Questions about Originality

[Incanus]

I have a new thought about this. I think people may be hung up on the terms 'original' and 'originality'.

Thought experiment: how different would the responses have been if instead of using the above terms, I had said, 'custom inventions'?

For me, there isn't a lot of daylight between the two, but others may see that differently. It appears the term 'original' comes with some baggage that I wasn't aware of. Apologies, if that is the case: I truly did not know. I'm using the dictionary definition, but some seem to want to pile other extended meanings or implications onto it. My focus here is on 'custom invention'.

Does that help, or should I be raked over hot coals? Who knows--I may deserve it...

 

[pmmg]

Well, my answer changes quite a bit if that word is changed.

The basic premise is: how much do you value Custom Invention in your works, or the works of others? Also, how much Custom Invention do you try to include in your fiction?

A lot. I try to include things that are uniquely my own, thus I dont have elves, but I have something like them, and I dont have orc, but I have something like them as well. As much as I can, want my world to seem unique, and the creatures in them unique as well.



Or, how about considering this question with respect to different aspects of fiction? Do you tend to employ more Custom Invention ideas when it comes to characters, but use more traditional settings?

My setting has many unique elements to it. I call my world, the silver world. That is because the sky is mostly silver and grey. This is due to a silver haze the enshrouds the world. This has many great effect on the planet, most prominent being, it does not lend itself to a world with a lot of vibrant colors. Most plants are either pine green, or a lavender purple in color, and many flowers are of the green or violet variety. The silver haze affects visibility, limiting it to about 6 miles (millas), in any direction. It also affects the variety of wildlife, in that there is not a of variety in them. I have not come out and said so, as I suppose I am still deciding as an author), but so far, no cows appear in my story. I am thinking of leaving them out as a creature that is just missing from the usual line up.


Is Custom Invention a laudable goal? Is it overrated? Is it best used in moderation? Is there such a thing as too much for a single novel or series?

Yes, I think it is a worthy goal. Bring new stuff into the world. That the unique gift of a creative, to make something new.

 

[Incanus]

Wow. Now we're getting somewhere. ^^^^That is what I've been trying to talk about this whole time.

Historically, I have viewed originality in art as a positive thing, but here, for some reason, it has negative associations (waste of time, distraction, cause for worry, etc.).

I did a (admittedly) quick google search, and I don't see the negative associations outside of Mythic Scribes.

I'm still confused about why the term is so problematic, but at least I can make note that it is so, at least at this site.

 

[Queshire]

It's not that originality is a bad thing.

Ultimately the goal is doing things well.

If you just copy & paste fantasy tropes without thinking about it then yeah, that's not doing it well. You shouldn't just toss a magic system in a story just because you think fantasy needs a magic system. It's the same with elves, dwarves and so on.

However, by the same token, simply because something is original, or a custom invention, does not mean it will be done well either.

Amongst the sort of aspiring writers that are attracted to this site there often seems to be an unspoken pressure to strive towards originality. So we try to reassure people that, hey, yeah, write your Werewolf adventure story. That's cool. Nah, you don't need to call the werewolves something else or completely change up how they work in the pursuit of originality.

 

[Devor]

Thought experiment: how different would the responses have been if instead of using the above terms, I had said, 'custom inventions'?

So, what Tolkien did was reshape this idea of a fantasy race, putting elves and dwarves and hobbits on par with men, with their own kingdoms and the like. To me, anything that’s just an extension of that probably isn’t really doing anything new or fresh by just creating new races. A race of rat-fish people or whatever doesn’t get any points over elves and orcs unless the author can use it to do something new.

I mean, I’m equally cool with and critical of the elves or the rat-fish. Not every piece of your work needs to be groundbreaking. But, more than likely neither are.

So, when the question is custom inventions, I personally use a lot of custom inventions and tested tropes. What’s important to me is, first, their role in the story, second the freshness, third the burden it puts on readers to understand and follow everything, and fourth, giving things a personality. Old tropes are low freshness but low burden, while custom things are higher burden and need a fresh-factor to balance that out. And, I think I’m pretty good at finding that fresh factor for things that are importqnt to the story.

 

[Penpilot]

I think we are talking past each other here. I guess these concepts can be a bit tricky to think through.

I think we maybe talking about different things here.

For me, it's all about an interest in creating something original. What I'm talking about doesn't involve wasting time or worry. I'm not sure how those ideas fit into this. I've never once considered those things when brainstorming something new. I honestly don't see how they apply here. I've been thinking about fantasy inventions for decades and I've never been bothered by worry or time-wasting before.

As I've said, I focus on making things interesting. When I come up with an idea, I don't ask myself if this is original. I ask if this is interesting and if it fits the world and story that I'm writing.

I'm talking about inventing something new by my own standards.

Sorry, I'm not understanding what this means.

