Are story ideas truly 'cheap'?

[Incanus]

Apologies for the huge post. If you are interested in the subject, then bear with me a little bit.

So, I’ve seen this sentiment expressed here and elsewhere, when it comes to storytelling—ideas are cheap, they are everywhere, they’ve all been done before, therefore it is the execution that really matters.

First, what is meant by the term ‘cheap’? As I understand it, it is the notion that it only takes mere seconds to come up with a story idea. Execution of a story, on the other hand, takes weeks, months, or years for longer or more complicated works.

That makes sense, as far as it goes. There is a problem with this notion, however. It implies that ALL story ideas are of equal value or quality. It also suggests that there is no practical difference between a strong idea, and a weak one. (I acknowledge it is a given that ideas can be more or less attractive to individuals with different tastes.)

Based on some conversations in past threads, I feel I need to be crystal clear about the importance of story execution.

The short version: An idea is what gets me to pick a book up. Execution is what keeps me reading that book. If there is a problem with one or the other, the book does not get read.

Therefore, poor execution means a poor book. I believe that is true 100% of the time. It is the reason I have put books down before, and will again. I am very picky about execution, and I feel only a very few fantasy writers get it right, at least by my standards.

There is another point I need to make absolutely clear before continuing. I’ve heard some writers claim that other writers espouse the idea that originality is the most important element of fiction writing, or something along those lines. I’ve only seen this idea expressed second-hand, and it is not something I believe in. (In fact, I would very much appreciate it if someone could point me to an article or podcast or anything that expresses this opinion, since I haven’t seen it myself. I am skeptical that this idea is very popular or widespread.)

Final caveat: There is nothing I am advocating in this post that is incompatible with a strong story execution. There is no element of fiction that should be used in lieu of good execution. (This is another notion I would like to see some citation for—are there really people expressing this?)

With that out of the way, I’d like to explore the importance of ideas in stories.

First—how about the works of Tolkien? If it is true that execution is everything, and ideas are cheap, then it stands to reason that Tolkien would have been every bit as successful and influential if he had written a whodunnit mystery, or a modern romance, or a spy thriller, or basically any fiction at all. Am I to believe that hobbits, orcs, elves, an elaborate fictional history of Middle-Earth, or a powerful and corrupting magical ring have played no part in Tolkien’s popularity or success? Something sounds off there, doesn’t it? (I would say this applies to most fantasy, which I consider a very idea-driven genre.)

Second—I recently read the book ‘The Firm’ by John Grisham. It was a good story, but the execution was rather on the poor side. (I detailed some of this in another thread about successful authors using poor technique.) I was surprised to see such poor techniques, all in the first couple of pages, but there it was. A lot of the narration was weak throughout. The dialogue is pretty good for the most part. Other areas are OK—the author knows the subject matter well, no problem there. So, here we have a popular book with a goodly amount of poor execution. Rather curious. Bottom line: the ideas in the book were far better than the execution. (Yes, this is an older book, but I’m pretty sure every generation has this sort of thing happening, many times over.)

Third—about three years ago, I joined a little one-off workshop group where we critiqued each other’s short stories, revised what we had, and sent them off to the Writers of the Future contest. My story (and two others from this group) earned an Honorable Mention in the contest (a result I didn’t even know was possible when I submitted). As I understand it, this means I came ahead of thousands of other entries, and landed somewhere in the top 6-7%, or so. OK, not too bad. Earlier this year, I paused work on my novel to give this story another round of polish and send it out again. I had my best writer-friend look it over, and we found quite a lot of poor execution in the text, especially on the first pages. I had some bad ‘tells’, bits that were unfocused due to strewing too many ideas around, and I mischaracterized the MC early on as well. The premise at the heart of the story is pretty fascinating (or so I think), and the setting is rather unusual. So, we have here a story with a strong idea and poor execution scoring fairly high in a contest judged by professionals. How did this happen if execution is more important than story ideas?

