Do you have to be a fantasy reader to be a fantasy writer?

[Devor]

How would you know you're not thinking about what others have done unless you read what they've written?

The short answer is because originality and newness aren't really the point, being yourself is.

However, a more advanced answer is that someone who's developed their creative skills far enough can simply be that confident in their own unique creative process.

For instance, I've never read a western, but I'm pretty sure nobody's ever done Time Travelling Steampunk Cowboy Aliens!

Wait, I'm sure that's been done. Probably a lot, actually. Hold on. Let me turn on my real creative process:

The element of a western I want to keep is the standoff at high noon, out in front of the saloon. It's a very tense moment, so let me start by wanting to turn that tension on its head. Comedy's probably been done, so let's pick a different POV character as the protagonist, so we can experience the moment as a reader with a different feeling and a different kind of tension. Let's go with the perspective of someone who's excited. The standoff is a good thing for this character, a wonderful thing for this character. But why? One of these two people is going to die, and this person is happy about it. In fact they've arranged for this to happen. Is it because of maybe a betting pool? Because they don't like these two people? Because this person is a psychopath? Because it's all fake? Because the winner is already decided? The "yes - and more" for each of those takes me down paths that bore me. Now I'm stuck, so I'm going to throw in a new element. Spys? Aliens? Magic? N'eh, it's probably better if it's a random small character element. It'll be easier to figure out why would a person like this wants to do this, so let's go with the first thing that comes to mind and decide this person is a little old lady, which makes this a short story because that's as long as I think she'll carry the reader's attention. A little old lady, looking out the window of the saloon, is excited because they've arranged for a high-noon shootout.

Suddenly I've got it.

Nobody has realized that she's started to go senile, and she's spent the first half of the short story duping these two individuals into killing each other because she's remembering her long-dead husband winning such a shootout years ago. That makes her excitement a wild take; the reader should be feeling very sad, which means the two characters in the duel have to be likable to the readers. Maybe even the character's family. And from there, the story comes together.

Whether you want to call that original or not, I'm confident that it's creative, that it's "all my own," that it's the story I would want to tell and has nothing to do with a story I've ever read or wanted to read. I don't need to read a western to think of it because I have a great deal of trust in my own creative process. But if I wanted to, now it might be helpful to read through a western to make sure I've got a sense for how people talk or how the story comes together, or how those scenes might normally be written.

That is, reading would strengthen the writing process, but not the creative process. They are separate.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

So how exactly would reading westerns harm the creativity? It seems you're arguing the mind, because it may be influenced by reading within a genre, is somehow then intractably bound to write within the limits of what was read.

I just don't understand that. Creativity & and the ability to further creative thought has no restrictions based on media one ingests. Exposure will blossom more creative thought than shutting yourself off from influence.

Maybe your just arguing that it can be done, without reading within said genre. Well, maybe it can. However, and it seems like we both agree on this point, the writer is better off if they've done substantial reading, both within and outside the genre. So why handicap yourself?

There's also a problem with your example. It's purely character based. You could take that example and supplant it into any other genre. The duel, or shootout, is hardly sole property of the western & the only thing that makes it somewhat genre specific is the time of day.

When discussing reading within a genre, and the benefits that can come from that exercise, we're discussing far more than what POV to view an action scene from. In fantasy, we're discussing magic systems, creatures both unique & standard...since it's fantastical the list can go on here forever. All of these types of "genre specific" aspects can aid in the creative thinking of another writer. It's simply a means to develop more "What if...?" questions that stem the next great ideas for development.

 

[Devor]

So how exactly would reading westerns harm the creativity?

. . . . .

There's also a problem with your example. It's purely character based. You could take that example and supplant it into any other genre. The duel, or shootout, is hardly sole property of the western & the only thing that makes it somewhat genre specific is the time of day.

Exactly this.

The crux of any story is human and has nothing to do with genre. Having created that crux, it's nothing to use poker games, mining contracts, bourbon and outlaws as a motivation for who the characters are, how the little old lady manipulates them, or why the reader likes them.

