Originality: That Daunting Bugaboo!

Mistook · Mar 31, 2005

I'm sort of spinning this off of the "What Do They Want" thread. Uncle Jim had posted there that publishers want (and I paraphrase) a story that is well-written, satisfying, and suprising.

We all know how difficult it can be, just to get a bead on the "well-written" aspect, and having the story make sense and resolve well is another hurdle.

But then I've been reading about a lot of rejection letters to writers who've mastered these skills, and the publishers say, "Nice, but not original enough."

What exactly is this X-factor that gives a story that all important scent of April freshness that makes the literati swoon? What constitutes originality? Can it be learned? Or is it a natal gift?

What are your thoughts on originality?

zizban · Mar 31, 2005

I tried writing a coming of age stroy set in a kind of maya like land. Everyone had names like He Who Sings To Birds and so on. Got tiring trying to remember them all. :flag:

Jamesaritchie · Mar 31, 2005

Originality

Mistook said:
I'm sort of spinning this off of the "What Do They Want" thread. Uncle Jim had posted there that publishers want (and I paraphrase) a story that is well-written, satisfying, and suprising.

We all know how difficult it can be, just to get a bead on the "well-written" aspect, and having the story make sense and resolve well is another hurdle.

But then I've been reading about a lot of rejection letters to writers who've mastered these skills, and the publishers say, "Nice, but not original enough."

What exactly is this X-factor that gives a story that all important scent of April freshness that makes the literati swoon? What constitutes originality? Can it be learned? Or is it a natal gift?

What are your thoughts on originality?

I'll bet you get a bunch of different answers to this one, and right up front, I'll say I don't actually know the answer. I only know how I've approached it.

My own opinion is that what's largely original is you. If you learn to put your spin, your experience, your knowledge, your insight in a story, it will be at least somewhat original. I started selling one heck of a lot easier and faster when I learned that "Write what you know" is the best advice anyone ever gave me. This doesn't in any way mean you can't write about things you haven't experienced, but it does mean that what makes a story come alive, what makes a story unique, is the same thing that makes you unique. No one else has ever led the same life you have, thought about things in exactly the same way you do, etc. Even if a story is set in another galaxy, and peopled by beings not human, it will be your experience and insight and knowledge about people and the human condition that makes the story what it is.

Another part of originality is "simply" taking an old idea and giving it a twist. Stand it on its head, look at it from a different angle, etc.

I also think staying current with the progress of science can make for originality, even if what you write has nothing to do with science fiction.

But more often than not, my opinion is that what often passes as originality is simply something that's done better than anyone else has ever done it. Take whatever subject and plot you like, and do it better than anyone else has ever done it, and you'll be called an original.

But it's also good to remember the saying attributed to Samuel Johnson:
"Your manuscript is both good and original, but the part that is good is not original and the part that is original is not good." Bad orgiginality is probably worse than good imitation.

BlueTexas · Mar 31, 2005

Jamesaritchie said:
Bad orgiginality is probably worse than good imitation.

How on earth do you define bad originality?

MadScientistMatt · Mar 31, 2005

BlueTexas said:
How on earth do you define bad originality?

Ed Wood Jr.?

Jamesaritchie · Mar 31, 2005

Originality

BlueTexas said:
How on earth do you define bad originality?

1. An original idea or plot that's written poorly. 2. An original but stupid idea.

Just because something is original in no way means it's a good idea or a worthwhile subject. Being original does not automatically make something good, just as being imitative does not necessarily make something bad.

maestrowork · Mar 31, 2005

It's all about variation and spins. And combinations. How about a serial killer trapped in a magical world finding love with a Jedi knight?

BlueTexas · Mar 31, 2005

I see now. I was assuming that originality was inherently good, a poor assumption even as assumptions go.

Mistook · Mar 31, 2005

Jamesaritchie said:
I'll bet you get a bunch of different answers to this one, and right up front, I'll say I don't actually know the answer. I only know how I've approached it.

