literature

The Story - Originality

Deviation Actions

CobraToon's avatar
By
Published:
515 Views

Literature Text

It's really very depressing as an aspiring writer to hear people say that well-known phrase, "Everything has been done before." Of course in a sense they're right, every piece of fiction out there might rightly be called a variation on Boy saves Girl from Dragon. Our very idea of a story often entails some kind of hero or protagonist, some kind of villain or antagonist, and lastly the person or thing that brings the two into conflict with each other. Conflict is the essence of drama and drama is why we tell stories.

On a side note, why else are all those old tried-and-true stories so often re-done? Simply because they are tried-and-true. The story about a ragtag band of heroes that somehow save the world is so popular because it's easy, works well and is useful. Why are they ragtag and not, say, well-organized and highly competent? Because the conflict among the ragtag band of heroes leads to the desired drama. The story of an unlikely hero rising to great fame and power is another popular concept, but why does he go from rags to riches? Not only does it mirror the rising action that is so great for creating drama, but it's also something we the readers like and want to read about.

There is no such thing as the writer who isn't well-read or at least has a lot of life experiences, no such thing as the person who has never heard a story until the day they pen a masterpiece. Fiction comes from fact or from other fiction, in other words ideas come from somewhere and don't just pop out from the aether. But that doesn't mean they aren't a variation on the source idea, it doesn't mean they can't seem fresh and new. No author has had the exact same life experiences as another author, and so even when one bases their work on another it will still be something new, a new combination of old idea and different author.

Although perhaps it wasn't quite true before when I said ideas never just pop into existence, totally new and unheard of. I know I have experienced moments like that, times when it felt like the characters were talking through me, when it felt like they were real people with their own ideas and life experiences I have never had. Sometime a character will seem to be acting in a way I wasn't intending, but I'll let it happen and see where it goes, see what it means and how it plays out. Because people are like that, they do and say things we didn't expect and that's what makes them real and different people and not just variations on ourselves. Sometimes when writing I'll have this completely random idea when unsure where to go next, and I'll try it out, and it'll work and I'll keep it.

But it would be wrong to say those ideas truly came from nowhere. The human brain is a powerful object, able to make connections at a level we on the surface never consciously realize. So all those well-read authors out there, even when they feel like an idea is completely original, are probably mistaken. That original idea, that random moment, that character quirk, all of it probably comes from somewhere deep within their brain, which in turn takes it from some half-remembered story heard long ago. There is no such thing as the author who isn't well-read. Why? Because ideas come from somewhere, even if we aren't aware of it.

I propose a scale of originality. Instead of despairing that there will never be anything truly new, something truly different from the tried-and-tested Boy saves Girl from Dragon, we should instead despair if there is ever a lack of work trying for some degree of originality. I'll say the scale has five levels, with level one being the most original and level five the least. If there is ever only level five material being made, maybe a little level four too, then and only then should we feel despair. Although level one material has its own problems, as we will see; mainly we should hope that there is always lots of levels two and three material, which I would say is generally true.

Level five material might be called the Now Out In HD category. This is literally an old work brought out again for a new time, perhaps having been "remastered" or as a "collectors edition." There is nothing new here, we are simply buying the same thing again. If "remastered" it may look a bit better this time, if a "collectors edition" we may get some behind-the-scenes documentaries, but the core story remains exactly the same. There is no (or very little) originality here, but that may not be a bad thing, we may be getting something that was hard to find before or that was on a now-defunct medium. If the only way you can watch some old favorite Disney movie is with a VCR from the attic, maybe it's time to purchase the updated DVD version.

Level four is the homage or the parody. This isn't just one small snippet that pays tribute to that other story, this is where the entire story has been taken and then made slightly different through the addition of something, often comedy. Star Wars was a great, very serious film series, while Spaceballs was a great, very funny parody. Or consider the "faithful retelling," where an old story is given new life with updated ideas and very little change to the story. Romeo and Juliet has received several of these treatments, oftentimes taking every line of dialogue straight from the source but putting it all in a more-modern-day setting. There can be anything from just a little to quite a lot of originality here, but the main point is that the story is unoriginal exactly because the writers wanted to have a strong connection to what they are paying homage to.

