Are story ideas truly 'cheap'?

[Incanus]

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.

Since I didn't (and wouldn't) coin the phrase 'ideas are cheap', it doesn't really matter what I mean by it, but what is meant by the people who employ this phrase. I agree that they seem to be pointing to the initial idea for a story.

But I think the comparison between 'ideas are cheap' and 'talk is cheap' doesn't really work for me. For a quick change of perspective, are musical notes 'cheap'? To me, the idea is absurd--a concept in search of a real world application, and not finding it. Is a C major chord 'cheaper' than a Bb minor-seven-flat-five? The very question doesn't make sense. In music, context is everything, and I think it is in writing as well. Musical notes are common to all musicians in all genres, but it doesn't make them cheap.

I think that any good book worth its weight should rise above common or daily language use, and strong, resonant ideas go a long way toward achieving that.

 

[pmmg]

I think a more apple to apple comparison would be...'I have an idea for a love song', but actual notes strummed out are more like words on page. It shows some ability to produce it.

 

[Mad Swede]

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'.

You shouldn't recoil from it, in my opinion.

As I so often do, I'm going to take David and Leigh Eddings The Belgariad as an example. None of the ideas or concepts in that book series are remotely original. Yet the books are best sellers. That's because the books are well written, with good characterisation and good dialogue. The ideas and concepts are developed in a way which draws the reader in. The pacing is good, and there's enough in the way of story and character arcs to keep the reader hooked. It helps that the writing is slightly self-aware, there's just this hint that the Eddings are having quite a lot of fun making subtle but very sly digs about fantasy stories in general.

The other example I would give is Raymond Chandler's books. He wasn't the first to write about private detectives, and he wasn't even the first to create slightly world weary and cynical PIs. Yet his writing is superb, way better than many of those PI authors who came before or after him.

Execution is everything in my view. You can away with using every cliche in the genre if your writing is good enough - and there are a lot of best selling authors out there to prove it.

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.

You deserve all the flak you get in my view. If you can't separate ideas from the standard of writing then I think you still have quite a bit to learn about writing. And yes, I know I'm going to be criticised for taking such a hard line. Bring on the debate!

 

[Mad Swede]

Since I didn't (and wouldn't) coin the phrase 'ideas are cheap', it doesn't really matter what I mean by it, but what is meant by the people who employ this phrase. I agree that they seem to be pointing to the initial idea for a story.

But I think the comparison between 'ideas are cheap' and 'talk is cheap' doesn't really work for me. For a quick change of perspective, are musical notes 'cheap'? To me, the idea is absurd--a concept in search of a real world application, and not finding it. Is a C major chord 'cheaper' than a Bb minor-seven-flat-five? The very question doesn't make sense. In music, context is everything, and I think it is in writing as well. Musical notes are common to all musicians in all genres, but it doesn't make them cheap.

Musical notes are cheap in the sense that they are common. All of us who play an instrument know the scales, the chords and the keys. Yet what makes a great composer (be that a composer of symphonies or a writer of popular music) is how they combine those elements into themes and variations in their music. Musical composition is in some ways the ultimate example of execution - only a very few have the ability to create something which lasts centuries from those simple common elements.

I think that any good book worth its weight should rise above common or daily language use, and strong, resonant ideas go a long way toward achieving that.

So where does that leave writers like Shakespeare and Dickens or, here in Sweden, Selma Lagerlöf and Astrid Lindgren? They wrote popular and very commercial works in the everyday language of the periods concerned. They used ideas and concepts they'd come across and that their readers were (and are) familiar with. Yet we regard their works as literary classics...

 

[Incanus]

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.

This looks like we agree more often than not, on this subject.

But I would say it wasn't really me who drew the distinction between ideas and execution, at least not initially. My OP is generally critical of the concept--it employs poor execution to espouse the value of good execution. As such, it is in dire need of revision/improvement.

That the matter comes up frequently here tracks pretty well with my contention that fantasy/sci-fi/horror are idea-driven genres.

I fully agree it seems obvious to say an author needs to attend to both. It is the existence of these problematic phrases (ideas are cheap, execution is everything) that leave me having to state the obvious. Each of these phrases are at odds with this obvious truth. And that's why I began this thread.

And, just in case this has gotten overlooked, or forgotten, I happen to be extremely picky when it comes to execution.

 

[Incanus]

You shouldn't recoil from it, in my opinion.

As I so often do, I'm going to take David and Leigh Eddings The Belgariad as an example. None of the ideas or concepts in that book series are remotely original. Yet the books are best sellers. That's because the books are well written, with good characterisation and good dialogue. The ideas and concepts are developed in a way which draws the reader in. The pacing is good, and there's enough in the way of story and character arcs to keep the reader hooked. It helps that the writing is slightly self-aware, there's just this hint that the Eddings are having quite a lot of fun making subtle but very sly digs about fantasy stories in general.