Fourth and last—decades ago, I was trying as hard as I could to come up with a good starting idea to base a fantasy novel upon. None of the ideas I had were inspiring or good enough to justify all the hard work it would entail. I messed around with some ‘sword and sorcery’ style short items, and another thing or two, but they didn’t turn out all that well. Years went by. Finally, in 2011, I struck on a really amazing idea that captured my imagination, and it was something I hadn’t seen done before. It was a doozy (and still is). It took many years to hit on this idea. It was extremely difficult to come up with, it is rare, it is endlessly fascinating, and it could give birth to literally thousands of supporting ideas. ‘Cheap’ is probably the very last word in the entire English language I would use to describe this idea. The words I would use are terms like: fantastic, original, thought-provoking, inspiring, absorbing.

Now, I admit I am probably not a very typical reader, or writer. But it appears the notion that ‘ideas are cheap’ doesn’t stand up very well under even mild scrutiny.

I’m not trying to be a pest, or a troll. I am honestly trying to understand the ‘ideas are cheap’ concept here. My observations and experiences suggest the idea is at least flawed, if not altogether wrong.

 

[pmmg]

Ideas are cheap is a flippant way of saying, everyone can come up with ideas, but without the ability write the story the idea leads to, it has no value. Everyone has the ability to crank out an idea, few have the ability to turn them into a novel. Ideas in the hands of one who can make use of them is more valuable than ideas in the hands of fthose who can't.

That is not the same as all ideas are equally valuable, clearly we discern value based on the ones we put out energy into, and those we leave behind. No idea is without value if its your idea, and you are producing something from it. It may even be worth protecting. Assuming you dont want everyone else to take it and run with their own stories, or you want do want to reveal it all until all books are written.

If you think your idea is valuable, then you will treat it as such, and maybe it will be after all.

 

[ThinkerX]

We used to have the 'Iron Pen' story writing challenge here at Mythic Scribes. Authors were given four prompts (ideas) and a 5K word-count limit. The stories were not even close to being similar.

What is done with the idea is possibly more important than the idea itself. Correct execution can salvage even a poor idea.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

Ideas are never cheap, as in being of little worth. They're seeds. A little bit of story, little bit of curiosity, big dip into the Collective Unconscious, and any idea can burst into being as a concept, which is much more detailed and robust than an idea. A story about an orphaned wizard named Harry who fights against an evil magician who can control snakes. Idea. At some point the idea splits into possible concepts, and those concepts are what holds such fascination for us.

What's the concept from this idea? Harry Potter, or Harry Dresden. Or maybe somewhere else, entirely different.

**Also, big props for Honorable Mention. I spent many times in Honorable Mention, about the same as when I placed so I can be happy with that. It was 1991 and I was the most highly decorated essayist in Missouri. Honorable Mentions are the best.

 

[Penpilot]

First—how about the works of Tolkien? If it is true that execution is everything, and ideas are cheap, then it stands to reason that Tolkien would have been every bit as successful and influential if he had written a whodunnit mystery, or a modern romance, or a spy thriller, or basically any fiction at all. Am I to believe that hobbits, orcs, elves, an elaborate fictional history of Middle-Earth, or a powerful and corrupting magical ring have played no part in Tolkien’s popularity or success? Something sounds off there, doesn’t it? (I would say this applies to most fantasy, which I consider a very idea-driven genre.)

What doesn't get mentioned here is passion for a project. If you don't have a passion for a project, that's going to hinder execution. Also familiarity with a genre will affect execution. Did Tolkien have a passion for writing mysteries? Did he have familiarity with the genre and expectations of that genre?

Second—I recently read the book ‘The Firm’ by John Grisham. It was a good story, but the execution was rather on the poor side. (I detailed some of this in another thread about successful authors using poor technique.) I was surprised to see such poor techniques, all in the first couple of pages, but there it was. A lot of the narration was weak throughout. The dialogue is pretty good for the most part. Other areas are OK—the author knows the subject matter well, no problem there. So, here we have a popular book with a goodly amount of poor execution. Rather curious. Bottom line: the ideas in the book were far better than the execution. (Yes, this is an older book, but I’m pretty sure every generation has this sort of thing happening, many times over.)

IMHO, sometimes a known quantity like a brand will keep people coming back and make them more forgiving. John Grisham is a brand. It's like watching an episode of Law and Order. It's comfort food. You know exactly what you're going to get. Or how about Star Wars or Marvel movies? Some people just want more of those specific things, regardless of quality.

