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

[The Dark One]

Somewhat on-topic: what are people's thoughts on characters acknowledging the stories or other media your works shares elements of? My WIP Winter's Queen started out as basically "let's take the core premise of The Hunter's Moon and turn it on its head", and as I kept writing I realized it shared a lot of the same plot and structure as Finding Nemo -- a young protagonist is taken from their widowed, overprotective father; said father teams up with an ally to get the child back, encountering friends and foes along the way.

The core human characters are from 20th/21st century Earth, and as such would be familiar with Pixar's films and O.R. Melling's books. Would it be awkward for the father's ally (in this case his older brother) to point out the similarity of their own quest to Finding Nemo, perhaps even going so far as to tease him with the nickname 'Marlin'? Or in the case of the kidnapped protagonist, making reference to The Hunter's Moon, which she will have read, and how that story is very different than her own situation?

My surrealist/sci-fi novel THEM is (to some extent) a parody of 'the sacred quest' so Tolkien comes in for a major kicking all the way through. The narrator occasionally likens his current situation to Frodo's, numerous chapter titles are taken (or subverted) straight from LOTR, numerous lines of prose or dialogue are lifted straight from LOTR...there's even an argument between the main characters about the deus ex machina intervention of Gwahir near the beginning of the story, and then the penultimate chapter is called 'Gwahir Enters the Sammath Naur'. The last chapter, of course, is The Grey Havens.

BTW, Devor...I am very annoyed with your trigger analogy. I use it all the time, but take it much further in acknowledgment of the fact that I know what sort of life and literary experience readers bring to my story and I use that all the time. For example, smell is a really powerful sensory trigger. When I want to leave a reader with a really powerful image, I'm going all out to engage their senses to dredge something out of their own experience that fits into the gaps I deliberately leave in the narrative. (I call it button pressing.)

Way to ruin my secret trick man.

 

[Sheilawisz]

Speaking from personal experience, I can say that you do not have to be a Fantasy reader to be a Fantasy writer... at least, it's not necessary to be an avid reader and explore dozens of Fantasy novels before writing your own story.

Many of the members of Mythic Scribes have read so many Fantasy books that I had not even heard about before joining this community, and sometimes I feel that I should be trying to read more. My Fantasy reader experience is limited to:

1- The Fellowship of the Ring.
2- The Neverending Story.
3- Gulliver's Travels.

4- The Harry Potter series.
5- Alice in Wonderland.

6- Don Quijote de la Mancha, where the characters (living in real world 17th Century Spain) talk about Fantasy elements from Knightly novels that the main character loves, including powerful Dark Wizards capable of riding clouds, teleporting from one side of the world to the other and turning entire armies into animals.

7- The first of the Twilight books, which is a type of Fantasy as well.

I believe that what you really need to be a Fantasy writer is to have a powerful imagination, and also the ability to take your readers out of this world and plunge them deep into your own... Fantasy writing is not as easy as many people out of our genre like to think.

 

[ThinkerX]

Sheila-

Is your limited fantasy reading by choice, or because of a lack of selection? I ask because I've come across posts from others here and elsewhere saying that fantasy/sf books are pretty much not available in their countries.

 

[Sheilawisz]

ThinkerX, my experience with reading Fantasy is limited because of a lack of selection, indeed.

Fantasy literature is very popular in the U.S., where you have many talented Fantasy authors writing series that are almost unknown in most other countries. I have the feeling that English language dominates Fantasy a lot, so if you want to write Fantasy and be successful, English is the way to go.

It can be a good thing to have read few Fantasy works, because I have been influenced much less than other writers and that has allowed me to create a style that is my own.

 

[Chessie]

It can be a good thing to have read few Fantasy works, because I have been influenced much less than other writers and that has allowed me to create a style that is my own.

I don't see this as being the case, though. Being a reader of all genres helps to expand your imagination. I don't think that reading dampens my artistic flame at all. Its deepened it.

 

[Jackarandajam]

example:
I have never read a fantasy book that breaks down how a magic system works. Ever. Have no idea how anyone goes about doing that.

Now, i could do one of two things, NEITHER of which would be wrong.

I could read several fantasy books that describe in detail their system of magic, then come up with my own...
Or...
I could come up with my own.

