this talk about creativity is that your examples don't seem very . . . I want to say that they don't seem very creative, but that's not the right word. They don't seem very _vibrant_.

A spellcaster who makes constructs out of her own blood? That's probably not creative--there's a lot of fictional precedent for a character like that--but it's cool and feels clever.

A spellcaster who makes someone's subjective experience of time speed up or slow down? I'm pretty sure TV Tropes has a page for that, but it's cool and feels clever.

But a spellcaster who draws on a piece of stone to create magic fireballs? That doesn't feel functionally _different_ from a spellcaster who shoots fireballs from a staff.

To put it bluntly, none of the examples you've given so far in this thread have made me feel that I could create better stories by doing whatever you're doing than I could by just doing what I'm doing.


----------



## Philip Overby

This brings up an interesting point: being creative vs. being clever.

If you come up with a clever idea based on something else, then people may say, "Oh, I loved _____, so I want to check out this newer/different version of it." That's why people ask for recommendations based on things they already like. That's why sub-genres exist, to make it easier for readers to find things similar to the things they like. That's (unfortunately) the pitch method probably used in Hollywood when remakes are made so often. So I think there are pros and cons of taking ideas and slightly spinning them.

On the other hand, the "uncorrupted" creative process seems to think more along the lines of what the writer wants. Sure, readers want to be surprised, but at the same time, that's not all they want. I brought up some of these issues in my last main page article about fantasy being too safe. Perhaps changing the way we create fantasy may make more creative fiction. But I think a strength of that may be to consume multiple kinds of sources as I mentioned elsewhere in this thread. 

I'll give one example of a "pure" creative approach. When I was a child, I created pictures of the planets with faces and muscles. There was this idea that the planets all had a big wrestling match with each other and the winner got to be leader of the galaxy. That was all I came up with. However, I basically did the Reese's Cups trick: mixed two things I loved. Instead of peanut butter and chocolate, it was astronomy and wrestling. So even though I had never read anything, I'd created a fantasy setting. Sure, my idea was pure to me, but I was still being influenced somehow by things that existed. 

If I was to redo this idea today, I may take elements of something like Ultimate M.U.S.C.L.E, WWE, astronomical physics and mesh them altogether. A lowly scientist from Earth has to wrestle creatures throughout the galaxy using scientific methods instead of brute strength. Every planet may have different rules, different techniques, etc. In order for the scientist to gain the respect he wants throughout the galaxy for his methods, and to prove brute strenght isn't the only way, he must win the tournament. OK, so this may not make much sense either, but here I'm using my knowledge of fiction to come up with something that I perceive to be interesting and possible to follow as a story. When I was a kid, I didn't care about a story, I just wanted to create something. Which goes back to the "creative gun" vs. the "functional gun." 

I don't believe the creative process can be whittled down to "this works" and "this doesn't work." There may be more effective ways for some people to write, but ultimately the idea is present a story people want to read. Whichever process gets you to that point is the best one for you.

I feel like what Devor's suggesting is tinkering with different choices instead of the obvious, preconceived ones. Instead of walking into a cave, the wizard crawls. Or instead of crawling into the cave, the wizard falls. Or instead of falling into the cave, the wizard rides a jet ski, whatever. It's basically the "What if...?" approach worded differently.

_What if instead of the wizard walking into the cave, he dives?

What if instead of the the troll being a monster, it's a doctor?

What if instead of the wizard having a staff, he has a spell-burping machine jammed into his brain jack?_

Maybe that's not what he's suggesting, but I don't see much difference in it.


----------



## Abbas-Al-Morim

> If you take the idea of a staff, and you play with it, you're probably not being creative because you're manipulating an idea that was given to you. You're making it smaller, or longer, or giving it an extra feature, or transforming it into a "sword" that does the same thing plus a little more. That is, ideas that many people will readily derive from the idea of a "staff.



I find this talk of triggers unnecessary. It's seems like you're trying to create two types of creativity; _true_ creativity and _lesser_ creativity. Your entire hypothesis revolves around these concepts and the fact that true creativity is exclusive to those who try to negate outside influences. The fact is it's just not true. Basically you're implying that those who use external inspiration are stuck with lesser creativity (minor changes to the inspiration). But that's just not true at all. It's perfectly possible to borrow a concept from a movie and then go wild with it in any direction. Besides, as I'll state in response to a second quote, there is no such thing as _"control over your inspiration"_. It's impossible not to use external inspiration. And then, it's quite obvious that those who seek to enrich their pool of inspiration are at an advantage. 



> Wouldn't it be cool to control when and what will inspire you?



You don't control that at all. As I said, you'll always find inspiration in _something_. Could be a fantasy book, a thriller you read or that movie you've watched. Maybe it's your boss or perhaps the old man on the subway. Unless you purposefully avoid every stimulation (impossible!) you'll always be inspired by random elements. You've no control over what inspires you. The brainstorm examples you've posted are influenced by the pool of inspiring events stored in your subconsciousness. You do not get to pick which one will inspire you.


