What is originality?

Lillith1991 · Apr 29, 2015

Basically what it says on the tin,because I'm really curious about how people view originality.I can't help but think the sort of "originality" (IE. Something 100% original with no conenction, inspiration, or any ties to another story.) that is strived for an touted as the highest manifestation originality, is nothing more than a no true scotsman fallacy. To me it says: You're not a real writer until you concieve of and write an idea that isn't the same as anything else except for genre. Which I think is complete and utter silliness, because it excludes genres like Historical Fiction entirely out of hand.

What's more is that I find such thinking tends to say ideas are meaningless, but treats them as precious. Which makes me wonder... Is Romeo & Juliet set in space, where the main couple is f/f or m/m, and is told through the eyes of Tybalt unoriginal just by virtue of being linked to the famous play? I don't think it is, because I see such things as being more a kin to genres with a more structured structure. All Romance have the exact same core premise, and the same core question. Mysteries too have the core premise and question that is pretty universal for the genre, only modified to fit the story. So why is a premise treated like this big thing if it really isn't? All Epic Fantasy can basically be broken down into the same steps used in mythology, to the point that if you used only the very innermost core premise, they'd look exactly the same.

Far as I'm concerned, originality is in execution. How things are presented. But I will admit I'm entirely biased because I like Historicals, Retellings, things based on something someone watched and said "I can do better than that with that plot, character archetype, technology etc."

StoryofWoe · Apr 29, 2015

This Jim Jarmusch quote pretty much sums it up for me:

"Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is non-existent. And don’t bother concealing your thievery - celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: “It’s not where you take things from - it’s where you take them to." (MovieMaker Magazine #53 - Winter, January 22, 2004)

Osulagh · Apr 29, 2015

I look for something fresh rather than original.

IMHO, all stories are rooted in the essence of being human. That's the root and from it sprouts and stems collected thoughts. I don't believe there's such as thing as original because we're trapped within the limitations of being human. We just don't know what's beyond that and we're always seeking different pathways (stems) in search for something new, but always grounded in ourselves because, unknown to us, we seek the same roots we try to run from.

Again, I look for something fresh. Something that hasn't been done, or something like it hasn't come up, for a while. That could be execution, a style, a specific concept. Popular trends or sudden popular things, I find, harbor this quality in certain degrees. ASoIaF, for example, where people die tragically with little to no heroic promise is rather "fresh" in an age of storytelling where audiences are swamped with heroism.

aruna · Apr 29, 2015

I am pretty confident in distinguishing between original and non-original works, as I have done both. All of my novels, seven in all, are original. Even if some of the characters are "inspired by" real people and their lives, the stories are completely made up and have a trajectory ("plot") that is unlike any other story out there.. Which may seem like a wild and even arrogant claim, based on the OP, but it is true -- I would challenge anyone to read one of those books and tell me what other book has the same core premise, what book it is based on.

And then I wrote a new version of the Mahabharata, probably the oldest (and longest) book in existence. In this case, I took the core story and rewrote it in my own words. So I would not descibe my Sons of Gods as original.

Yet I don't think my "original" works are better than my non-original. Not by a long shot. I undertook SoG because I truly think it's the most magnificent story ever, and I merely restructured it, and told it in different words. It's my favourite of all my works, and I think the most important. So I think you are wrong to ascribe snobbism to those who claim to write original works. It's a completely different form of writing, but is not better or worse than a work that is a basic idea, rewritten in a different form. If I could save just one of my books for posterity, it would be SoG.

So I would say: it depends. A non-original work can be utterly brilliant, a fantastic story, even if it is completely modelled on something that has gone before.
An original work stands or falls on the story itself. It's good or bad because of what it is, not solely because it is "original".

Just my 2c.

Putputt · Apr 29, 2015

I see originality in fiction as "something which is unexpected". It's not technically correct I guess, but that definition works for me.

aruna · Apr 29, 2015

I think the debate on the words "original", "authentic", "fresh", is only semantics, a question of interpretation. Depending on individual perspective, they can all mean the same thing.

An original story to me is one thathas not been told before, in that form and with thos characters. The emotions, locations, charcater types etc are the ingredients: they may have gone before, but that particular story has not.

I don't consider it "stealing", for instance, to use the setting of a teenager growing up in 60's British Guiana.

It's just one ingredient that goes into the creation of a story that may or may not have been told before. So that Jim Jarmuth quote doesn't sum it up for me -- I think it's rather far-fetched, in fact.

aruna · Apr 29, 2015

Putputt said:
I see originality in fiction as "something which is unexpected". It's not technically correct I guess, but that definition works for me.