You see it as a problem because the example stopped after 45 minutes, creating the backbone of a story. You see it as a problem because the story doesn't feel like a western. But that's the point. You don't have to be locked into what a western feels like. That's the box you don't even need to see to find the universal elements that people care about, that are easy to shove inside it.

I could take the story above and shove it into the life of a cowboy, who's father died in that duel. The duel is one of those lengthy prologues, and his crazy grandmother is holding the baby while she watches. Take that and follow it through in your head for a moment, and tell me there's not a compelling western there.

But you only find it by focusing on the creative process, the internal process, and not by focusing on what's already out there. Reading confuses you. Reading gives you expectations for a what a story looks like, for what a specific type of story looks like, and not what your story looks like.

I'll say it again: How many people say they're writing a story they would want to read? If I'm being perfectly honest, although I read in the genre, I usually don't want to. I don't want to read a story; I want to tell one. I want to make an audience go "Wow!" I want to my blood pressure to shoot up with nervous glee because I think someone's going to be hooked. I want that happy thrill - the duping delight - of taking people off guard, screwing with their emotions, making them happy or sad or laughing or pissed when they least expect it.

I want to entertain. If all I wanted to do was pay homage to my favorite authors, I wouldn't see much point in doing all that work.

How can I write what I want to read? Reading is work when you're a writer.

 

[kayd_mon]

I don't know if anyone said this yet, but if you don't know what moves your audience (fantasy readers), it might be harder to connect with them. I'm sure it's not impossible, but I'd wager it's less likely.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Exactly this. The crux of any story is human and has nothing to do with genre. Having created that crux, it's nothing to use poker games, mining contracts, bourbon and outlaws as a motivation for who the characters are, how the little old lady manipulates them, or why the reader likes them.

No argument there.

You see it as a problem because the example stopped after 45 minutes, creating the backbone of a story. You see it as a problem because the story doesn't feel like a western.

No, I don't see it as a problem at all. I was merely pointing out that you're not using genre specific elements. We are, after all, discussing if one should read within the genre they're writing in. Understanding genre specific elements is a big part of the genre's education.

"You don't have to be locked into what a western feels like. That's the box you don't even need to see to find the universal elements that people care about, that are easy to shove inside it.

Why would you ever feel locked into telling a story by the numbers? Reading doesn't cause that effect unless the reader/writer has very little imagination.

But you only find it by focusing on the creative process, the internal process, and not by focusing on what's already out there. Reading confuses you. Reading gives you expectations for a what a story looks like, for what a specific type of story looks like, and not what your story looks like.

Reading doesn't confuse. Reading gives understanding. Your example espouses turning expectations on their heads. How do you subvert fan/reader expectations within a genre if you have little to no experience or understanding within that genre?

I'll say it again: How many people say they're writing a story they would want to read? If I'm being perfectly honest, although I read in the genre, I usually don't want to. I don't want to read a story; I want to tell one. I want to make an audience go "Wow!" I want to my blood pressure to shoot up with nervous glee because I think someone's going to be hooked. I want that happy thrill - the duping delight - of taking people off guard, screwing with their emotions, making them happy or sad or laughing or pissed when they least expect it. I want to entertain. If all I wanted to do was pay homage to my favorite authors, I wouldn't see much point in doing all that work. How can I write what I want to read? Reading is work when you're a writer.

For some reason that baffles me, you seem to think reading fantasy handcuffs a writer into this role of paying homage to their favorites, or just continuing with the same old, tried and true storylines. This just isn't the case.

When people talk about "writing the story they'd want to read" they're talking about introducing elements that are often unique to their way of story telling, to their way of thinking. How many times, as we're reading do we try and think ahead to potential outcomes? How many times does a reader say "Oh, wouldn't it be cool if....?" These are the pieces that come together in the forming of stories we'd want to read...stories we want to tell. Writing what you'd like to read also means the author has an understanding of what they like in a story & that there will be others like them who will appreciate the story they tell, if done well.

