(I looked in the Index to find that there was nothing listed there about how to write originally)
Some people will say that there is no such thing as originality, that everything you write has already been written in one way or another.
Children going to another world(already done by hundreds), vampires(which IS being written into thousands of books by Twilight fans), wizards, and so forth.
But I know that it is still possible to write originally.
I think that it is okay to write a few things that have already been done as long as you can twist it so much that it is so different than the average child-goes-to-another-world-plot or whichever plot you may be wanting to write upon.
I think that only original books stand out. What made them original? They didn't copy. They looked inside themselves for pieces of their personality, their own unique imagination, and what moral they believed was important to them, and pulled out original plot that they themselves would like to read in a book.
I have realized one thing. God likes making new things. He never makes one person exactly like the other, which means that every single person is different on the inside enough to all write original books if they didn't copy from others. At least, that's my theory...
I wanted to know people's opinions on this subject.
Do you think it is possible to be original in a world of copying and rip-offs? If we can actually be original enough to stand out, our work will probably stand out.
What are some ways to be original?

Depends on your definition of original, I'd say.

By the way, I love how you put that since we're all different we can write original stories, I think that's quite right.

My world has some cliches in it, for example dwarves that live "under" or in mountains and mine precious stones and metals (to me, that is what dwarves are, to have them be much different would mess it up for me), and use runes.
But, they will be different in other ways as I develop them more, as I figure out their form of government, the different factions in their race, who they are friendly with and how they work with those other races (or manage to exist without any help), I am bound to use these "cliche" ingredients in a way that pertains best, if not only, to my brand of dwarves.

So yeah, I think we can all be original, while using things that people see as cliche, such as dwarves, so long as you do a good job fitting them to your world and story.

To be honest, I don't think originality comes from the plot. I think your characters and the world you create are what makes a book stand out as original.

Yeah, I didn't mean to say that it only comes from the plot (though a plot made out of cliches probably isn't the best idea, at least in some cases). Characters can be really complex and make you forget that they have any sort of stereotype at all.

As one of the fanfiction authors I follow puts it, quoting Ecclesiastes, "There is nothing new under the sun." Originality---as much as it is generally possible for us---in my view, consists in mixing together elements and influences from many sources (rather than only a few), especially if some of those sources are obscure, and combining them in a way that seems original to readers rather than creating something utterly new or partiularly inventive. Sometimes the things that seem most inventive are in fact almost entirely derivative, but with a twist or two.

I agree, good thoughts.

Thanks! At least, in one way it can be original, if we use our unique voice in our writing.
Your world sounds cool! Not many people write about Dwarves and their world and their stories as main characters. There was this one book that had dwarves in it (the Emerald Atlas, if you'd like to look it up), but they sound very different than what you are writing.
It is true that Hunger Games is not completely original because the subject of having to kill others in games in order to live has been done before, it just hadn't been done in a while (I think), and was different in other ways.
Not one book can be completely original... but there is at least a little bit of original heart in a few (if not most) books.

That makes sense, I just need to develop mine still.



Thank you! I hadn't thought of that...but now that I think about it you're right, there aren't that many Dwarf MCs (I don't think I've ever encountered one even). Also, that is something I want to do, I want to have MCs from each race (spread out through different books of course).



That sounds interesting, thanks! I might read that one sometime.

God is the only original. Everything else is derived from Him.

Just as has already been said, "There is nothing new under the sun." And there doesn't need to be.

Human nature doesn't change either, and so there are certain themes that can be found in the oldest legends, that will continue to be written about until the world ends.

The point of our writing is not to be original, but to touch reader's hearts, and that is not done by inventing something shiny and new (which isn't possible anyway), but by dusting off timeless truths that will always resonate.

I totally back that up, Willow.

I agree too. That is a scripture verse in Ecclesiastes. It is true. Nothing in our books are new. Our characters come from our own personality and thoughts and people we've met and fictional characters we've heard or seen or read about, and all of us came from God in the first place.
And yes. The most important thing about our stories are its morals, and what it will teach the reader. Because books are very influencing in this time and age.

Back to the subject of originality though, someone once said that we can still create the illusion of originality, so that readers will feel it is fresh and not old and they may feel that the world within it is new. That's what makes me want to read a book (along with gripping scenes like those in the Restorer books by Sharon Hinck).
I tried reading Eragon and just couldn't get into it because I didn't feel any newness of its world/story (probably because the movie spoiled it for me..... ugh). Maybe I haven't given it enough of a chance.
Anyway...

I think you have to define what new means to you. Of course it's impossible to have something completely new and unimagineable, because we wouldn't be able to write it or even think about writing it. I don't care how creative you get, you're still using colors, sizes, textures, etc that already exist. In that sense your invention isn't new at all. But have those ingredients ever been combined exactly in that way? If not, then that is what I call original. Of course there are different levels of originality, but anyway...sorry about the mini-ramble, please correct me if my definitions are wrong.

It's not just descriptions that make something "new". Yes, a certain mix or characteristics/"ingredients" may have the illusion of being slightly different. I guess I'm still trying to figure it out...