----------



## Devor

> But a spellcaster who draws on a piece of stone to create magic fireballs? That doesn't feel *functionally* _different_ from a spellcaster who shoots fireballs from a staff.
> 
> To put it bluntly, none of the examples you've given so far in this thread have made me feel that I could create better stories by doing whatever you're doing than I could by just doing what I'm doing.



1 - I've highlighted the word _functionally._  I wasn't going for functionally different.  I was going for having a different impact on the reader.  I wanted to invoke images of youth instead of power.

2 - Having a fireball appear next to you, by a guy who didn't even need to look up, instead of being thrown at you, is friggin' terrifying.

3 - I didn't create a wizard.  I created a staff.


----------



## Devor

Abbas-Al-Morim said:


> You've no control over what inspires you. The brainstorm examples you've posted are influenced by the pool of inspiring events stored in your subconsciousness. You do not get to pick which one will inspire you.



I had a great deal of control over what inspired me.

Taking the staff example above, I said:

Magic Focus -> drop it
Old -> Young
Power -> Nonchalance
Weapon -> Tool

Now let me make it:

Magic Focus -> Instead of wizard-staff-world, let's have it shoot from the staff into the sky before anything happens.
Old -> Vibrance
Power -> Mystery
Weapon -> I want wholly different ideas, so I'm going to say _Toy_, at least for sake of brainstorming.

The first few things that I'm thinking of aren't the shape of the object but the munitions being shot into the sky.  My first thought at step one was lightning.  It goes up, into the sky, and comes down on a target.  Pretty much any magic could.  But vibrance and mystery changed that.  Something obscure and colorful goes into the sky, and after some delay, something unexpected happens.

Maybe the staff is _beaming_ instructions for the wizard's spell to something like a satellite in the sky, and the satellite sends the spell back down to earth.  So nobody can tell what spell the wizard cast until it hurls down upon everyone.

Now I have a new trigger.  Satellite.  I could tinker with the concepts buried in that word, but at this point I don't want to.  It doesn't seem necessary, as there's already plenty of different ideas to work with, so I'm just going to stare at it and list the ideas that come to me.

Satellite.  Flying Monster.  Flying ball of space magic.  Flying.  Flying city, where a big group of wizards read the instructions and send a joint spell hurling down at the earth.

That makes this _staff_ and the wizard carrying it a spotter, like they use in special ops.  And oh wow did that open up ideas about what the character would look or behave like.  But we're only doing the staff.

Toy.  I'll spare everyone the first thoughts.  But my son likes to pick up the cardboard in a paper towl roll and swing it and look into it and shout into it.  I like that as a starting point for this.  Make it a little bigger, give it a carving at the end where it spits out the instructions, like a dragon or whatever's appropriate to the setting.  But what feeds into it.  Remembering that we now have special ops as a trigger, I'm going to put it at the top of a backpack.

So the final staff looks like the following:

The wizard speaks his spell into a little thing in his hand.  It connects with his backpack.  A vibrant purple beam of light shoots up into the sky.  The wizards in cloud city read the spell and collectively send it hurling back down against its target.

But that doesn't represent any kind of control over the creative process?  That doesn't give me a wide range of choice for the kind of device I'm creating?

If you don't think so, try it.

((edit))

Going back to the point, about _unlocking_ ideas to give me more choice, I now have two ideas for a staff that work well together.  The iPad+stylus would make a great input device for this staff, instead of having the character speak into something obscure in his hand.


----------



## Devor

Philip Overby said:


> I feel like what Devor's suggesting is tinkering with different choices instead of the obvious, preconceived ones. Instead of walking into a cave, the wizard crawls. Or instead of crawling into the cave, the wizard falls. Or instead of falling into the cave, the wizard rides a jet ski, whatever. It's basically the "What if...?" approach worded differently.
> 
> _What if instead of the wizard walking into the cave, he dives?
> 
> What if instead of the the troll being a monster, it's a doctor?
> 
> What if instead of the wizard having a staff, he has a spell-burping machine jammed into his brain jack?_
> 
> Maybe that's not what he's suggesting, but I don't see much difference in it.



I actually said before that _What if_ is a statement which will hold you back.  It's hesitant, it's limiting, it's speculative.  And by reflecting on a full sentence, you've buried a bunch of triggers into that sentence which are affecting the ideas you're getting.  You might wonder, _What if the wizard crawled into a troll cave?_  But you would probably answer, _No, that's stupid, the troll would smash him in the head._

I looked at the prompt and thought, "There's not enough motivation or drama implied here.  _Enters_ is weak.  What's a word that suggests drama?  How about _crawls._  Why do people crawl?  What ideas come to mind now?  The wizard's wounded, the wizard's sneaking, the wizard's a four year old girl and the troll's her big brother.  Do I like those ideas?  Yeah sure.  But let's try another word and see if we can get _more_ ideas.  _Dives._  Why would a wizard dive...."


----------



## Philip Overby

I don't know, still seems like you're saying "What if...?"