The other example I would give is Raymond Chandler's books. He wasn't the first to write about private detectives, and he wasn't even the first to create slightly world weary and cynical PIs. Yet his writing is superb, way better than many of those PI authors who came before or after him.

Execution is everything in my view. You can away with using every cliche in the genre if your writing is good enough - and there are a lot of best selling authors out there to prove it.

You deserve all the flak you get in my view. If you can't separate ideas from the standard of writing then I think you still have quite a bit to learn about writing. And yes, I know I'm going to be criticised for taking such a hard line. Bring on the debate!

To take that last point first, I don't mind robust debate at all. I'm glad you are expressing your views here. I am probably pretty mediocre at this, at best, but I try.

Unfortunately, you won't win me over with The Belgariad stuff. As it so happens, I have been re-reading that series lately (one book left to go). I find the execution to be pretty poor overall. The prose is pretty blah, and what in the world is that guy doing with adverbs??? Some of the worst abuses I've ever encountered. I like a couple of the characters, but not much else. This series is likely one of the items pointed to by the literary crowd to demonstrate the low quality so often seen in fantasy and sci-fi. That it is popular or sold well has no bearing on the quality--it just shows that readers were desperate for just about ANY fantasy they could find at the time.

I have not read Chandler, so I will stay silent on that score.

In my view, execution is exactly HALF. Not a smidgeon more, or less. The other half, obviously, is content (otherwise known as ideas). Both must be strong, or there's a problem.

So far, I'm not getting much in the way of flak--AEL appears to have agreed with me.

 

[SamazonE]

To take that last point first, I don't mind robust debate at all. I'm glad you are expressing your views here. I am probably pretty mediocre at this, at best, but I try.

If there were a book written with too much context, what would you think, if it were weighed up with intent? Say, there is a harvest festival, and a robotic pantomime, is that a cheap idea or poorly executed?

I ask this, because you have listed the basis for the railroad of life. Like books, writing is full of waffle. But, it doesn’t mean it is right. A harvest festival, is the pinnacle of society, you must remember.

I thought of a good one. The plot of Majora’s Mask translated into ancient Pangean. Dated?

 

[A. E. Lowan]

If there were a book written with too much context, what would you think, if it were weighed up with intent? Say, there is a harvest festival, and a robotic pantomime, is that a cheap idea or poorly executed?

I ask this, because you have listed the basis for the railroad of life. Like books, writing is full of waffle. But, it doesn’t mean it is right. A harvest festival, is the pinnacle of society, you must remember.

I thought of a good one. The plot of Majora’s Mask translated into ancient Pangean. Dated?

No. The Legend of Zelda is digital perfection and truly eternal. (No idea what 'truly' is supposed to convey, here, but now I've creeped myself out. Jerks.

Want a date? We owned a Sega Genesis, and my wife could beat Sonic the Hedgehog in about 6 minutes. And now, alas, it's the only console of ours that did not end up on the road to the tech junk pile in the sky. It was the Nintendo 64 - which I still own, in working condition - and The Legend of Zelda that really dragged me into gaming. It's amazing it still has both controllers. My wife's busted a few by throwing them in pure gamer rage, and then picking them back up and continues.

 

[SamazonE]

I worked in a gaming store, but no computer games, just board games. I have also worked in an arcade and cinema, but there is nothing better than split screen Mario Kart, in a neighbourhood right next to the basketball court.

yes, the days of 64, they really resound, however they will return, in an elliptical orbit

 

[Mad Swede]

To take that last point first, I don't mind robust debate at all. I'm glad you are expressing your views here. I am probably pretty mediocre at this, at best, but I try.

Unfortunately, you won't win me over with The Belgariad stuff. As it so happens, I have been re-reading that series lately (one book left to go). I find the execution to be pretty poor overall. The prose is pretty blah, and what in the world is that guy doing with adverbs??? Some of the worst abuses I've ever encountered. I like a couple of the characters, but not much else. This series is likely one of the items pointed to by the literary crowd to demonstrate the low quality so often seen in fantasy and sci-fi. That it is popular or sold well has no bearing on the quality--it just shows that readers were desperate for just about ANY fantasy they could find at the time.

Ah, the never ending debate about adverbs. As sales of both the Belgariad and the Harry Potter books show, the reading public don't give much for that somewhat academic discussion about grammatical style. No, the reading public want to be entertained.

To me, this sort of debate sometimes confuses literary writing with entertainment. Yes, you can have very literary books which are also hugely entertaining to read. But those books are an exception, the vast majority of popular best selling books are not literary masterworks. It isn't a new debate, far from it, Dickens was at the centre of a very similar debate when he published his (very popular) books. To me, this boils down to two questions: what do we as authors want to write, and what do the readers out there want to read?

