Originality: That Daunting Bugaboo!

[Mistook]

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]

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]

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]

Bad orgiginality is probably worse than good imitation.

How on earth do you define bad originality?

[MadScientistMatt]

How on earth do you define bad originality?

Ed Wood Jr.?

[Jamesaritchie]

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]

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]

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

[Mistook]

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]

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 material—in other words, the more "original" you make your spin—the 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Christine N.]

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.

Yes, but that depends on who you write for. Children, for example, love a good story, BUT also like elements that they recognize. A new twist on an old theme, in essence. That's called a trend. What is hot now is what publishers want. Everybody is after the next Harry Potter, for example, because that has a proven audience. Nobody wants a rehash of the story, but if you go to the bookstore, you'll find lots of books in the childrens/YA section with a "magical" theme.

The VanGough thing - that's called style. You recognize his style. His subjects are what's different. Writers all have style as well.

[James D. Macdonald]

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.


"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguisable from magic."

-- Arthur C. Clarke

Or: Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.

Or: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguisable from a rigged demonstration.

[HConn]

:ROFL:

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

I think of it this way: If you have something original you want to say, make sure it and the story comes out of your personal take on it. If you don't particularly care about being original, make sure the story comes out of your personal take.

Sorry if that's a little jumbled. My kid is calling me to come play.

[Nateskate]

Obviously this is not a comment on your writing, or anyone's writings, but my thoughts on this issue.

I think it's more than a novel ideal that separates the wheat from the chaff. There's something attractive about a beautiful mind, someone who says things in a revelatory way. In fact, if you look at the most interesting people, they aren't necessarily saying something brand new, but package it in a way it just sounds fresh. And I think the larger mistake is to try to be too avant-garde, because that can lead to other problems.

In a sense, it's like the saying, "Out of the treasures of the heart, the mouth speaks..." The most attractive thing to me, and always has been, is someone who seems to know something I don't, or someone who can phrase something common in a profound way. That of course is a personal preference.

Here's a thought, read some books of proverbs, and meditate on them. Think of ways to rephrase them in your characters. It just adds a great deal of depth, where the reader might make the mistake of thinking the writer knows the secrets of the universe, which is not a bad thing.

And this to me is also part of the picture. I used to play basketball. And although I'm white, I prefered playing in the ghetto, where I was the only white person. I'm going to translate something they used to say in trash talking, "He phony".

There are countless people who portend to be something they are not. What separated them was whether or not they could back up their words and consistantly perform. So, you'd find some kid who was convinced he was the next Michael Jordan, or Larry Bird, and in the heat of the competition, they'd wilt. I'm not particularly fond of trash talking, but "He phony" was an expression that meant, "He may think he's good. He may say he's good. But his actions speak louder than words, and he's a phony."

So, on some level (my thoughts) a writer not only has to have a concept for a story, deep down, they need to stand above. Some writers, even published, are little more than good parats, who know the lingo of their Genre cold, and change names and characters.

I don't think it matters much whether the space captain has a ray gun with a fuzzy new name, "The spunkulator" Rather, the key is what's going on in his mind. What motivates him? Why'd be become a captain? What is he afraid of?

Perhaps part of the answer is "why?" The reader wants something to challenge them, that makes them ask questions. "Why?" Why does Frodo go to Mordor instead of Rosie's house to make out? Sam, who care's about Sam? If he's to shy to ask her out, tough!

Why doesn't he turn back? Heck, some other Frodo smokes PCP and thinks he's superman, and walks into Mordor, fearless and foolish. Frodo is afraid, in his right mind. Then when the reader connects, so many things take place, "Would I, could I face death for a good cause, leaving my world and dreams behind for others?" Whether we voice it, or even think it consciously; that's what takes place inside us when we look at the choices. So it's not simply men against monsters, or it would be nothing more than another Power Ranger's episode.

[Christine N.]

I think a story well told, perhaps not that original in nature, has a far better chance of seeing publication than an original story NOT well told. You may have the most original idea in the world, but if it bores the agent/publisher to tears, he ain't gonna want it. A delicate balance, to be sure.

You, the writer, not only have to be a creator, you have to be a story teller. That is a gift, not many can tell a story well. It's like the guy who has a really great joke, but his delivery sucks. You're not gonna laugh.

If I'm stuck on something, I often pull an idea from something I'm watching/reading/ hear somewhere else. I don't copy the idea, but it might launch me into something of my own, based on someone else's idea. Sometimes it supercharges my brain when my muse is on a coffee break.

Expanding on the "Why" is the BIG "why" - why do we care? Why do we care what happens to the characters in your story? Because you, as the storyteller, make us, the reader, care. How do you do that? By telling a good story, by making the confict so good that we have to, have to, HAVE TO, get to the end to see how it all comes out.

[karenranney]

I think there are relatively few original plots. Even science fiction and fantasy can be distilled into inter-personal relationships and the struggle of good vs evil.