The problems with the first choice.
1. There will be almost no way to create a magic system that is not SOMEHOW based on the ones i read up on.
2. whatever possibly ingenious and groundbreaking system i would have come up with on my own has probably been lost forever, because my frame of thinking has now been influenced to proceed in somewhat of a certain way.

The problems with the second choice.
1. There are brilliant authors who have already done the hard parts; i can easily take the framework they created and fill in the gaps however i please, and it would still be nicely original, and would still require lots of creative process to personalize.
2. The risk exists of creating something that so closely resembles someones else's method, I look a fool.


If you asked a marine to sketch up a completely original gun, he would do so by purposefully avoiding the designs of guns that he knows to exist.

If you found some native in the middle of nowhere who miraculously had never seen or heard of a gun before, and only vaguely described it and how it worked to him, whatever he came up with would be original by default. it may closely resemble an existing gun, but would undoubtedly be original.

Neither of the two have shamelessly copied something that they know to exist; the marine took an idea and made it his, and the native came nearly as close as possible to creating something solely with his mind.

I, personally, would rather see the natives sketch.

 

[Philip Overby]

This continues to be an interesting discussion so I figured I'd throw my hat back in for a minute.

I would say I'm "decently read" in the fantasy genre. No, I haven't read a lot of the classics and I'm probably not up to speed on every single new writer, but I'd say if you name drop someone, I either know who they are or I've read them. This is mostly because I've been reading fantasy since I was about 13 or so, starting with the Dragonlance books. I didn't read The Hobbit until recently, and I've only read a handful of Conan stories even though I love the character (which is strange in itself).

So when I sit down to write a fantasy story, two things usually happen:

1. I want to write something I'd like to read and I imagine that others might find entertaining.
2. I want to write something that people may say, "That was fun/cute/interesting/disturbing/different/weird etc."

Those are my two main goals. I feel like in order for me to achieve those goals, I need something to measure that against. For example, if I set out to write a weird story, I may want it to include elements of H.P. Lovecraft with a dash of China Mieville. Their books essentially become part of my "toolbox." I have authors to reference if I want to create a certain mood.

Now if I've never read these authors, where am I getting my version of weird from? It would have to be from personal experiences. Like one time a spider laid eggs in my ears and they formed a colony inside my head. Empires actually rose and fell inside my ear.

Now wait...that didn't happen. Yes, I just pulled that out of nowhere. However, this is based on what my concept of weird is. Partly it comes from hearing about weird or horrible things. However, it also comes from my notions of stories with non-human characters acting like humans (Watership Down, Animal Farm, etc.) If I hadn't read (or seen the movie, in some cases) those books, then I feel like I may be missing a part of the toolbox that I may need to write this particular story. I want to see what others are doing with these kind of stories so I can:

a. Not completely copy them
b. Put my own spin on them
c. See what they do both right and wrong

While I could certainly write a weird fantasy story without any knowledge of fantasy books, it feels a little like trying to write an essay on biomedical engineering. OK, that may be stretching it, but with absolutely no knowledge of biomedical engineering I'm either going to write something completely genius that no one ever considered without references, or something completely nonsensical that falls apart.

So for me, anyway, I like reading fantasy, therefore I like writing fantasy. However, if I ever decide to really have a go at hard SF or mystery, I think it's probably a good idea for me to know what came before me.

 

[Jackarandajam]

While I could certainly write a weird fantasy story without any knowledge of fantasy books, it feels a little like trying to write an essay on biomedical engineering. OK, that may be stretching it, but with absolutely no knowledge of biomedical engineering I'm either going to write something completely genius that no one ever considered without references, or something completely nonsensical that falls apart.

I completely agree (with the whole post, not only what I quoted).

One thing to remember as well though. even writers such as myself, who are not avid fantasy readers, still have a thorough understanding of what fantasy is. I haven't read many, but I've read a few. I've seen movies and read comic books and looked through weird old books of curiosities. I've read bulfinchs, the Poetic Edda, Grimm's and so on. From those few sources, I may not know "what fantasy readers are expecting these days," but I don't necessarily think that's such a bad thing.
Stylistically, guidance can be brought in from anywhere. Charles dickens for character development, Jules Verne for description, Jane Austen for drama...
I will know when I'm done with the editing process whether or not my book is a good, exciting read. It will be fantasy, though based on mostly age old sources.

