Originality--How important is it?

[arianne]

Another writing question. Well, more of a insecure writer question. 

How important is an original plot/premise/concept to the novel?

Or is it more about the characters and the wording and so on?

Let's say I had an idea for a female wizard living in, um, New York. And the wizard was totally different from that other Barry/Larry guy  . You know, the sarcastic dude with the skull in his basement.

Let's say my wizard was sweet, kind, caring, timid, never sarcastic. She has no pets, lives in a huge penthouse with a pool in the backyard.She calls her mom twice a week, hates fast food and soda.  Whatever. Like anti-Barry.

And then I give this wizard a bunch of pals like supersexy cop dude who loves her, dates her, and wants to marry her; couple of sisters; vampire buddies. Again, anti-Barry.

So then I write this whole book about this wizard and how she solves a mass vampire killing.

(Don't worry, I didn't actually have the idea to write this, it's just an example. In case Jim's lawyer and agent happen to be around...I am not stealing his wizard. Relax.  )

If I were to write said story, what would your opinion be of that story? Would it be, um, marketable? Is it a bad thing to lack originality in a plot?

I know the above was kind of an extreme example, but how about if one was writing a vampire novel or something of the sort? It's hard to step outside a genre entirely and be completely original.

[Shecky]

Honestly? Protagonist sounds like a Mary Sue. A bit too perfect.

[snowbank]

There is nothing new under the sun; the point is to pour the same koolaid into a different glass. Or make orange instead of grape flaver...I'm not doing this well. Pretty much all stories about humans deal with the same emotions, so adjusting externals like location can cause enough difference to be interesting. How is Harry different from Spenser? Both spend much of their time solving murders. Spenser spends most of his time in New England, Harry goes everywhere.

How is Harry like Paul Atreides? One lost a dad early, one lost a mom earlier. Both were born with certain potential abilities and had to spend time developing them. Both were occasionally overwhelmed by outside forces. How is Harry like Jack Fleming? Both run detective agencies, but I wouldn't mistake one for the other.

Originality is in the externals, I guess. People solving murders is a very prevalent theme in fiction (and true crime). Character personality traits count for a lot, also.

I disagree with your feelings about Vampire Books. The subject has lots of room for innovation, from what I've seen. I'm personally a Buffy/Angel purist, but Stephanie Meyer made a lot of money by bending the rules, Kelley Armstrong and Patricia Briggs have strong Vampire characters and I liked the show Moonlight. Not to mention Charlaine Harris or J.R. Ward or Jim Butcher. I think it's a question of finding an audience that likes your style, because there's more than one type of Vampire. Create a new type, maybe you'll wean me from Joss Whedon. (Probably not, but...)

If you are going to leap, Good Luck!!!  

[arianne]

So basically, would that be a no? Originality is not as important as the characters and tone/style of the writing?

A friend introduced me to the Nightside series, and I'm actually surprised by how much they are similar to the Dresden files. Well, okay, one is in a hidden city in England, and one is in America, but the characters are really very much alike, which is kind of what sent me off thinking about all this.

I'm kind of working on a teenage vampire slayer sort of book right now, but it's not like Buffy. (See, there it is, all you have to say is "teenage vampire slayer", and someone will reply, "Buffy". So much for original there.) And obviously, I'm worried about the Buffy comparison. I won't go into specifics here for fear of violating forum rules, but suffice to say that the main character is not Buffy, nor the anti-Buffy; does that make a difference? I'm worried that people will think it's some sort of warped Buffy fanfic...

[Jaeh]

So basically, would that be a no? Originality is not as important as the characters and tone/style of the writing?

A friend introduced me to the Nightside series, and I'm actually surprised by how much they are similar to the Dresden files. Well, okay, one is in a hidden city in England, and one is in America, but the characters are really very much alike, which is kind of what sent me off thinking about all this.

I'm kind of working on a teenage vampire slayer sort of book right now, but it's not like Buffy. (See, there it is, all you have to say is "teenage vampire slayer", and someone will reply, "Buffy". So much for original there.) And obviously, I'm worried about the Buffy comparison. I won't go into specifics here for fear of violating forum rules, but suffice to say that the main character is not Buffy, nor the anti-Buffy; does that make a difference? I'm worried that people will think it's some sort of warped Buffy fanfic...

all I can say is to take care and make her seem unique in her own way. change maybe a couple elements from buffy. remember to make your character memorable, relatable character. or something like that.

that probably didn't help, but that's my two cents. heh.

[arianne]

I've tried to make the hero seem unique (aka different), but everytime I talk about my "vampire slayer" story someone says, "Buffy?"

Well, there was that one person who said, "Van Helsing?".

