|
Post by Oliveman on Aug 2, 2007 22:58:36 GMT -5
I have maintained, and continued to maintain, the following statement:
To be a good writer, the individual must give up the notion that good stories come from magic formulas of concepts, and it's only by random experience and chance that we happen upon new & good ideas. To believe this is to give up faith in the ageless process of creating stories, and to deny the passage of time, and the changing of ideas and the world around you. So too does it limit life, because in reality, story is life, and as you live, so too do stories. In this way, our faith in the existence of new stories, new masterful stories, is tied with our own observation of the world, and even our own existence. Life is story. Story is life. To not recognize this is to engage in an empty journey of indiscernable discovery, where even ideas that could flourish into what would make good stories get thrown away due to the viewpoint on what exactly it takes for a story to exist and be unique throughout time. It cannot be viewed as an impossible task. After all, if our journey is empty, how are we to fill the lives of those who read our writing? Again, life is story- Story, Life.
I now open this up to debate! What do you think of this! Prove me wrong, take my side, argue against yourself, w/e! I really believe we must understand the meaning of accepting one belief or another in order to be good writers.
|
|
cathconns
Junior Member
Professional Threadkiller
Posts: 74
|
Post by cathconns on Aug 2, 2007 23:38:33 GMT -5
I think the first sentence of your statement is a bit contradictory. There are no requirements, no things you MUST do in order to be a good writer. Saying that there is basically supports the idea that you are arguing against. Just as there is no "magic formula" for creating a good story, there is no specific path to follow to be a good writer. That aside, I agree that there are still new ideas out there. But I don't believe that finding this original idea is the be all end all of being a writer. Sometimes taking an old idea and standing it on its head, offering a different take on an old concept, is just as productive and fulfilling as coming up with something brand new. I think I'd need you to elaborate on how you think faith in new ideas connects with observation of the world and existence before I make a comment on that part. I'm not really seeing the connection. Life itself is not a story. Life is the web of an infinite number of stories. Each life on its own could be said to have a story, I guess. I think I'd feel pretty shallow though, if my whole life could be placed on an outline like a story. No matter how intricate we get with our fictional plots, characters, worlds, etc., I don't think it's possible to ever get as deep as real life. Humanity has far too many subtleties to be detailed in any number of volumes. The idea that story is life doesn't make sense to me either. I think "story depends on life" would be more accurate, but maybe I'm way off. I'm not sure. Anyway, that's my take on things.
|
|
|
Post by Oliveman on Aug 3, 2007 0:03:47 GMT -5
Good points, I wholeheartedly agree- I guess I wrote this mostly in responce to people who say "there's no room for good stories any more, nor original stories". And what I said about life is story, i don't mean life is a story, but that what drives the two en mass, in both their entireties, inter-relate. "story depends on life" was sort of what i was going for, but more along the lines of something that goes both ways. Story-life, life-story.
And ok, you don't HAVE to do this in order to be a good writer, but I still believe this is a crucial piece of understanding in order to approach writing.
On the other part about the connection between the faith in new ideas and the connection with existence, it is more along the lines of how you PERCIEVE existence, which is very much a part of things. So having faith in originality is like having faith in yourself, and knowing that there is as much capacity in the world as you make it, or any spectrum back from that.
|
|
|
Post by kamikaze189 on Aug 3, 2007 0:05:44 GMT -5
To be a good writer, the individual must give up the notion that good stories come from magic formulas of concepts, and it's only by random experience and chance that we happen upon new & good ideas. I don't think that's what afs was getting at - if this thread is a response to afs. I think what he meant, and I agree with, is that nearly everything has been done before. Aliens, dragons, timetravel, magic, spaceships, love affairs ending in tragedy instead of happiness... Your story itself, in outline form, probably won't win over a person's heart if they've read a lot. You're inevitably twisting someone else's story. But it's not the end of the world, as nobody has read every book out there. Personally, I think it's now more about how you tell a story than what the story itself is. For example, a modern and depressing tale of little red riding hood might be really good - even though people know every little detail about the plot. It's not good or bad intrinsically. It's all about facing the facts: You are not the first person to write about a character (with green eyes) in a strange world filled with magic. No, not really. It's an admittance that other people have written an abundance of stories and that if you compared yours and another before it, it'd be similar in multiple ways. You can still create ones, and you can even think "Hey, this is totally original!" and you'd be wrong... yet it's no big deal. There is a line of seriousness to walk when (seriously) discussing writing. I think you just crossed it and are now approaching the line of "too seriously." If you want to, you could try to explain this to me again. I'm not making sense of it. Writing a good story is not an impossible task. It's never totally original though. That's the side effect of literature having been around as long as it has. Nothing to get worried about.
|
|
|
Post by Oliveman on Aug 3, 2007 0:19:14 GMT -5
Sorry, I get worked up sometimes ^_-
Yes you've got some good points, however I maintain my need for passion on this issue! Of course, I maintain that for a lot of issues.
I think the concentration should not be on the unoriginality, but the potential for originality- perhaps that's what I was getting at. After all, getting caught in the slum drums of impossibility WITHOUT using that to your advantage can get you in trouble. I guess one thing to look at is yes, you can take new perspectives on old things, but you should be able to look beyond that for creating a story. After all, you don't want to look to other movies to make a movie, you look to stories far and wide, and what movie's strengths are in how to portray them, and how you can craft that to your own needs - then you start coming up with ideas. Unoriginal, cliche ideas really come from a lack of insight into what is behind the scenes of a story, or ideas about what to accomplish with that story.