I think this conversation has taken on several different faces.
Do you have to read in order to write? A resounding YES.
Do you have to have some fathoming of what your genre is to write in it? I think we all agree the answer is yes.

maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like "weird" stories are a more specific genre than fantasy. I know if I was to write a weird story, I would be highly concerned that it wasn't going to be weird enough for the weird hardened fans of the genre.
With fantasy, it's about excitement, romance, intrigue... Elements you can find in other genres as well.

 

[Devor]

I could read several fantasy books that describe in detail their system of magic, then come up with my own...
Or...
I could come up with my own.

The problems with the first choice.
1. There will be almost no way to create a magic system that is not SOMEHOW based on the ones i read up on.
2. whatever possibly ingenious and groundbreaking system i would have come up with on my own has probably been lost forever, because my frame of thinking has now been influenced to proceed in somewhat of a certain way.

This is the problem that I've been trying to get at.

It's not impossible, at all, to be fully creative and shake off the undue influences. It's a skill that can be learned, if you work at it. You can create a unique magic system, even if you've read a million books doing the same thing, if you have been sharpening that creative muscle from the beginning.

It's not a choice between being creative or exposing yourself to more materials. It's a choice between ignoring your creative skills to work on everything else, or working on your creative abilities early and often.

 

[Abbas-Al-Morim]

It's not impossible, at all, to be fully creative and shake off the undue influences. It's a skill that can be learned, if you work at it. You can create a unique magic system, even if you've read a million books doing the same thing, if you have been sharpening that creative muscle from the beginning.

It's not a choice between being creative or exposing yourself to more materials. It's a choice between ignoring your creative skills to work on everything else, or working on your creative abilities early and often.

This is only relevant if you assume originality is still an option. But I believe that it is impossible to be 100% original. There's billions of stories out there, the result of millenia of human imagination. But there's so many stories that no matter how creative you get, you'll find another story that is very similar in nature. It's even possible to find a historical precedent for the story you're writing. Since most of our fantasies take place in an equivalent of medieval Europe, it's easy to see that European history is a big factor in most of our writing.

What's the difference between writing something and knowing what influenced you during the creative process or writing a story and not knowing about the abundance of stories that share similarities with your work. That's why your point is mostly theoretical in nature and has no practical value to me.

That being said, I don't believe it's possible not to be influenced by something before you start creating stories of your own. Because before you can write (or just imagine) stories you need an education. You have to learn language first. Your parents will tell you stories and read books to you. Before you can be creative, you have to learn language. And as you learn that language, you'll come into contact with stories and events and other things. Your own life too will be a source of inspiration. So before you can even begin to work on your creative abilities your imagination will be tainted by your own experiences and the stories your parents tell you. So there's always an influence. That's why I think you're wrong. But as I said, for me this discussion has no practical value as I believe it is impossible to be 100% original. All our stories are a mishmash of other stories.

You might be the first person to write the butler as the murderer but you're not the first person to write someone unexpected as the killer. Someone else might have written the maid as a killer. And that person might have drawn from history, or another story.

(Note: I do not claim that it has always been impossible to be original. I'm simply stating that after 6000 years of human civilization everything has been done and said to a degree. So you might be slightly original, but your work will always show large similarities to other works.)

 

[Devor]

This is only relevant if you assume originality is still an option.

"Originality" is not the point. Originality is a strawman. The concept of creativity is not about whether the idea resembles something else, but whether the idea originated from something else. I mentioned a wizard fighting a troll above, and I came to the idea of a wounded wizard sneaking into the cave of a troll healer. If you've ever played Warcraft, or any number of RPGs, you know that a "troll healer" isn't original. But I know that I didn't get the idea from Warcraft. I got the idea from wondering why a wizard might crawl.

I made sure that I was playing with a different set of ideas than anyone else approaching the same task. If somebody thinks this way consistently, the opportunity for surprising someone emerges around every corner. Not because the idea is "original," but because it is "creative." It emerged from a different place than the ideas which surface from the triggers that are currently being worked with.

That is, this troll healer isn't creative because a troll healer is just so "Wow amazing and different." It's creative because it was conceived from a source that had nothing to do with trolls.

So yes, creativity is possible regardless of your outside influences if you develop the relevant skill.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

If you asked a marine to sketch up a completely original gun, he would do so by purposefully avoiding the designs of guns that he knows to exist.