Selling books means giving the public what they want to read. Yes, you can sneak in a few choice comments about society and about people in the themes at trhe centres of your stories (and I do so), but at the end of the day once we're on a publishing contract we're writing to entertain our readers.

Don't get me wrong, I still write for my own deeply personal reasons, but I've learnt that I can also entertain my readers whilst I do so.

I have not read Chandler, so I will stay silent on that score.

You should do so, and then you should read Dashiell Hammett. They're an interesing contrast in writing styles and character focus, whilst building on the same ideas and concepts.

In my view, execution is exactly HALF. Not a smidgeon more, or less. The other half, obviously, is content (otherwise known as ideas). Both must be strong, or there's a problem.

For me execution means getting the story flow right, it isn't about being a grammar pedant. If that flow is right then the ideas and concpets that I'm working with can be developed. But without good execution no-one will want to read what I write, and then it doesn't matter how well I develop those ideas and concepts. So in my view execution is and should be the main focus in writing stories.

 

[Prince of Spires]

I actually do think plenty of ideas are cheap. And that for those ideas execution is everything. There are whole romance genres out there, where all novels follow the basic structure, and the idea of the story is just the exact premisse. Nothing wrong with that by the way, don't get me wrong. Plenty of those authors make a lot more money from their books than I do. And plenty of them write a lot better than I do. Still doesn't change the fact that their idea was cheap.

Same with many fantasy stories by the way. A lot of them are roughly the same story. For The Rage of Dragon's by Evan Winter for instance the idea is just "What if the hero's journey but with an African inspired fantasy setting?" That's not a Big idea. It's a simple one. However, the execution is excelent, making it a bestseller and landing the guy a trad publishing deal.

And that's what people mean when they say ideas are cheap. You can generate a hundred of them in an evening with a good glass of wine in hand if you want. Not all of them will inspire you to write a book, but some of them will strike a spark with some authors. And that's why writers tend to say that you should focus on getting the idea written instead of clinging to the idea.

As I said earlier, this is not the case for all writers. Some are different. And yes, it's a spectrum, not an either or thing. Some writers will write the same story with a slightly different idea over and over again, and be very succesful with that. Just look at the Dirk Pitt novel by Clive Cussler for instance. They're all roughly the same, down to the same plot beats. No big ideas in there. Just a fun and quirky, cheap idea for a different premisse. Other writers can only write after they've found an amazing and original idea. And most writers fall somewhere in the middle. Where they want some measure of both big wonderful idea and just writing the story.

Actually thinking about it, for most medium sized best sellers, the idea was probably cheap. And I think most readers don't care. If anything, they prefer familiar, easy to digest ideas. There are a few exceptions which end up bigger sellers. But they're just that, exceptions. And most big idea books just disappear into obscurity.

 

[Incanus]

Ah, the never ending debate about adverbs. As sales of both the Belgariad and the Harry Potter books show, the reading public don't give much for that somewhat academic discussion about grammatical style. No, the reading public want to be entertained.

To me, this sort of debate sometimes confuses literary writing with entertainment. Yes, you can have very literary books which are also hugely entertaining to read. But those books are an exception, the vast majority of popular best selling books are not literary masterworks. It isn't a new debate, far from it, Dickens was at the centre of a very similar debate when he published his (very popular) books. To me, this boils down to two questions: what do we as authors want to write, and what do the readers out there want to read?

Selling books means giving the public what they want to read. Yes, you can sneak in a few choice comments about society and about people in the themes at trhe centres of your stories (and I do so), but at the end of the day once we're on a publishing contract we're writing to entertain our readers.

Don't get me wrong, I still write for my own deeply personal reasons, but I've learnt that I can also entertain my readers whilst I do so.

You should do so, and then you should read Dashiell Hammett. They're an interesing contrast in writing styles and character focus, whilst building on the same ideas and concepts.

For me execution means getting the story flow right, it isn't about being a grammar pedant. If that flow is right then the ideas and concpets that I'm working with can be developed. But without good execution no-one will want to read what I write, and then it doesn't matter how well I develop those ideas and concepts. So in my view execution is and should be the main focus in writing stories.

I don't have much of a beef with adverbs in general. I don't specifically hunt them down in my prose, because I don't abuse them in the first place. But glaringly bad adverb use looks lazy, and hurts the prose.

I have no problem with writing that aims to entertain. That's what I'm doing. That said, poor prose is never entertaining. I can make it through books like those in the Belgariad, but the execution is too below par for me to ever really love those books. But we all have differences in taste. I you like it, read it!

Your last paragraph doesn't really provide much of an argument against my contention that both content and execution are important. The flip side of your argument is equally true: even the greatest execution of all time cannot make a poor idea (or set of ideas) more palatable.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

To mix metaphors, ideas are like assholes; everybody's got one, but you've gotta shit or get off the pot. Sometimes you shit shit, and every now and again, you shit gold.

