# How original is your writing?



## Black Dragon (Jun 11, 2011)

Dusky's article entitled Who's Killing Fantasy? You Are! has sparked some discussion regarding originality in the fantasy genre.  Some commentators have argued that trying to be *too origina*l is actually bad for fantasy.

This has caused me to consider just how original my own writing may or may not be.  

Looking at it objectively, how original is your writing?


----------



## Mythos (Jun 12, 2011)

I'm always afraid my writing isn't original enough. If I worry about it too much I can't even write, so I usually don't think too much about originality until the second draft.


----------



## Derin (Jun 12, 2011)

Not half as original as it could be. My writing tends to feature understated subversions of popular conventions. Why are the elements always based on wind, water, fire and air, or in certain works the elements of the periodic table? Why not invent a new elemental paradigm? Why do fantasy worlds so often have multiple moons? Why not have no moons? Why not have dragons that deliberately mine huge cave networks and fill it with treasure to lure human prey, or dryads that are little insect creatures out to kill and collect fertiliser for their tree? Why not have the main character operating under the delusion that she's been sent on a great heroic quest to save humankind, when her father just wanted to send her out of the way of a dangerous situation?

While these are all things you don't see in fantasy often, tweaking details isn't enough to call a story original. I think every story should present something new, but they don't have to be completely original.


----------



## Chilari (Jun 12, 2011)

I think it's very difficult to look at anything objectively, especially something you've created yourself. I would like to think what I'm writing is fairly original, but to be honest, originality isn't my main consideration. Mostly what I'm concerned about is that my characters are believable and relatable and that my plot is exciting and makes sense.


----------



## sashamerideth (Jun 12, 2011)

I can't remember if I have said it here or not, but... 

Sometimes I want original themes, different ideas etc. Sometimes though, I want something as formulaic and predictable as a trashy romance novel. Guilty pleasures and all.


----------



## Amanita (Jun 12, 2011)

> Why are the elements always based [...], or in certain works the elements of the periodic table?


If you know a published story like that, please let me know. 
Generally, I think it is sensible to have themes/beings and so on the general public views as something specific be that way in the actual writing. An elf who's a spider-like creatures with tentacle legs just isn't an elf and should be given another name as well. If a story uses some familiar concept and turns it into something completely different with no good reason, this doesn't make me like the book very much. 
The thing I'm actually missing in many fantasy books is the creation of new beings (or the use of ones less familiar than elves, orcs etc.) Most people seem to prefer to follow some layed-out formula instead of actually using their imagination and that is sad and also keeps these stories from becoming really out-standing. At least in my opinion.

Concerning my own writing I agree with Chilari. I can't really judge how original it is or isn't myself.


----------



## Derin (Jun 12, 2011)

Amanita said:


> If you know a published story like that, please let me know.



I mostly see it in comics. Order of the Stick did it once, but it's a more central theme in... dammit, I can't remember the title. It had a Final Fantasy gameplay sort of theme? Fairly crappy artwork, about a medium level of detail? I'll come back and let you know when I remember the title.



Amanita said:


> Generally, I think it is sensible to have themes/beings and so on the general public views as something specific be that way in the actual writing. An elf who's a spider-like creatures with tentacle legs just isn't an elf and should be given another name as well. If a story uses some familiar concept and turns it into something completely different with no good reason, this doesn't make me like the book very much.


 
I agree. Carbon-copying Tolkein elves is boring. Having something not remotely elf-like and calling it an elf is even worse, unless you can justify it.

I tend to do the "tradition with a difference" thing because I'm a biologist by trade, and my first thought when encountering a fantasy species is "how can I make this make sense?" Thus my dryads are vaguely humanoid creatures with a symbiotic relationship to a tree whose bark they eat. My "dwarfs" (also known as halflings, although they detest both names and a human-centric imposition by their conquerors; calling them a dwarf is like them calling a human a giant) live in mountains because the plains-dwelling farmer dwarves were all wiped out by humans in the settlement war and the mountains were too rought terrain for human armies, so they mine and trade metals for food from lands previously theirs in a situation they think of as economic slavery. My unicorns are thickset equines who use their horns in fighting and mateship displays. Et cetera.



Amanita said:


> Most people seem to prefer to follow some layed-out formula instead of actually using their imagination and that is sad and also keeps these stories from becoming really out-standing. At least in my opinion.