I can agree with this definition.

mccardey · Apr 29, 2015

Lillith1991 said:
I can't help but think the sort of "originality" (IE. Something 100% original with no conenction, inspiration, or any ties to another story.) that is strived for an touted as the highest manifestation originality, is nothing more than a no true scotsman fallacy. To me it says: You're not a real writer until you concieve of and write an idea that isn't the same as anything else except for genre. Which I think is complete and utter silliness,

To be fair, I don't think I've ever heard that said.

If it has been said, i'd agree that it's very silly.

aruna · Apr 29, 2015

mccardey said:
To be fair, I don't think I've ever heard that said.

If it has been said, i'd agree that it's very silly.

Ditto.

Lillith1991 · Apr 29, 2015

aruna said:
I am pretty confident in distinguishing between original and non-original works, as I have done both. All of my novels, seven in all, are original. Even if some of the characters are "inspired by" real people and their lives, the stories are completely made up and have a trajectory ("plot") that is unlike any other story out there.. Which may seem like a wild and even arrogant claim, based on the OP, but it is true -- I would challenge anyone to read one of those books and tell me what other book has the same core premise, what book it is based on.

And then I wrote a new version of the Mahabharata, probably the oldest (and longest) book in existence. In this case, I took the core story and rewrote it in my own words. So I would not descibe my Sons of Gods as original.

Yet I don't think my "original" works are better than my non-original. Not by a long shot. I undertook SoG because I truly think it's the most magnificent story ever, and I merely wed restructured, and told in different words. It's my favourite of all my works, and I think the most important. So I think you are wrong to ascribe snobbism to those who claim to write original works. It's a completely different form of writing, but is not better or worse than a work that is a basic idea, rewritten in a different form. If I could save just one of my books for posterity, it would be SoG.

So I would say: it depends. A non-original work can be utterly brilliant, a fantastic story, even if it is completely modelled on something that has gone before.
An original work stands or falls on the story itself It's good or bad because of what it is, not solely because it is "original".

Just my 2c.

I'm not ascribing snobbism to the desire to be original, but to such hypocritical thinking. Because the same people that claim premises or ideas are so common and unimportant, will go on and on about how important they are when faced with something that takes a similar premise to something and takes it in an entirely different way than other people are going. Why is premise/idea suddenly important then?

Samsonet · Apr 30, 2015

I have such a hard time with originality in my work. Like, I can tell myself that there's no copyright on ideas, and it's my work that makes it original, but at the same time there's a little voice going "Hey, you got that from this book. And look, now you're using another part of the same book for your other story. And hey, what would your favorite author think of you when they realize your story is like an AU version of theirs? Hm, Sammy? What then?"

And don't get me started on the voice that says retelling another story is "such a waste of imagination, Sam, you can do so much better!"

...I might have been having trouble with my inner editor recently...

aruna · Apr 30, 2015

Lillith1991 said:
I'm not ascribing snobbism to the desire to be original, but to such hypocritical thinking. Because the same people that claim premises or ideas are so common and unimportant, will go on and on about how important they are when faced with something that takes a similar premise to something and takes it in an entirely different way than other people are going. Why is premise/idea suddenly important then?

This is very vague, Lilith. I don't know these people. Who are they? Can you give concrete examples? I can't really follow your argument. I'm a bit slow today...

For me it is all about the execution. Someone who story of Red Riding Hood in all its details -- ie more than the premise or idea; the exact story -- and rewrites it in an original and exciting adult version (I don't mean sexual with "adult") might not have been original, but is as good a writer as someone who makes up a new story from scratch.

Lillith1991 · Apr 30, 2015

Samsonet said:
I have such a hard time with originality in my work. Like, I can tell myself that there's no copyright on ideas, and it's my work that makes it original, but at the same time there's a little voice going "Hey, you got that from this book. And look, now you're using another part of the same book for your other story. And hey, what would your favorite author think of you when they realize your story is like an AU version of theirs? Hm, Sammy? What then?"

And don't get me started on the voice that says retelling another story is "such a waste of imagination, Sam, you can do so much better!"

...I might have been having trouble with my inner editor recently...

I call that the inner critic, and I think yours needs to meet mine. I've pretty much got her butt kicked, now she just let's me work and decide if something is meeting my standards of originality.