All in all, I think there is always potential, and you shouldn't limit your self with either end of the spectrum: blatently unoriginal or, of course, self-deceiving
|
|
cathconns
Junior Member
Professional Threadkiller
Posts: 74
|
Post by cathconns on Aug 3, 2007 10:36:54 GMT -5
The problem that I sometimes find with attempting to make a story completely unique and original is that sometimes you risk (along with detracting from the quality of the story) alienating potential readers. Most people relate to stories by forging connections between their lives and the story, finding a way to tie their personal experience or things they've previously read into the book. If they can't find a connection, they probably won't enjoy the book as much as they would have.
|
|
|
Post by dangerjane on Aug 12, 2007 18:59:14 GMT -5
Yeah. I think it's alllll about the execution because very few ideas are original anymore.
That's not to say there are no original ideas. But as they say, even a great idea can't save dismal writing.
Original ideas shouldn't alienate readers. Unrelatable characters coupled with unrelatable situations---probably the worst sin is the former---are what alienate most readers, in the end.
|
|
|
Post by Oliveman on Aug 12, 2007 19:14:24 GMT -5
Very true, I think a big part of this is the concept that if you try to deviate too far from what you would naturally write, just because you want to deviate, then there is a disconnect between the author and their readers. Same thing with situations, ideas, or characters. I think the best goal is to be perceptive in your execution, rather than forcing originality. For if you're perceptive about the world around you can you can pull your ideas from reality, then originality will come, no?
But alot of the "unoriginal" stuff comes not only from not being perceptive, but from pulling from other stories, rather than actually trying to master the craft or find ideas worth writing about.
|
|
afs
Full Member
Posts: 135
|
Post by afs on Aug 12, 2007 19:25:25 GMT -5
Oliveman, you've given quite a bit of ground after your initial post. If you want to restate your views with whatever corrections you'd like to make, I'll throw in my two cents (I'm forced to jump to the conclusion that this thread was a proverbial glove-slap to me, but whatever I can say about your original post has already been said). For example, a modern and depressing tale of little red riding hood might be really good... The movie Freeway is a "modern and depressing" tale of little red riding hood. Brittany Murphy is good in it.
|
|
|
Post by Oliveman on Aug 12, 2007 20:19:38 GMT -5
Giving ground? It's not about anyone and what ground they have. And I had had this discussion long with Lissy long before your post, though your post reminded me about bringing it up. I think it's important to have both the clearest and the most true view about this, because if you get too caught in either end then you end up with either truely unoriginal or untruthful writing.
As far as the one end, you have to have that non-misguided faith in order to write what some would consider original stories, even if the "original ideas" are merely new connections or perspectives on old ideas. I really have just clarified, not "given ground"- after all, discussion is not so much about arguing or staking out a claim to truth, but reaching conclusions together that are more truthful than either side as they started.
|
|
cathconns
Junior Member
Professional Threadkiller
Posts: 74
|
Post by cathconns on Aug 14, 2007 15:11:09 GMT -5
But alot of the "unoriginal" stuff comes not only from not being perceptive, but from pulling from other stories, rather than actually trying to master the craft or find ideas worth writing about. But who's to say which ideas are worth writing about? The reader? The writer? I could think a book I read is worthless and find nothing significant whatsoever about the story, but it might strike the writer differently, because the writer has had different experiences than I have. And pulling from other stories isn't always a bad thing either. Tolkien's books have quite a bit of Norse mythology in them. CS Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia mixed almost every mythology I can think of, including the Bible. I guess it's a question of moderation. Less is more and all that. Mastering the craft, that's something I can't argue with. But the only way to master the craft is through actually writing, which means one has to write a lot of unoriginal crap before one gets to the good stuff.
|
|
|
Post by eliflauta on Aug 16, 2007 1:22:24 GMT -5
But alot of the "unoriginal" stuff comes not only from not being perceptive, but from pulling from other stories, rather than actually trying to master the craft or find ideas worth writing about. But who's to say which ideas are worth writing about? The reader? The writer? I could think a book I read is worthless and find nothing significant whatsoever about the story, but it might strike the writer differently, because the writer has had different experiences than I have.quote] I have been told to read many books because they're "soooo amazing, you'll love them!" and then I start the book and think, "This doesn't mean anything to me. This isn't worth my time. I have other books to read that mean something." Ok, maybe I don't consciously think those exact words, but I don't think I've ever sighed and put down a book that gave me insight that I liked or desired. So, the writer has to make a decision as to what is important to write about. There can't be one book that everybody loves and reads fifty times. The writer can choose a popular idea or subject, but still.
|
|
|
Post by Oliveman on Aug 16, 2007 2:26:32 GMT -5
Well, this brings up the issue of: just because the writer thinks it's important, is it?
I need sleep, so not posting any more than that : )
|
|
|
Post by kamikaze189 on Aug 16, 2007 21:53:15 GMT -5
Stephen King says that when he writes scary stories, he writes what he finds frightening. I think most people use this method too, whether they want to or not.
So I suppose if you want to read stories you'll find entertaining, you should find an author similar to yourself.
|
|
afs
Full Member
Posts: 135
|
Post by afs on Aug 16, 2007 22:51:57 GMT -5
I now open this up to debate! What do you think of this! Prove me wrong, take my side, argue against yourself, w/e! I really believe we must understand the meaning of accepting one belief or another in order to be good writers. All in all, I think there is always potential, and you shouldn't limit your self with either end of the spectrum: blatently unoriginal or, of course, self-deceiving Wha...? As far as the one end, you have to have that non-misguided faith in order to write what some would consider original stories, even if the "original ideas" are merely new connections or perspectives on old ideas. I really have just clarified, not "given ground"- after all, discussion is not so much about arguing or staking out a claim to truth, but reaching conclusions together that are more truthful than either side as they started. Yes you've got some good points... These were my points on "giving ground". You stated your case, someone else debated you, you said "you've got a point". I guess I'd assumed you had Incorporated these points into your original argument. No need to get testy about it.
|
|