What makes one writer stand out from another? Let's assume that two authors write competently, know the technical aspects of writing, etc. Put them together. What makes one better? Character? Maybe. Dialogue? Could be. Voice? Probably. Therin lies the subjective part of an editor's job. A writer has to have his or her own voice, and that's something that comes with practice. But once a writer has it, s/he can take the most pedestrian plot and make it original.

[Jamesaritchie]

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?

Well, no, I don't think publishers see right through this tactic at all. Unless you use a plot that's been done to death, and has then been necrophiliaized a few thousand times after death, imitating your favorite, best-selling writers is probably the quickest way there is to get published.

Look at all the novels being released each year. How many clones of clones have you seen? How many Tolkien clones have been published? And at the height of the horror novel craze, there were so many Stephen King and Anne Rice clones warehouses were stacked to the roof. And look at the romance novel genre. There are some good romance novelists out there who have as much originality as anyone, but by and large romance novels are nothing if not imitative. This can be said of pretty much any genre.

Imitation, especially if it's quality imitation, and sometimes even if it isn't, tends to get published regularly.

True originality is pretty rare. It just doesn't happen often. What readers tend to want, which means what editors also tend to want, is a good, entertaining story with characters who step off the page. Accomplishing this, I think, is far more a matter of writing skill than of originality

When originality does happen, it's usually a minor, if important, aspect of the novel. It's a character who does somethng different, who doesn't quite act or think like other protagonists in that genre have. It's a plot twist the reader has seen before.

Thinking about some genre novels that have jump started the field over the years, King's "Carrie," and "The Stand," Anne Rice's "Interview with a Vampire," Clancy's "Hunt for Red Octpber," Mc<urtry's "Lonesome Dove," I can't really see much originality in any of them. All had plots that had been done before, all had characters I'd seen before.

"Lonesome Dove" was taken right out of the history books, and I think every last thing that happened in that novel actually happened in real life.

But what all these novels had in common was how well they were done. In all but "Red October," the character just jumped off the page. They were real people. Realer than most real people. I've never read realer, more convincing characters than the ones McMurtry put in Lonesome Dove, and the dialogue he wrote was just incredible. The absolute, true-to-life characters caught me on page one, and to be honest, it was the pig and the rattlesnake that made this novel come to instant life. There's nothing at all opriginal about a pig eating a rattlesnake, but that detail made the whole picture stand out if full color. And Gus was so lifelike, so exactly dead on with real men I'd known, that I knew McMurty had written a good novel.

And all of them simply had great stories. Now, I think Tom Clancy did less well with characters, but the way he wrote Red October hooked me from page one. Like most, I'd never heard of Clancy at the time, and my wife bought me "Red October" as a spur of the moment birthday gift. I opened it, started reading, and simply couldn't stop. I don't think it was opriginality that made me keep reading, it was realism. I believed everything I read, and I didn't want to step out of that story.

Rather than originality, I think "freshness" might be a better word. And I think what made these novels fresh was simply the people who wrote them, and the fact that they wrote them so darned well.

I think it can be safely argued that Anne Rice and Tom Clancy are not grat writers in the sence that they string beautiful sentences together. But both are wonderful storytellers, and both create good characters.

The thing is this. I think only Anne Rice could have created the character of Lestat, only McMurtry could have created the characters of Gus McCrae and Woodrow Call, and only King could have creeated the character of Carrie. And only Tom Clancy could have told the story of of a stolen submarine, and put the various characters into it, in the way he did.

Now, I've written a few westerns, but had I written the characters of Gus McCrae and Woodrow Call, it simply wouldn't have worked. Those are two of the best, most realistic characters I've ever seen on the page (And the mini-series cast them with complete perfection), but they aren't my characters, and I could not have created them.

The stories in all these novels flowed from character, and what originality there was in the stories grew out of character. Even the story of "Red October" grew out of the best character in that novel, which was Marko Ramius. (Again, cast pretty darned well in the movie.)

It is good to look for a plot that hasn't been done to death. It is wise to look for twists and turns that make a plot fresh. This is the "only different" that publishers are looking for. But it's the writer's ability to create great, likelike characters the reader cares about, and/or his ability to tell a story that makes for good, publishable novels.

And this much I do know. If you can think of an original plot, if you can conceive a cast of wonderful characters, and you give this plot and these characters to ten different writers, most of them will still write novels no one wants to read, and maybe one will write a novel based on these wonderful characters and original plot that really strikes a chord with readers.

Funny thing about originality. I remember when Kenny Rogers had the monster hit with "The Gamble," and everyone, including record producers, talked about how original that song was.

What everyone seemed to forget was that the song had been released before from another singer, and it bombed. Never even made the charts. But Kenny Rogers simply sang it better, and put something into the song that made people beolieve it, see it, understand it, even though he sang the same words and changed the story not at all. Kenny Rogers was the gambler.

All in all, I think too much is made of originality, and that the word used should be "freshness." Look for twists and turns and variations on plot, yes, but I think if you just learn to tell a story well, and learn to create characters that come from you, characters you make your own by looking at your own life, freshness is almost a byproduct.