Lillith1991 · Apr 30, 2015

aruna said:
This is very vague, Lilith. I don't know these people. Who are they? Can you give concrete examples?

For me it is all about the execution. Someone who story of Red Riding Hood in all its details -- ie more than the premise or idea; the exact story -- and rewrites it in an original and exciting adult version (I don't mean sexual with "adult") might not have been original, but is as good a writer as someone who makes up a new story from scratch.

As in members on this forum you mean? If so, then no. The members of AW for the most part don't give me this impression. I've encountered it once or twice in my year on this forum, but I couldn't tell you names.

If you mean other people, then one of my writer friends definitly shares this view I'm describing that bugs me. And she isn't alone, because I've come across other people in real life who share the same view that also write. I think this is perfectly illustrated by how many new writers come to here and other forums extremely worried about originality, they didn't get the idea on their own. Where they got it from is from other people in real life they may know who write who have that attitude, or their fellow fans of some a genre that praise something original and could be better, while condeming something "unoriginal" but perfected and honed to razor sharpness.

I'll use the TV show Star Crossed, which was razor sharp in execution in my view and yet tends to get negative reviews. They did all these things that were inovative, or took something existing and did it in an invoative way. But yet, the complaint is about it being a R&J ripoff. Which it isn't, it's an adaptation that takes the essennce of it and uses it. The premise if you will. The only characters 100% for sure from R&J are the mcs Emery and Roman, you can't even tell with the others. You could possibly link Roman's father's death to the death of Mercutio if you really wanted because it serves a similar purpose in the narative, but he most certainly isn't just a rip off of the play Merc.

Anyway.... point is that it has all these awesome and original or rarely seen things included in it (How many SF TV shows have aliens which literally are racially diverse as us within a single species? I know that I've never seen that despite an extreme love of SF TV shows.) but people like to call it an R&J ripoff. And don't get me started on the movie Avatar, which gets the same treatment. All while these same people praise Peter Jackson for adding Tauriel despite the fact he felt he had to force a love triangle with her, instead of just letting her be a competent warrior elf that was female.

Jamesaritchie · Apr 30, 2015

Lillith1991 said:
I'm not ascribing snobbism to the desire to be original, but to such hypocritical thinking. Because the same people that claim premises or ideas are so common and unimportant, will go on and on about how important they are when faced with something that takes a similar premise to something and takes it in an entirely different way than other people are going. Why is premise/idea suddenly important then?

Who says this? Premise/idea is never important because it is NOT premise and idea that takes something in an entirely different direction. If it were, you could easily point to any number of completely original and unique premises and ideas. It can't be done.

Going in a new direction does not make premise/idea important at all. Execution makes something original.

Jamesaritchie · Apr 30, 2015

Ideas are completely meaningless, but I think we agree on one point. It's all in the execution. Nothing is as original as a good story, well-told.

But there's also another factor. There may be no new ideas, but new truths are discovered regularly. So are new ways of saying old things. Sometimes true originality is saying something old in a new way that lets people better understand it.

mccardey · Apr 30, 2015

Jamesaritchie said:
But there's also another factor. There may be no new ideas, but new truths are discovered regularly. So are new ways of saying old things. Sometimes true originality is saying something old in a new way that lets people better understand it.

I think this nails it.

Also - new characters are created all the time. Slot them into old premises or ideas and new things will happen.

Lillith1991 · Apr 30, 2015

mccardey said:
I think this nails it.

Also - new characters are created all the time. Slot them into old premises or ideas and new things will happen.

My thougbts exactly! Move around when your "Mercutio" dies in the story, make some form of tech more important or less so than it was in such and such a book/movie/TV show, play up the parallels to racism by having an alien race be just like us and diverse as us. How you do that will be dictated by these new characters you've created, but it will happen if they're a character and not a simple chess piece.

gingerwoman · Apr 30, 2015

aruna said:
I am pretty confident in distinguishing between original and non-original works, as I have done both. All of my novels, seven in all, are original. Even if some of the characters are "inspired by" real people and their lives, the stories are completely made up and have a trajectory ("plot") that is unlike any other story out there.. Which may seem like a wild and even arrogant claim, based on the OP, but it is true -- I would challenge anyone to read one of those books and tell me what other book has the same core premise, what book it is based on.

And then I wrote a new version of the Mahabharata, probably the oldest (and longest) book in existence. In this case, I took the core story and rewrote it in my own words. So I would not descibe my Sons of Gods as original.

