Copycats

[Nateskate]

I didn't want to hijack the discussion on "Archetypes", but I wanted to comment on the offshoot topic. Do similarities in stories = copycats?

It is important to separate a literary "device" from an Archetype. A device is using a similar tool for a different purpose. The fact that every house has nails doesn't mean every house is the same. The fact that carpenters use hammers instead of rocks or muffins, doesn't mean they're not building something unique.

An Archetype is a bit different. It implies having the same mindsets.

One has to do with tools of the trade, like a hammer and screwdriver. Do I have to pound a nail with a rock to be unique?

(028300432--=2 434322 098013- = ===1 (That is a point.)

In a fantasy, there need be no rules; but in terms of selling a fantasy, there is a need to connect to readers. If what I wrote above has meaning, it would not appeal to the masses, only to those few who could break the code. And so, literature is filled with devices to get points across.

To make a comparrison, there are styles of music I don't get, I don't buy, I'm not interested in. And so, the writer is either writing to gain a broad audience or to make an artistic statement. Artistic statements don't get published. I wouldn't say all successful authors follow a formula. But the most successful ones will really connect with readers for one reason or another. And the most likely one is that they touch upon our own longings and feelings and desires.

I'm not sorry to say I have a mentor figure in my story. But this doesn't arise from trying to copy Gandalf. It arises from something that connects all of us in some way- which is why the same formula works in every comic. We've all been in that place where we wished we had that wise old sage in our own lives. One character in my novels was simply a fork in the road to move the main character forward; but as the story grew, so did his role, until he became a beloved character.

I'm a fan of beloved characters, and there are reasons why some characters are beloved. In effect, author devices are helpful to a story, and have nothing to do with trying to copy the formula. It's kind of like baking with sugar or chocolate. If you're trying to make something unique, you can use the same ingrediants in a new recipee, and that is not following a baking archetype.

[RG570]

I'd have to disagree respectfully on all points made above.

It sounds like a good guideline for writing bedtime stories for overstimulated toddlers, but when I pick up a book, I do not want to be patronized and patted on the back and bombarded with the familiar.

[Sassee]

And then there are others who specifically LOOK for the familiar. I sometimes do that... I'll go online or into a bookstore and look for stories with a specific similarity because that's what I want to read about at the time. Other times I'm looking for uniqueness.

It's a matter of personal opinion, and I personally think I'd read it anyway so long as it was a good story, whether or not there was a stereotypical or archtype figure in it. Thousands of readers tend to agree with me :P

[Nateskate]

I'd have to disagree respectfully on all points made above.

It sounds like a good guideline for writing bedtime stories for overstimulated toddlers, but when I pick up a book, I do not want to be patronized and patted on the back and bombarded with the familiar.


Respectful disagreements are welcomed. Perhaps you'll still disagree, but I feel that clarification might help this point. Tolkien wrote an essay on Fairy Stories, and in it he basically compares writing such things, as each person is only adding to a pot that already exists. All the characters in his novels existed in some other forms, trolls, hobbits, valar, elves, dwarves. He simply gave them all new meaning.

Orcs could be called boggie men. Hobbits could be called Munchkins.

Now, with that said, when you look at his body of works, the Silmarillion, which I consider a brilliant book, and the Lord of the Rings, it was hardly patronizing- in my opinion. It was a well thought out story that people have studied in graduate schools throughout the world.

Yet, he is saying in effect that his ideas - like language itself, is built upon someone else's foundations.

When my novel is released this summer, there won't be any orcs, any elves, no dragons, no dwarves, no vampires, no werewolves. It's not a book about wizards. It doesn't take place in Middle Earth, or in the fourth age. And yet, if people compare my novels to someone else's who does have such elements, I won't take that as an insult. Chances are if someone is astute enough, they will recognize what my inspirations were, just like I recognized Tolkien's inspirations and C.S Lewis's inspirations.

[Nateskate]

And then there are others who specifically LOOK for the familiar. I sometimes do that... I'll go online or into a bookstore and look for stories with a specific similarity because that's what I want to read about at the time. Other times I'm looking for uniqueness.