If you can't grasp or understand what makes fans of the genre say "Wow!" & then search for more of that author's work, you're handicapping yourself as a writer. How are you going to dupe a fantasy fan, like you say you want to, if you aren't aware of possible expectations?

There's a lot of fantasy writers I like, lots in other genres too. I know I like what they've done if I search for their next work. This doesn't mean I feel I have to copy them or reinvent the same wheel.

Here's another thing....most often, writers come to voice & style through emulation of their favorite writers. With enough effort, emulation gives way to original style. Our true creative selves are born from that process. If you don't have favorites within the genre that you've read a lot of, why on earth would would you want to write fantasy? If you don't read a lot within the genre, how would you determine what you do and don't like? You can say it all comes down to character, and in large part I'd agree. However, that's an oversimplification. There are elements unique to fantasy, same as with other genres. Coming up with new, creative twists requires an understanding of what has come before...what your audience has read & understood. If you don't work to gain that understanding, best of luck to you...you'll need it more than the writer who does.

Returning to the music analogy... It's said that Jimmy Page was self taught on guitar. At one time, he was thought to be one of the premiere guitarists in the world. Self-taught or no, I guarantee you he listened to a boatload of music. I guarantee you he loved music, especially rock as that's what he wound up playing. Back in the 70s his sound was unique. You could easily tell it apart from most contemporaries. It's foolish to think he didn't have musical influences or that somehow listening to the predecessors in rock pigeonholed his creativity because he felt it necessary to pay homage. I'll bet though, he emulated his favorites before finding his own way.

Let influences guide you. They can help to shape your style, but not in ways that restrict creativity or originality. If you don't love reading fantasy but still want to write, I'd suggest exploring other genres. This is a healthy thing to do even if you do love fantasy & that's your main focus for writing.

Lastly, reading CAN be work if your a writer. It doesn't have to be. This is a choice. The best writing will make me forget I wanted to read as a writer.

 

[Devor]

No, I don't see it as a problem at all. I was merely pointing out that you're not using genre specific elements. We are, after all, discussing if one should read within the genre they're writing in. Understanding genre specific elements is a big part of the genre's education.

I've discussed how easy it is to incorporate western elements into the story. I've still never read a western. I don't know what more you would expect from an example.

We could try any other story elements and limitations you would like, if you must have some example that works for you. But I didn't really want to make this about "I'm super-awesome creative," that's why opened it with a bad joke. But I needed an example, right?

Why would you ever feel locked into telling a story by the numbers? Reading doesn't cause that effect unless the reader/writer has very little imagination.

But actually it does. Of course it does. We've all read story after story of the same cliches, even from people who swear they're trying to get around them. And there's a reason for that. Most would-be authors have read very much and written very little, so now they have to catch up their writing in comparison to where their reading is. Most people have developed their writing techniques, and don't realize that the imagination is something that can be developed just as effectively.

You said "What if?" But what-if is wrong if you're trying to maximize your creative skills. You said "originality," but that's also wrong. I know it because I've actually read studies on innovation which suggest that these statements hold you back. I've had friends who studied improv and talked about the creative process, and they say those statements hold you back.

"Yes . . . and MORE!"

"Be yourself, what would you think of that nobody else would?"

"Find the game in the scene."

"Grab a few ideas and shove them together and make them work."

"Never think no, think this is what it would take."

"Criticize everything in search of the best alternative."

Those are the kinds of aphorisms that make you more creative in a raw and powerful way. But most people don't think that way. Most people grab some of the first few ideas that come to mind and the first few ideas for how to mix them together. And those first few ideas come from the books you've read, and not from yourself.

I have no idea what the numbers remark is about.

Reading doesn't confuse. Reading gives understanding.

Reading can do all of those things at once.

But if something thinks creativity is anything but an internal process, it's because they've read too much and created too little.

Your example espouses turning expectations on their heads. How do you subvert fan/reader expectations within a genre if you have little to no experience or understanding within that genre?

Go back and re-read the example and the related comments and ask yourself, in all honesty, if I - Devor - wrote that story, having never read a western, do you think I would be successful in messing with those expectations?