If writers realize the hopelessness of being original, they may take advantage of that fact and begin to little by little add stuff into their books that they loved in something else they saw or read, kinda making their stories less original than before (that was me *wince*). I nearly added time travel to my stories just because it would have been awesome. But it would have ruined the story with all the holes in the theory and I wouldn't be able to think straight trying to figure out the time travel methods and rules myself.

In my fantasy world, there's this waterfall. Recently we went to see this beautiful one that was tall and everything but it wasn't Angel falls or anyplace like that - but it reminded me of my book's world. The green, the rocks, the white mist, the water that roared so loud you had to yell to be heard. Even though it wasn't new, it was beautiful in my story. And not too many books focus on trying to make the descriptions pleasant to read so that the reader can experience it. So I guess that's one facet of originality's illusion - a different style of writing.

I thought if you were writing it, description was the only way to have it in the story. I'm saying every "new" thing we can think up will be made up of "ingredients" that are not new, but may be "original" in the sense that you've never heard of anything like it...

Very true! We humans can only use things that have been created! We may do something like an animal that has a tail like a elephant a head like a monkey and a body like a horse, and no one else may have done exactly that, but even though we have thought it up, we can really only use what exists.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant...the design can be "original" in the sense that it hasn't been done (at least not exactly the same way) before, but it's still made up of things that exist and, therefore, aren't "new".

I found this quote by C S Lewis online without meaning to, and I think it speaks for itself.
"Even in literature and art, no man who bothers about originality will ever be original: whereas if you simply try to tell the truth (without caring twopence how often it has been told before) you will, nine times out of ten, become original without ever having noticed it."

There is a difference between something "old" and something that feels "cliche".

I actually enjoy an old feel to a story, because sometimes the oldness gives it a backstory or a history that lends more depth to the tale, as in the case of C.S. Lewis in "That Hideous Strength". He uses a very old motif of Merlin and Arthurian legend, in order to get across ideas which were not originally part of that cycle. The point is though to give the oldness a different twist than is usually expected.


Characters are a really good way of doing this. If you have good character depth, and emotion, and personality, well...everyone is unique! And so a differently developed character can make an old story seem fresh.

I agree with that differentiation...I also like old (as in familiar-ish) story plots/etc.

I guess I'm still learning...
But yes I totally agree with that.

We are all learning, and you sparked a good discussion.

I've been listening to the Tolkien Professor lectures(from another topic on here viewtopic.php?f=21&t=6725 )
and there's something interesting about originality in them.
Tolkien was saying that we don't invent or create stories, we discover them. And stories are like leaves on a tree. None of them are alike. They all are different. We won't be original, but we can't write something that isn't original because we ourselves are unique. Like our finger prints; they look alike but upon closer inspection each are different.
So, I guess(like from previous posts), we shouldn't try to be original, but at the same time we shouldn't copy from others' works, or at least we shouldn't try to put original elements from other stories into our stories because that would make their story no longer have that original element.
It is impossible to make something original but what we write will be different from others' books.

That is an awesome perspective on the issue. Especially since just today I realized that the premise for my latest "novel" is scarily similar to Ted Dekker's Black.

The thing is, what's "copying" in the context of worldbuilding? (Copying of text with no or minimal modification is another matter entirely ...) Using something that somebody else apparently invented doesn't make that story no longer have it, though if you don't "twist" it enough you'll appear derivative and unoriginal to anyone who's seen the original. Tolkien's description of elves as tall, wise, quasi-immortal beings rather than mischevious sprites was about as original as anything is in fiction, but has now become a staple (or "stock character") of the genre---if I have elves that resemble Tolkien's in those and a few other respects but are substantially different in other important ways, some critics might say that I was "copying" Tolkien (or, more likely, some yet more recent author whom I haven't read ), while I and others would say that I was "drawing on" his work.

You raise a good point, kingjon, namely, people's varying perspectives. One might accuse you of copying, while another might look at your work and see in it a tribute to Tolkien. It's all subjective.

In regards to using other people's inventions, I think that's part of the world of writing. Look at all the multi-used beasts and beings in fantasy, ones that had a beginning somewhere: unicorns, dragons, elves, dwarves, witches, wizards. It's impossible to create a world of entirely new inventions, which automatically means we have to draw inspiration from somewhere else. The key is in the implementation. Elves and dwarves are fine as long as they are your elves and dwarves, departed enough from the original that it wouldn't seem like a rip-off by using them.

Plots are another matter entirely. I read once that there are really only like 20 basic plotlines in the entire history of writing. What makes them unique is the individual twist we each put on our own interpretation of that basic structure.

I also think that the stories we appreciate and enjoy the most will naturally influence us, even to the point of "copying" (I use the term loosely), not because we can't come up with anything new (which is sometimes the case), but as a way of paying respect to that author's work. You've heard of the term "write something you would like to read." The answer? You like certain books, so that's naturally the way you write your own, understanding that your voice and style is what makes it different. There's a great quote on this from The Elements of Style, a book on writing, which, I unfortunately don't have at hand at the moment.