It's a matter of personal opinion, and I personally think I'd read it anyway so long as it was a good story, whether or not there was a stereotypical or archtype figure in it. Thousands of readers tend to agree with me :P

Hi Sassee. I agree with you as well. A great story is a great story. What people may fail to recognize is that every one is inspired by some thing, whether some person, some ideal, some belief. I can look at Star Wars for what it is, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out what Lucas's inspirations were. It's not rocket science. Yet, it was a great story and entertaining.

What some people miss is that it's really difficult to tell a great story. This discussion might have a different conclusion if people were able to write great stories as easily as change socks. That's why when people do write a great tale, people tend to overlook a great deal, although they may discuss it.

[oscuridad]

there are archetypes and Jung's archetypes - I think that the real point is that when they are well used in strong story you don't even notice the use whilst reading. Obvious and clumsy 'Gandalf' or 'Obi Wan Kenobi' rip-offs have the same effect as the author's voice becoming obvious adn jolt you out of the story.

Some authors are just sooo good at subverting the archetypes: Michel Paver in 'The Chronicles of Ancient Darkness', for example, or even in the Indiana Jones movies where the University boss (can't remember the character's name but played by Denholm Elliott) goes from brilliant academic mastermind to blundering liability, replaced as Mentor in the 3rd movie by Indy's father - very clever and only obvious when you sit back afterwards when you think about it.

Use archetypes or not (and try NOT using them, they just come out whether you like it or not - they are archetypes for a reason) but use whatever you use with originality and flair and no-one will care whether you hammered with a hammer or a rock...

[Nateskate]

You are right, in that Jung also believed in a cosmic conscience, and that things were somewhat absorbed through the pores.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. The real difference is good writing vs bad writing, and great ideas vs lame ones. The great writers won't make someone feel like they were ripped off. In a sense, the greats in music all ripped someone off, but somehow made it their own and took it too a different place that became their unique stamp. The rolling stones, beatles, and Eric Clapton all had the exact same influences, but they didn't sound the same.

With books, it's really the same.

there are archetypes and Jung's archetypes - I think that the real point is that when they are well used in strong story you don't even notice the use whilst reading. Obvious and clumsy 'Gandalf' or 'Obi Wan Kenobi' rip-offs have the same effect as the author's voice becoming obvious adn jolt you out of the story.

Some authors are just sooo good at subverting the archetypes: Michel Paver in 'The Chronicles of Ancient Darkness', for example, or even in the Indiana Jones movies where the University boss (can't remember the character's name but played by Denholm Elliott) goes from brilliant academic mastermind to blundering liability, replaced as Mentor in the 3rd movie by Indy's father - very clever and only obvious when you sit back afterwards when you think about it.

Use archetypes or not (and try NOT using them, they just come out whether you like it or not - they are archetypes for a reason) but use whatever you use with originality and flair and no-one will care whether you hammered with a hammer or a rock...

[ProtoMatic]

I'd have to disagree respectfully on all points made above.

It sounds like a good guideline for writing bedtime stories for overstimulated toddlers, but when I pick up a book, I do not want to be patronized and patted on the back and bombarded with the familiar.

Naturally, this is completely a matter of opinion, but to me, the vast majority of stories trying to be original just ends up being crap, because the author TRIES to be original instead of having a properly original thought to base the story around. Originality just for the sake of being original doesn't work. You can't start a story by going "Now I'm gonna be really original!" Well. you CAN, but it will end up smelling like a week old cadaver, and it won't be truly original in any case, because everything you do is inpired (conciously or subconciously) by earlier work.

And anyway, everything ever created is standing on the shoulders of things already created before it. Even the most original story is inspired (however convoluted or subconcious the inspiration may be) by something or other, be it legend, history, experience or whatever, so in essence, nothing is truly original. Ever. Even your life and every choice you make are ALL results of previous events which you have no control over.

So. Nothing and everything is ever and always original. (Beat that for nonconclusive!)