Again, I don't mean to make this about me being great or whatever. I have no doubt you could probably do the same or similar, and if not, I'm sure you have other strengths as a writer or ways in which you've developed that "creative core" in a way that works for you. And if not that's still none of business. But if you're suggesting a question of "How can you?" as an argument to imply that I can't, I think you have to ask yourself if I can, if you can, and what that means for the conversation.

If you must have me answer for me, I guess I could talk about the experiences that I've had which have helped, I guess. But as a general answer, I would say by writing, doing improv, and finding ways to isolate that creative muscle - well, first by recognizing that the creative muscle exists, that it isn't a mysterious magic force that superimposes itself randomly on your brain, and that you can keep prying at the ideas you come up with until they become your own.

For some reason that baffles me, you seem to think reading fantasy handcuffs a writer into this role of paying homage to their favorites, or just continuing with the same old, tried and true storylines. This just isn't the case.

When people talk about "writing the story they'd want to read" their talking about introducing elements that are often unique to their way of story telling, to their way of thinking. How many times, as we're reading do we try and think ahead to potential outcomes? How many times does a reader say "Oh, wouldn't it be cool if....?" These are the pieces that come together in the forming of stories we'd want to read...stories we want to tell.

I'm pretty sure I've been talking about a process whereby first you try to isolate your creative core, internally, and then you open up yourself to outside forces after you understand how they're influencing you.

A lot of people pick up a book and go "Wow! That was awesome! I want to do something like that!" That's why we have fads. That's why we have cliches. That's why we've all seen so many things that we're absolutely sick of. They dominate. Even people who want to subvert them do it in a way that simply provides commentary on the original, and not in a way that truly creates something that's all their own, "that nobody else would ever think of."

I'm all for reading, even for spending hours on tvtropes, but you have to get to that creative core. And absorbing too many outside forces before you get there can confuse you into thinking you've found it, convince you that you're being original because you're tweaking ideas that were presented to you in the many things you've read, instead of creating ideas that are all your own.

And yes, the ideas you create are going to be familiar. Nothing is new under the sun. People have had shootouts, and senile old women have (probably) manipulated people into doing awful things, certainly they have in literature. Again, that's not the point. The point is that I decided they were the right ideas to tell a story that felt like one I wanted to tell. I thought of them. I invested my own energy into creating something that I could become excited about sharing.

If you can't grasp or understand what makes fans of the genre say "Wow!" & then search for more of that author's work, your handicapping yourself as a writer. How are you going to dupe a fantasy fan, like you say you want to, if you aren't aware of possible expectations? There's a lot of fantasy writers I like, lots in other genres too. I know I like what they've done if I search for their next work. This doesn't mean I feel I have to copy them or reinvent the same wheel.

First, fans are people, and people react to universal ideas.

Second, there are other ways to acquaint yourself with genre expectations than "reading a lot." The first one that comes to mind is "Reading a little."

Third, understanding genre expectations has nothing to do with your "creative core." I've been discussing a process, and you've sometimes been responding as if I was suggesting that process stops at the first phase. Find a way to isolate your creative ability from your outside influences. And then read as much as you want.

Here's another thing....most often, writers come to voice & style through emulation of their favorite writers. With enough effort, emulation gives way to original style. Our true creative selves are born from that process.

I think there are many more layers of creativity than "style," especially if you're referring to writing style or voice. I don't question that you can absorb stronger elements of your writing voice from other writers. It's a strawman, however, because that isn't the type of creativity I was talking about. It would be needlessly burdensome not to rely on subtle writing habits to develop your narration.

 

[Devor]

((continued from part 1 above))

If you don't have favorites within the genre that you've read a lot of, why on earth would would you want to write fantasy? If you don't read a lot within the genre, how would you determine what you do and don't like? You can say it all comes down to character, and in large part I'd agree. However, that's an oversimplification. There are elements unique to fantasy, same as their are with other genres. Coming up with new, creative twists requires an understanding of what has come before...what your audience has read & understood. If you don't work to gain that understanding, best of luck to you...you'll need it more than the writer who does.