But they all started with something of quality to hook the audience.

Third—about three years ago, I joined a little one-off workshop group where we critiqued each other’s short stories, revised what we had, and sent them off to the Writers of the Future contest. My story (and two others from this group) earned an Honorable Mention in the contest (a result I didn’t even know was possible when I submitted). As I understand it, this means I came ahead of thousands of other entries, and landed somewhere in the top 6-7%, or so. OK, not too bad. Earlier this year, I paused work on my novel to give this story another round of polish and send it out again. I had my best writer-friend look it over, and we found quite a lot of poor execution in the text, especially on the first pages. I had some bad ‘tells’, bits that were unfocused due to strewing too many ideas around, and I mischaracterized the MC early on as well. The premise at the heart of the story is pretty fascinating (or so I think), and the setting is rather unusual. So, we have here a story with a strong idea and poor execution scoring fairly high in a contest judged by professionals. How did this happen if execution is more important than story ideas?

IMHO, voice and passion. Do not confuse pure technical proficiency with good execution. A story can be technically flawless, but be as lifeless as a corpse. An engaging voice and a clear passion for the subject matter can overcome technical flaws up to a certain point.

It's one of the great dangers of over editing. You can edit something to be technically flawless, but in doing so, you can strangle the life out of a story. This is where the "art" of writing comes in. There is an unquantifiable element to a person's writing, the way they phrase things, the way they assemble the various elements into a story, that can hook the reader and keep them engaged, regardless of the perceived technical flaws. Defying reason sometimes the thing just works.

Sometimes "flaws" are additive. They can give a story character and a feel that can help engage the reader even more.

I have had similar experiences. I have looked back at old short stories that were very well received--one of them even had a personalized rejection--and see all the things I could have done "better". And the one common thread from those stories is this. I had a deep passion and a very personal connection to the subject.

Fourth and last—decades ago, I was trying as hard as I could to come up with a good starting idea to base a fantasy novel upon. None of the ideas I had were inspiring or good enough to justify all the hard work it would entail. I messed around with some ‘sword and sorcery’ style short items, and another thing or two, but they didn’t turn out all that well. Years went by. Finally, in 2011, I struck on a really amazing idea that captured my imagination, and it was something I hadn’t seen done before. It was a doozy (and still is). It took many years to hit on this idea. It was extremely difficult to come up with, it is rare, it is endlessly fascinating, and it could give birth to literally thousands of supporting ideas. ‘Cheap’ is probably the very last word in the entire English language I would use to describe this idea. The words I would use are terms like: fantastic, original, thought-provoking, inspiring, absorbing.

I subscribe to this youtube channel called Film Courage. They interview writers from different fields, novel, screen, etc., and they interview directors, too. There's this common thing that comes up a lot. In order for you to do your best work, you have to find a personal connection to the project. You have to be emotionally engaged and passion about it. I'm sure we've all seen it, supremely talented, writers, directors, actors taking on a project for money, and we can all tell that's exactly what they did, because they phoned it in.

If you shared with me that fantastic, original, thought-provoking, inspiring, absorbing, idea I might think it's the best thing ever and try to run off with it before you can catch me and beat me to a pulp. Or, I might just yawn, and go back to working on my own stuff. And if our positions were reversed, you might do the same.

 

[Prince of Spires]

The answer, as always, is it depends.

I once saw a presentation about how writers are all different, which stuck with me. One of the points raised was about ideas. For many writers, ideas are indeed cheap. They would get a nice idea, build on it, expand it, and write it into a story. However, there is a group of writers, for who the idea is the most important thing. They can't write an idea they believe has been done before. They need an original, profound idea, and one they feel no one else is doing.

As a result, many writers can sit down and brainstorm 100 story ideas in half an hour. A lot of them are bad or uninspiring. However, of those 100, some will stick and eventually lead to a novel. It's the story of Jim Butcher's Codex Alera series. He had this exact discussion and asked for 2 bad, unoriginal ideas and used them to write a bestseller (I think the ideas were Pokemon meet the lost Roman legion). That is very much about the execution. And then there are writers who do need that one big idea, otherwise they simply can't write.