[Starbeam]

I would say that plot ideas tend to be relatively unoriginal, but the originality comes in the execution of the story.  And in how the characters are written.  There will always be comparisons to other books/movies, but a lot of people will do that just to get some sort of idea of what to expect.  Or to see if something is the same/different than what they think.  Like someone being reluctant to read Dresden because it's a wizard named Harry.  In other words, don't worry about it too much and just write what you want.

[BobForPresident]

Honestly? Protagonist sounds like a Mary Sue. A bit too perfect.

I personally don't like the whole "Mary Sue" thing. I think it's a really easy way write off characters without offering a good critique. If you don't know the author, you can't judge if the character's based on them, and when characters are too "perfect", they're often also called archetypes (the wizard, the hero, etc), and they're the basis of modern fiction.

The best advice I ever got from an author was from Elaine Cunningham - if you want to write, study religion. Often times, religious texts are the first widely-distributed texts a culture creates, and they're almost always a good basis for good v. evil themes.

everytime I talk about my "vampire slayer" story someone says, "Buffy?" Well, there was that one person who said, "Van Helsing?".

This is another good point. Joss Whedon's leads are almost always female, highly damaged, and incredibly powerful (Capt Mal notwithstanding). But who was the original? Van Helsing? Possibly. Orignality, then, is more a point of perspective. If YOU haven't encountered a story about a young boy who defies his background and conquers the bad guy, then Star Wars is a total new premise for you. Unless you like Kurusawa and the old pulp fiction space operas. Then you go, "been there, done that."

[Vash the white]

i think orginality ia a hard thing to come by these days, i mean we have been around for awhile, so chances are someone had the same idea at one point, even if it was a thousand years ago. its how we twist a most likely used idea into something un-used

[Shecky]

I personally don't like the whole "Mary Sue" thing. I think it's a really easy way write off characters without offering a good critique. If you don't know the author, you can't judge if the character's based on them, and when characters are too "perfect", they're often also called archetypes (the wizard, the hero, etc), and they're the basis of modern fiction.

The perfect protagonist, in my view, is never perfect. Sorry, but someone who's so brilliant and so powerful that they always end up winning emphatically and the Good Guys live happily ever after... there's no struggle. No adversity. No wrestling with horrible decisions that take more wisdom and self-examination than simple knowledge and talent. Standing on principle in the face of overwhelming odds, that's different. This is why, while there's a part of me that really likes Superman for being such a good guy, the rest of me is uninterested in stories about him unless his victory is FAR from a foregone conclusion. In other words, being an archetype does not mean the easy way out or the IWinForeverAgain button. Again, this is purely my own personal take on it; YMM obviously V.

The best advice I ever got from an author was from Elaine Cunningham - if you want to write, study religion. Often times, religious texts are the first widely-distributed texts a culture creates, and they're almost always a good basis for good v. evil themes.

Well, sure. Much of the Bible, for example, reads like a primordial adventure story. But the "wins" are all accomplished with divine help (which is sort of the point of the Bible, no? ). Granted, the good guys in it may suffer a bit (or, well, a lot), but everything always comes out all right in the end, happily ever after.

[Starbeam]

I personally don't like the whole "Mary Sue" thing. I think it's a really easy way write off characters without offering a good critique. If you don't know the author, you can't judge if the character's based on them, and when characters are too "perfect", they're often also called archetypes (the wizard, the hero, etc), and they're the basis of modern fiction.

Mary Sues are not always author self-inserts. 

[Shecky]

Yup. "Mary Sue" has come to mean any horribly perfect protagonist - far too good to be true.

[arianne]

I agree on the Mary Sue front...it's just hard to feel sympathy for a character who always always always makes it okay. They don't lose a single hair even though they've killed monsters, saved the world, and blah blah blah. What's the point in caring about someone who clearly isn't having any problems?

(Of course, with series characters, you pretty much know they're going to survive, but even so, they lose friends, limbs, get depressed etc, so there are still stakes involved.)

Thanks too to everyone who contributed on the originality bit. I think I can rest easy now, knowing that it isn't THAT big an issue as I thought it was. 

[svb1972]

Or lets say..

You take two really cliched unoriginal ideas.
Like say:

A lost fighting unit.
Pokemon.

Could you make a book that was marketable?

On a flip side for the OP.  You just described basically a Urban Fantasy Romance Novel.

[snowbank]

Or lets say..

You take two really cliched unoriginal ideas.
Like say:

A lost fighting unit.
Pokemon.

Could you make a book that was marketable?

On a flip side for the OP.  You just described basically a Urban Fantasy Romance Novel.

I thought you just described the Codex Alera in your post. I didn't consider that an Urban Fantasy Romance Novel. Not nearly enough sex, explicit or otherwise.