. . . .

Let influences guide you. They can help to shape your style, but not in ways that restrict creativity or originality. If you don't love reading fantasy but still want to write, I'd suggest exploring other genres. This is a healthy thing to do even if you do love fantasy & that's your main focus for writing.

Lastly, reading CAN be work if your a writer. It doesn't have to be. This is a choice. The best writing will make me forget I wanted to read as a writer.

I don't even understand how your statement is a response to mine, let alone to me and what you know of me from my contributions here.

I said that I read fantasy, but that it's not what I want to do. What I want to do is write a story, not read one. Is it somehow wrong to want to put the writing first?

I don't love reading. What I love is the feeling of entertaining someone with my writing. That's not to say I don't enjoy reading, or find an intrinsic motivation to read, as is sensible for anything you do. But no, if I didn't want to write, I would read much less.

But I do love fantasy. Dragons are awesome, the idea of power - of mystery - of surprise - of magic and something new and incredible at every turn is, oh man. The visuals, yay! The characters? Concepts like purity, and warfare, and corruption - who would want to find a story and be reminded about "real life" struggles when you can immerse yourself in other worlds?

But I should have expected this response, I guess. I told my wife once I don't like cake, and she wouldn't let it go for years. It was a talking point with guests. The moment anyone said "Who wants cake?" she would look at me with pity, as though I had made it my life's work to rid my life of the presence of frosting. And it's true, "I don't like cake." It's bad fluffy bread with too much of a weird-tasting sugar on top. But that doesn't make it this hyper-literal life truth. A lot of cakes taste fine.

I haven't said don't read fantasy, that I don't read fantasy, that reading can't help you. I only said, try and get past that point where reading hurts you before you focus a lot on reading. Because reading can hurt you if you're still making the mistake of substituting outside ideas for your own. And that's happening in far more people than will admit it.

 

[Feo Takahari]

But what if someone twenty years ago already wrote a western about a senile old lady? And what if people really liked it, so they started exploring more characters like that, and they came up with all sorts of messages and themes relating to that, iterating off that concept and using it to create new ones? And then you come along, with your story that has the same ideas as the one from twenty years ago, and no one else cares, because they've already moved past that.

This is what I see whenever somebody gets the idea to write spec-fic despite not reading much spec-fic. They come up with their brilliant new idea, and they create a story that shows off their brilliant new idea, and it just isn't as good as the stuff in the subgenre that's been exploring that idea for decades.

 

[Devor]

This is what I see whenever somebody gets the idea to write spec-fic despite not reading much spec-fic. They come up with their brilliant new idea, and they create a story that shows off their brilliant new idea, and it just isn't as good as the stuff in the subgenre that's been exploring that idea for decades.

I just don't know how many ways I can say that "new" isn't the point so much as the origin of the idea, of taking control of which ideas you're getting and using without having them fed to you subconsciously from an outside source.

 

[Jabrosky]

I personally am more reluctant to embrace influences when they come in the form of plots than anything else. I have no problem picking which subject matter I want to incorporate into my stories, nor do I see any problem with studying different writing styles (if anything, there are certain authors I want to emulate). Unfortunately I have a much harder time determining what kind of plot I want to use, and part of the problem is that I don't want to rip off too much of an existing storyline. Maybe that's worsened by the modern tendency to associate particular storylines with copyrighted movies and books.

 

[Feo Takahari]

I just don't know how many ways I can say that "new" isn't the point so much as the origin of the idea, of taking control of which ideas you're getting and using without having them fed to you subconsciously from an outside source.

You can say that, but that doesn't mean I'll want to read your story. Or to put it another way:

No one worth writing for is inherently interested in you.