[Shweta]

Taken to its logical extreme, this position is trivially true.

All stories told in English are using the same words. All stories involve people (of some sort), in places, with things, experiencing events. So how can we ever say anything new?

I think the trick is to look at reader experience. We want to take the reader someplace new, and let them meet characters who aren't instantly recognizable as someone else they've seen before, even if we do also want to give them some familiarity to hold on to. It's not that "original" work is objectively Different, it's that it gives rise to different (original) reader experiences.

And I find that the way to do that is to make the stories I tell truly mine. To personalize them. And when I find something in there that might be a cliche, I don't scream and yank it out, and I don't shrug and say "That's okay" -- I think about it long and hard, hold a gun to its head, see if it justifies its existence. If it does, it won't be a cliche.

Works for me, so far.

[ProtoMatic]

Slight diversion.. again.
Taken to its logical extreme, this position is trivially true.

There's really nothing trivial about it. It's the way the world works. At least as far as we (humanity) understand reality and causality. Everything you do is a result of; 1) Things that has happened in the past that lead to this point in time, and 2) Things you as an author has experienced in your life. Actions you make (in this context; the words you write) wouldn't have happened if you hadn't had the exact same experiences that you've actually had. In other words, if you hadn't been born where you were born and had the experiences you've had, you wouldn't have made the actions (or written the words) that you have.


All stories told in English are using the same words. All stories involve people (of some sort), in places, with things, experiencing events. So how can we ever say anything new?

"Rose-herrings on the white cliffs of dover metamorphose into celestial bodies upon the death of a donkey in the tool-shed."

Even though every word in that sentence has been used countless times before, I can be pretty sure that they have never been strung together in that particular order before. But that (both your argument and my sentence) is nonsensical, because language is made up of pre-existing words in order for people to understand what's being communicated. If we had to make up new words every time we wanted to say something, nobody would understand each other.

The point I'm trying to make is that no matter how original you think you are, chances are (99,9%) you are basing that originality on some earlier experience. Wether or not people classify your story as a clichè or not depends on how closely you imitate that experience and how many people has imitated it before you. The fact that there are so many stories which imitate other stories is that those other stories worked, and they worked because they were based on other stories that also worked. Of course, it's possible to imitate a hugely successful story and still have your story fail miserably, but as dificult it is to succeed with a story that imitates other successful stories, it's much much more dificult to succeed with a story that is as close to original as it can get. Why? Because if the story is largely original, it means it's not been honed to fit the human psyche like all those other stories.

The best you can hope to achieve is to make your story, which is based on previous experience, SEEM original to the reader. That's what I meant by convoluted inspiration. Like some smart guy once said (I don't remember who it was, but he really understood causality) "Talents borrow, geniouses steal."

[Shweta]

As far as I can tell, you're actually saying the same thing I am, but you're framing it in a way that makes me think you are disagreeing with me. Or you think you are.

Are you?

[ProtoMatic]

I might. If I only think I disagree, I wouldn't know that I don't. To paraphrase Richard Dawkins; You don't know you are self-delusional, because if you did you wouldn't be self-delusional. I don't even claim to be right, because in the grand scheme of things, I most likely aren't.

And as a short addendum to my previous post, the reason so many writers use stereotypical characters is that in reality all people are stereotypes. That's why first impressions so often are correct.

[Shweta]

And as a short addendum to my previous post, the reason so many writers use stereotypical characters is that in reality all people are stereotypes. That's why first impressions so often are correct.

Ah, then we definitely disagree :)

I think non-stereotypical characters and non-generic settings are our best way not to succumb to cliche and same-old. And I think most people are not at all like they seem at first, if you dig deeper.

Of course, I could be totally wrong, too.

[Shweta]

I should have clarified that "My first impression so often are correct." :D Of course that depends on ability to read people.
Of course.


On the original topic, I think it's absolutely true that archetypal figures have power that -- used right -- we can draw on. But I also think that we as writers need to be wary of shortcuts and laziness, and think to ourselves about whether we're falling into those traps (rather than assuming that we're not), because they do show.