I suspect this idea is a cheap shot, heh heh.

 

[Incanus]

I actually do think plenty of ideas are cheap. And that for those ideas execution is everything. There are whole romance genres out there, where all novels follow the basic structure, and the idea of the story is just the exact premisse. Nothing wrong with that by the way, don't get me wrong. Plenty of those authors make a lot more money from their books than I do. And plenty of them write a lot better than I do. Still doesn't change the fact that their idea was cheap.

Same with many fantasy stories by the way. A lot of them are roughly the same story. For The Rage of Dragon's by Evan Winter for instance the idea is just "What if the hero's journey but with an African inspired fantasy setting?" That's not a Big idea. It's a simple one. However, the execution is excelent, making it a bestseller and landing the guy a trad publishing deal.

And that's what people mean when they say ideas are cheap. You can generate a hundred of them in an evening with a good glass of wine in hand if you want. Not all of them will inspire you to write a book, but some of them will strike a spark with some authors. And that's why writers tend to say that you should focus on getting the idea written instead of clinging to the idea.

As I said earlier, this is not the case for all writers. Some are different. And yes, it's a spectrum, not an either or thing. Some writers will write the same story with a slightly different idea over and over again, and be very succesful with that. Just look at the Dirk Pitt novel by Clive Cussler for instance. They're all roughly the same, down to the same plot beats. No big ideas in there. Just a fun and quirky, cheap idea for a different premisse. Other writers can only write after they've found an amazing and original idea. And most writers fall somewhere in the middle. Where they want some measure of both big wonderful idea and just writing the story.

Actually thinking about it, for most medium sized best sellers, the idea was probably cheap. And I think most readers don't care. If anything, they prefer familiar, easy to digest ideas. There are a few exceptions which end up bigger sellers. But they're just that, exceptions. And most big idea books just disappear into obscurity.

This mostly sounds about right. My problem with 'ideas are cheap' is the implication that they are all of equal value. Yes, many, many books are made out of cheap ideas, and do fairly well. This reader, however, won't be purchasing many of those.

I'm the first to admit my novel will likely have trouble attracting readers to it. There may be a few too many 'big ideas' at its core. I don't have much choice, other than not writing anything. My heart just wouldn't be in it if I had to write using only 'cheap ideas'.

 

[Prince of Spires]

My problem with 'ideas are cheap' is the implication that they are all of equal value.

This is another it depends one. All ideas are equally valuable, simply because there's no exact way to value ideas. However, not all ideas are of equal value for all authors.

Some ideas will click with a writer and get them to sit down and pen a story. That idea is a lot more valuable to that writer than all the other ones. That doesn't mean that the other ideas are less good or less valuable. Just that they are not the perfect idea for that specific writer. However, some of the other ideas might be gold for other writers, if they get them to write a story with it.

And that's of course the other side to ideas are cheap. An idea that hasn't been written is worthless. You can't read an idea. And unless you're famous, you can't sell an idea either. It's only when that idea has been taken, refined, and created a story that it becomes something you can hand to people. You can have the most amazing, profound, and deep idea for a story in your head. If you don't write it, then it's worthless (from a storyteller POV).

 

[Devor]

I think this depends on what you mean by idea. In writing it's often taken to mean the concept for a story.

For me execution means getting the story flow right, it isn't about being a grammar pedant. If that flow is right then the ideas and concpets that I'm working with can be developed. But without good execution no-one will want to read what I write, and then it doesn't matter how well I develop those ideas and concepts. So in my view execution is and should be the main focus in writing stories.

^ This is the problem. The inherent contradiction.

If we mean the concept, then we should say concept, or premise, not the idea. Our words matter and shape our vision and philosophy. As these two quotes demonstrate, we now see writing as idea plus execution = concept plus flow. We've completely ignored ideas as a factor at the chapter, scene or sentence level. In practice, the premise usually covers the first act, with a promise towards the resolution, so we're also ignoring ideas for Act 2. That's probably why it's called the muddy middle.

Writing is a creative endeavor, and as such we need to utilize our creative skills throughout the process. Creativity is a skill that can be developed and learned and taught. It is not something that happens once, and everything else is robotic technique. In the age of AI, being able to wield ideas and creativity far beyond that initial concept is going to become the only way to stand out.

Researchers on creativity identify two ways to generate ideas, explicit and implicit. Implicit generation happens when you're on the toilet, doing dishes, letting your mind wander, when your mind feels just relaxed enough to make broader connections. Explicit ideas happen when you sit down and think things through and try come up with a list, usually one that's narrow, limited, and a struggle, kind of like me trying to draw. But just like drawing, there are ways to do so much better at both of these processes, if you stop ignoring them and practice at it.