One isn't better than the other. And I'm not sure it's easy from the outside to determine which is which . For Tolkien for instance, did he actually have a big idea and did he think he had? Or did he just want to write a modern day version of Beowulf and the Kalevala? Hard to say.

Grisham and the Firm? I think he achieved what he wanted to and what his audience wanted. That's very different from being good writing from a technical POV. Also it's one of his early books. Writers get better as they write more. And many early books by writers aren't great. Only some of them get published.

So, ideas are cheap for many writers. In the sense that it's easy to come up with ideas of stuff you can write. And the actual writing is the hard work. For some writers, they need their one big idea, otherwise they can't write.

 

[SamazonE]

I’ve heard some writers claim that other writers espouse the idea that originality is the most important element of fiction writing, or something along those lines. I’ve only seen this idea expressed second-hand, and it is not something I believe in.

It’s the way the bird flies, or the cock crows, all very conceded.

Now, if we were to see conceded executions, what would that mean?

 

[Incanus]

Ideas are cheap is a flippant way of saying, everyone can come up with ideas, but without the ability write the story the idea leads to, it has no value. Everyone has the ability to crank out an idea, few have the ability to turn them into a novel. Ideas in the hands of one who can make use of them is more valuable than ideas in the hands of fthose who can't.

That is not the same as all ideas are equally valuable, clearly we discern value based on the ones we put out energy into, and those we leave behind. No idea is without value if its your idea, and you are producing something from it. It may even be worth protecting. Assuming you dont want everyone else to take it and run with their own stories, or you want do want to reveal it all until all books are written.

If you think your idea is valuable, then you will treat it as such, and maybe it will be after all.

Lots of good responses here. I'll try to get to most of them, sooner or later.

I think I do get the point of 'ideas are cheap', but it seems this chosen term for it overshoots the mark by quite a bit, like an overreaction. Flippant is a good characterization.

Indeed, I would say the phrase 'ideas are cheap' is a case of poor execution of an idea--which is rather ironic, since good execution was the thing being advocated. Oh well.

 

[Incanus]

What is done with the idea is possibly more important than the idea itself. Correct execution can salvage even a poor idea.

I understand that this is true for many readers/writers, but it doesn't work that way for me. The greatest execution in the world will not win me over if the subject matter behind it is poor or boring.

This reminds me of another phrase that goes hand-in-hand with 'ideas are cheap'--it is sometimes said 'execution is everything'. I can't agree. I would say it is exactly half of the equation, the other half being a strong story idea. A problem on either side means the book gets tossed aside.

 

[Devor]

I know that my opinion on this differs from most people's. But I don't think there's much use in separating ideas and execution. There are thousands of ideas in a book. Dozens on every page. Hell, you could define a sentence as the expression of an idea. The notion that your idea is a few words that your book is based on, and everything else is just how well you pull it off, is crap.

Your creativity as a writer is going to show on every page. Your ability to generate, twist, and use a good idea is a near-constant process in writing. That quality of a story that surprises readers happens on levels large and small.

There is no sentence on a page where having the better idea won't matter.

 

[Mad Swede]

I think this depends on what you mean by idea. In writing it's often taken to mean the concept for a story. That concept could be something like a PI investigating crimes, or some unknown person being dragged into a journey to save the world. In that sense ideas are common to many writers, and so you could say that ideas are cheap in the same way that talk is said to be cheap. For me it isn't so much the idea or concept as it is how you develop it in your writing, in the same way that most people can talk but only a very few have something really profound to say.

 

[Incanus]

Ideas are never cheap, as in being of little worth. They're seeds. A little bit of story, little bit of curiosity, big dip into the Collective Unconscious, and any idea can burst into being as a concept, which is much more detailed and robust than an idea. A story about an orphaned wizard named Harry who fights against an evil magician who can control snakes. Idea. At some point the idea splits into possible concepts, and those concepts are what holds such fascination for us.

What's the concept from this idea? Harry Potter, or Harry Dresden. Or maybe somewhere else, entirely different.

