Someone else did it better so now I'm stuck.

Many years ago, I was so excited about the novel I was writing. The protagonist could see dead people. Then “Sixth Sense” came out, and suddenly dead people were everywhere. I finished the novel but ultimately trunked it because I didn’t have the heart to edit it. In hindsight, I realize my novel was completely different in plot and characterization. The other posters are right... Pretty much everything has been done before.

Yeah, I had the idea of a (I swear this is true) blue, time-traveling box. The characters even fought aliens and one was part-alien. About two years later I watched Doctor Who. Sigh. I mean, nothing else was the same, but it did strike me as funny that this happened. The novel was doomed anyways, so I don't feel too bad about leaving it.

Lots of plots are already used. As long as your characters, themes, setting, premise is different I don't think people will mind.

As an example of two stories being quite similar, but in the end, very different, I'd like to suggest you watch two movies:

The Machine, which came out in 2013, and Ex Machina, which was released in 2014. Both are about "Constructed Intelligence", or androids that are self-aware. ( I have issues with the term "Artificial Intelligence", for reasons I wont go into here. )

In both films, the female android's name is Ava. In the first one, it's a government project that's developing this "device", in the second, a private individual. In both cases, people underestimate the androids, basically have no idea what they're dealing with, and end up dead, while the "machines" end up free and out in the world.

And that's about where the similarities end.
Caity Lotz is Ava in The Machine, and Alicia Vikander is Ava in Ex Machina. Both do an excellent job with their respective roles, in my opinion.

So, if you wanna see just how different the same idea and concept can be, look 'em up and see for yourself.
( NetFlix has Ex Machina right now, but I don't know where you might find The Machine. )


O.H.

rinnika said:

Ten people can say the same story, but they'll all say it slightly differently.

Click to expand...

Sounds like my mother's side of the family when you're trying to get a story out them. Everyone is the victim in their retelling and everyone else is the villain. Who would have thought something as simple as going to a party could suddenly develop so many sides and conflicts. LOL!

But that's the thing. A party is a party, you can't get too creative writing about party. It's the characters that make the party; it's what is said at the party that makes the difference. It's the backstory of the people there, the grudges they have against each other and so forth. And it's the same with any story. A story is a story, a setting is a setting, but it's the characters that make the story what it is.

Would you rethink writing a western because other people have written westerns? Or would you decide to take out the Indians from the western because other westerns have Indian characters? No, you wouldn't. When you choose a story, a bag of cliché's comes with it, you have no choice. Those are often the building blocks of the story and you can't really be without them anymore than a computer can function without its motherboard or memory chips.

Write your story. If there's anything glaring and uncomfortable tweek only the minor details, but not the big ones that make your story what it is. If ancient civilizations could come back and look at our fiction they'd probably say we stole those ideas from their oral traditions or ancient writings.

"There's nothing new under the sun."

When one thinks up an idea, and it turns out that everyone else has also just thought up that idea--that's good! This is proof that one is in tune with the times! Just put a personal twist on it and onward and upward.

When one thinks up an idea, and it turns out that the giants of fifty years ago already did it--that's good! This is proof that one is thinking like the greats! Therefore the general movement is in the right direction.

The thing is to not get cought up in rigid definitions of "better" and "worse". Any town has at least half a dozen guitar players and drummers etc., who are "better" than the pop stars of today. And yet no one has ever heard of these "better" peeps, except their parents and romantic partners. While almost identical peeps who play their instruments worse, and whose ideas are very uncommercial, are still cult stars across the world's underground scene.

So "better", in writing as well as music, can be very relative. It includes technique, and ideas, but that's not all. Presentation and stucture can be even more important, both in pop star level of success, and modest loyal cult following level of success.

Lol, I thought I was the only as she stared at the hairy whiskers that floated about a snarling, set of pointed teeth that dripped saliva. Ok, ok, watch. She reared her head back and howled. The very familiar transformation caught him off gaurd and made himself shift back into human form. Which was a shame, since she ripped into his chest and ripped his heart out. Lol, I told you I was the only one. That is typing on the fly with no clue where it's going.

how many plots

Dennis E. Taylor said:

Hmm, yes, a lot of people confuse "That's the first book I've read with that plot" and "That's the first book that's used that plot." I was accused (probably too strong a word) of copying any of several different prior books when Legion was published. But all of those books could be considered "copies" of other books that were published even earlier.

The Martian is just warmed-over Robinson Crusoe, if you want to get into that mindset. But I've read both, and enjoyed them in different ways.

Click to expand...

