Originality--How important is it?

[svb1972]

That was Codex Alera.

I meant the OP described a pretty typical Urban Fantasy Romance Novel.

[meg_evonne]

I agree that perfection is not something that usually works in a protag.  On the other hand, she sounds like Sookie in the True Blood series.  LOL  Characters need internal change in my opinion, although at Mile Hi last year Jim was the sole decenter on a panel that discussed question.  Of course, look how much Harry has changed, so I could devil advocate Jim's own position from one year ago.

Originality isn't needed to write it.  The Hero's Journey is retold over and over and over and will never have an expiration date, but to market it you have to have a truly unique angle to get it out of the slush pile.  Agree that this isn't going to raise to the surface IMO.

Still in a Sookie-kind-of-way, I like it!  So write it anyway and learn what you can in the process. That unique twist or twists may present itself if you are open to seeing it when it flashes by your butterfly net. (Connie Willis used the butterfly net concept for finding ideas at Mile Hi last year too.) 

[Shecky]

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. 

Precisely. It's not about originality of theme/plot point/etc. so much as it is about originality of how you put them all together and present them. And not even originality so much as enjoyability.

[Kali]

I say just start at the get-go assuming you're going to be unoriginal.  These days, people trying to be original usually just end up with a list of bizarre character traits that still don't touch their story, the plot, or the journey.  You know, "He's a wizard but um... he's in clown college!  And he has one eye.  And he always turns left when leaving a room."

Those things aren't the kind of originality people are looking for.  They're quirks, but never confuse quirks with character.

Just be unoriginal. No matter what you think of, someone will come up with a book or movie or comic that has already done that same basic story.  Originality will come in how you tell the tale, in the specifics, in the reactions of your characters to situations. At least, it ought to.

[BobForPresident]

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?

The only thing less-marketable is if the lead character grew up as a farm boy trying to escape the drudgery of farm life, then became a "perfect" general, with "perfect" morals, and was perfectly adorable throughout. That would be a so-called Mary Sue character (because he's without much in the way of character flaws, supposedly) and your book would never sell.

Or it would be called the Codex Alera and it would be a best seller and a fascinating read that would bridge historical fiction and fantasy in a wonderful series, because new perspective was given to a tale that borrows from classical elements!!!!!

Other so-called "too-perfect" characters with few to no personal flaws that impact their stories:

Luke Skywalker
Drizzt Do'Urden
Harry Potter
Sherlock Holmes
Captain Kirk

Don't gimme wrong, I love gritty, flawed heroes. But if you create a story that has a tried and true white knight character, and the story itself is intriguing, then I think you still have a good story.

Otherwise, not a soul in the universe would pick up a Superman comic. EVER.

[meg_evonne]

Uhm, Luke Skywalker, I liked him because he was too shy to grab the girl, too low in self-esteem (or was it too much self-confidence) to initially learn from Yoda, too needy for family to connect, and ultimately that need for family is what put the umph in the scene with his father.  So I'd say far from perfect.

Harry Potter, again the too shy, too low in self-esteem, too needy in the family department---interesting...  same traits as Luke huh?  And she gave him a physical flaw as well--a great wizard that wears glasses?  

Sherlock Holmes wasn't able to connect with people although he was excellent at reading people, I don't recall any empathy there for anyone.  Also he was a drug addict.

Captain Kirk - every woman in the world was willing to wait for him to give up his Peter Pan childhood and step into a real relationship.  They are STILL WAITING for the SOB to grow up!  LOL

flaws don't have be gross, blatant, over-wrought things.  It can be an inability to regularly balance their checkbook when they are the best and most brilliant mathematician in the world.  Oh wait.  I really like that one.  Have to list that one on my possible character trait list.

As to Drizzt Do'Urden?  Got me and feeling like an old idiot.  PM me off line and fill me on this paragon of morality?  Thanks in advance for doing so.  I'm always looking for a good read.

[BobForPresident]

Let's see if I can debate these...ya called me out pretty good. 

Uhm, Luke Skywalker, I liked him because he was too shy to grab the girl, too low in self-esteem (or was it too much self-confidence) to initially learn from Yoda, too needy for family to connect, and ultimately that need for family is what put the umph in the scene with his father.  So I'd say far from perfect.