**Also, big props for Honorable Mention. I spent many times in Honorable Mention, about the same as when I placed so I can be happy with that. It was 1991 and I was the most highly decorated essayist in Missouri. Honorable Mentions are the best.

Can't say I'm too surprised to learn you were the most highly decorated essayist somewhere. And thanks for the props.

This description of ideas turning into concepts works for me. My most recent short story came from a single idea: A story told in first-person by a homunculus familiar. The true story concept only emerged as I worked on it: the story is about the nature of service. All that is good, but I've lost all perspective on the piece, and I can't really tell if the execution turned out very good.

 

[skip.knox]

The parallel drawn by Mad Swede is apt. "Talk is cheap" simply means that you're saying something but until you act on it, your words have little value. So it is with ideas. Incanus, you draw the distinction between ideas and execution, but it feels like much the same thing. Ideas are cheap denigrates the process; it's not a helpful way to express the issue. Better is to say the idea only has potential value. It acquires real value (little or great) only upon execution.

The matter comes up frequently around here because we have a good many aspiring authors who, perhaps unsure themselves, come here to ask what we think of this idea. To which it is all to easy to say ideas are a dime a dozen and come back when you've actually written something. These replies are sometimes phrased more kindly. <g> Moreover, I do think a fantasy or SF forum is more likely to get such a question than you might encounter in other genres.

I like the point Devor makes, that ideas come in many forms and than any completed work has a great many ideas at various levels from word choice to overall plot. Here again, the flip phrase that ideas are cheap obscures this fact, which again is unhelpful to the newbie.

Finally, I'll add that I've loved books that were strong on concept but shaky on execution. There are plenty I've put down because they were flagrantly and obviously poorly written. I take that as an indicator that the story itself won't hold up either. But I've also loved books that were beautifully written even though the story was not especially engaging, for one reason or another. And I've loved books that, upon a re-read years later, did not hold up well at all. Same book, but the reader had changed.

All in all, it seems simple and obvious to say any author needs to attend to both. Come up with the best ideas you can (banish the word "original" from your authorial dictionary), then write as well as you can. All the rest is denouement.

 

[Incanus]

What doesn't get mentioned here is passion for a project. If you don't have a passion for a project, that's going to hinder execution. Also familiarity with a genre will affect execution. Did Tolkien have a passion for writing mysteries? Did he have familiarity with the genre and expectations of that genre?



IMHO, sometimes a known quantity like a brand will keep people coming back and make them more forgiving. John Grisham is a brand. It's like watching an episode of Law and Order. It's comfort food. You know exactly what you're going to get. Or how about Star Wars or Marvel movies? Some people just want more of those specific things, regardless of quality.

But they all started with something of quality to hook the audience.



IMHO, voice and passion. Do not confuse pure technical proficiency with good execution. A story can be technically flawless, but be as lifeless as a corpse. An engaging voice and a clear passion for the subject matter can overcome technical flaws up to a certain point.

It's one of the great dangers of over editing. You can edit something to be technically flawless, but in doing so, you can strangle the life out of a story. This is where the "art" of writing comes in. There is an unquantifiable element to a person's writing, the way they phrase things, the way they assemble the various elements into a story, that can hook the reader and keep them engaged, regardless of the perceived technical flaws. Defying reason sometimes the thing just works.

Sometimes "flaws" are additive. They can give a story character and a feel that can help engage the reader even more.

I have had similar experiences. I have looked back at old short stories that were very well received--one of them even had a personalized rejection--and see all the things I could have done "better". And the one common thread from those stories is this. I had a deep passion and a very personal connection to the subject.



I subscribe to this youtube channel called Film Courage. They interview writers from different fields, novel, screen, etc., and they interview directors, too. There's this common thing that comes up a lot. In order for you to do your best work, you have to find a personal connection to the project. You have to be emotionally engaged and passion about it. I'm sure we've all seen it, supremely talented, writers, directors, actors taking on a project for money, and we can all tell that's exactly what they did, because they phoned it in.

If you shared with me that fantastic, original, thought-provoking, inspiring, absorbing, idea I might think it's the best thing ever and try to run off with it before you can catch me and beat me to a pulp. Or, I might just yawn, and go back to working on my own stuff. And if our positions were reversed, you might do the same.

