Author Topic: Derivative Plots? (Read 19131 times)

Maria · « **on:** May 05, 2008, 07:05:52 PM »

Quote from: JRBobC on December 20, 2007, 06:07:56 AM

Pft. Harry with a nice quiet day reading a book. Hah. $10 says the book is possessed and sucks him into a Book Hell dimension or something. Or he gets constantly nagged by Bob.

You mean like Fred from "Angel"? Hmmmm did those ghouls in "White Knight" seem a bit of a rip off from the end of Buffy? Oh well imitation is the most sincere form of theft.

Shecky · « **Reply #1 on:** May 05, 2008, 07:09:35 PM »

Quote from: Maria on May 05, 2008, 07:05:52 PM

You mean like Fred from "Angel"? Hmmmm did those ghouls in "White Knight" seem a bit of a rip off from the end of Buffy? Oh well imitation is the most sincere form of theft.

That's quite an accusation there. Especially considering that every single plot point in Buffy had already existed somewhere.

Priscellie · « **Reply #2 on:** May 05, 2008, 07:14:13 PM »

That's where you're wrong, Shecky. Joss Whedon totally came up with the idea of heroes fighting demons in a cave. And when the Fellowship fought off orcs and stuff in the mines of Moria, it was only because Tolkien had used a time machine to travel to the future and read Joss' mind!

Shecky · « **Reply #3 on:** May 05, 2008, 07:18:45 PM »

I ~~stand~~ sit corrected.

JRBobC · « **Reply #4 on:** May 05, 2008, 07:34:32 PM »

Quote from: Priscellie on May 05, 2008, 07:14:13 PM

That's where you're wrong, Shecky. Joss Whedon totally came up with the idea of heroes fighting demons in a cave. And when the Fellowship fought off orcs and stuff in the mines of Moria, it was only because Tolkien had used a time machine to travel to the future and read Joss' mind!

I see someone has gotten into the "happy" brownies.

Quote from: Maria on May 05, 2008, 07:05:52 PM

You mean like Fred from "Angel"? Hmmmm did those ghouls in "White Knight" seem a bit of a rip off from the end of Buffy? Oh well imitation is the most sincere form of theft.

How exactly to man sized bald guys with Spock ears and fangs translate to 20 feet tall uber ghouls that pull themselves back together after they get chopped up?

Quantus · « **Reply #5 on:** May 06, 2008, 06:10:16 PM »

Ive heard it argued that everything has been re-hash for years and the last purely original fiction was Twilight Zone. They weren't right, but they weren't completely wrong either.

Shecky · « **Reply #6 on:** May 06, 2008, 06:21:21 PM »

The ancient Greeks were already saying, "There is nothing new under the sun," and they were pretty much right, if you boil each story down to its essentials. While science fiction is a little different because much of it hinges directly on the use/inclusion of advanced technology, even that can potentially be reduced to the role of plot device, thereby leaving the development and major points... which more than likely bear a strong resemblance to something that's already been done.

About the only truly new thing that can be done is a recombination of story elements and technical aspects. This does NOT mean that every story is utterly predictable, however; as with Jim, many authors, when faced with a choice between A, B and C, invariably find a way to choose D (which, of course, has been done before LOL). That, melded with proficiency in the storytelling itself, is what makes "new" fiction enjoyable.

Hasufin · « **Reply #7 on:** May 06, 2008, 06:25:54 PM »

I am of the belief that with sufficient mental gymnastics, an argument can be made that any work of fiction is actually just a rehash of Arthurian legend.

the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh · « **Reply #8 on:** May 06, 2008, 06:41:00 PM »

Quote from: Shecky on May 06, 2008, 06:21:21 PM

The ancient Greeks were already saying, "There is nothing new under the sun," and they were pretty much right, if you boil each story down to its essentials. While science fiction is a little different because much of it hinges directly on the use/inclusion of advanced technology, even that can potentially be reduced to the role of plot device, thereby leaving the development and major points... which more than likely bear a strong resemblance to something that's already been done.

About the only truly new thing that can be done is a recombination of story elements and technical aspects.

I disagree, actually. I think there are story possibilities that SF allows that could not be done any other way. Greg Egan does it rather a lot; I do not think "Learning to be Me", for example, is a story the mechanic of which works without the particular technological innovation involved.

Shecky · « **Reply #9 on:** May 06, 2008, 07:08:15 PM »

I think that the point of those arguing that there really is "nothing new under the sun" is that, when you boil a story down to its essentials, it's still going to be about how humans react to certain situations. If you choose to look at it their way, even, say, a time-travel story is not "new"; it can easily be equated to travel stories where a character goes to a strange, unknown land and has to figure out how to get out of it or keep himself safe while there, etc. The short story you mentioned could even be included if you look at stories about life after death or reincarnation - are those really the same people as before? - or even at stories from when prosthetics and artificial organs (*rings bell for "Hello, SF Themes!"*) were beginning to become widely-known. Is a person with major brain trauma the same person?

It all depends on how much of the essential story you believe hangs on those particular hooks. I'm not dogmatic either way; there's validity on both sides there.

the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh · « **Reply #10 on:** May 07, 2008, 04:01:32 PM »

Quote from: Shecky on May 06, 2008, 07:08:15 PM

I think that the point of those arguing that there really is "nothing new under the sun" is that, when you boil a story down to its essentials, it's still going to be about how humans react to certain situations.

See, that's what I disagree with.

The best of edge-pushing SF can go beyond that because, unlike mainstream, it can ask what if human nature itself changed in non-mimetic ways.

Shecky · « **Reply #11 on:** May 07, 2008, 04:51:27 PM »

Interesting. You'd think that with as much SF as I've read, at least one example would come to mind. Can you provide one? I'd very much like to explore that possibility.

the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh · « **Reply #12 on:** May 07, 2008, 04:58:15 PM »

Quote from: Shecky on May 07, 2008, 04:51:27 PM

Interesting. You'd think that with as much SF as I've read, at least one example would come to mind. Can you provide one? I'd very much like to explore that possibility.

Greg Egan's Permutation City and Diaspora would strike me as good examples; so would Peter Watts' Blindsight, in which pretty much all the central characters have distinctly stretched versions of human nature.

Shecky · « **Reply #13 on:** May 07, 2008, 05:06:20 PM »

Not familiar with those; could you provide a summary as it pertains to this topic?

Hasufin · « **Reply #14 on:** May 07, 2008, 06:15:45 PM »

The thing about the theory that there's nothing new under the sun is, if you distill the stories down far enough of course they're the same. It's like saying that all life is identical because they all contain Guanine, Cytosine, Adenine, and Thymine.

But, I'm pretty sure there's a significant difference between a horse and a hawk. Having identical base elements does not mean the result will be identical.

Thus, while I recognize thematic similarities between Hamlet and The Lion King, and between Shoujo Kakumei Utena and Gilgamesh, they're not the same thing.