None of these things presented roadblocks for the grandiose victory at the end. And I never understood how Yoda was right when he told Luke not to go. Luke ended up fine (missing a hand, I guess...not a problem in Star Wars:)), all of his friends were saved, he learned who Vader was, greatly increased his skills, and the rebels ended up as allies with Calrissian. So...how did Luke's impatience become a fault?

Harry Potter, again the too shy, too low in self-esteem, too needy in the family department---interesting...  same traits as Luke huh?  And she gave him a physical flaw as well--a great wizard that wears glasses? 

When is he particularly shy ('cept with Cho - though again, that doesn't impact the story)? He's brave, smart, athletic, charismatic, good-looking, funny, and for most of the novels incredibly popular (Slytherin aka "the grand house of evil children" not withstanding). His longing for a proper family never gets in his way - it's a total asset, one that drives him to value family and make friends ridiculously quickly.

And I wouldn't say that glasses are a personal flaw, but if they were, she presents that the greatest wizard on the planet (D'dore)wears em too.

Sherlock Holmes wasn't able to connect with people although he was excellent at reading people, I don't recall any empathy there for anyone.  Also he was a drug addict.

Sounds like you trump me in the Holmes dept. I've only read the first novel (and admittedly, only as a kid) and I thought those characteristics you're mentioning (though awesome!) were only from the film. RD Jr rules.

Captain Kirk - every woman in the world was willing to wait for him to give up his Peter Pan childhood and step into a real relationship.  They are STILL WAITING for the SOB to grow up!  LOL

Every woman in the world? Hmm...doesn't sound like much of a flaw. I'm just so charming and good looking and dashing and clever and the best captain in Starfleet. Woe is me!

flaws don't have be gross, blatant, over-wrought things.  It can be an inability to regularly balance their checkbook when they are the best and most brilliant mathematician in the world.  Oh wait.  I really like that one.  Have to list that one on my possible character trait list.

I agree. But they should impact the story. If your character has a limp but she can also outrun every other character in the novel and it never hurts or anything...well, then it ain't a flaw.

So the whole Mary Sue thing just doesn't hold up for me. Give your character major flaws...or don't. There's a precendence for success (financial AND literary) for both.

[Vash the white]

l flaw as well--a great wizard that wears glasses? 

Sherlock Holmes wasn't able to connect with people although he was excellent at reading people, I don't recall any empathy there for anyone.  Also he was a drug addict.

I have read a lot of the adventures and fall, but not many early ones, and i dare say that "drug addict" is an understatement, but yes i agree

Uhm, Luke Skywalker, I liked him because he was too shy to grab the girl, too low in self-esteem (or was it too much self-confidence) to initially learn from Yoda, too needy for family to connect, and ultimately that need for family is what put the umph in the scene with his father.  So I'd say far from perfect.

And it would have been weird if he had.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

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

If she has virtues opposite to Harry Dresden's flaws, give her flaws opposite to Harry Dresden's virtues, perhaps ?

I think that something like this might or might not be a marketable story, but it would almost certainly be an exercise you would learn something from writing, and there's value to that.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

Original stories are still being come up with.  Read a collection like Ted Chiang's Stories of Your Life or Greg Egan's Axiomatic for genre examples. Or pretty much anything shorter than a full novel by Robert Reed.

Well-defined genres are easy to market.  the balance between "this is derivative" and "this is too weird to see how to sell" is one nobody really understands.

If you must steal, steal from Shakespeare.  Steal from the good Shakespeare because that's all stolen, at a plot level, anyway.  (Shakespeare was hopeless at plots of his own.  Measure for Measure  is On Crack; I have a theory that all of jacobean drama is people trying and failing to write worlds where Measure for Measure would make sense.)

[Der Sturmbrecher]

If you're trying to be original, yes, it's kind of important. If you're just trying to write something entertaining, not especially.