This isn't really a comment on anyone here. It's just the flip side of this discussion. I think it's dangerous to convince ourselves that originality doesn't exist, if it means we're going to try less hard.

That's all, that's my 2c, and I'm bowing out now :)

[Nateskate]

I think what you've said is brilliant. There are two approaches to wisdom, and only one works well. The first is to baffle people into thinking you're brilliant, because nobody is smart enough to interpret what you say. The second approach is to take what is very difficult to understand and rephrasing it in such a way that everyone gets it. I'm impressed by the later, which looks the least impressive, because people get it. But the other kind of wisdom is really more smoke and mirrors than substance.

I tried building a world from scratch, a Universe from scratch. And I was adament I wouldn't do a creation story, like Tolkien does in the Silmarillion. Trying to be entirely unique backfired, because people need context in order to understand a story. And so, if you avoid using terms like "First age, and Second age", which I did, you then have to redefine your own concepts, and how you partition time. And so, you can borrow the term "age" and its implications, or you can waste two pages defining another way to say "age", so that someone else can borrow it later.

I found I couldn't really tell my story and make it coherant without using some common devices. It's the same as telling the story in Old English, and having everyone tripping over the thus, thine, thou parade. It becomes one more roadblock to trip readers who try to muddle through the story.



Naturally, this is completely a matter of opinion, but to me, the vast majority of stories trying to be original just ends up being crap, because the author TRIES to be original instead of having a properly original thought to base the story around. Originality just for the sake of being original doesn't work. You can't start a story by going "Now I'm gonna be really original!" Well. you CAN, but it will end up smelling like a week old cadaver, and it won't be truly original in any case, because everything you do is inpired (conciously or subconciously) by earlier work.

And anyway, everything ever created is standing on the shoulders of things already created before it. Even the most original story is inspired (however convoluted or subconcious the inspiration may be) by something or other, be it legend, history, experience or whatever, so in essence, nothing is truly original. Ever. Even your life and every choice you make are ALL results of previous events which you have no control over.

So. Nothing and everything is ever and always original. (Beat that for nonconclusive!)

[Nateskate]

Hi Shweta, I think I agree with you both, because there is a middle ground. The idea we're getting at is origionality and devices to get there.

In a sense, I'll use music as an example. To write an origional song, I'd have to use chords never created before, and avoid any melodies and rhythms I've ever heard. I may have to build instruments that don't sound like other instruments. And jazz musicians will try experimental music like this. Jazz has a unique and loyal audience, but almost always misses the mainstream. As an author who wants to get published, you almost always want to hit the mainstream.

But with that said, some of the most brilliant songs written had something in common with other brilliant songs, and didn't overdo it with trying to be so origional that they became obscure and discordant, and cacauphonus.

In writing, I have to have a setting, a working cosmology. My story can exist in this world, pre-history, in this Universe outside of our world, or in an alternate relam.

The idea is now choosing a device. However, here or not here leaves really two choices, unless you bounce from relams, or decide your story exists within a dream.

But every thing I've discused above has already been done, and fairly well. Alice found Wonderland. Dorothy found Oz. At best I can try not to sound cliche, but at some point, someone is going to see something they've seen before.

Perhaps the middle ground is freedom, allowing ourselves as writers the luxury of not having to create a new language to be origional. If I want to say "Cup" in my world, it's not really a compromise. He drinks from a thwag may be more interesting to some. But the more you create new terms, the more likely you would wind up having readers entirely miss the point of the story, for getting to tripped up going back and forth to an appendix.

In a sense, this is what happened the first time I read the Silmarillion. It's one of the greatest stories ever written, but is filled with so many similar names, that most Tolkien lovers have never finished this book. Finrod, Fingolfin, Finarfin, Finway. (I don't have the book in front of me, but you really can get "F" fatigue.)

Of course.


On the original topic, I think it's absolutely true that archetypal figures have power that -- used right -- we can draw on. But I also think that we as writers need to be wary of shortcuts and laziness, and think to ourselves about whether we're falling into those traps (rather than assuming that we're not), because they do show.