Lot’s of great stuff to ponder here, Penpilot. Thanks.

In my Tolkien speculation, knowledge and passion for the genre would have to have been implicit—it is why he would have worked in those other genres. Of course, it wouldn’t really be Tolkien any more so… I don’t know. Still, I think my point is sound—if execution is truly ‘everything’, then it wouldn’t have mattered what he wrote, he would have gotten by on execution alone, based on whatever passion he had.

Grisham and having a brand—what you’ve said here fits squarely with my contention that content is every bit as important as execution. In your examples, ideas are what is on offer; execution, not so much.

“A story can be technically flawless, but be as lifeless as a corpse.”—I agree 100%. I’m a little surprised; in my thread about originality, you seemed to come down pretty squarely on the side of execution (unless I misunderstood, quite likely). I love the notion that flaws can be ‘additive’. I feel pretty certain that many of Tolkien’s flaws work that way. It is a bit heartening to think that I may be overcoming my own flaws with strengths in other areas.

There is no doubt I am emotionally engaged with my WIP. It can be obsessive, even if I tend to work slowly. I certainly believe that my super-duper story idea would bore some, fascinate others, with most falling somewhere in between.

I think I was expecting a little more pushback to what I’ve said here. But, this has been a good discussion—unfortunately, I’ll have to wait until tomorrow to add any more to it------

 

[Naruzeldamaster]

I've had plenty of 'ideas'
but very few of them have I sat down and actually written. and I STILL don't have a finished work to my name. (That's more on me and how I write than anything)

The problem with ideas is, they come with no details (at least for me they do) in my case it's like two/three scenes on repeat in my brain until I write the darn thing. Then I get to writing it, find out that the idea is hot garbage, and either scrap it, or rework it into something else. Ideas themselves are simple, a good story is not, they're more complex than the human nervous system.

Ideas themselves are basically free, the time consuming (and in my opinion, sometimes soul destroying) part is molding those ideas into something people actually want to read. I've come up with some pretty silly ideas, that would mostly only entertain me, and that's fine and all for practice writing. But I've got like five projects on my plate as is, if I start another project, I want it to be something I can work with til it's done.

Part of being a good writer (I think) is learning what makes a good idea into a 'story' instead of a 'spark' and having the ability to shape that story into something others can enjoy.

 

[Karlin]

I tend to have fairly original out-of-the-box ideas (at least I think I do). By "idea" here I mean the original spark that is the basis for the story.

Analyzing different books and authors is interesting and useful, but I think the best approach is to write as best as you possibly can. Afterwards, go back and fix things as best as you can. The key is- as best as you can. Always. And that will improve over time. Eventually you will get to be like the butcher in that Daoist story. (see below)

Frankly, I suspect some spend too much time analyzing and thinking about writing, when they'd be better off writing.

The Dexterous Butcher - Zhuangzi - The Dewdrop

Zhuangzi's story of the dexterous Cook Ding who teaches Lord Wenhui a profound life lesson through the workings of his knife.

thedewdrop.org

 

[Incanus]

The answer, as always, is it depends.

I once saw a presentation about how writers are all different, which stuck with me. One of the points raised was about ideas. For many writers, ideas are indeed cheap. They would get a nice idea, build on it, expand it, and write it into a story. However, there is a group of writers, for who the idea is the most important thing. They can't write an idea they believe has been done before. They need an original, profound idea, and one they feel no one else is doing.

As a result, many writers can sit down and brainstorm 100 story ideas in half an hour. A lot of them are bad or uninspiring. However, of those 100, some will stick and eventually lead to a novel. It's the story of Jim Butcher's Codex Alera series. He had this exact discussion and asked for 2 bad, unoriginal ideas and used them to write a bestseller (I think the ideas were Pokemon meet the lost Roman legion). That is very much about the execution. And then there are writers who do need that one big idea, otherwise they simply can't write.

One isn't better than the other. And I'm not sure it's easy from the outside to determine which is which . For Tolkien for instance, did he actually have a big idea and did he think he had? Or did he just want to write a modern day version of Beowulf and the Kalevala? Hard to say.