Ultimately, most stories are about the same thing: how characters react to situations. You can merge them with great settings, cool mechanics (Butcher magic rocks!), and whatever good idea you want, but if the characters are dislikeable or just boring, the whole thing becomes that way. Think about all the genres of fantasy out there. Take Terry Pratchett, J. K. Rowling, Jim Butcher, and J. R. R. Tolkien. All of them are widely regarded as great authors. Despite all their nice gimmicks, though, it's the characters which make the stories worth telling. Substitute a bunch of nameless mannequins into LOTR, and nobody cares about it. Take Terry Pratchett's narrative and voices away, and you have some mildly entertaining fairy tales. Stripped down, the stories are the same: protagonist faces problem. Protagonist meets supporting characters. Protagonist and Supporting characters fight evil antagonist.

What you need to make a story riveting varies. With some writers it's their voices. With others it's their humor. With still others it's characters, philosophy, you name it. That isn't to say that elements like setting, mechanics and other aren't important though. I wouldn't be half as interested in the Dresden Files if they weren't the magical mysteries they are. But if that's all they were, they wouldn't be enough either.

So for your story(ies), you need to figure what it is you can do which makes it interesting. Write experimentally, and see what other people think. They're you're target audience after all.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

If you're trying to be original, yes, it's kind of important. If you're just trying to write something entertaining, not especially.

It depends. There's a limit to how long the same thing over and over can be enterntaining for many people.

You can merge them with great settings, cool mechanics (Butcher magic rocks!), and whatever good idea you want, but if the characters are dislikeable or just boring, the whole thing becomes that way.

I would suggest Hannibal Lecter as an example of an extremely dislikable character who seems to nonetheless be compelling to readers in bestseller numbers.  Judge Dredd is eminently dislikable in some ways and has been going strong since 1977.

Stripped down, the stories are the same: protagonist faces problem. Protagonist meets supporting characters. Protagonist and Supporting characters fight evil antagonist.

And I am saying that in and of itself is a limited perspective, as I was just positing the other day.  Equally sympathetic characters with different notions of good finding themselves in conflict is a different shape of story, for example, but it works.  Not everything in the Hero's Journey redux.

[Der Sturmbrecher]

It depends. There's a limit to how long the same thing over and over can be enterntaining for many people.

I wish my brother had some for music tracks...very true. I suppose I should have worded that better.

I would suggest Hannibal Lecter as an example of an extremely dislikable character who seems to nonetheless be compelling to readers in bestseller numbers.  Judge Dredd is eminently dislikable in some ways and has been going strong since 1977.

That would be an example of an exceptionally interesting character. I wasn't using likeable exclusively in the sense of amiable or palatable.

And I am saying that in and of itself is a limited perspective, as I was just positing the other day.  Equally sympathetic characters with different notions of good finding themselves in conflict is a different shape of story, for example, but it works.  Not everything in the Hero's Journey redux.

I'm not familiar with your other post, but my point was that at their core, all story structures are skeletal. They mean little unless you have a spark to draw you in. For instance, that story you supplied wouldn't interest me if I didn't care for the characters, or if the writing style was bland.

[arianne]

If you take Harry Dresden and say, the Anita Blake series, you could probably say that both of these series were about supernatual bounty hunters/detectives (or whatever it is they call people who hunt down supernatural beings nowadays). In fact, a lot of the Dresden reviews talk about how Anita Blake fans will "love this new series etc etc". But the two of them are actually somewhat different in terms of characters, world structure and so on.

I was discussing this with some other people the other day, and one person said that only original fiction was "marketable" (aka bestseller, award winning) fiction. She went so far as to say that only orginal fiction would sell (I said, "what?!!")

As many people who replied to this thread pointed out, it's hard to be completely original when you write. The thing is, how much unoriginal can you do and get away with? For example, it's possible to write a paranormal romance and make it different from other paranormal romances (Twilight and Vampire Academy, for example, are worlds apart), but if I were to write a story about, hmm, a male human who falls in love with both a vampire girl and a werewolf girl, and (guess what?) the werewolf girl and the vampire girl are old enemies...that might really be too much of a Twilight rip-off, don't you think? How much "copying" is too much?

[Starbeam]

That wouldn't really be that much of a Twilight ripoffs,s simply because there's been a lot written where the werewolves and vampires are enemies.  And same as with what everyone's been saying, it's all in how you write the story around the basic plot idea.  But if you had a guy fall in love with a vampire who didn't have fangs and/or sparkled in the sun and/or had venom in their veins, then that would be ripping off Twilight.  The originality is all in the details.