Here’s the thing about book concepts: originality is (somewhat) overrated.
There have been millions of books written in the course of human history. Before there were books there were plays, and before the were plays there were stories told around the campfire, and before there were stories around the campfire there were aliens who implanted DNA in our cave men ancestors that made us tell the same stories again and again. (It’s true, I read it on Wikipedia).
About once a generation a Mary Shelley or H.G. Wells or Tolkien or S.E. Hinton comes along to invent a new genre basically from scratch. Odds are you’re not that person (although if you are, I want to meet you).
All the rest of the mortals on the planet, even our best writers, are working within fairly established genres and tropes.
There were detective novels before George Pelecanos, there were dragon and boy stories before Christopher Paolini, there were wizard school books before J.K. Rowling, there were mistaken guilt stories before Ian Mcwan’s Atonement. What sets these writers apart is a unique take on an established trope. And ultimately that comes down to execution.
What is a unique take on an established trope? It varies from book to book. Sometimes it’s been done before, but never with such beautiful writing. Or maybe it’s been done before, but never for kids. Or maybe it’s been done before, but never funny. Or maybe it’s been done before, but never in combination with something else.
The shorthand for a unique take is that it’s like this, but also like this. It’s X meets X. It’s different, but not too different.
This isn’t because the publishing industry just wants what’s already popular. (Ok, fine, partly it’s because the publishing industry wants what’s already popular — you can “blame” that on readers who finish a book, love it, and want to read something else like it.)
But it’s also because it’s very nearly impossible to be wholly original. Even when new genres are invented they tend to use classic story arcs that have been around for millennia — the coming of age story, the great man with a fatal flaw, the hubris tragedy, the celebrity memoir. When new genres are invented they just place these stories in a new world.
Unless it is truly out there, pretty much everything is a fresh take on an existing trope. It really does need to feel fresh, but that’s not the same as being completely original. The originality is all about how it’s done, not what it’s about.
Need help with your book? Iām available for manuscript edits, query critiques, and coaching!
For my best advice, check out my online classes, my guide to writing a novel and my guide to publishing a book.
And if you like this post: subscribe to my newsletter!
Art: The Dream by Henri Rousseau
Bane of Anubis says
Oh so true – I’m currently writing a story Ibut thought somewhat original – when I described it to my mother, she says “oh, that reminds me of book [x]” – well, I do some research and it turns out book x (which I’d never read or heard of, but was one of those long ago children’s classics) was written in 1872… not sure if that’s a good or bad thing, but it turns out that I am writing it from a different angle š
Flavio Q Crunk says
That’s the same thing Don Maass said when I met him. I asked him how writers know when a specific genre is “full”.
He said it doesn’t matter how full it is, if your stuff is good, it will sell.
Martin says
Well said. I think it’s very easy for writers to mistake “fresh take” with “invent something new from scratch”. We need a glossary! But make sure it has a fresh take, will ya?
Will Entrekin says
Who said there are no new ideas, only new ways to tell them? I tend to agree; even Shakespeare wrote from sources.
king says
Do you really want to use Paolini as a positive example? Really?
Nathan Bransford says
king-
I went there.
Professor Tarr says
My problem is that I can’t truly figure out what genre best describes my stuff. It is as if Yann Martel had his tiger mate with Frank Norris’ Octopus in the eyes of Upton Sinclair’s Carpenter using the setting of John leCarre, while the props come from John Irving with a dose of Dickens, the phrasing comes from Anne Rice and the action straight from Stephen King… all chopped up by Samuel Beckett and narrated by Albert Camus…
I guess Literary is the best way to describe that mess…
L.C. Gant says
This is so true. To be honest, I don’t think I would want it any other way.
The reason we keep recycling the same basic stories over and over is because we can all relate to them. They speak about things that define the human experience–love, hate, birth, death, rebirth, etc.
If you do something that’s completely out in left-field, you set yourself up for failure by telling a story your readers can’t relate to at all. And no writer wants that. I know I don’t!
Mira says
I agree with this. Very well said.
When we talk about story, I always start thinking about archtypes and the ‘hero’s journey.’ Joseph Campbell.
I think stories are a way for us to work out how to deal with archtypal situations. There are different ways to tell those stories – and that’s where genre comes in – but at the root, there are probably about 12 different stories (I made that number up. I would actually bet that someone has come up with an actual number and listed the types of stories. Maybe Joseph Campbell did.) that are being told over and over again in different ways.
In terms of selling – people like the familiar. It speaks to them, feels comfortable and secure.
But they like new things because they are entertaining.
So, publishers want the familiar combined with the new.
Dara says
I know when I first started writing back in high school, I had the misconception that everything new had to be original.
Then I learned otherwise and was rather relieved š
Still, it can be difficult to come up with a “fresh take” on an existing trope, but that’s why we all have to keep writing until we find that story that will grab readers.
Justus M. Bowman says
Great post.
Lisa Schroeder says
Agent Holly Root said similar things in her definition of “high concept.” Readers like a twist on the familiar.