What's really rare isn't freshness, it's simply finding writers who do the job better than anyone else. Poor writing, lifeless characters, and a great story told in a boring manner will always come across as stale bread. Good writing, lifelike characters, and even a mediocre story told well will always be fresh.

[Jaws]

I think there are relatively few original plots. Even science fiction and fantasy can be distilled into inter-personal relationships and the struggle of good vs evil.
:Soapbox: Please don't take this personally, as this is actually a less-offensive misstatement than one usually sees. This false piece of BS is a very common myth that is continually perpetuated by a large number of writing "gurus" and "teachers," many of whom should know better.

That description is not of plot. That description is at the least-abstract level an archetypal structure, and is better characterized as "thematic conflict" (which is only a corollary of the plot). Darn it, terms like these do have accepted, longstanding meanings in the serious study of literature. I wish that those who are going to try to teach writing would use the same vocabulary as those who study it seriously (I'm a refugee from a high-end PhD program).

The next time I have somebody in reach who claims that "there are only six (or whatever number) of plots," I will refuse to clean the blood out of the carpet after I'm done. It's not true; it's lazy; it's misleading; and it leads to bad writing. Then those who follow it as if it's a formula wonder why their fiction can't seem to get much acceptance.

[karenranney]

Please don't take this personally, as this is actually a less-offensive misstatement than one usually sees. This false piece of BS is a very common myth that is continually perpetuated by a large number of writing "gurus" and "teachers," many of whom should know better.

________________

I have to say thank you from the bottom of my heart. This is such an off-putting remark that I'm going to concentrate on what I should be doing - finishing the WIP due May 1st. I couldn't even begin to debate you.

Back to work.

[Mistook]

:Soapbox: Please don't take this personally, as this is actually a less-offensive misstatement than one usually sees. This false piece of BS is a very common myth that is continually perpetuated by a large number of writing "gurus" and "teachers," many of whom should know better.

That description is not of plot. That description is at the least-abstract level an archetypal structure, and is better characterized as "thematic conflict" (which is only a corollary of the plot). Darn it, terms like these do have accepted, longstanding meanings in the serious study of literature. I wish that those who are going to try to teach writing would use the same vocabulary as those who study it seriously (I'm a refugee from a high-end PhD program).

The next time I have somebody in reach who claims that "there are only six (or whatever number) of plots," I will refuse to clean the blood out of the carpet after I'm done. It's not true; it's lazy; it's misleading; and it leads to bad writing. Then those who follow it as if it's a formula wonder why their fiction can't seem to get much acceptance.


"Thematic Conflict" Hoo-ha! Tell me more!

Jaws, maybe you can help me out here. I'm getting a lot of great advice, but it seems to me the term "Originality" is so vast it's almost meaningless. There's half a dozen different things being talked about out here. Maybe you can supply the correct terms.

Here's my goofy attempt to catagorize three of the major things that fall under the heading of "Originality":



1) Unconventional characters, storyline, structure: The oracles seem to be warning away from this path - It's too dangerous.

Don't write the story about the talking antelope from venus and his struggle to obtain a human drivers license, and don't write it in 2nd person, future-tense, because if you do, not only won't they publish it... they just might punch you.

Timeless first line of that novel: "You're name will be Blarx."

2) Freshness / Personality: Recommended, but only for those writers who have survived literary boot-camp with one shred of their soul still intact.

Do write the story we've all heard before, and write it like the wind. Because it's you writing it, it will come out differently than when those other people wrote it. That, along with earnest sincerity, and a buck, will get you the donut!

"Call me Blarkus. How long have I been in wizard school? Long enough. When the elf brought me that darned ring, I knew I had to destroy it, and this, my friends, is where our story truly begins. It was a dark and stormy night..."

3) Magnetism: Forget everything you know. Just be intensely interesting and they'll think it's original.

Suck them in like a shop-vac and don't let go! Grab! There's only one way out of this book, and it's through the back cover. With every paragraph, an electrifying revelation. Closing the book at the end of a chapter means you'll be followed around by a ten-foot interrobang for the rest of the day.

"If I don't get this money to the vampire by sundown, the orphanage will explode." Blarg slipped and fell off the cliff's edge.

(and... scene!)

[Note On]

Originality is not a critical factor in getting published. Look in the bookstore. Agents and editors say they want "originality," but many of them aren't aware enough of what's gone before to really know what that is. For them, it just means something that strikes them as fresh, based on whatever spotty reading they've done previously.

Originality is a good thing, but only as a second criterion. First criterion: Is it any good?

Some favorite quotes:

"What they call Originality is achieved by getting down to the root-principle underlying the practice. From that origin you think your way back to the surface, where you may find you're breaking untrodden ground."
--Stanley Morison, type historian and designer of Times New Roman

"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats."
--Howard Aiken, computer pioneer

"Originality is sometimes just what a certain audience hasn't seen before."
--Richard Zvonar, my old bandmate (paraphrased)

[JoeEkaitis]

Didn't anyone see it in the newspapers? Originality has been outlawed.

Well, in Hollywood, at least.