It is depressing how popular DnD-derivative carbon copy stories are. I'd call them Tolkein clones except the quality isn't good enough to make the comparison. On the one hand, clearly people know what they like and are buying more of it, but on the other I have to wonder whether writers, readers and (most influentially) publishers are arbitrarily restricting themselves and missing out on the potential of the genre. My writing is a derivation of the standard tropes by my conscious choice so I can hardly sneer at lack of originality, but IMO a story that doesn't introduce something new is a waste of paper.


----------



## sashamerideth (Jun 12, 2011)

Maybe I have an advantage here as i do science fiction and fantasy in one book. I am exploring alternative evolution and calling my creatures from that. I don't like elves all that much anyways.


----------



## BeigePalladin (Jun 12, 2011)

It depends really on what I'm writing at the time...

sometimes, it's very, very traditional, which is bad, sometimes it's not. but then, I don't write to be published, so I have an excuse.


----------



## Chilari (Jun 12, 2011)

BeigePalladin said:


> It depends really on what I'm writing at the time...
> 
> sometimes, it's very, very traditional, which is bad, sometimes it's not. but then, I don't write to be published, so I have an excuse.


Interesting. Do you believe, therefore, that writers aiming to become published should not indulge themselves and write, in your words, "very traditional" stories? That they should aim to be more original, whether in themes or setting, in preference to writing what they enjoy?


----------



## Digital_Fey (Jun 12, 2011)

As Chilari said, it's pretty hard to be objective about your own work. I went through the usual teenage phase of wanting to write stuff that was as 'cool' as that of my favorite authors, which naturally led to quite a bit of inadvertent copying. I'm still writing mostly urban fantasy, but am trying to move away from the grooves that have already been worn by popular culture and write with as much individuality as possible. There's nothing new under the sun - or so they say - but hopefully by continuing to improve my own style I'll be able to get to a place where I'm happy with the originality level of my writing.


----------



## BeigePalladin (Jun 12, 2011)

Chilari said:


> Interesting. Do you believe, therefore, that writers aiming to become published should not indulge themselves and write, in your words, "very traditional" stories? That they should aim to be more original, whether in themes or setting, in preference to writing what they enjoy?



A little of A, a little of B, I suppose. I feel people should write what they want without having to do as anyone else says, but I also feel that if someone is writing to be published (and this being the majority reason for writing) that they should at least have some origionality. I can enoy reading something written by someone who wrote as a hobby being very simmilar to someone elses, but when I see a bookshelf of things where I could read one and have effectively read them all, it annoys the fudge out of me.

as does writers with long series, or multiple series, that are all cut from the exact same mold (Raymond.E.Faust, I'm looking at you)

and when I said, which is bad, I meant that my personal traditional stuff is bad, not traditional in general


----------



## The Realm Wanderer (Jun 12, 2011)

It's difficult for me to say just how original I am in my writing. I mean, I use no orcs, elves, dwarves or anything like that. However the race of creatures I've created take over the night and force people to hide each time dusk comes around; that theme is by no means scarce in books nowadays. But I like to think I've come up with some stuff that is solely my own and cannot be called a cheap immitation...at least I hope


----------



## CicadaGrrl (Jun 12, 2011)

*oh well*

I focus on solid yet complex characters who then form a plot through their actions.  They all make sense to me and feel just right to me.  However my readers always comment that my writing is different.  Original.  Or just plain weird.  So I guess I'm original by default?


----------



## Black Dragon (Jun 12, 2011)

CicadaGrrl said:


> I focus on solid yet complex characters who then form a plot through their actions.  They all make sense to me and feel just right to me.  However my readers always comment that my writing is different.  Original.  Or just plain weird.  So I guess I'm original by default?



Hey CicadaGrrl!

I guess weird qualifies as original, doesn't it?  Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Derin (Jun 13, 2011)

BeigePalladin said:


> A little of A, a little of B, I suppose. I feel people should write what they want without having to do as anyone else says, but I also feel that if someone is writing to be published (and this being the majority reason for writing) that they should at least have some origionality. I can enoy reading something written by someone who wrote as a hobby being very simmilar to someone elses, but when I see a bookshelf of things where I could read one and have effectively read them all, it annoys the fudge out of me.
> 
> as does writers with long series, or multiple series, that are all cut from the exact same mold (Raymond.E.Faust, I'm looking at you)
> 
> and when I said, which is bad, I meant that my personal traditional stuff is bad, not traditional in general



IMO, the sheer number of carbon copy stories on the market suggests that if publication is your main goal, it's best not to be too original. Which is depressing. But I think even those of us aiming for publication are probably hoping to publish something that gives something to our audience.