What if the wizard is sneaking? What if he's crawling? What if he's a four year old? It doesn't seem that much different to me.


----------



## Devor

Philip Overby said:


> I don't know, still seems like you're saying "What if...?"
> 
> What if the wizard is sneaking? What if he's crawling? What if he's a four year old? It doesn't seem that much different to me.



It's extremely different.  Try it and see.

_What if the wizard *barges* into the troll's cave?_

What do you get?


----------



## Philip Overby

Let's see:

What if the wizard barges into the troll cave? What if he's wearing heavy iron armor? What if he doesn't care if anyone hears him? What if he has a hearing problem because of his tooth ache? What if he's an ogre wizard and the troll is a dentist? What if the troll dentist hasn't done work in years? What if he's agreed to pull the ogre wizard's tooth out if he brings him a dragon egg? What if the dragon egg is hatching and the wizard much think quickly to get it to the troll? What if the troll cave is full of teeth golems? 

I guess I could keep going.


----------



## Abbas-Al-Morim

Devor said:


> ...



You really didn't need to type all that because you've already given us an example of a brainstorming session. Let me just repeat the answer I gave last time:

You do not have control. You're just putting ideas together, ideas that have an external origin. The reason you put Ipad or satellite or any other concept into the mix is because you know these things. They're stored in your memory. You know what an Ipad is because you've read about them, or you own one or you've seen them on the tele. You're taking that idea and combining it with others that just happen to pop into your mind. You didn't control which ones popped into your mind, they just did. Some by association (sky, satellite) and others perhaps more randomly. (All of this mutatis mutandis for fantasy concepts) How can you control what you come up with during a brainstorm? It's like Freudian psycho-analysis with the ink stains. Your subconsciousness decides what will pop into your mind. Same concept for a brainstorm. 

That and you _still _ haven't explained why a well-read person might experience difficulties doing this exercise. It seems logical a well-read person has a more extensive library of concepts for association. So that would give them an advantage.


----------



## Devor

Philip Overby said:


> Let's see:
> 
> What if the wizard barges into the troll cave? What if he's wearing heavy iron armor? What if he doesn't care if anyone hears him? What if he's an ogre wizard with a tooth ache and the troll is a dentist? What if the troll dentist hasn't done work in years? What if he's agreed to pull the ogre wizard's tooth out if he brings him a dragon egg? What if the dragon egg is hatching and the wizard much think quickly to get it to the troll? What if the troll cave is full of teeth golems?
> 
> I guess I could keep going.



I'm not sure you got anywhere.

Now think:

_Why would a wizard barge in . . . _

What does that give you?  Do that.

Here's what it gave me:



Spoiler: My thoughts.



The wizard barges in because he's angry at the troll.  They're conspirators, and the troll screwed up.  Do I like that idea?  Sure.


----------



## Devor

Abbas-Al-Morim said:


> You really didn't need to type all that because you've already given us an example of a brainstorming session.



Even thought I quoted you, it wasn't really directed at you.  Others were unimpressed by how creative it was so I wanted to go for _functionally_ different instead of the more subtle first session.




> You do not have control. You're just putting ideas together, ideas that have an external origin.



I chose which ideas came to me by taking control of the triggers I was focused on.  That's control.




> That and you _still _ haven't explained why a well-read person might experience difficulties doing this exercise. It seems logical a well-read person has a more extensive library of concepts for association. So that would give them an advantage.



I have.  Several times.  Go read them and explain why it isn't true, instead of asking to see it again.


----------



## Abbas-Al-Morim

> I chose which ideas came to me by taking control of the triggers I was focused on. That's control.



You chose your starting point, not what happened next. Creativity is not your starting point, it's what happens next. As such you have no _real_ control over the creative process. 



> I have. Several times. Go read them and explain why it isn't true, instead of asking to see it again.



I have offered evidence contradicting your points (in the long post I wrote last night and the shorter one I did this morning) and you have not refuted my claims. Ergo, it's your move - not mine.


----------



## Devor

Abbas-Al-Morim said:


> You chose your starting point, not what happened next. Creativity is not your starting point, it's what happens next. As such you have no _real_ control over the creative process.



I don't see a point in arguing about the taxonomic categorization of creativity.  I've been abundantly clear about what I'm talking about.  You can use the first group of ideas that come to mind, or you can find ways to unlock a wider variety of ideas.  Nor is this about me being super-awesome-creative and everyone else being a stale, uninspired bumb.  I'm sure that many other people in this conversation are doing similar things on a subconscious level.  I'm only trying to isolate it as a separate skill and bring it to the surface.




> I have offered evidence contradicting your points (in the long post I wrote last night and the shorter one I did this morning) and you have not refuted my claims. Ergo, it's your move - not mine.