This isn't really a comment on anyone here. It's just the flip side of this discussion. I think it's dangerous to convince ourselves that originality doesn't exist, if it means we're going to try less hard.

That's all, that's my 2c, and I'm bowing out now :)

[ProtoMatic]

Thank you Nate, for making the point I couldn't.

Originality for the sake of originality alone almost always ends up ruining a potentially good story. I honestly believe that most original works of fiction is a result of the author sitting in a [insert appropriate setting] being drunk or stoned out of his skull, thinking about nothing in particular when suddenly an amazing thought leaped into his/her frontal lobe waving its arms (or whatever appendix a thought has to make waving motions) shouting "LOOK AT ME!", and then the author went ahead and made a story around it.

At the same time, imitating existing and beloved stories too closely will most likely also ruin a potentially good story. ("Grodo the bobbit sat in the shlire smoking his pipe when he noticed Gandlarry the Charcoal colored walking up the path.")

Like you said Nate, finding the golden middleway is key to producing a successful story.

[Nateskate]

Thank you Nate, for making the point I couldn't.

Originality for the sake of originality alone almost always ends up ruining a potentially good story. I honestly believe that most original works of fiction is a result of the author sitting in a [insert appropriate setting] being drunk or stoned out of his skull, thinking about nothing in particular when suddenly an amazing thought leaped into his/her frontal lobe waving its arms (or whatever appendix a thought has to make waving motions) shouting "LOOK AT ME!", and then the author went ahead and made a story around it.

At the same time, imitating existing and beloved stories too closely will most likely also ruin a potentially good story. ("Grodo the bobbit sat in the shlire smoking his pipe when he noticed Gandlarry the Charcoal colored walking up the path.")

Like you said Nate, finding the golden middleway is key to producing a successful story.

Lol. I love your Hobbit immitation. Sounds very Mad Magazine.

When I read Chronicles of Narnia, I saw dozens of cross-ideas with LOTR, not to mention the whole Magician's Nephew starts with Magic Rings. Then again, since Tolkien and C.S Lewis chatted regularly about story ideas, I don't think it fair to say that Lewis stole from Tolkien.

They wrote completely different stories, but went into mythology for many of their creatures, adding a few of their own, like Orcs and Puddlegumps.

[ProtoMatic]

One of the modern greats (in my mind) of fantasy, R.A. Salvatore, also draws a lot on stereotypes, but has still managed to create a world that differentiates itself from most other fantastic worlds. You have elves being pointy eared, graceful, treehuggers. Barbarians being big dumb viking wannabe's. Dwarves are short (duh), barrel chested, bad tempered and beer quaffing. There's the giants, wizards, orcs, pirates, rogues, dark elves, thieves and guilds. Nothing we haven't really seen in some way or another before, but still his stories FEELS unique, and that is to me the key.

[Nateskate]

One of the modern greats (in my mind) of fantasy, R.A. Salvatore, also draws a lot on stereotypes, but has still managed to create a world that differentiates itself from most other fantastic worlds. You have elves being pointy eared, graceful, treehuggers. Barbarians being big dumb viking wannabe's. Dwarves are short (duh), barrel chested, bad tempered and beer quaffing. There's the giants, wizards, orcs, pirates, rogues, dark elves, thieves and guilds. Nothing we haven't really seen in some way or another before, but still his stories FEELS unique, and that is to me the key.


It's what works for each writer that matters. Others spoof fantasy, and that works for them.

That's not my style, but if people get it, and obviously enough do, it makes for some long careers.

I've thrown years into creating my own world and Universe, but I realize that if people want sugar in their pie, I'm not pouring in mustard just to show I can be different. Soon enough I'll know people's opinions, I imagine, as my book comes out this summer.