If you found some native in the middle of nowhere who miraculously had never seen or heard of a gun before, and only vaguely described it and how it worked to him, whatever he came up with would be original by default. it may closely resemble an existing gun, but would undoubtedly be original.

Neither of the two have shamelessly copied something that they know to exist; the marine took an idea and made it his, and the native came nearly as close as possible to creating something solely with his mind.

I, personally, would rather see the natives sketch.

I'm going to pick on you here, Jack, because you came up with a great example. Maybe it was an unfortunate analogy, but I'm going after it, nonetheless.

The marine would sketch a gun with an original design, and, let's just assume that he has enough skill to draw a full schematic, if that gun were manufactured, it would work. Why? Because he knows guns.

The native could draw an interesting sketch, but he couldn't produce be a usable schematic, and it would not result in a workable weapon. Why? Because he has no idea how a gun is supposed to work, how it is assembled, how it fires - any of the finite details that go into the engineering of a firearm. He has no idea what he's doing because he's never seen or heard of a gun before, and his idea, while interesting and probably original, just won't work in the face of reality.

Everyone in this discussion is making valid points. Yes, it's possible to be very creative without reading extensively - little kids do it all the time when they play "pretend." And that's one of the best things about being writers - we get to play pretend for a living! And, yes, creativity is something that beginning writers should nurture from the start. But so is reading.

We need to read in our genre, as much as possible. And we need to read outside our genre, too. And we need to read non-fiction like fiends, because writers do homework for a living. As writers we should be voracious readers. And by "reader" I mean "consumer." That includes other media, such as movies and TV and games - our genre, speculative fiction, is one of the most diverse in entertainment. We need to read to know what has gone before us. We need to read to grow our creative minds, to add, as Phil said, to our "toolboxes." We need to read to remember why we write.

And a very good reason to read is that it just makes learning the craft of writing easier. The reason the native with the sketch of the gun had no hope of success was because he had never trained in the art of gun-smithing. Word-smithing takes no less training, no less practice, no less research both through reading other writers and through reading books on the craft. Anyone can sketch an interesting gun, and anyone can come up with an interesting story idea, but the work and skill are in the execution. I can't say that enough times - it's all about the execution. Ideas are cheap - with practice they become like rabbits, and you can't stop them from reproducing. Execution is what matters. And writers learn by writing, and reading, and then repeating.

But the most important reason to read within the genre, to know what's going on in our field, is one I actually haven't seen mentioned a lot yet in this post. Our readers are reading. If we don't know what's out there, if we don't show familiarity with what they are familiar with, it will show and they will know. The Emperor has no clothes.

Who wants to walk naked down the street?

 

[Devor]

The marine would sketch a gun with an original design, and, let's just assume that he has enough skill to draw a full schematic, if that gun were manufactured, it would work. Why? Because he knows guns.

The native could draw an interesting sketch, but he couldn't produce be a usable schematic, and it would not result in a workable weapon. Why? Because he has no idea how a gun is supposed to work, how it is assembled, how it fires - any of the finite details that go into the engineering of a firearm. He has no idea what he's doing because he's never seen or heard of a gun before, and his idea, while interesting and probably original, just won't work in the face of reality.

There's kind of an interesting aside to this that might be a good case for reflection about the subject matter.

One of the deadliest weapons of its time wasn't built by your typical gun manufacturer. The Gatling Gun was built by a doctor. He had experience making machines, but none making guns. So he created pretty much the first "machine gun."

Why is that relevant? He was able to do it because he had more passion than any other gun manufacturers. As a doctor, he thought that if the weapons were more deadly, there would be less of a need to have a big number of troops there firing them. He thought a bigger gun would save lives in the long run. His motivation came from his own internal passion to create something powerful.

Does that mean he never took apart guns and studied them? No. But it means that his careful study of guns came after his desire and ability to create one and not from being wowed by a gun he's already seen.

 

[Penpilot]

I mentioned a wizard fighting a troll above, and I came to the idea of a wounded wizard sneaking into the cave of a troll healer. If you've ever played Warcraft, or any number of RPGs, you know that a "troll healer" isn't original. But I know that I didn't get the idea from Warcraft. I got the idea from wondering why a wizard might crawl.