You said:



Abbas-Al-Morim said:


> So basically you're stating that because one source inspires me, my imagination will now be influenced by that source only? I agree to a point. I remember - back when I was just starting as a worldbuilder - reading a book or watching a movie and then building my own world and later discovering it was very similar to the one in that inspired me. But that only happened when I started a new project and as soon as something else inspired me I'd start making some changes here and there. Most projects take a while and so there are multiple things that inspire me. I think reading that book is very valuable to me, especially in the long run. It's like carrying a satchel filled with ideas and concepts from all the stories you've ever read. You're influenced by *all of them* and that means you're influenced by a mishmash of ideas and concepts. Creativity is drawing from those experiences and using those experiences to make something new.



When you realized your idea set was too small, you went and searched for new ideas from other books.  I would have immediately thought, "This is unacceptable, let me create new ideas to work with right here, right now."

What point does that prove?


----------



## Philip Overby

Devor: I don't see how the version you came up still isn't a "What if...?" scenario.

You could say "Why does the wizard barge in?" "Well because they're conspirators."

How is that different than "What if the wizard barges in?" "What if they're conspirators? What if they're lovers? etc. etc."

It kind of seems like you're dancing around not using "What if...?" 

I also don't see how my version feels like it "doesn't go anywhere." I've got a clear idea of characters, motivation, a potential plot, complications, all from just "What iffing?" over and over again. If this is one of those arguments about how one creative process is better than the other or more effective, then I guess I'm going to have to drop the "agree to disagree" card.


----------



## Devor

Philip Overby said:


> *What if the wizard barges into the troll cave? What if he's wearing heavy iron armor? What if he doesn't care if anyone hears him? What if he has a hearing problem because of his tooth ache? What if he's an ogre wizard and the troll is a dentist? What if the troll dentist hasn't done work in years? What if he's agreed to pull the ogre wizard's tooth out if he brings him a dragon egg? What if the dragon egg is hatching and the wizard much think quickly to get it to the troll? What if the troll cave is full of teeth golems?*



I want to dissect this a little more, and I hope Phil won't take offense by the effort.

The section in red represents where it looks like *barge* got you.  The bold line in the middle seems to be the product of an effort, conscious or otherwise, to find new triggers, sort of a wild take.  The section in green is the product of the new triggers.

Now, to me, the section in red represents elements that are _transferable_ to another version of the story.  The wizard could wear iron armor while diving or sneaking, and that might make things more interesting.  You've introduced an element of sound, whether the wizard is heard, that might be relevant.

That transferability is part of the reason I chose crawl and dive and barge.  I was looking for ideas for _drama_.

You've picked on Ogre Wizard and Troll Dentist.  That's fine, if that's a story you want to tell.  But it represents a mix of triggers that's pretty wild and a little dominating.  Something like _teeth golems?_  The readers will probably go, "Of course," and that might be amusing.

But at this point, think about how _crawls_ and _barges_ and _dives_ might affect your story.  Crawls?  Wounded?  Maybe the wizard's in a lot of pain from his toothache.  Barges?  Maybe he's _pissed_ at the troll for _botching_ the tooth surgery.  Surgery?  Maybe the Ogre now has a magical tooth.  Dives?  Maybe the Ogre Wizard dives at the troll dentist and strangles him.

You don't have to use those, of course, but with those extra ideas in mind, and by searching out even more drama-words, you would have more ideas for writing the scene than you might have otherwise.


----------



## Abbas-Al-Morim

Devor said:


> I don't see a point in arguing about the taxonomic categorization of creativity.  I've been abundantly clear about what I'm talking about.



It is important to the point I'm making. You can't discard my arguments because you've been abundantly clear. 



> When you realized your idea set was too small, you went and searched for new ideas from other books.  I would have immediately thought, "This is unacceptable, let me create new ideas to work with right here, right now."
> 
> What point does that prove?



Nothing at all. I explained all the ideas you can ever come up with find their source elsewhere, in a book you've read, a movie you've seen or an experience you've lived. So in my opinion it is impossible for you to create new ideas without those external sources influencing you. And limiting those sources by not using other work as inspiration is like shooting yourself in the foot. Why not use other works as an influence or as a trigger (as you'd call it). Because in the end, you'll always be influenced by something, be it someone's work, history or your own life. Your ideas aren't new (nothing is original) and they aren't your own (their a mix of external concepts). I'd like to add that I don't use the ideas from another book unabridged, I use them as you might use a trigger.

The problem seems to be which triggers you accept and which you don't. I accept any and all triggers. Other people's fiction, my own, history, my life, anything. You seem to think other people's fiction doesn't work as a trigger... Why exclude that source but not the others?

Also, I agree with Philip. Your concept of triggers seems to be a regular brainstorm. Similar results can be obtained using a _what if_ formula or by tossing a few ideas into a hat. Like the _Codex Aelera_ (or whatever it's called). The author used _Lost Roman Legion_ (borrowed from history) and _PokÃ©mon_ (borrowed from a TV show/fiction) as the start of his story. He obviously used external inspiration and twisted it into his own idea. His success proves my point.

[EDIT: I'd just like to add that despite my opinionated posts I do quite enjoy the debate and I respect everyone's opinion. I just thought I'd make that clear as I have a tendency to hammer a point home.]