[JBI]

All people are born, live, then die (assuming they aren't stillborn). Therefore, all lives, and stories, have similar aspects naturally. There is a silly misconception that literature should try and create something new. I, from my personal experience, have found the most powerful reads (and what the Academic club consider the most powerful reads to be) the books that expose different and new aspects of the life. Shakespeare is probably the best at doing this, since he is able to capture almost every age of the human condition, with the exception of childhood, in his characters, and to relate this all to the reader.

[Nateskate]

All people are born, live, then die (assuming they aren't stillborn). Therefore, all lives, and stories, have similar aspects naturally. There is a silly misconception that literature should try and create something new. I, from my personal experience, have found the most powerful reads (and what the Academic club consider the most powerful reads to be) the books that expose different and new aspects of the life. Shakespeare is probably the best at doing this, since he is able to capture almost every age of the human condition, with the exception of childhood, in his characters, and to relate this all to the reader.

You touched upon one of the common threads, which is the human condition. We all want to love and be loved. That's not as easy to capture in an interesting way as it sounds, but when I read LOTR, you could sense Eowyn's desperation, having lost so much of her family, and living in a dreary place. So that when Aragorn comes along, you can understand why she wants to attach to him and even wants to follow him into the paths of the dead, which in her mind was suicide.

[otterman]

No offense intended to those who have commented, but I think some of you are guilty of thinking a little too hard. There is one underlying principle that must be obeyed at all times: the story has to be good. If this rule is followed everything else is forgotten or becomes irrelevant. We will never escape the use of (at least) some archetypes in our writing and poor use of cliché devices is never a good thing, especially if you're using them in the same poor way as other authors have.

[JBI]

No offense intended to those who have commented, but I think some of you are guilty of thinking a little too hard. There is one underlying principle that must be obeyed at all times: the story has to be good. If this rule is followed everything else is forgotten or becomes irrelevant. We will never escape the use of (at least) some archetypes in our writing and poor use of cliché devices is never a good thing, especially if you're using them in the same poor way as other authors have.

Great rule... If only I could figure out what good is? I know! lets discuss it...

Get the point?

[otterman]

We know when we like a story we have read. As authors we try to recreate that feeling for others in or own works, using our own styles, ideas, and approaches. To some degree it's trial and error; it's a skill you develop through hard work. The writing process is the only way you get better. It's not easy - some might never accomplish it - but we still know when that goal has been reached. Our readers tell us what's good. Get the point?

[JBI]

We know when we like a story we have read. As authors we try to recreate that feeling for others in or own works, using our own styles, ideas, and approaches. To some degree it's trial and error; it's a skill you develop through hard work. The writing process is the only way you get better. It's not easy - some might never accomplish it - but we still know when that goal has been reached. Our readers tell us what's good. Get the point?
With the exception of Gilgamesh, we can see clear distinct literary influences upon an author. These influences are used to create a new point. Without outlining what comes before, it is impossible to create what comes after. Because of this, threads like this have a "Right to exist". All authors are copycats, some just get away with it better than others.

[Nateskate]

No offense intended to those who have commented, but I think some of you are guilty of thinking a little too hard. There is one underlying principle that must be obeyed at all times: the story has to be good. If this rule is followed everything else is forgotten or becomes irrelevant. We will never escape the use of (at least) some archetypes in our writing and poor use of cliché devices is never a good thing, especially if you're using them in the same poor way as other authors have.


Actually, I agree with your bottom line. There is such a thing as being "Too clever". I used to run into this when people would show me their songs. They would try to be so origional that they wrote terrible songs.

Things really do have to flow to work. So, in trying to be "too" origional, some people ruined the things they tried to accomplish.

But again, a good story isn't cliche. A good story may contain elements of things written before. And I think we're saying something similar.

[Nateskate]

Great rule... If only I could figure out what good is? I know! lets discuss it...

Get the point?


Isn't that really the bottom line??? I had a good story long before I was a good writer. The reason I know is because I could hold people's attention spans when they asked me to explain it.

But the story went through many stages until it was actually something I'd want to read. It's really hard to smile when you've worked on a story for years. The epiphany that told me it was ready was that I was enjoying it and it finally just flowed without speed bumbs.