Oh sure, if you get famous enough, you'll pick up a few lickspittles who'll read any rubbish you write. (I'm pretty sure these are the only people still reading Piers Anthony.) But the readers who're interesting, the readers it's a pleasure to entertain, are people who're looking for something. And that thing? Can be anyone's. Maybe they want a cool female protagonist. Maybe they like adventures. Maybe they're having identity issues, so they want to read a story about identity. So if I write a rollicking adventure with a cool female protagonist and discuss identity in the process, that's three target audiences nailed. But if the adventure isn't as good as other adventures, and the protagonist feels hollow compared to other heroines, and my discussion of identity comes off as fumbling and timid, no one will care that l wrote it my way--they'll just go back to reading the authors who did it with a more interesting and thought-provoking style.

I agree that it's not about originality of premise. But that goes for originality of voice as well. What matters is how it combines--originality of the whole--and even if your voice is stolen like mine, reading more stories and getting more ideas will give you more elements to mix and match.

Edit: Looking back at what you've posted, your contention seems to be that beginning writers can't consciously mix and match like I'm describing; that they'll inevitably use elements they didn't mean to use. (I think. I still don't get everything you're saying.) I think that's a fundamental misreading. When an author writes a story that's heavily inspired by Tolkien, it's probably not unconscious that he's aping Tolkien--he may not know the originator, but he likely likes that style and wants to write more things like that.

 

[Ireth]

Oh sure, if you get famous enough, you'll pick up a few lickspittles who'll read any rubbish you write. (I'm pretty sure these are the only people still reading Piers Anthony.)

Anthony's older stuff is good, and I still read it. Night Mare is my favorite. Haven't read any of his newer stuff though, so I don't exactly have a point for comparison.

 

[Devor]

You can say that, but that doesn't mean I'll want to read your story. Or to put it another way:

No one worth writing for is inherently interested in you.

Oh sure, if you get famous enough, you'll pick up a few lickspittles who'll read any rubbish you write. (I'm pretty sure these are the only people still reading Piers Anthony.) But the readers who're interesting, the readers it's a pleasure to entertain, are people who're looking for something. And that thing? Can be anyone's. Maybe they want a cool female protagonist. Maybe they like adventures. Maybe they're having identity issues, so they want to read a story about identity. So if I write a rollicking adventure with a cool female protagonist and discuss identity in the process, that's three target audiences nailed. But if the adventure isn't as good as other adventures, and the protagonist feels hollow compared to other heroines, and my discussion of identity comes off as fumbling and timid, no one will care that l wrote it my way--they'll just go back to reading the authors who did it a more interesting and thought-provoking style.

If you're relying on outside influences, instead of a creative core, for page after page after page of writing, for scene after scene and character after character, then you're going to fail.

And if you think appealing to an audience is as simple as writing "rollicking adventure with a cool female protagonist and discuss identity in the process," you're going to come across as pandering and fail.

You need to be able to look at a scene and the elements going into it, and create your own path forward. That's the only way you can possibly surprise someone.

I agree that it's not about originality of premise. But that goes for originality of voice as well. What matters is how it combines--originality of the whole--and even if your voice is stolen like mine, reading more stories and getting more ideas will give you more elements to mix and match.

How many times do I have to say that I'm not talking about voice?

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I don't even understand how your statement is a response to mine, let alone to me and what you know of me from my contributions here.

The latter comments were directed at the general reader of the thread, not toward answering your post specifically. I should have made that more clear.

We have a mutual respect for one another, and in my opinion, our debate was not a breach of that respect. I'm sorry if you feel that it was. That was not my intent. Still, we appear to be at an impasse...and that's okay. We won't always agree.

 

[Feo Takahari]

I'm starting to think that I agree with everything you're saying and I just don't understand your wording. But if that interpretation is correct, nothing you have said contradicts anything Smith has said, in which case this whole debate has just been pointless semantics.

 

[Devor]

The latter comments were directed at the general reader of the thread, not toward answering your post specifically. I should have made that more clear.

We have a mutual respect for one another, & in my opinion, our debate was not a breach if that respect. I'm sorry if you feel that it was. That was not my intent.

Fair enough, no offense taken.

Still, we appear to be at an impasse...and that's okay. We won't always agree.