*snip*

That is, this troll healer isn't creative because a troll healer is just so "Wow amazing and different." It's creative because it was conceived from a source that had nothing to do with trolls.

Let me see if I'm understanding you right. Using your troll example, both writers got from point A to B but one writer was influenced, given a shove in a direction, compared to one where the writer wandered and found their own way to point B. And because of this, the uninfluenced writer was more creative or was forced to be more creative. Is my understanding correct?

If it is, then I still think the influenced writer has an advantage in creativity. They're getting from point A to B quicker, and they know that path is a well trodden path. Now instead of wasting time exploring old trails thinking they're new, they can begin cutting new ones using creativity to find a new point C.

I think my stance is why waste time trying to reinvent the wheel from scratch with the intent of improving on it when you have access to the original schematics? You can just take the original schematics, study them, and improve on them instead of doing all that extra work.

To carry the analogy further. Imagine going down to the patent office with this "new" wheel invention and having someone say, "Sorry, but this has already been created and recreated many times, and with better designs." Now there is the possibility that the new design is revolutionary, better than any previous design because they were uninfluenced, but think that would be less likely to happen.

I think someone quoted this above already, but I think it bears repeating.

If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.

 

[Abbas-Al-Morim]

"Originality" is not the point. Originality is a strawman. The concept of creativity is not about whether the idea resembles something else, but whether the idea originated from something else. I mentioned a wizard fighting a troll above, and I came to the idea of a wounded wizard sneaking into the cave of a troll healer. If you've ever played Warcraft, or any number of RPGs, you know that a "troll healer" isn't original. But I know that I didn't get the idea from Warcraft. I got the idea from wondering why a wizard might crawl.

I made sure that I was playing with a different set of ideas than anyone else approaching the same task. If somebody thinks this way consistently, the opportunity for surprising someone emerges around every corner. Not because the idea is "original," but because it is "creative." It emerged from a different place than the ideas which surface from the triggers that are currently being worked with.

That is, this troll healer isn't creative because a troll healer is just so "Wow amazing and different." It's creative because it was conceived from a source that had nothing to do with trolls.

So yes, creativity is possible regardless of your outside influences if you develop the relevant skill.

I'm confused. How does your reader know where the idea came from? Why would he enjoy it more, knowing it did not originate from a video-game? Or is this all a matter of pride? So at the end of the day you know you put in all the creative work and did not let outside influences do the heavy lifting?

Why would reading Fantasy somehow stifle your creativity? Or make it harder to be creative? Just because something inspires me doesn't mean I can' twist the concept around, turn it on its head and then tinker with it till it's mine. Anyone can do that, even if they've read a lot first and then later started being creative themselves. I'd even say those who read have got a leg up because they're exposed to a lot of ideas, all of which are potential starting points for the creative process. You gave the example of a mage entering a cavern. If I were to read that story, it'd prove an excellent starting point to create a similar scene of my own which would then make me thing about the how and the why. Which would then result in a similar brainstorm like your own.

Please let me know if I've got it right this time. I've only read your last few posts before responding so I might get things wrong.

Also, the post above me raises some excellent points!

 

[Devor]

Let me see if I'm understanding you right. Using your troll example, both writers got from point A to B but one writer was influenced, given a shove in a direction, compared to one where the writer wandered and found their own way to point B. And because of this, the uninfluenced writer was more creative or was forced to be more creative. Is my understanding correct?

That example isolated a single element and didn't look at the entire scene. Most people looking at "Wizard enters troll cave to fight the troll" wouldn't think of a wounded wizard trying to sneak into the cave.

The short answer to your question is "yes," the "troll healer" is more creative when it's created by an author who chose his or her own path to getting to that idea than it is by an author who pushed at troll until they stumbled upon healer. Originality is not the objective of creativity so much as taking control of the ideation process.

But the long answer is that, when taken as a whole, the two authors would not get to the same point.

 

[Devor]

I'm confused. How does your reader know where the idea came from? Why would he enjoy it more, knowing it did not originate from a video-game? Or is this all a matter of pride? So at the end of the day you know you put in all the creative work and did not let outside influences do the heavy lifting?

If two people look at the same situation, they're going to think of similar ideas based on a shared set of experiences, and come to similar conclusions. One person with more experience may have a broader set of ideas that come to mind, but the triggers remain the same. Those same triggers are at play in your writing. The triggers that are giving you ideas about how a book should progress are at play for a reader.