----------



## Helbrecht (Jun 13, 2011)

I'd be hesitant to make a definite judgement about this sort of thing, but I can certainly say it varies. I've never written anything in a "traditional" fantasy setting (that is to say, Tolkien- or D&D-inspired) that wasn't some variant of fanfiction, or me writing a story about an MMO character of mine (which is, I suppose, the ultimate in unoriginality). I _hate_ just lifting ideas from people, and if I borrow something I like the sound of, I'm going to think long and hard about all the different ways I could put my own unique spin on it as a matter of course. 

The handful of fantasy settings of my own that I've actually gotten around to writing in, I think, tend to be a bit different from normal fair, and I've heard this from a handful of other people, so it's not a total self-evaluation. But for each of them I can think of at least _one_ published book I could reasonably compare it to.

Originality is a funny thing.


----------



## TWErvin2 (Jun 13, 2011)

It is true that there have been successes of 'carbon copies' of Tolkien. Dennis L. McKiernan's Iron Tower Trilogy and Silver Call Duology (spelling?). But McKiernan basically admitted the direct inspiration.

As has been mentioned, publishing is a business and what sells (or what publishers believe will sell) has a great influence on what manuscripts they accept (and what manuscripts agents will represent). Although something as close as McKiernan did is (in my opinion) very unlikely to find a market these days.

The thing about readers is that they read for entertainment. Sometimes they want to try something new, but very often they want something they are 'familiar' with.  Look at romance as a genre. Some imprints have a formula that the authors must follow. Stray from it and the novel will be passed upon. Romance is a genre that is strong and continues to grow.

That is not to say that readers of fantasy are the same as the readers of romance, although with the paranormal romance, which is popular these days, there is some crossover.

As far as originality, there is plenty of room--from high and quest fantasy, to urban, dark and historic fantasy--to expand.  There are plenty of niche publishers out there that are looking for something different than the mainstream publishers might be.

My fantasy writing blends the traditional with new twists and ideas. Familiar creatures, some with an unexpected twist, combined with a unique post apocalyptic setting.

My novel, Flank Hawk, made it out of the slush pile a couple of times before finding home. One publisher passed, because although the writing and story was good, they didn't think it they could sell it/that it fit their lists and readers.

In the end, I believe, good fantasy is about characters in a good story (my work tends to be a balance of plot driven vs. character driven). The unique setting, creatures, magic system, cultures, histories, etc, while they add flavor, are not the primary elements of a work's success. They are important, and can give it that additional boost in quality and notice. But unique elements alone will not carry the day if the storyline and characters that readers can care about are lacking.


----------



## Jan Fosse (Jun 15, 2011)

Chilari said:


> Interesting. Do you believe, therefore, that writers aiming to become published should not indulge themselves and write, in your words, "very traditional" stories? That they should aim to be more original, whether in themes or setting, in preference to writing what they enjoy?



Absolutely not! A writer who wants to be successful should write for themselves first, and for an audience second. That being said, if you're churning out what you realize is nothing but a Tolkien clone, then you need to go back, find the parts that you (consciously or unconsciously) ripped off from Tolkien, and use your imagination and re-work them into something that's yours. Ten years ago I had a story that was a pathetic ripoff of every other fantasy in the world. I've worked at it (slowly, obviously over 10 years, I'm not recommending ANYONE take that long, but life has gotten in the way), and it has no resemblance to the first average, unimpressive story I wrote, except for some of the names I came up with. 

So, don't shoot yourself down for writing something "traditional" - if you like it, that's all that truly matters. If you want it to be something more, you've got a place to start and expand from there. I hope that makes sense.


----------



## CicadaGrrl (Jun 15, 2011)

Cheers Ervin, Black Dragon, Jane!  Yeah.  I start with characters and story.  Apparently in my case, that transfers into weird.  So I'm going publishing through createspace in the end so I can keep the story the story I want.  i don't really give a damn if I turn into the next big thing.  I just want to write and have some people read it.  For me, that is what is important.  Write for me.  Don't even research the market until you have a solid book you believe in.


----------



## Ophiucha (Jun 16, 2011)

I think my story on its own isn't particularly weird, and the setting -- though dark -- fits well into the alternative fantasy scene. It wouldn't stand out when put next to Stephen King and China MiÃ©ville, even if it does stand out next to Tolkien and Jordan and the like. But I think my writing and characters could put me a bit too 'out there' in terms of overall publishability. I don't really care, I suppose.


----------