----------



## Devor

Philip Overby said:


> I don't see how the version you came up still isn't a "What if...?" scenario.



_What if_ doesn't take the idea very far.  _Why would_ assumes, mentally, that you're going with the idea and forces you to develop a motivation for why it might occur.  What if dips your toes in the water.  Why would dives in.




Philip Overby said:


> I also don't see how my version feels like it "doesn't go anywhere."



I didn't really mean much by that statement, and you ninjaed my further examination.


----------



## Devor

Abbas-Al-Morim said:


> So in my opinion it is impossible for you to create new ideas without those external sources influencing you.
> 
> . . .
> 
> Your ideas aren't new (nothing is original) and they aren't your own (their a mix of external concepts).



"New" and "original" aren't the point.  And while the ideas aren't new, if you control the trigger, then you control the shape of the big group of ideas you're picking from.  You want to explain why one author has a bigger big group of ideas than the other author.  I'm trying to talk about why one author has a _wholly different_ big group of ideas than everyone else.

That is, that author picked wholly different triggers.

It's like the tap in the bar.  Everyone is filling their glass with beer.  Some people are drinking Bud Light, which is little better than water (for the purpose of this example).  Some people are drinking deep, rich Guinness.  A very few people go to a bar, don't like Bud Light, can't afford Guinness, so they bring their own vodka and make a Bud Light Beer Breezer.


----------



## Abbas-Al-Morim

> That is, that author picked wholly different triggers.



First of all, the triggers you pick are influenced by your pool of ideas. Narrowing your pool down by excluding fantasy fiction will not lead to better results. It just means you'll have less triggers to work with. Instead of using a fantasy trigger you'll use a thriller trigger or a trigger from whatever else you're reading/watching/... 

Second of all, as each author is an individual with unique experiences, he or she is going to have a different pool of ideas. But there are other people which will have the same (or a similar) idea in their unique pool. This renders your point moot. Every author has a wholly different set of triggers/ideas but none of those ideas is unique (the same trigger/idea can be found in different pools). 

Third of all, the starting point doesn't matter, the end result does. It is perfectly possible to start with another author's idea and turn it into something entirely different. It doesn't matter if you pick "_barges_" or "_ogre_" as your trigger. Both offer a good starting point for your creative process.


----------



## Philip Overby

As a participant and judge in several challenges here on the site, I've seen a lot of great stories created from simple triggers like from the Iron Pen challenges. It basically encourages you to take several elements and make them important to your story. Something like:

1. A stone face
2. A flute of bone
3. A tangled forest etc.

For me, it's interesting to see how several different writers interpret these different triggers. Some may go the literal route and others may try to spin it a bit. I think for the purposes of these challenges, almost everyone involved is approaching this process in different ways. I'm curious to ask those who have participated how they handled these triggers. 

That said, I think what Abbas is saying is true for me. I think the starting point is just a starting point. It may evolve through edits and such. I may get new ideas that I want to put in there for whatever reason. I may take the elements I thought were good and cut them because they don't work for that particular story. The end result is the most important part. Perhaps following different kinds of methods brings you to different kinds of points. 

I'm not totally disagreeing with what Devor is saying, as I think his suggestions are good ways to suss out ideas, I just have a hard time finding it different than a typical "What if...?" session. Maybe there are slight differences, but I'm not sure they are going to get drastically different results.


----------



## solas

Hmmm....I wonder if there is over-analyzation of creativity here?  I am getting lost!  A couple of weeks ago as I was revising my novel, a brilliant (well to me it is brilliant) idea came up for a new chapter during the protagonist's journey to the climax chapter.  Instead of coming across the usual monsters and beasts (I highly recommend *Dragons and Fantasy Beasts* by Finlay Cowen) I had the protagonist clash with a group of very different people (Rogues) from another part of the realm that has only been mentioned.  I cannot tell you what triggered this but it I feel it is one of the best chapters in the book.  Rather than ask "Do you have to be a fantasy reader to be a fantasy writer?" I think the more suitable question should be "Do you need an imagination to be a fantasy writer?  LOL!


----------



## Devor

Abbas-Al-Morim said:


> First of all, the triggers you pick are influenced by your pool of ideas. Narrowing your pool down by excluding fantasy fiction will not lead to better results. It just means you'll have less triggers to work with. Instead of using a fantasy trigger you'll use a thriller trigger or a trigger from whatever else you're reading/watching/...



Go look, long and hard, at all my posts and tell me where I've encouraged anyone to "narrow" their pool or "exclude" fantasy.  What I've said, I'll say again and again and again until someone explains why it isn't true.

*If you wait to learn creativity to focus instead on reading it will become harder to learn creativity later on.*  That's true because you will start off with Guinness, be satisfied with Guinness, and never think about making a Beer Breezer.