Here’s the link, in case you didn’t see it:
https://waxmanagency.wordpress.com/2009/02/06/recipe-for-success-high-concept/
SeaHayes says
Nathan,
All true, and yet this is what makes writing a query so daunting. There are no truly original ideas, only new ways to tell different stories. The query must, in about 250 words, get across the plot and the author’s different take on the subject. I find writing a 100,000 word novel so much easier than writing a 250 word query. But if you can’t master the query, no one will read your take on the story. AAARRRRR…
Niki Schoenfeldt says
Wow. That’s all I can say. I am amazed at the results. Although I did not participate, I have been keeping an eye on things. I never thought being an agent was an easy job. And as a reviewer, I totally agree that each story is subjective. All I can do as I search for an agent is hope I am not among those submitting bad queries and worse stories. Thanks for the insight.
Terri Nixon says
I think it was Polti who drew up a list of about 30 (?) possible plots. Will have to look into that one but something’s niggling in the back of my mind about that.
csmith says
It is finding a new slant on an old tale that makes things really interesting. I’m starting to see writing more and more like architecture, the more constraints you are aware of, the more creative you become within those constraints. Sort of like pruning a tree. Ah, rambling, so moving swiftly on…
Very interesting (and rather encouraging) post.
Thanks Nathan
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist! says
good point, Nathan, never thought about concept vs originality in that way before.
Kristen Painter says
There are really only two plotlines anyway:
1. Someone takes a journey.
2. A stranger comes to town.
And if you really want to boil it down, those are two sides of the same coin.
Terri Nixon says
Messed up my last post – meant to include the link: https://changingminds.org/disciplines/storytelling/plots/polti_situations/polti_situations.htm
It’s 36 plots.
reader says
Thanks for this, Nathan.
That makes sense. Execution is everything and that is the one thing that is unique to each writer.
I feel better now. And also worse, as I constantly seem to have the execution that no one seems to want. Ugh.
(Along the same line, your concept thoughts are true in other media as well; movie critic Roger Ebert says a movie isn’t WHAT it’s about but HOW its about it.)
Anne Dayton says
If only it weren’t so tough coming up with the interesting twist for the familiar story. That’a harder than most people give credit for.
Great post!
Marilyn Peake says
Absolutely agree.
Mira says
Anne Dayton – honestly, I’m not sure that a new twist is required. I also think if you just write it really, really well, that’s entertaining enough.
I say, just write the book that’s inside you.
That’s really all you can do anyway, isn’t it?
Let genre and all that work itself out after you’ve written the book.
Natalie says
There are stories that just speak to us as humansāmust be that alien programming. Using an “established” plot isn’t unoriginal. It’s smart. These stories work, they’ll always work. We connect with them every time.
And if the new twist on them is done well enough, we don’t even realize it’s been done before until after.
Alex Green says
You open yourself up to queries that state “I’m the next Tolkien” when you say you want to meet these people. You know that right?
Mister Fweem says
If what we read hinges only on originality, we’re limiting ourselves severely. And, frankly, I’ve read some “original” works that were, when you get right to it, extremely bad as far as the writing went.
Take these two examples: Robert Aspirin’s MYTH series, and Terry Pratchett’s Discworld series. Both sound very familiar in a vary familiar genre: wise wizards help apprentices learn things, odd things happen in a fantasy world gone mad, et cetera. But both of these authors attack the genre with aplomb and create stories and characters that are fun to read. To reject them because Tolkein got to the genre first is unfair.
And it’s Christopher Paolini, not Christian.
Enusan says
I’m curious though. If execution is so important (And I agree that it is), how can one accept or reject based on a query, which is almost the opposite of execution? Is the simple fact of the matter that agents don’t have time to be receiving partials of everything that gets submitted?
Kristi says
Niki – it’s so good to see a fellow critique group member posting here. If only there was an agent like Nathan who repped PB’s! Good post as always, Nathan š
Nathan Bransford says
Thanks, Mister Fweem. Freudian slip.
Furious D says
Thank Xenu that originality is overrated, it warms the hearts of hacks like me.
But seriously…
While I’m sure that there are still new literary frontiers out there, somewhere, there is still a lot of rich material to be mined from existing genre’s, motifs, and themes.
Bane of Anubis says
Enusan, IMO, a query is a microcosm of execution- if you can write one well, you can probably write well – the converse might not be accurate (i.e., a poor query might not be indicative of poor writing, though there’s a greater likelihood), but when you’re getting a boatload of queries a day, I’d imagine that you need this filter to afford yourself some time for extracurricular things like sleep and food (hence the whole BAAFAD concept).
Ian says
Borges’ El Aleph is totally original and utterly brilliant. Laurie Lee’s “As I Walked Out One Midsummer Morning” is unoriginal yet equally brilliant. Make what you will of that. What I make of it is that a great writer will prevail, inshallah.