I hate when people say things like that because it sounds like an end to the discussion, when we don't need to "agree" for a discussion to have value. Could we rather say that maybe we'll find fresher points to bring up next time?

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I hate when people say things like that because it sounds like an end to the discussion, when we don't need to "agree" for a discussion to have value.

Could we rather say that maybe we'll find fresher points to bring up next time?

I feel that any further discussion would be circular. I understand your position, I just disagree with you. This doesn't diminish the importance of the debate. Even when I am at odds with people who have differing opinions, I can still learn because I gain a greater understanding of the opposite position.

I can understand, disagree, & and yet still see value in what was learned.

 

[Devor]

I'm starting to think that I agree with everything you're saying and I just don't understand your wording. But if that interpretation is correct, nothing you have said contradicts anything Smith has said, in which case this whole debate has just been pointless semantics.

I think maybe I'm trying to isolate something, and say "work on this first," that people are usually mystified by, and don't usually isolate. I think most people want to find their creativity through brute force, as if you can read everything, and have so many outside sources and inspirations to draw on that it won't matter that you're using them. And that probably works for a lot of people a lot of the time. But I think it also holds a lot of people back en route to that point. You can hack creativity, if you know how to isolate it, and that's a far more powerful tool going forward.

But no, it wouldn't substitute reading at all levels of the writing process, and I didn't mean to suggest that it would.

 

[Devor]

Edit: Looking back at what you've posted, your contention seems to be that beginning writers can't consciously mix and match like I'm describing; that they'll inevitably use elements they didn't mean to use. (I think. I still don't get everything you're saying.) I think that's a fundamental misreading. When an author writes a story that's heavily inspired by Tolkien, it's probably not unconscious that he's aping Tolkien--he may not know the originator, but he likely likes that style and wants to write more things like that.

What I mean is, the first few ideas that come into your head are not your own. They're a composite of ideas you've seen elsewhere, drawn from triggers in whatever it is you're doing that remind you of those ideas. Those same triggers will also trigger in your reader, so you're going to miss out on the chance to surprise them.

Everyone knows that. So what they do is take the idea that comes to them and tinker with it a little bit. This elf, unlike other elves, has broad ears. This time the explosion hits the wrong car. This time the wizard is young and wears armor.

But it's still the same original idea that came to you. Elf. Explosion. Wizard. It's subverting the common elements, and that's still going to feel like ohh, the common elements. Ears. Cars. Age and armor. And so on.

Instead, you can hack the process, reset those inspirational triggers, and change the idea which comes to you.

But I've got to get going, and T.Allen's probably right that it's time to set it aside, at least for now. Maybe another time.

 

[The Dark One]

I've only glanced through this thread, but my 2c is as follows:

In contemplation of my own work...it doesn't really fit into any genre. My most successful books are both crime (in the broad sense) but you'd never call them pure crime. Both have numerous other influences - even a hint of surreality - even a smidgette of fantasy (one of them anyway) and that's what makes them original: crime plus more.

My other book is broadly sci-fi but again it's hard to pigeonhole as there are so many other influences (and it only slowly gets into the sci-fi).

My point is this - what I do stretches the genre(s) or even sets up its own interstitial space between the genre silos. I'm really proud of that but here's the catch - I only slowly gather traction in terms of an audience. The people who like my stuff REALLY like it but there are some who don't seem to get into it because (I suspect) it isn't immediately what they are expect from the genre they think they are reading.

So I'm a crime writer but I never read crime (beyond Sherlock Holmes when I was a kid and a few books by Irvine Welsh and Iain Banks that flirt with the genre).

I'm also a sci-fi writer but I never (any more) read sci-fi.

I think, that if you read a lot in your working genre, you will inevitably absorb and reproduce the prevailing tropes and themes of that genre. For many writers, that's exactly what they want.

Not me. I revel in my originality and I would rather stay comparatively obscure than read deliberately to absorb and reproduce what readers are used to reading.

And please don't think I'm critical of those that do. This is the hardest gig there is and anyone who has any kind of success has much respect from me.

Except EL James.