> Second of all, as each author is an individual with unique experiences, he or she is going to have a different pool of ideas. But there are other people which will have the same (or a similar) idea in their unique pool. This renders your point moot. Every author has a wholly different set of triggers/ideas but none of those ideas is unique (the same trigger/idea can be found in different pools).



Now break from thinking about the writers and think about readers.  What pool of ideas are they working with?  The ones that would occur to them _*from the triggers you give them*_.

This isn't about finding a starting point for a story.  This is about finding a way to be original page after page after page.  You're on chapter 22 of 30 and need to figure out what happens.  *You need to reach for triggers outside your book to figure it out, and then figure out how the ideas from those new triggers can fit with what you have.*  If you don't, if you rely on the triggers seeded to you in your book, you won't surprise your reader.  They've got those triggers, too.




> Third of all, the starting point doesn't matter, the end result does. It is perfectly possible to start with another author's idea and turn it into something entirely different. It doesn't matter if you pick "_barges_" or "_ogre_" as your trigger. Both offer a good starting point for your creative process.



Sure.  But again, you're on chapter 22.  You've gone with troll or ogre or whatever it is a long time ago.  *Now you need words like barge or crawl or dives.*  That's the kind of new trigger that will still work for you at chapter 22.  Ogre won't.  You're going to have an Ogre come out of nowhere?  That kind of wild take might work for some situations.  I won't fault that.  But it's not going to get you through a scene when the characters were already set up long ago.


----------



## Abbas-Al-Morim

Devor said:


> Go look, long and hard, at all my posts and tell me where I've encouraged anyone to "narrow" their pool or "exclude" fantasy.  What I've said, I'll say again and again and again until someone explains why it isn't true.
> 
> *If you wait to learn creativity to focus instead on reading it will become harder to learn creativity later on.*  That's true because you will start off with Guinness, be satisfied with Guinness, and never think about making a Beer Breezer.



And I say that reading is just as important as it expands the pool of triggers you work with. I say that reading is a way to learn creativity as creativity is combining ideas into a (semi)-new idea. If you've got a bigger pool of ideas to work with, it's easier to be creative. I say it's important the two go hand in hand. I say those with a bigger pool of ideas, as the result of reading, have an easier time learning to be creative. That's why I think you _exclude_. Because you do not think a bigger pool makes creativity and learning to be creative easier. 

If you start of drinking the cocktails on the bar's list you'll get a deeper understanding of flavors and of mixing drinks and it'll be easier to combine flavors into a new cocktail as you'll have tasted them before. You'll know more flavors and thus you'll have more flavors to work with, to combine.



> Now break from thinking about the writers and think about readers.  What pool of ideas are they working with?  The ones that would occur to them _*from the triggers you give them*_.
> 
> This isn't about finding a starting point for a story.  This is about finding a way to be original page after page after page.  You're on chapter 22 of 30 and need to figure out what happens.  *You need to reach for triggers outside your book to figure it out, and then figure out how the ideas from those new triggers can fit with what you have.*  If you don't, if you rely on the triggers seeded to you in your book, you won't surprise your reader.  They've got those triggers, too.



How is using another author's work and the concepts and plots they use as *inspiration *predictable to a reader reading my book? The whole point of my argument is that using external inspiration is very helpful! You're describing exactly what I've been advocating all along. Taking a concept from somewhere and then working with that. Twisting it, changing it, turning it around and then making it fit. I don't understand how you think this illustrates your point.



> Sure.  But again, you're on chapter 22.  You've gone with troll or ogre or whatever it is a long time ago.  *Now you need words like barge or crawl or dives.*  That's the kind of new trigger that will still work for you at chapter 22.  Ogre won't.  You're going to have an Ogre come out of nowhere?  That kind of wild take might work for some situations.  I won't fault that.  But it's not going to get you through a scene when the characters were already set up long ago.



Who says I'm limited to ogre? I honestly don't understand your arguments anymore. Why wouldn't I be able to use a new trigger when I need a new one even if I'm well-read in the Fantasy genre and just starting out as an author. What's stopping me from doing that?


----------



## Philip Overby

How about if you're on Chapter 22 and an ogre just appears? Does it have to dive or charge or swim or any of that? Maybe it just shows up and the character has to figure out what to do. That's usually my writing process. A character is in a situation and has to figure out how to handle it. If there's a narrow passage ahead, then maybe he crawls. If there's a giant bridge and no escape, maybe he jumps off it. If there's a tooth golem crushing his windpipe, maybe he sprays it with a Cavity spell? I try to think from character choices most of the time. If the character does this, what happens? If the character does the opposite, what happens? 

I usually try to both meet and subvert reader expectations if possible. I want to do something that the reader will say, "Oh, this is something I like as I've seen it before." For example, a raging minotaur. Then I want to subvert the reader expectations on what the raging minotaur is going to do. Maybe he kills some people. That meets reader expectations. But what if he is raging because the IRS says he owes 5,000 dollars in back taxes? Well, I don't think most people expect that. It takes my story in a different direction because I decided to make a plot and character choice.