Depending on the source most of them claim there are from 1 or 2 to about 50 plots with the average in the one or two dozen range.
Everything else is just changing the details. Different characters, settings, time frames, methods, and motivations.
One book did claim to have several thousand that with variations it also noted came up to a couple million stories.

BradCarsten said:

It happens all the time. If you try to avoid anything similar you will drive yourself to drink. I create massive biped bull type creatures called Tauroks- a variation of Taurus the bull. I read the Wheel of Time and discover large animal-like bipeds, (some with bull features) called Trollocs.
I have massive dog-like creatures called Feyhounds with long snouts that pin a man up against a tree and gorge his insides. I read Sword of truth and there are large dog-like creatures with long snouts that eat a man's heart, called Hellhounds.
At one stage I stopped reading fantasy because every time I read a book I discovered something similar to mine.
You may get a few comments from people who don't understand that there is nothing truly original, just like you got people accusing Eragon of being a copy of Starwars, which is actually just the hero's journey, but there's nothing you can do about it. Write the book you want to write.

Click to expand...

Better is a misnomer.
Here's my point, My stepson loves the way I use words in my story. Have they been used before, sure they have. It's all about structure. Your writing style may appeal better to certain people, that in turn will captivate them. There would never be any new movies if they concede to the fact that it's been done before.

My thought is usually: 'So Writer A wrote it better than I can, but I can probably write it better than Writer B.'

Filigree said:

My thought is usually: 'So Writer A wrote it better than I can, but I can probably write it better than Writer B.'

Click to expand...

My thoughts sometimes are: "I can write characters on the level of a second-rate writer A; plots like a second-rate writer B; and descriptions like a second-rate writer C, but if I combine these elements the right way, the whole will be more than the sum of its parts and I'll have a kick ass individual style."

Hah! Try writing light-hearted/comic fantasy and having an idea that Terry Pratchett hasn't already had!

I created some playful gnome-like creatures called "Wheegles". I knew that TP had little fellers in "The Wee Free Men", but I have just discovered that his are "Nac Mac Feegles"; which is a bummer. Thank heavens for find and replace, I shall just have to think of another name - the Wheegles are instrumental.

No book is 100% new or original. Don't worry too much about it. Finish your book.

Some people complain about books and movies that are Romeo and Juliet rip-offs. But guess what? Romeo and Juliet was a rip-off of a poem by Arthur Brooke called "The Tragicall Historye of Romeus and Iuliet". Shakespeare didn't come up with that stuff. He just saw the potential to take the premise of a so-so poem and tweak it into a successful play.

Harry Potter wasn't the first kid to go to witchcraft school either. And he sure as heck wasn't the first underdog hero to battle evil and win.

Shoot. The story of Noah's Ark was lifted from the Epic of Gilgamesh. This has been going on since the dawn of time.

Sometimes I think people try to make their stories TOO original. The tried and true archetypes are tried and true for a reason. Sure, put a fresh spin on it, but there's no need to reinvent the wheel (even if it's a space station).

PamelaC said:

Sometimes I think people try to make their stories TOO original. The tried and true archetypes are tried and true for a reason. Sure, put a fresh spin on it, but there's no need to reinvent the wheel (even if it's a space station).

Click to expand...

Excellent observation. I'll add that I think too many try too hard to focus on details of plot and setting and the cast of characters and, especially in the Fantasy genre, what kinds of nonhuman entities are to populate the story, etc. In contrast to focusing on the nature of the basic themes of the story itself, things like revenge, jealousy, love, avarice, etc. Those are the stuff that makes a story fly, more than any details about plot.

caw

blacbird said:

Excellent observation. I'll add that I think too many try too hard to focus on details of plot and setting and the cast of characters and, especially in the Fantasy genre, what kinds of nonhuman entities are to populate the story, etc. In contrast to focusing on the nature of the basic themes of the story itself, things like revenge, jealousy, love, avarice, etc. Those are the stuff that makes a story fly, more than any details about plot.

caw

Click to expand...

I absolutely agree. I love Harry Potter, Game of Thrones, and The Hobbit/The Lord of the Rings, but I struggle with more obscure/lesser known fantasies where it seems like the author spent up all of his/her effort coming up with brand new worlds, creatures, and systems of magic....but forgot to create characters for me to care about in a story to which I relate. I find books like that so superficial and unsatisfying, and usually abandon them a couple of chapters in.

There has to be a heart and soul to the story first. All of the worldbuilding and plot outlining and snarky dialogue in the world isn't going to make up for the lack of a good story.