'Unoriginality'

[YohannIan]

I know there's a saying: "Nothing is original"..or something along those lines.
I don't really believe in that, though. I feel something can be original in its own right, provided it doesn't seem like a cheap carbon copy of what it drew inspiration from. If the same idea is executed very well, it does in a way gain 'originality' status.

I have this problem. I constantly avoid being unoriginal- when it comes to crafting my own story.
That being said, I try my best not to

My conscience..is a douchebag. He always restrains me from drawing on other sources for inspiration. He says it's 'copying' or being unoriginal. And I have a big problem with that; every time I come up with something, it goes through some kind of 'originality screen test' in my head, to ensure that years from now (when I finally publish my book) my book won't be under the scrutiny of trolls and critics who would call it a copy of another source.

Yes, yes, I know I said I don't really believe in the saying "Nothing is original", and I wan't to prove to certain people that I can be original in my own right. But at times it seems like an irrational waste to not draw on other sources.
Of course, archetypes and conventional norms of fantasy are welcome..otherwise it won't be called fantasy at all.
The real question is; does drawing from another source make it unoriginal? Is it wrong to be unoriginal in first place? What is 'unoriginality'?

 

[Philip Overby]

I actually believe in the opposite. "Nothing is unoriginal." Writers or artists or anything else will always have their unique vision of different stories. The way most artists avoid being "unoriginal" is just focusing on something that makes their own vision of familiar material unique.

If you only worry about being unoriginal, then yes, you'll probably never finish anything. I have the issue sometimes of coming up with something and someone will say, "that sounds like..." Yeah, ok, but have you read it yet?

Fantasy has often been plagued with this issue. Any "journey" could be ripping off Lord of the Rings. But is it?

I think the main worry writers should have is not ripping off other writers. Obviously, don't directly rip off someone else's plots and characters. If you use your own unique vision of ideas that have been done before, then you'll notice a freshness to it. I think freshness is more important than originality these days.

 

[Telcontar]

I am one of those who say that 'nothing is original.' Mankind has been creating stuff for thousands of years - there will always be something like what you're doing. That's not to say we're actually ripping anything off, though. Just because it's been done before doesn't mean we know about it.

The only important thing to remember is to draw from many sources. I can think through my own stories and recall plenty of things that are like things I've seen and read before. I didn't copy them intentionally, it's just too easy to relate one thing to another. However, they are drawn from all sorts of inspirational stories. A reader couldn't read through my books and be able to see the entire plot line of Star Wars or Lord of the Rings, for example. They couldn't follow any single other plotline, or even any dozen other plot lines.

This, also, was not intentionally. I set out to create something original. I failed, because everything has pretty much been done before. I've created things and then, several years later, read/seen something that was very, very similar. It's impossible for mine to have been a copy (or theirs to have been a copy of mine) - it just happens. Human beings think along certain paths. We draw to a great extent from the same cultural cloth. Repeats happen. Don't worry about it.

 

[Devor]

The real question is; does drawing from another source make it unoriginal? Is it wrong to be unoriginal in first place? What is 'unoriginality'?

I've posted this thought elsewhere. But while I believe there's nothing that's really new, I think the originality will come from the way your different story elements are combined.

There's a king, a prince, a princess, and a wizard to advise them; nothing new. But if the wizard has Savant's syndrome, and the princess is a douche, and the prince is a ladies man, and the King is a coward with giant warts on his nose, then you might have our first fantasy sitcom. (It'll still get cancelled around episode 3.)

Just remember to consider things such as language, chapter breaks, your medium (paper book or kindle?) and other less obvious things as elements to your work as well. It's been noted by others, but as epublishing is a new medium, it opens new pathways for storytelling.

 

[zizban]

The key isn't worrying about originality, it's about making a good tale.

 

[Anders Ämting]

You know, I once read an amusing post on this subject on a different forum. The author complained about his writing being derivative, and then listed a long list of famous writers he considered himself "too similar to." His descriptions sounded like that author, his characters were like this author's characters, his plots reminded him of a third author, and so on. All aspects of his writing was inspired of some other author, but it was never the same author.

And all I could think to say was: "So, basically, your writing isn't really that similar any of these people?"

Look, there isn't anything wrong with wanting your style to stand out, and creating something truly original isn't undesirable. It's just one of those things that's nice to have in the extremely rare occasions it happens, usually by accident.

However, consciously creating something completely new on a regular basis - as a rule rather then an exception - is not, has never been and will never be a realistic ambition. Obsessing about it isn't just unproductive but directly unhealthy. It's something that destroys promising talents all the time.

YohannIan, you actually are lucky in that you actually seem to realize that you have unrealistic expectations of your writing. A lot of people lack the objectivity to accept that. You just have to keep in mind that what you are experiencing is a trained subconscious emotional response. At best, it's just a bad habit. At worst, it's not too far from mild obsessive compulsion or neurotic perfectionism. Either way, it's something you can train your mind to overcome, and I strongly recommend that you do so before it gets out of hand.

The simple truth is that our priority should be creativity, not originality. As long as you write you will eventually develop a distinct style, because we are all different people who write in different ways. But there must be a joy in creating these stories. We have to enjoy them. And the best way to enjoy our writing is to draw inspiration from the stories we enjoy reading. That's the only way you will create anything that is genuinely good.