----------



## Devor

Philip Overby said:


> I think for the purposes of these challenges, almost everyone involved is approaching this process in different ways. I'm curious to ask those who have participated how they handled these triggers.



I would like to see that, too.




> I'm not totally disagreeing with what Devor is saying, as I think his suggestions are good ways to suss out ideas, I just have a hard time finding it different than a typical "What if...?" session. Maybe there are slight differences, but I'm not sure they are going to get drastically different results.



Some things, like me going through a list of drama words, are tricks that I figured out and work for me, and I am happy to find an opportunity to share them, and don't mean to "impose" them as _the_ way forward.  They represent me having pushed through and hack creativity, because I recognized that some ideas weren't good enough.

But they also represent universal insight into the creative process, in that you brain isn't doing much different, subconsciously, in the back.  It's seeing triggers, producing ideas.  Change the triggers, produce different ideas.  How you change them, I'm sure everyone has different ways, and that most of them work to some degree or another.

Taking _What if_ specifically, I have gone beyond my own insights and actually done some research on studying.  Participants in a study who were told to think "What if" got weaker answers.  The answers were shallow, they had not taken the concept as far as they could have.  Just like those who were told to be "original."

I typed a list of quotes earlier which reflect statements that I've written down from that research.  Some of them are paraphrased a bit to work for me.  I'm sorry, I don't have original citations, and wouldn't list them if I did.  I'm not out to prove you wrong.  If you feel that "What if" gets you a deep analysis, then that works for you.  But I do urge everyone to seriously consider if it does.


----------



## Devor

Philip Overby said:


> How about if you're on Chapter 22 and an ogre just appears? Does it have to dive or charge or swim or any of that? Maybe it just shows up and the character has to figure out what to do. That's usually my writing process. A character is in a situation and has to figure out how to handle it. If there's a narrow passage ahead, then maybe he crawls. If there's a giant bridge and no escape, maybe he jumps off it. If there's a tooth golem crushing his windpipe, maybe he sprays it with a Cavity spell? I try to think from character choices most of the time. If the character does this, what happens? If the character does the opposite, what happens?



Again, I'm not trying to judge anyone's stories here.  It's only that "Ogre" gets pretty specific and slipping it in won't work most of the time.  If you write in a way that it does, go ahead.  But triggers that are more subtle work in situations that are more specific.

Also, by thinking _crawls_ or _dives,_ I don't actually need a character to do either of those things in a literal way for it to be useful.  If crawls gets me wounded or sneaky, or barge gets me co-conspirators, I can keep those ideas and drop the literal trigger.  Maybe the Ogre doesn't crawl, or barge in, but maybe he's pissed and raging because he's hurt.  That kind of thing.  The words are packed with drama, so they inspire dramatic ideas.




> I usually try to both meet and subvert reader expectations if possible. I want to do something that the reader will say, "Oh, this is something I like as I've seen it before." For example, a raging minotaur. Then I want to subvert the reader expectations on what the raging minotaur is going to do. Maybe he kills some people. That meets reader expectations. But what if he is raging because the IRS says he owes 5,000 dollars in back taxes? Well, I don't think most people expect that. It takes my story in a different direction because I decided to make a plot and character choice.



I'm only going to say that are a lot of people who try to subvert ideas.  If you look on tvtrope, they're going to talk about ways to subvert each and every trope.  That might be fun in its own way, and I wouldn't tell you not to do it - or not to use the original trope, either - but I would still suggest making sure that you're using additional outside triggers of some kind, in some way, to help you stand out, or else manipulating the implied triggers in a way that goes beyond subversion.


----------



## solas

I guess I am flip flopping here.  As I did get inspiration from some fantasy shows I had a short addiction to, then it would only make sense that reading fantasy would probably do the same. I am reading some fantasy...I truly am. Eeeuuuhh!!  I just noticed they have a poop emoticon!!


----------



## Devor

Abbas-Al-Morim said:


> I say it's important the two go hand in hand. I say those with a bigger pool of ideas, as the result of reading, have an easier time learning to be creative. That's why I think you _exclude_. Because you do not think a bigger pool makes creativity and learning to be creative easier.



You _think_ I exclude.  I said earlier that *reading is work when you're a writer*.  Work.  As in, a responsibility.  What's exclusionary about that?




> How is using another author's work and the concepts and plots they use as *inspiration *predictable to a reader reading my book?



This is the last time I am going to repeat myself in this conversation.

As a first time author, you're not looking at readers who are new to the genre.  You're looking at readers who are on their fiftieth fantasy book, or way more, readers who read so much that one average book by a new writer isn't a big waste of time for them.  Your readers are people who have a huge set of ideas about your subject matter, not a tiny one.

If you're using the same set of ideas as your reader, that's bad.

And it goes far beyond trolls and staves and wizards and elves.  Character 1 is mad at Character 2 and doesn't want to face it.  What do you do?  If those are your triggers, probably you're going to do one of the ten or so things a reader might expect you to do.  If you recognize that, you can find a new trigger and unlock new ideas to work with.  But if you think, "I've got ten ideas, one of them will do just fine," you're drawing from the same ideas as everyone else expects you to.