I have a new thought about this. I think people may be hung up on the terms 'original' and 'originality'.

Thought experiment: how different would the responses have been if instead of using the above terms, I had said, 'custom inventions'?

For me, there isn't a lot of daylight between the two, but others may see that differently. It appears the term 'original' comes with some baggage that I wasn't aware of. Apologies, if that is the case: I truly did not know. I'm using the dictionary definition, but some seem to want to pile other extended meanings or implications onto it. My focus here is on 'custom invention'.

Does that help, or should I be raked over hot coals? Who knows--I may deserve it...

I think the way you're framing things is not jiving with my brain. Everything I put into a story is about making it better. It doesn't matter if it's new to me or not. I reuse ideas all the time, whether that be theme, invented object, or story archetypes. Sometimes it's carbon copied. Other times, it's a refinement or and adaption of the idea. It's all about what the story needs, and a custom invention may be cool and all, but it still has to fit the story and be meaningful in some way.

 

[Incanus]

I don't believe I'm pushing any 'unspoken pressure to strive toward originality', but of course, I can't help how people might react to things I say--I have no control over that. I was just curious to know about what kind of custom inventions people were creating for their works.

Devor makes a good point about these custom inventions putting a burden on the reader. Getting all of this stuff right has been the single most difficult thing I've had to deal with in Act I of my WIP. That is one reason why I've been wondering about this question lately.

When I mentioned--by my own standards--I just meant that when I think of something new, it is based on my knowledge of what has been done in fantasy literature, of which there is plenty I haven't read. I could have said that better, for sure.

One thing that has come up a lot in this thread is the idea that when using custom inventions (or originality), it has to be done well. Doesn't that go without saying? Isn't that true of all aspects of fiction? I hope no one is implying that you can be slack with pacing, do a so-so job with exposition, and partially develop your characters, but for goodness sake, never mishandle your custom inventions. If that is the case, I disagree with it.

Of course I want everything in my stories to be interesting. I detect no barrier between creating custom inventions and making them interesting. Everything in my stories is there for a reason. I never simply plug things in on the basis of its originality alone, and have never advocated any such thing.

We all have our different experiences, but I have a hard time imagining why originality is singled out as some kind of dangerous swamp-like place to be avoided, or traveled with extra caution. In general, it seems to be a valued part of fiction, and I'm going to continue applying it as I see fit.

 

[Mad Swede]

You've given your definition of originality, by which you mean some invention or concept of your own in your story. That's fine, but the reason why that sort of originality is sometimes discouraged is that it can get in the way of good writing. To me there's no point in a story stuffed full of original ideas if the story itself is so badly written that it becomes unreadable. Most readers then give up on the story and all those original ideas never get read, much less appreciated.

This is why I feel that originality is more about how we develop our characters and plot, in terms of what aspects we look to emphasise, how we combine dramatic situations and how we convey any underlying ideas, than it is about original concepts. That is, for me, the basics of good writing - or at least that is what I was taught, and what my editor and publisher look for.

This is not to say that you can't have original ideas in your stories, but I wouldn't want that to be at the expense of good writing.

 

[Karlin]

I always start writing by thinking "what if?" What if character X found him/her self in situation Y? What if Napoleon would find himself a centurion in Gaul, in Caesar's army? What if the True Messiah was a 6 year old child? What if John Brown had succeeded? What if the North lost the War Between the States? What would happen if Picasso quit painting and joined The Rolling Stones?

That's the main "original thought". After that, it's a question of setting, plot and characters, i.e. writing. I find that I add odd twists sometimes, because something occurs to me from Chinese mythology or some other legends I know about. But those are extra twists, not the main Idea.

 

[Incanus]

You've given your definition of originality, by which you mean some invention or concept of your own in your story. That's fine, but the reason why that sort of originality is sometimes discouraged is that it can get in the way of good writing. To me there's no point in a story stuffed full of original ideas if the story itself is so badly written that it becomes unreadable. Most readers then give up on the story and all those original ideas never get read, much less appreciated.

This is why I feel that originality is more about how we develop our characters and plot, in terms of what aspects we look to emphasise, how we combine dramatic situations and how we convey any underlying ideas, than it is about original concepts. That is, for me, the basics of good writing - or at least that is what I was taught, and what my editor and publisher look for.

This is not to say that you can't have original ideas in your stories, but I wouldn't want that to be at the expense of good writing.

Well, I have obviously failed at expressing my view here.

Including custom inventions automatically makes the writing bad? If it is included, it is only at the expense of good writing? I see absolutely no connection between the two things whatsoever.

Good writing and strong prose are guiding lights for all my projects, and custom inventions have never had a negative impact on those things.

I'm just going to chalk all this up to some kind of communication error on my part. The term 'original' seems to be clouding up this issue for some reason that I cannot comprehend.