If you understand that process, you can do two things:

1 - Change the triggers that you're using to generate ideas, and suddenly you've got a slew of new ideas to incorporate.

2 - Use the original triggers to manipulate the reader's original expectations.

If you're using this creative process effectively, you will be able to surprise your readers. And that's one of the biggest things that a reader is looking for in a book.

Why would reading Fantasy somehow stifle your creativity? Or make it harder to be creative? Just because something inspires me doesn't mean I can' twist the concept around, turn it on its head and then tinker with it till it's mine.

If all you're doing is taking an idea and twisting it around, then you're not being creative. You're working with the original trigger, and therefore with the same set of ideas that would occur to your readers.

If that's all you're doing, then you're still at "My trolls have bigger fangs."

Anyone can do that, even if they've read a lot first and then later started being creative themselves.

Clearly I disagree.

A large part of being creative is practice and experience. It's about pushing yourself, not about listening to me bark about triggers. If you see a troll and you're flooded with ideas, you might think you're being creative when you're not. You might have a hard time seeing the triggers, seeing that the wide range of ideas you're seeing has a common source, or even realizing that there wholly different ideas that you can use.

I'd even say those who read have got a leg up because they're exposed to a lot of ideas, all of which are potential starting points for the creative process. You gave the example of a mage entering a cavern. If I were to read that story, it'd prove an excellent starting point to create a similar scene of my own which would then make me thing about the how and the why. Which would then result in a similar brainstorm like your own.

But the thing is, as an author you're not called upon to be creative just once. You're called upon to do it repeatedly throughout your book. Once you open a story with "mage enters cavern," the idea's out of the bag. The readers have your triggers. If your creativity stops there, they will be able to pick up on where your book is going.

It's not a one-and-done conception process. If you've got a scene with your main characters talking about the plot. Why is your version of this scene going to be any more interesting than the thousands of other authors writing almost the exact same scene? You've got to manipulate the triggers. You've got to rely on your creativity to write.

 

[Jabrosky]

The story I just penned down definitely had influences. It started out in my mind as a classic "guy goes into ancient ruins to find treasure and experiences the supernatural" scenario, with the Egyptian trappings of the ruins bound to remind people of the Mummy movies. However, I didn't want to regurgitate any particular variation of that common scenario. Instead I chose to build my own product around a theme that fascinates me but doesn't appear all that often in your stereotypical mummy story (at least not that I know). The end result was a story that may have hatched from a derivative egg but then evolved into its own creature.

I guess the point I mean to advocate is that it's a good idea to both draw from influences and tweak them as much as you like to design your own product.

It might be of interest that the big theme I used for my story came from reading outside any genre of fiction. Non-fiction can be a treasure trove for ideas that no one has copyrighted.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

If you asked a marine to sketch up a completely original gun, he would do so by purposefully avoiding the designs of guns that he knows to exist.

I am a Marine. Though I left service in 1996 the saying goes "Once a Marine, always a Marine". I have extensive knowledge of firearms, design, function, & practical use (antiquated & modern).

If I were to design my own, I wouldn't avoid the designs of guns already in existence. Quite the contrary. What I would do is employ the best features of preceding firearms in the new design, while at the same time trying to improve on those features -OR- I would try to find new alternative features to overcome the shortcomings or flaws in previous designs.

 

[Penpilot]

Originality is not the objective of creativity so much as taking control of the ideation process.

But the long answer is that, when taken as a whole, the two authors would not get to the same point.

I'm not sure I'm understanding exactly what you're saying. So I'm going to try to restate what you're saying and hopefully the pseudo mathematics doesn't confuse things.

Let's take two authors Author-1 and Author-2

Let I(1)...I = all influences from reading.

Let Z(1)...Z = all ideas

Let X(1)... X = all paths taken given Z idea or ideas.

Let Author-1 be the influenced author.

So if Author-1 has influences I(1), I(2), I(3) and has idea Z(1), they will more likely to take the well trodden paths X(1), X(2), X(3), and the reader will more likely see this coming because they've experienced the same influences and will draw the same conclusion.

But Author-2 has no influences from reading, so when he has idea Z(1), they will more likely take different paths X(4), X(5), X(6), and this will more likely surprise the reader.

Is this what you're saying?