My own opinion is that what's largely original is you. If you learn to put your spin, your experience, your knowledge, your insight in a story, it will be at least somewhat original. I started selling one heck of a lot easier and faster when I learned that "Write what you know" is the best advice anyone ever gave me. This doesn't in any way mean you can't write about things you haven't experienced, but it does mean that what makes a story come alive, what makes a story unique, is the same thing that makes you unique. No one else has ever led the same life you have, thought about things in exactly the same way you do, etc. Even if a story is set in another galaxy, and peopled by beings not human, it will be your experience and insight and knowledge about people and the human condition that makes the story what it is.

Another part of originality is "simply" taking an old idea and giving it a twist. Stand it on its head, look at it from a different angle, etc.

I also think staying current with the progress of science can make for originality, even if what you write has nothing to do with science fiction.

But more often than not, my opinion is that what often passes as originality is simply something that's done better than anyone else has ever done it. Take whatever subject and plot you like, and do it better than anyone else has ever done it, and you'll be called an original.

But it's also good to remember the saying attributed to Samuel Johnson:
"Your manuscript is both good and original, but the part that is good is not original and the part that is original is not good." Bad orgiginality is probably worse than good imitation.

Thanks, James. I was hoping you'd weigh in on this one, because I know you've had things to say about this question in the past. Sage advice, and I don't take it lightly.

Nice point about "bad originality". That's something to sleep on. God know's I've had my share of badly original ideas.

Jaws · Mar 31, 2005

maestrowork said:
How about a serial killer trapped in a magical world finding love with a Jedi knight?

That's an originality issue of a different nature. Don't play in somebody else's sandbox: It requires a license. In this particular instance, it would require a license from Lucasfilm, the mark holder for everything StarWars. In all probability, there would be only one potential publisher (Del Rey at this writing). The irony is that the farther you get from criticizing/commenting upon the core materialin other words, the more "original" you make your spinthe weaker your copyright fair use defense, and the stronger any potential trademark claims against you get.

So, guys, Don't Try This at Home. Unless, of course, you're actually under contract to do so, have an approved outline, and have all of the necessary permissions cleared before you even write the work.

Alphabeter · Mar 31, 2005

I've got a guaranteed best-selling idea for you. I officially release the copyright on it. (Yes Jaws, I know)

Girl meet Boy.
Boy and Girl get involved.
Girl and Boy have fight, break up over big misunderstanding.
Boy and Girl have friends who engineer a "chance" meeting.
Girl and Boy get back together.
Big Tragedy occurs.
Boy and Girl don't live happily ever after.

Go forth and write.

I want a signed first edition and a mention in the dedication. "To Alphabeter, I couldn't have done it without you" will suffice.

Anatole Ghio · Mar 31, 2005

I personally think writing well is your first priority, being original is your second.

By writing well, you get someone to read your work to begin with.

By being original, you get someone to read your work a second time, or your second work the first time.

The first gets your customers, the second gets your repeat business.

I like the think of H. P. Lovecraft. He wrote the same story through his whole carrer, yet he managed to slowly tell it differently so if you read his stuff from start to finish, the content begins to change.

I usually give myself the goal of trying one new thing each time I write a short story. So even if I copy my own style, at least I did the one thing new. So by the time I've done a series of short stories, my style has evolved and my stories won't seem exactly the same.

Mistook · Apr 1, 2005

Anatole Ghio said:
I personally think writing well is your first priority, being original is your second.

By writing well, you get someone to read your work to begin with.

By being original, you get someone to read your work a second time, or your second work the first time.

The first gets your customers, the second gets your repeat business.

I like the think of H. P. Lovecraft. He wrote the same story through his whole carrer, yet he managed to slowly tell it differently so if you read his stuff from start to finish, the content begins to change.

I usually give myself the goal of trying one new thing each time I write a short story. So even if I copy my own style, at least I did the one thing new. So by the time I've done a series of short stories, my style has evolved and my stories won't seem exactly the same.