 

[Mad Swede]

Well, I have obviously failed at expressing my view here.

Including custom inventions automatically makes the writing bad? If it is included, it is only at the expense of good writing? I see absolutely no connection between the two things whatsoever.

Good writing and strong prose are guiding lights for all my projects, and custom inventions have never had a negative impact on those things.

I'm just going to chalk all this up to some kind of communication error on my part. The term 'original' seems to be clouding up this issue for some reason that I cannot comprehend.

I don't think I've said anywhere that originality (or custom inventions) automatically make writing bad. I may be writing in my second language but I don't think I express myself that badly.

But originality does not automatically make for a good story. Isaac Asimov, A E van Vogt and Brian Aldiss are all examples of SF authors who had wonderful (and often original) ideas but who really didn't write very well. I find Aldiss' work in particular very difficult to read. I think it was Douglas Adams who said that Asimov's ideas were captivating but the writing was awful, to the point where Adams wouldn't employ Asimov to write junk mail.

The opposite is true of David and Leigh Eddings. Their books don't contain any original ideas and use just about every fantasy trope and cliche going. However, the books do have very good characterisation, good dialogue and good pace, which together with a degree of self-awareness makes for a good read.

Like most things in writing, I feel that originality can take several forms. I don't look for originality per se, what I do look for is good writing.

 

[pmmg]

I think the Eddings books had a good amount of stuff that was their own. The idea of one of the steps of his entry stair being wobbly cause he put a diamond under it to see how long it would take to break, or winning a battle of summoning devils to fight each other, and the idea of his bleeding from its wounds undoing the confidence of the other summoner is another I have never seen again. Eddings, to me, feels like gateway fantasy. It has all the funs stuff we read fantasy for, and has a pretty good tale to tell as well. But it would not survive the scrutiny of a 50 years brain picking it up. Once you've past the gateway, the fantasy needs to grow and be more adult.

I wonder if this thread out not be reintroduced in a new thread, as the question is originality, but you are asking a new question with custom inventions instead.

I recently saw two movies, the Princess Bride, and the Never Ending Story... Both stories were about a kid reading a book and getting drawn in. But one is masterfully done, and the other is totally cringe and BS. While I liked both stories, the execution of each was way different. Which goes to say, its all in the execution whether it will a great book and story, or a meh...one.

 

[Incanus]

Round and round it goes, where it stops...

Your entire previous post was about connecting original ideas with bad writing. I see no connection there and cannot acknowledge it. I've seen that idea asserted several times in different ways in this thread, but the connection is never established or explained. I would welcome such an explanation, assuming there is one that I can follow.

And, of course, there are differences in taste. As it turns out, I have been re-reading the Belgariad series on and off recently. I find the writing to be pretty poor for the most part, but it is still an interesting read. I think Asimov is the better writer and a better thinker, though he has some lesser books out there, for sure.

One thing about all this may very well be true: The writing road I am on may be higher risk and higher reward. But, I'm not really sure.

 

[pmmg]

Your entire previous post was about connecting original ideas with bad writing. I see no connection there and cannot acknowledge it. I've seen that idea asserted several times in different ways in this thread, but the connection is never established or explained. I would welcome such an explanation, assuming there is one that I can follow.

By this, do you mean, the connection between custom inventions and bad writing?

I think I'll just say Sturgeon's law applies. 95% of everything is dreck. So...if one is not discriminating, they are going to read a lot of bad writing. (That me, I read a lot of bad writing), but I also find some gems.

 

[Incanus]

Sorry, pmmg. That post was in response to Mad Swede's. I probably should have quoted.

I did think of starting a fresh thread with the updated term. But this subject doesn't seem to go over very well here, and I'm a bit too shy and/or diplomatic to be the 'bad guy' all over again. I prefer discussion over argument. A little is OK, but I'm ready for a break.

Looking into this elsewhere, I find that originality is generally considered a positive trait in fiction, with the usual caveats. That's how I'll be treating the subject as well.

 

[Mad Swede]

I think the Eddings books had a good amount of stuff that was their own. The idea of one of the steps of his entry stair being wobbly cause he put a diamond under it to see how long it would take to break, or winning a battle of summoning devils to fight each other, and the idea of his bleeding from its wounds undoing the confidence of the other summoner is another I have never seen again. Eddings, to me, feels like gateway fantasy. It has all the funs stuff we read fantasy for, and has a pretty good tale to tell as well. But it would not survive the scrutiny of a 50 years brain picking it up. Once you've past the gateway, the fantasy needs to grow and be more adult.

So where does that leave a writer like Charles Dickens? Most of his British contemporaries (and especially the British critics) regarded him as a hack writer producing unoriginal serialised stories for money. Yet today we regard his works as literary classics. I'm not sure we can judge books like The Belgariad, I think it will take another 100 years or so before anyone tries to select the classics from the current pile of popular fiction. And no, I don't expect my books to be among the future classics...