"Originality" in the common sense is actually a matter of fusing older ideas in such a way that they feel fresh, or approaching them from a different perspective. I find that the best way to achieve this is to take the direct opposite approach - be open to your influences and increase them. Have as many different stories as you possibly can in that catalogue in your head, so that eventually they all harmonize and blend into something that isn't quite like anything you have ever read.

 

[Arcturus]

Unoriginal or not, there are always going to be people out there trolling, saying so-and-so isn't original because someone else wrote something similar in an obscure corner of the world. Taking inspiration and elements from other works doesn't invalidate a novel and make it doomed to be the most clichéd thing since sliced bread.

And while it is good to branch out into something different, there is a fine line between original and a gimmick. At the same time, there is another distinction between original and something worth reading. Sure, having a book filled with 200 blank pages is "new" but people are buying this kind of thing as a joke. A stupid joke, but hey, I won't judge people's sense of humor.

 

[gerald.parson]

The main reason people think they cant be original is because they cant shake the cliche' ideology we have been fed for generations. Writers insert a character type and they follow the same path every writer did before them. A goblin has to be a "goblin" an "elf" has to be an elf etc etc. Break the mold, make people re-think the way they look at things.

 

[Anders Ämting]

The main reason people think they cant be original is because they cant shake the cliche' ideology we have been fed for generations. Writers insert a character type and they follow the same path every writer did before them. A goblin has to be a "goblin" an "elf" has to be an elf etc etc. Break the mold, make people re-think the way they look at things.

Then again, what if you genuinely want to write classic style fantasy, with goblins and elves and everything, because that's what you happen to love?

 

[gerald.parson]

No, nothing wrong with that at all, but just don't worry about being original lol. I mean in that regard it would all have to come from plot structure and character persona's. But you would still be restricted in some regards with the limitations placed with the cliche' style "races" or whatever you want to call them.

 

[aderyn]

I agree that we can no longer be truly original, but, it's not a problem. We simply take what we know and invent our own story with it. As long as it's a good story that is all that matters, as long as I don't replicate the tale of another author there is nothing to worry about.

 

[Reaver]

I personally don't worry too much whether or not someone else thinks whether or not my stuff is original. For me, it's all about the thrill of inventing new people and worlds and stuff that I've never heard of or read about before. And maybe, just maybe, neither has anyone else who reads it. That's why I love fantasy and sci-fi so much. Hell, that's why I love writing.

 

[Anders Ämting]

I agree that we can no longer be truly original, but, it's not a problem. We simply take what we know and invent our own story with it. As long as it's a good story that is all that matters, as long as I don't replicate the tale of another author there is nothing to worry about.

Isn't that pretty much the definition of an original story, though?

Since when is "original" a synonym of "incomparable"? If anything, we just keep using that damn word wrong.

 

[gerald.parson]

I think orignal is a very broad term. And has many faces. You can have an original story with cliche' characters, you can have a cliche' story with original characters, or any mixe of the two. In the end no combination is wrong or right cause it comes down to execution. For me personally I prefer original characters with a cliche' story. Because keep in mind there are a treasure trove of plot lines. But I like it when a character base like Elf or something is shone in a different light, like asexual telepaphs or something like that. Something outside of the cliche' realm. But then some would argue thats not an elf but a different race all together. I don't know. To each their own. I am no expert lol.

 

[aderyn]

Isn't that pretty much the definition of an original story, though?

Since when is "original" a synonym of "incomparable"? If anything, we just keep using that damn word wrong.

Yes but all the elements of that story would have been seen before - the evil antagonist, the dreamer, castles, dark forests, etc - you name it, it's been done.

 

[Reaver]

I remember seeing an ad on SyFy for a "New Original Series". I laughed at the absurdity of this statement for a good five minutes. Just wanted to bring a little levity here, my opinion in my previous post stands.

 

[gerald.parson]

So should we all just cash it in now and stop writing? I know what you are saying, but honestly don't let that stop you. For example, look at Avatar. I know its a movie but bare with me. Nothing about that story is original, its basically a white guilt movie, dances with wolves done over, and dances with wolves was something else, and so on and so on. The only thing that separated Avatar from Dances with Wolves was the time and place and characters. Instead of native americans you have blue native americans lol. You know what I am saying?
I think what kills most books and movies, is when people take plots that have been done a million times and insert characters that have been done a million times. We can't reinvent the wheel, but we can try to make people look at it a different way.

Yes but all the elements of that story would have been seen before - the evil antagonist, the dreamer, castles, dark forests, etc - you name it, it's been done.

 

[Reaver]

Well said, gerald. Anyone who's ever read "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" by Joseph Campbell knows this all too well. I think that it's very important that we all keep that proverbial "mythos" alive for as long as we possibly can and any way we can.

 

[grahamguitarman]

To be honest I don't get into a sweat about my work being 'original' so long as its not a clone of another novel #cough Sword of Shanarra cough#.

If you try to be deliberately unique, then you will more than likely become very stilted, because you have forced your writing into a mould. Better to write where your heart takes you, because then even if your novel is not the most original in terms of ideas, it will at least be engaging to read.

 

[Reaver]

Another excellent point! I wish I could have been this articulate.