Onovello says
Even Mary Shelley took an old idea — the legend of Prometheus — and reframed it to incorporate the science of her time. And that legend goes back to the Garden of Eden (Tree of Knowledge). Likewise, J.K Rowling took traditional fairy and folk tale themes and archetypes and reworked them in her series; and one can look back to Nordic myths and find the roots of Tolkien’s quests. Over and over the best writers have found ways of taking old material and updating it, giving it new relevance.
That’s a rare gift indeed….
Kat Harris says
Thank you so much for this post, Nathan.
It has given me the courage to believe and carry on. You’re wonderful.
Mira says
Ian – I completely agree.
I’ve heard it said that J.K. Rowling borrowed alot from Camelot and the myth of King Author.
Tolkien and H.G. Wells borrowed as well.
Isn’t there a saying that Plato said it all? Or another saying that everything is just a footnote to Shakespeare?
Samuel says
Some writers are very explicit in using already established ‘concepts’ or stories: Bridget Jones’ Diary and Pride and Prejudice; On Beauty and Howards End; Last Orders and As I Lay Dying.
It can work very well.
Rick Daley says
Execution? Uh-oh.
Check me if I’m wrong here, but if we execute all the writers you won’t have anyone to rep.
CindaChima says
That’s exactly what I tell teens when I do writing workshops. A common complaint I get is, “All the good ideas are taken. Every time I think of something, it’s already been done.”I tell them that they will put their own stamp on their story.
It’s like quilting–give two quiltmakers the exact same fabrics, and they will create unique works of art.
Mechelle Avey says
Straight from an agent’s mouth: Retelling is selling. Got it.
Shakespeare Retold, a BBC television production, is a brilliant example of retelling the bard in a contemporary fashion.
It seems to me that the important point here is that it’s not just retelling, it’s retelling to a new generation, to a new audience, to that stranger who just got to town. That’s why writers should care about the demographics of readers.
In fact, as I consider your premise, Nathan, the admonishment (too strong?) is not should we retell. It is how? To whom? What should we understand about the structure of the story we want to retell? What are the transcendent elements? What are the cultural elements (the parts that should be overhauled to reflect the now)?
In retelling, are we concerned primarily with a generation’s culture markers? Are we revitalizing a story based on ethnic rhythm and perception? Are we updating a story to reflect thematic changes?
Hmm. And then there is the question you raised of concept. High concept and retelling are not the same thing unless the foundational concept was already high concept.
Anyway, you’ve given us a starting point. Retell and sell. Got it.
Ian says
Mira, I have great repect for people who completely agree with me. For that reason I have made a small contribution to your group story. I hope you like it.
jimnduncan says
Well said, Nathan. It’s one of those notions that bears repeating to writers on a regular basis. Readers don’t need original. They just need well written stories with interesting people doing interesting things in interesting places. Emphasis of course is on the well written part.
richfigel says
This is really true in the movie and TV biz: they want “familiar, but different.”
In fact, most agents and managers have their repped screenwriters pitch dozens of loglines (one or two lines that sell the concept) before writing the script, then tell the writers what they think has the greatest potential.
But it seems in the book world, most writers don’t test their concepts with agents until after they’ve written their first draft… or is that just for unpublished writers?
Seems to me if you’re going to spend months or years working on a project, it would be a good idea to try pitching the concept in writers groups or to friends first — or agents and publishers if that’s possible.
Elaine 'still writing' Smith says
Oh,the great debate:the twenty story plots, or the more simplified seven?
Mira says
Ian – why did a shiver of terror run through me at those words?
Then I carefully, cautiously, tenatively, carefully went and looked at the group story.
That was funny. š
Solvang Sherrie says
Good post. I guess since most stories aren’t original, that’s why so many agents and editors now say they’re looking for a unique voice?
Nathan Bransford says
(oops, posted that before I was ready).
Solvang-
Yes, exactly. Voice is part of execution, not concept, and it really can be a unique and original way to tell an old story.
Ian says
Solvang Sherrie. What a brilliant name! All I could think of was Ian and to be perfectly honest it wasn’t even my idea in the first place.
Mira says
Alex, you made a really good point.
Nathan,
You said:
“Odds are you’re not that person, although if you are, I want to meet you.”
Okay. Thanks.
I’d like to meet you too.
Because oddly enough, I am creating a completely new and original genre.
I’m thinking lunch maybe.
Someplace air conditioned.
Scott says
Great post, Nathan. Personally, I prefer authors who go into a story that they’re passionate about with the very idea to bring something new. In fact, I’d argue that the “something new” should be the initial spark behind the passion.
What I don’t care for are lazily rehashed plots involving make-weight characters that don’t try and say something about the time in which they’re born. Even if you’re writing historical fiction, we all have a pulse of zeitgeist coursing through our veins, and we should effort to replenish it as often as we can by truly experiencing life.
If we do, it will come through. And your readers will never recognize your story as anything other than its own creation, connected to their world and their lives.
Mira says
I’m just kidding of course.
I realize that was an unrealistic request.
Really. I’m asking for the impossible.
Hardly any restuarants in the City have air conditioning.
I’ll bring a picnic lunch to your workplace. I assume there’s air conditioning in your building.