Level three is the same basic plot but with a different world or cast of characters. Anytime someone says, "Well, The Simpsons already did it," you know it's of level three originality. And yeah, maybe the Simpsons did already do that particular thing, but is there anything wrong with that? The Simpsons have done a lot of things, and just because said new show is doing that thing does not make the new show unoriginal. There's a different cast of characters that will respond in different ways, a different world with different values and different potential consequences, probably a different writer with different life experiences. Even if, "The Simpsons already did it," said new show is not The Simpsons and so shouldn't be called unoriginal for having at one point a slightly similar episode. Now, sometimes a show doing one of those, "The Simpsons already did it" episodes will stay a bit too close to what The Simpsons did, but that's probably because it's an homage and so less original!

Level two is where most fiction goes, taking little pieces from here and there out in the world to add to and create the story. The character with a funny accent might be just like the writer's uncle, the setting may be one well-known to the writer and full of artifacts from the other version, the big idea may be one gleaned from a dozen of the author's favorite books as a child. That old adage, "Write what you know" is true simply because we can only write what we know, there is nothing else to write about besides the things we know of. Notice that we can tell a story featuring, for example, a nine-legged man only because we have the ideas of what it means to be a man and what it means to have legs. So we can write about things that don't exist, but only when we can do so with some idea to base them on.

Level one originality is very hard to do, but then rightly so. Purely original thought must be completely unlike anything ever seen or heard before, must be utterly alien to our minds. We come close when we invent new words, because to invent a word means simply to give a set of symbols some meaning that was not yet expressed by an already-existing word. The beast named Jabberwocky was, I believe, close to being level one original but only because the beast is barely described, give it more description and you might realize, "Oh, that's just a tiger." Along the same idea, any meaningless gibberish phrase is technically "original" simply because it is meaningless, there are no attached meanings.

In closing, I think it might be helpful to think about how these different levels of originality are often received. Level five might be very well received, but then we didn't expect originality from it and mainly just got it because, say, we wanted a DVD instead of a tape. Level four is well-received if done well, if it respects the original or alternatively if it points out the real flaws in the original. Level three is where criticism is most often heard, after all it's just like that other one but probably worse we assume. Level two is generally viewed based on its own merits, so the appreciation can vary greatly. Level one generally goes one of two ways, either being called absolute nonsense meaningless gibberish or genius high art work. What I take from this is that being less original is safer, while being more original is riskier and potentially more rewarding.

This occurred to me the other day after watching One Piece. Nami crashed their landing cruiser into Thriller Bark off-screen and was now trying to explain herself to Usopp and Chopper, but ended up having nothing to say so struck a pose and said that even though it was all her fault, they should just forgive her because she was cute. Usopp then said … he was going to slap her? What was going on here, why are they talking like this? Then I realized the writers were probably just paying homage to some well-known (in Japan, I assume, cause I didn't get it) comedy show, they were mirroring some common exchange from somewhere else for fun.

Now since this is one of my sorta-scholarly works, any discussion would be highly prized and quickly responded to. I care about what I've written here and would be very receptive to hearing what you think about it. Also, if you know what that scene from episode 339 of One Piece between Nami and Usopp is referring to, or you can offer absolute proof that it actually isn't based on anything, I'd be glad to know because it has me very curious.

I've heard this one idea several times now on DA with slight variation, that of, “I wish I could tell original stories!” At hearing this, I should probably point them to this piece. By a very strict definition of originality there are probably no truly original works, original in this case meaning a work inspired by no other previous works; being called original by a critic can still be considered reasonable praise if what the critic meant is that the work didn't borrow as obviously as an unoriginal work. In other words, originality must be on a scale to make sense, going from absolutely original to exactly the same. Between those two points is a lot of space, and so we need a point at which something on that scale can be called artistically original, the obvious point being when we cannot easily tell that the work is unoriginal. And is there really anything so bad about a less-than-perfectly-original work? No two creative people are exactly the same in the way they create, even a copycat will have quirks all their own. Here's a legitimate way to practice your writing: take a book, preferably one you know well, and then every day read one page and re-write that page in your own words. Do it paragraph by paragraph if you have to. The plot and characters may turn out the same but you will be using your own ways of describing, your own writing style and quirks, your own words with their own unique connotations. Anyone reading your version will still be reading a book that should feel new to them, you will have created a less-than-original work that can still entertain someone who has read the original. Do I like my The Story piece on originality? Definitely, it's easily one of my favorite of my The Story group for its clear purpose and eventual countdown approach to describing the different levels of originality. What did I learn? A system of rating originality, which I've used in DA critiques.

Comments0
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In