It's still your own original work, a creative retelling of an ancient story isn't "unoriginal".

kuwisdelu · Apr 30, 2015

True originality is writing something that you and only you can write.

Lillith1991 · May 1, 2015

kuwisdelu said:
True originality is writing something that you and only you can write.

And to piggy back off of this, sometimes that includes writing a retelling that only you can write because only you would think of the new element or take things down a new path. I write a lot of mixed white-Black, and Black characters which are LGBT. Mainly because I don't really see many of them in the genres I love, I want representation for myself and others like me, and I like writing it.

aruna · May 1, 2015

kuwisdelu said:
True originality is writing something that you and only you can write.

Lillith1991 said:
And to piggy back off of this, sometimes that includes writing a retelling that only you can write because only you would think of the new element or take things down a new path.

Both these statements are correct.

In my case, I took one of the characters from the original story and slanted the whole book to move him from villain to anti-villain -- a character readers will love, with some extraordinary qualities. No other retelling of the same book did this -- and yet the basic story remains the same, and I would never claim my version as original. It's just been tweaked here and there, cut here and there, the words chosen carefully to bring about that end.

Lillith1991 · May 2, 2015

aruna said:
Both these statements are correct.

In my case, I took one of the characters from the original story and slanted the whole book to move him from villain to anti-villain -- a character readers will love, with some extraordinary qualities. No other retelling of the same book did this -- and yet the basic story remains the same, and I would never claim my version as original. It's just been tweaked here and there, cut here and there, the words chosen carefully to bring about that end.

I think it's a degree thing that we're talking about. Had you modified it so much people couldn't tell it was based on the original, I would likely call it original whether you felt it was or not. But only because there was so much more work put in than goes into more obvious adaptations and retellings.

blacbird · May 2, 2015

or-i-gin-al-i-ty n. Something just like all the other stuff, but different.

-- Blacbird's Unabridged Dictionary,, 2015 ed.

caw

Ravioli · May 3, 2015

I often have pseudo-deep discussions with myself on that exact topic. I think originality as a requirement is overrated, unless it is a very specific kind of originality.

I mean, even unoriginal stuff can be fun and enlightening.
Paulo Coelho's Alchemist didn't strike me as original, for example: dude gets bored with his life, wants more, sets out on journey, gets messed with, learns lessons, falls in love, moves on, finds dark, mysterious master, uses his knowledge against bad guys, learns profound lesson, the end. Done before. But it was still a good read and Coelho's style set it apart from similar reads.

We cannot invent anything from scratch. Nothing is 100% original. We can't even design a 100% original, new, never-seen-before creature, because things that are alive, things with any number of legs or lack thereof, sentient things, etc. have been done before.
We can't invent a story the likes of which have never been told before, because it always involves a development, even if it's just the character doing nothing but there being a beginning and an end.
Our brain will always use what it has already seen, no matter how little or how much of it.

All we do, all we invent and create, we do because our brain is capable of building from the memory of something we have encountered before. We couldn't even invent a 1-legged creature if we hadn't been introduced to the concept of legs before. We are all using inspiration to create, some specific - story A based on story B, or character C inspired by event D - and some naturally, such as creating a creature with 5 eyes because we've seen eyes on creatures before and know they go well together.

So while everything's been done before in terms of its elements/components, we can be original in execution or the overall, finished work. Like, giving it a twist. Of course, the twist element is also something you've seen before or else you wouldn't know it exists, but in combination with the other elements, it may be new-ish. For example, setting your callboy in an Arab village in a dystopian Israel and making his repeatedly described as gorgeous wife, short and fat. Fat women exist, Arab villages exist, dystopia exists, and sex work exists, but does the combination?
Lions exist and the color blue exists, but do blue lions?
Here is where originality can happen. To have the strawberries with mustard rather than whipped cream.

I still advise not to tell the agent that your project is of a never-seen-before quality/nature

What is originality?

The Hobbit-Vulcan hybrid

Sick and pale with grief.

Independent fluffy puppy.

On a wing and a prayer

permanently suctioned to Buz's leg

On a wing and a prayer

On a wing and a prayer

On a wing and a prayer

The Hobbit-Vulcan hybrid

Just visiting

On a wing and a prayer

The Hobbit-Vulcan hybrid

The Hobbit-Vulcan hybrid

The Hobbit-Vulcan hybrid

Revolutionize the World

The Hobbit-Vulcan hybrid

On a wing and a prayer

The Hobbit-Vulcan hybrid

Crazy Cat Lady