Grisham and the Firm? I think he achieved what he wanted to and what his audience wanted. That's very different from being good writing from a technical POV. Also it's one of his early books. Writers get better as they write more. And many early books by writers aren't great. Only some of them get published.

So, ideas are cheap for many writers. In the sense that it's easy to come up with ideas of stuff you can write. And the actual writing is the hard work. For some writers, they need their one big idea, otherwise they can't write.

Interesting. My good writer-friend brought up the idea of writers who can't write something that they didn't 100% come up with on their own. Not identical with what you've brought up here, but close. For myself, I have no problem integrating ideas that didn't come directly from me.

I'm guessing this is more of a spectrum than a one-or-the-other kind of thing. I fall more into the 'big idea' camp, but not in an extreme way. For one thing, once I've come up with something I like (a very difficult thing to do), I don't go around checking to see if it's been done before. I just start developing it there and then. It's enough for me that the thing has potential and sets my imagination on fire.

I'm not going to criticize anyone who runs with an 'ideas are cheap' mentality, less so if they're getting things done. It doesn't affect what I'm doing. But I am also unlikely to pick up a book based on an idea that seems dull to me. Those are likely to be 'cheap' ideas.

(side note--I think it is safe to say I will NEVER be reading any book about pokemon and the lost Roman legion. It's popularity status plays no part in that decision.)

 

[A. E. Lowan]

Interesting. My good writer-friend brought up the idea of writers who can't write something that they didn't 100% come up with on their own. Not identical with what you've brought up here, but close. For myself, I have no problem integrating ideas that didn't come directly from me.

I'm guessing this is more of a spectrum than a one-or-the-other kind of thing. I fall more into the 'big idea' camp, but not in an extreme way. For one thing, once I've come up with something I like (a very difficult thing to do), I don't go around checking to see if it's been done before. I just start developing it there and then. It's enough for me that the thing has potential and sets my imagination on fire.

I'm not going to criticize anyone who runs with an 'ideas are cheap' mentality, less so if they're getting things done. It doesn't affect what I'm doing. But I am also unlikely to pick up a book based on an idea that seems dull to me. Those are likely to be 'cheap' ideas.

(side note--I think it is safe to say I will NEVER be reading any book about pokemon and the lost Roman legion. It's popularity status plays no part in that decision.)

My younger writing partner would read the cream cheese out of that. I wouldn't. Everyone has their something, and I think it's a thing of beauty. It means that no matter where our ideas come from, they're woven on the loom of our very unique minds. And that's why ideas are never cheap. There's at least one out there for everyone, writer or reader.

 

[Incanus]

I know that my opinion on this differs from most people's. But I don't think there's much use in separating ideas and execution. There are thousands of ideas in a book. Dozens on every page. Hell, you could define a sentence as the expression of an idea. The notion that your idea is a few words that your book is based on, and everything else is just how well you pull it off, is crap.

Your creativity as a writer is going to show on every page. Your ability to generate, twist, and use a good idea is a near-constant process in writing. That quality of a story that surprises readers happens on levels large and small.

There is no sentence on a page where having the better idea won't matter.

I think this is a much, much, much better way to look at these issues. This is why I recoil at such phrases as 'ideas are cheap' and 'execution is everything'.

I may catch a little flak for asking this, but: Is it at least conceivable that if the premise for your book is 'cheap', your book may also be 'cheap'? It doesn't seem too great a leap.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

I think this is a much, much, much better way to look at these issues. This is why I recoil at such phrases as 'ideas are cheap' and 'execution is everything'.

I may catch a little flak for asking this, but: Is it at least conceivable that if the premise for your book is 'cheap', your book may also be 'cheap'? It doesn't seem too great a leap.

More than conceivable. Even in Sicily.

It's always a risk. We all write trashy genre fiction, and Literary can just sit over there in the corner and think about what it's done. Cheap is as cheap does, so it's possible to shine that crappy story up to par. It does take work, though, and there are a lot of writers out there who don't feel the need for revision, editing, or even just the occasional Spellcheck. And this is why we have reviews and the option to return a book we DNF'd, but please use this option sparingly. Returns are an ongoing issue with Amazon.