I wonder if this thread out not be reintroduced in a new thread, as the question is originality, but you are asking a new question with custom inventions instead.

I recently saw two movies, the Princess Bride, and the Never Ending Story... Both stories were about a kid reading a book and getting drawn in. But one is masterfully done, and the other is totally cringe and BS. While I liked both stories, the execution of each was way different. Which goes to say, its all in the execution whether it will a great book and story, or a meh...one.

I don't think I would try to judge a book based on the film of said book. The Never Ending Story is a good example, the book itself is quite a lot deeper than the film with far more in the way of nuanced characters.

Opinions on what makes a great book are very personal, it can be a bit like discussing what sort of hifi system is best. Contemporary critics are not always the best judges.

 

[Devor]

This thread went in a weird and unhelpful direction. So I'm going to give an example of one of my "custom inventions," because I want to highlight the difference between what I consider fresh, and why I don't think just any new creation is worth adding to a story versus old familiar ones.

In my story there are a handful of sentient races that come from the fairy otherworld, passing directly through a portal to get here. One of those creatures from the otherworld is the Puca. The Puca is a hobbit-sized beasty humanoid covered in black fur, normally, but they can shapeshift into any animal they come across.

So far, they're a little unusual, but still fairly standard. Here's where I feel I've added freshness to the creature:

The first time they transform into any animal, they pick up traits of that animal, even in their humanoid form, which they can't get rid of. The dog ears and leopard tail just don't go away, and neither do the friendly pester-you instincts, or the predator stalker instincts. But they're supposed to, in the fairy otherworld, where a seasonal magic resets their identity - meaning they could try on different animal qualities and decide what kind of person they want to be. Here in this setting, locked out of their otherworldly home, taking too many different animal forms leads to an erratic identity crisis.

Now, instead of just having a custom race, I have a race that's in crisis, that evokes emotion and speaks to the human condition, and that opens up more new storytelling opportunities than I can even begin to cover in my actual story. If you were already part bunny, and part squirrel, could you resist the urge to try being an eagle too? What about when you were a kid? Hey, maybe it could work, or maybe it could drive you mad with conflicting instincts; after all your friend tried being a housecat once and now is too lazy to get anything done. And wouldn't it be amazing to decide how your mind works and what you're capable of through trial and error, trying out different animals each year, searching for that perfect combination that makes you behave just the way you want to?

So that's what I mean when I say that adding a race of rat-fish isn't any more creative or fresh or original than a race of elves. If it doesn't open doors and pathways for storytelling then it's just a reskinning of what we've already seen. And maybe you can still use the rat-fish race. Not everything needs to be super cool and original. But, a custom invention has an overhead price: that extra exposition it takes for readers to understand it. You've got to decide if it's worth the price and whether your storytelling skills are rich enough to pay it.

 

[Mad Swede]

I'm going to add another example to the one Devor just gave, from my own stories. One of the main characters is a war veteran with PTSD. That's not original in itself, but what happens when I ask how someone like that survives in a medieval style world with no pyschological support? Or maybe how someone like that finds honest work which uses the skills they have at the same time as helping said character come to terms with themselves and what they've done? As Devor wrote, introducing and developing an original character like that takes extra exposition which has to be done in a way which doesn't make the character unsympathetic. Add to that the need for a good story arc and other interesting characters with their own needs and desires and you have a challenge. At that point your writing skills need to be up to it.

 

[Incanus]

I prefer the original topic as well. The last two examples here are what I've been trying to get to.

Without getting too far into it, the main 'custom invented' humanoid creatures I have in my WIP are much more than just a cypher of goblins or orcs or whatnot. They have a deep connection to the history and to the magic of the world, and they play into the story's theme. Simply taking them out of my invented world and plopping them into another one would quite literally make no sense. They would not exist without the history that gave birth to them.

Devor reminds me that it costs something to include something like this, and it takes skill. I had lost sight of that somewhere. But it helps explain why I've struggled with these kinds of issues in revising my work. Basically, I feel I'm one or two skill levels shy of where I should be to pull all this off. I sure hope I can learn what I need to get this done...

 

[JBCrowson]

Without getting too far into it, the main 'custom invented' humanoid creatures I have in my WIP are much more than just a cypher of goblins or orcs or whatnot. They have a deep connection to the history and to the magic of the world, and they play into the story's theme. Simply taking them out of my invented world and plopping them into another one would quite literally make no sense. They would not exist without the history that gave birth to them

I agree with this idea of creativity and originality. In a way I see this as a part of world building - you have the races you do because you created a world and them together. I like that way of forming connections between the races / animals / plants of a world and its history / geology / geography.