But I'm thinking... if you want to get published... originality is one of the critical factors. No, originality cannot do it alone, but from what i hear, great writing can't do it alone either. You need both to avoid the rejection slip.

As for sameness...

Every VanGogh looks the same. You can tell in an instant whether or not it's a Van Gogh, but that thing that makes all his works similar....

is Van Gogh's originality.

pdr · Apr 1, 2005

The writer's voice

Perhaps originality is not so much the new idea (There really aren't many around!) as it is your unique writer's voice. The way that you put the words together should be special to you and not like the way other writers put words together. Combined that unique voice with something I can only call your writer's honesty and you have written fiction that could only come from you. It's hard to define but recognizable when you read it.

Sounds a little soppy to say: 'Write from your heart and care about what you are writing.' but isn't that why you are writing? You have something to say you care about and no other way of saying it except by writing it out. You put heart and soul into writing it well and the readers 'hear' that as they read. It 'sounds' original.

The best example I can give is William Shakespeare. He took the Hollinshed chronicles, those little historical stories, and wrote them his way. We remember his plays and not the stories he 'borrowed' from.

Fractured_Chaos · Apr 1, 2005

I think pdr said it well, but I'd just like to add...

The old saw of being very familiar with your subject, and other works on it will also help with originality. If you want to write a vampire novel (and how MANY of those are out there, now), make sure you read alot of them. You'll see recurring themes, and plot devices. The one's that are used the most, you -don't- use.

At one point, it was a constant that religious icons, especially crosses and crucifix's would make a child of the night cringe and hiss. But then Anne Rice created Lestat, who loves them, and is facinated by them. At the time she did that, it was original. Now, mind you...I have no doubts that other writer's have done something similar previous, but the fact is, it was not something that was done -often-. So it retained originality by the time Anne Rice used it.

There is no such thing as a completely original idea in fiction, only a different way of looking at a subject, and the use of rarely seen aspects of that subject (or differing POVs, as it were).

Okay...I rambled, but I hope I made sense.

Mike Martyn · Apr 1, 2005

maestrowork said:
It's all about variation and spins. And combinations. How about a serial killer trapped in a magical world finding love with a Jedi knight?

Entitled "Queer Eye for Jedi" perhaps?

Mistook · Apr 1, 2005

drgnlvr said:
I think pdr said it well, but I'd just like to add...

The old saw of being very familiar with your subject, and other works on it will also help with originality. If you want to write a vampire novel (and how MANY of those are out there, now), make sure you read alot of them. You'll see recurring themes, and plot devices. The one's that are used the most, you -don't- use.

At one point, it was a constant that religious icons, especially crosses and crucifix's would make a child of the night cringe and hiss. But then Anne Rice created Lestat, who loves them, and is facinated by them. At the time she did that, it was original. Now, mind you...I have no doubts that other writer's have done something similar previous, but the fact is, it was not something that was done -often-. So it retained originality by the time Anne Rice used it.

There is no such thing as a completely original idea in fiction, only a different way of looking at a subject, and the use of rarely seen aspects of that subject (or differing POVs, as it were).

Okay...I rambled, but I hope I made sense.

Anne Rice is a good example. She took a very tired concept - vampires - and did what she needed to do to make them interesting again. Her novels really set off a craze for this neuvo kind of vampire.

I think the craze happened because in the back of everybody's minds, there was a foggy, unarticulated demand for more realistic vampires. So maybe that's one way to find originality - to cut a new path into territory we're all curious about, but which hasn't yet been explored to any great degree.

Keeping on the monster theme, I think it's interesting how many horror movies are coming out lately that marry ghosts and spirits to electronics. For example, The Ring presents us with a haunted video-tape. Such an idea used to seem beyond the pale. Ghosts and electricity didn't used to mix, but I think Poltergeist nudged us into this area, originally, and now people are exploring it.