Of course, things happen subconsciously, people have different tricks, different ways of picking up a skill, and so on.  But the more you push yourself for new ideas, the better you'll be at breaking beyond the same ten in whatever situation you need to.

But the first step is recognizing when it is you are looking at the "same ten."  And the more impressive that same ten looks, the less you are going to think, "No, those just aren't good enough."




> The whole point of my argument is that using external inspiration is very helpful! You're describing exactly what I've been advocating all along. Taking a concept from somewhere and then working with that. Twisting it, changing it, turning it around and then making it fit. I don't understand how you think this illustrates your point.



I'm pretty sure what I've been advocating hasn't changed since before you joined the conversation.


----------



## Abbas-Al-Morim

I withdraw from this debate as it is pointless. Either I'm failing at making myself clear or you're not acknowledging my arguments at all. Whatever the reason, this debate is futile and is not progressing at all. 

I feel like I've refuted every claim you've brought forth a dozen times and you keep repeating the same arguments. I suppose it's my fault. My posts are most likely confusing at times and you might've forgotten certain things I've said (and I things you said). But this is going nowhere.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

I think I have a handle on what Devor is getting at... Correct me if I'm off base or short of the mark Devor.

He's not claiming reading is bad for creativity. Rather, if it's your primary source of inspiration, or triggers, then you're selling yourself short. While reading can provide useful knowledge of the genre, it can also be a hindrance IF you're not developing alternative means of creativity at the same time. Therefore, a writer should take a deeper look at methods that enhance their personal creativity outside of the ingestion of media.

For Devor, the use of drama words in place of words he considers weak is an effective trigger. There are probably many triggers out there and the success of any will be determined by the wielder. 

I think there are two major disconnects in this discussion:

1) Most people are defensive of reading as an idea source, and for good reason. In many ways it's tried and true. Successful authors claim that reading a lot is a must. This is almost universal in my experience, although I'm certain exceptions exist.

2) The point of alternative creative exercises isn't to minimize the importance of reading. Rather, it is to establish the importance of creative thinking which has it's roots deep within the author. It may not be stimilus free, meaning we are all a product of our environment, but those exercises can draw upon creativity which may remain untapped if the reliance on fantasy media for ideas overwhlems the author's ability to think outside genre lines.

Am I close Devor?


----------



## Devor

Abbas-Al-Morim said:


> I withdraw from this debate as it is pointless. Either I'm failing at making myself clear or you're not acknowledging my arguments at all. Whatever the reason, this debate is futile and is not progressing at all.



I'm sorry that you feel that way.




> I feel like I've refuted every claim you've brought forth a dozen times and you keep repeating the same arguments.



In my experience, when two smart people respect each other and have different opinions, very little of what they say to each other would actually need refuting.


----------



## Devor

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Am I close Devor?



Yes, thanks T.Allen.  I'm only saying that it's important to start working on your creativity early, when it's still easy to see where your ideas are being triggered and why.  I haven't in any way meant to suggest that people should stagnate at that point at that point in their reading.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

The other disconnect seems to be in the comparison of "What if...?" to Devor's replacement of trigger words. I agree they seem similar on the surface, although Devor's method digs a bit deeper than asking a simple question. On the other end, I acknowledge that one question (What if?) can be followed by another, eventually leading to something far and away from the original question which sparked thought. The "What if?" questions are also tried and true, so there's a tendency to cling onto, or defend, that method. Why?... Because it works.

As I said above, there are probably lots of methods and techniques to develop creative thought. The particular example of changing trigger words Devor expresses throughout the thread may not work for you. The idea isn't bound to the acceptance of that technique alone. Rather, he is trying to illustrate the importance of searching out techniques that work for you as a writer outside of reading alone.


----------



## Devor

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Rather, it is to establish the importance of creative thinking which has it's roots deep within the author. It may not be stimilus free, meaning we are all a product of our environment, but those exercises can draw upon creativity which may remain untapped if the reliance on fantasy media for ideas overwhlems the author's ability to think outside genre lines.



I wish I had a few more minutes I would try to think of an example of triggering ideas from within a fantasy book.  Creativity is an internal skill.  You see something, your brain makes connections.  Certain ideas stored in your brain surfaced because they were triggered by something.  What do you focus on?  What connections are you making?  What ideas are planting for your readers?  How can you unlock the mystery around that process and get beyond the first few ideas that come to mind?  The longer you wait to dissect that internal process, the more it floods with connections and becomes a big blur.

Books can be a great inspiration, in some ways.  I've elsewhere defended writing stories about trolls and orcs and elves, and urged the importance of recognizing tropes and understanding how they're used.  Heck, I've tried on multiple occasions to organize fantasy book reviews on Mythic Scribes and to press people to share about which books they've found the most useful as writers and why.  But those inspirations shouldn't replace the development of your own internal creative abilities.


----------