Anatole Ghio · Apr 1, 2005

Mistook said:
But I'm thinking... if you want to get published... originality is one of the critical factors. No, originality cannot do it alone, but from what i hear, great writing can't do it alone either. You need both to avoid the rejection slip.

I agree about both, but if I'm working on a piece and the original element in it somehow takes away from the writing, I will sacrifice the originality in order to have a good piece. Don't forget, plenty of people get published who aren't really original but write something that appeals to other people.

Of course, in the best possible situation, one can have both.

Anatole Ghio · Apr 1, 2005

Mistook said:
Keeping on the monster theme, I think it's interesting how many horror movies are coming out lately that marry ghosts and spirits to electronics. For example, The Ring presents us with a haunted video-tape. Such an idea used to seem beyond the pale. Ghosts and electricity didn't used to mix, but I think Poltergeist nudged us into this area, originally, and now people are exploring it.

This may hijack the thread and probably should be a discussion in the horror section, but the technology thing is simply a reflection of where we are at in our culture. Before there was the proliferation of the internet and means of electronic communication (sms, cell phones), it would be hard to write a horror story and have it touch people in a primal way, since the majority would still see technology as kind of alien.

You name the Ring... many of the Japanese films are aimed at the teenage market, where the money is; and the Japanese have a different relationship to technology. That's why a lot of the J horror films have that emphasis on technology, it's easier for their viewers to identify with it in a more emotional way... especially kids who grew up taking for granted the existence of computers and cell phones.

Now that we are begining to be more reliant upon communication technology, it is becoming more intregal to our culture. Even my grandmother uses the internet to check on her e-mail!

Mistook · Apr 1, 2005

Anatole Ghio said:
This may hijack the thread and probably should be a discussion in the horror section, but the technology thing is simply a reflection of where we are at in our culture. Before there was the proliferation of the internet and means of electronic communication (sms, cell phones), it would be hard to write a horror story and have it touch people in a primal way, since the majority would still see technology as kind of alien.

You name the Ring... many of the Japanese films are aimed at the teenage market, where the money is; and the Japanese have a different relationship to technology. That's why a lot of the J horror films have that emphasis on technology, it's easier for their viewers to identify with it in a more emotional way... especially kids who grew up taking for granted the existence of computers and cell phones.

Now that we are begining to be more reliant upon communication technology, it is becoming more intregal to our culture. Even my grandmother uses the internet to check on her e-mail!

I don't mind a hijack like this. Let's just say we're exploring how changes in the world lead to new ideas in fiction. In fact, we could look at the flip side of that and examine how fiction brings about changes in the world - especially science fiction. Captain Kirk's communicator is now a reality!

But your point about technology being so integral to every day life is very true. Now that I'm thinking about it, an awful lot of horror from before the computer era revolved around the telephone didn't it? Hitchcock, Serling, all the slasher movies from the 70's... I can think of dozens of horrifying scenes where all we saw was that awful telephone ringing.

What do you think of Frankenstein? I'm sure there must be stories going back to forever about sorcerers raising zombies from the dead, but Shelly really gripped us by using a mad-scientist instead.

Perhaps all of this speaks to some primal understanding of science as simply another form of magic?

HConn · Apr 1, 2005

One of the best ways to be "original" is to have a very personal take on what has gone before.

It's about writing a quest fantasy the way it *should* be written.

It's about wondering why no one has written a private detective who's a (blank).

It's about realizing that no one has written a story set in some aspect of your own life--on a fishing boat, among clerical workers at a hospital, at a nuclear waste silo, among the rat-killers in Calcutta.

Whatever.

You don't need to make everything in your story out of whole cloth. You only need to bring your personal perspective to it. It's when writers decide they want to write a book exactly like someone else's that they have problems.

IMO, natch.

Mistook · Apr 1, 2005

HConn said:
One of the best ways to be "original" is to have a very personal take on what has gone before.

It's about writing a quest fantasy the way it *should* be written.

It's about wondering why no one has written a private detective who's a (blank).

It's about realizing that no one has written a story set in some aspect of your own life--on a fishing boat, among clerical workers at a hospital, at a nuclear waste silo, among the rat-killers in Calcutta.

Whatever.

You don't need to make everything in your story out of whole cloth. You only need to bring your personal perspective to it. It's when writers decide they want to write a book exactly like someone else's that they have problems.

IMO, natch.

HConn,

I very much agree! I've said in the past that the motivation for writing a story should be to tell the one you always wanted to read, but never could find. I agree with you about the danger of trying to exactly recreate the work of an Idol, or to regurgitate the sum of everything thus-far respectable.

I think some writers fall into the trap of thinking, "The best way to prove I'm one of the greats is to write exactly like them! I'll write the perfect [insert genre] novel, following all the wise prescriptions, character types, plot conventions..." You get the idea.

Publishers see right through this tactic. No? Isn't that the fact nobody ever bothers to emphasize?

HConn · Apr 1, 2005

Mistook said:
I think some writers fall into the trap of thinking, "The best way to prove I'm one of the greats is to write exactly like them! I'll write the perfect [insert genre] novel, following all the wise prescriptions, character types, plot conventions..." You get the idea.

Publishers see right through this tactic. No? Isn't that the fact nobody ever bothers to emphasize?

I don't think it has to do with proving they're one of the greats, or using tactics on publishers. I think it has more to do with an uncritical affection for a certain type of story. A hard-boiled detective novel. A quest fantasy. Star Wars.

I don't think being unoriginal is a deal-breaker. I read unoriginal books and watch unoriginal movies all the time. (Right now I'm watching a formulaic whodunit on the Hallmark Channel). Sometimes they're fun.

But it's slightly harder to evoke an emotional reaction that way.

IMO

Mistook · Apr 2, 2005

HConn said:
I don't think it has to do with proving they're one of the greats, or using tactics on publishers. I think it has more to do with an uncritical affection for a certain type of story. A hard-boiled detective novel. A quest fantasy. Star Wars.

I don't think being unoriginal is a deal-breaker. I read unoriginal books and watch unoriginal movies all the time. (Right now I'm watching a formulaic whodunit on the Hallmark Channel). Sometimes they're fun.

But it's slightly harder to evoke an emotional reaction that way.

IMO

Fascinating!

So not only do we have "bad originality", but we also have "good unoriginality." It seems like between the two, a person could make a comfortable career.

I'm starting to get the message that when it comes to originality, fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

Anatole Ghio · Apr 2, 2005

Mistook said:
Perhaps all of this speaks to some primal understanding of science as simply another form of magic?

Yes, I agree 100% with this. A science fiction author (I can't remember who) once said that any technology advanced enough, will seem like magic. Take a caveman and dump him into modern times. To him, automoblies will be a more advanced form of magic, since it will be so beyond his comprehension.

Think about the science fiction films that emphasized horror... like Alien, or Invasion of the Body Snatchers. In those, technology was just the backdrop to a more primal concern, in both of those films, it was about losing control of your body (alien possession).

It seems that now, technology is even more common place, so it no longer needs to be the backdrop for the primal concerns, but can be more of the instigator... like the Ring, where television and fear of sickness (spoiler: getting a view of the video is comparable to being sick with a virus... this is more evident in the original book, according to reviews), are shown as being similar.

Originality: That Daunting Bugaboo!

Neverending WIP

Back from self-exile land.

Empirical Storm Trooper

Fear the Death Ray

Back from self-exile land.

Neverending WIP

Apex Predator

Player of the Letters

Ironic Paranormal

Neverending WIP

Distra-- Ooh! Shiny!

Neverending WIP

Ironic Paranormal

Ironic Paranormal

Neverending WIP

Whore for genre

Neverending WIP

Whore for genre

Neverending WIP

Ironic Paranormal