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? I’m 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
Kia says
It kills me that S.E. Hinton wrote The Outsiders when she was only 16.
Gwen says
I just wrote a blog entry about this a few days ago. Somebody who read the first three chapters of my book said ‘have you read this other book…?’ I flipped out because I love that book and thought maybe I inadvertently plagiarized even though I started planning my books before I ever read that book. Turns out our books are operating on the same theme, but with much different worlds/characters/etc.
I think the whole ‘this reminds me of…’ phenomenon is a fact of psychology. We have schemas for just about everything, and it’s a lot more work to create a new schema, so when we encounter something novel we try to cram it into existing schemas. I would guess the ‘seen this before’ response wouldn’t have bypassed the published authors if people would have gone in with the assumption that it’s probably not the same, even if it seems like it on the surface, but it’s really hard to break out of that, especially when you’re not aware you’re doing it.
(Excuse my psych nerdery. I can’t help it!)
Auburn says
Insightful post as usual, Nathan. As a writer and as a member of the publishing industry, it frustrates me to no end when I have to deal with a person’s beleif that an author is or isn’t good because of the ‘originality’ of their story, when what this argumentative person is generally saying in reality is that similar books of the same genre have been written. We know they have been written. We’ve read them. As you said, the key is a unique exploration of a subject in such a way that it feels fresh and new and interesting. The invention of the entirely new genre is an accident. A happy, happy accident.
Neil says
Case in point is this "Pride & Prejudice & Zombies" thing. Fresh take on existing material, currently selling like sexy fruit in honey sauce here in the UK. And while I'm here, RIP J G Ballard. You dark little genius you.
Rachel says
I think JK Rowling borrowed quite a bit from Star Wars, too. Not books, but definitely three of the coolest movies ever (the originals, I mean).
Scott says
Well, Neil, there’s “inspired by”, and then there’s “derivative”. More or less rewriting an existing book to add zombies cause they’re hot strikes me as “derivative”. 😉
Ulysses says
First of all, I don’t think you’re the first person to say this. Ha!
Second, for entertaining and informative reading, I suggest TV Tropes, which discusses story bits – plots, characters and character development patterns, and every-bloody-other thing. It’s not limited to television, but includes a billion illustrations from literature, movies, comic books, and all other forms of story-telling entertainment. I doesn’t take much poking around in this wiki to find that one’s “wholly original” character/plot/device/concept is in fact, as old as dirt.
Truly, as Ecclesiastes said, “There is nothing new under the sun.”
Ian says
“It kills me that S.E. Hinton wrote The Outsiders when she was only 16.”
Yes, but Albert Camus had written it already, so she probably just copied it as a school exercise, which neatly wraps up this thread, apart from the fact that there are still hundreds of other people, apart from ourselves, who want to get Nathan to be their agent so this thread will just run and run.
Neil says
Scott — I'm certainly not endorsing this "literary mash-up" thing, dude. Frankly I think it'll get real old real fast — you know, Hamlet rewritten to include scenes of him battling zombies and all that — but prepare for a slew of them, because this concept is selling. AND there's an argument that says this "PP&Z" book will introduce a whole bunch of readers to Austen when they otherwise wouldn't have touched her with a ten-foot wooden stake. Personally, I think the whole thing screams "transient fad". But I ain't no oracle.
Mira says
Ian,
I’m not coming here to get Nathan to be my agent.
I’m coming here because I want to eat a good lunch.
But.
Really. Some people may want to add their thoughts to the topic. They may find it interesting. Even though someone said the same thing earlier in the thread, they want to say it in their own way, with their own slant.
Sort of on topic, right?
Anonymous says
Ironically, my last rejection went something like this: “We enjoyed reading all three of your [requested] manuscripts and found them to be very unique and original. Unfortunately we didn’t connect with the voices and didn’t care about the characters as much as we would have liked.”
Right. So my writing is unique and original but it sucks. I keep getting similar rejections so I guess I just have to accept that I’m an idea man and not an ‘execution’ man.
Maybe I’m just cranky about the fact that people who /aren’t/ unique and original still seem to get published, even if their execution isn’t that great either. Am I the only one here who feels like more is expected of me than others?
Anonymous says
Don’t color too far outside the lines.
Anonymous says
Inventing a new genre is way out there. But what I thinkl is doable is to craft orginal plots/concpets within existing genres. Of course just having a unique plot is not enough–it must be well executed and conform to the expectations/tropes of that genre.
Anonymous says
Originality is definitely not everytthing. How many times has the old cop-on-his-last-day-before-retirement-gets-into-the-case-of-his-life trope been used in both movies and books?!
Scott says
I hear you, Neil. And it’s difficult to intelligently criticize something without coming off like you’re bitter about the author’s success or want them to do badly. That’s totally not the truth. More power to the author, here.
Heck, any one of my larks–or concerted literary efforts–can get picked up and I’d be fine with it. It says more about the market than anything.
Christine H says
Mira,
WILL YOU CUT IT OUT!!!! Ice cream now? Oh my goodness, girl, you are addicted to your profile pic!
You’re as bad as Bo and women.
Everyone else,
My comment on the ACTUAL TOPIC OF THIS POST is this:
Even in literature and art, no man who bothers about originality will ever be original: whereas if you simply try to tell the truth (without caring twopence how often it has been told before) you will, nine times out of ten, become original without ever having noticed it.– C. S. Lewis So that’s what I’m doing. History (and perhaps Nathan) will decide if I succeeded.
T. Anne says
It would be an interesting exercise to give a group of writers the concept of a story, then see the different directions they each choose to run with.
Kristin Laughtin says
Aren’t there only seven unique storylines or something like that? I remember hearing something like that in some literature class years ago. If you condense a storyline down far enough, it will sound like hundreds of others. What makes it stand out is the details.
The Writers Canvas says
Good points, Nathan. My TV/film college professor always loved the “there are only 7 plots” speech.
I really did enjoy the being an agent for a day exercise. It’s opened my eyes!
Elaine
Mechelle Avey says
Ian said — “apart from the fact that there are still hundreds of other people, apart from ourselves, who want to get Nathan to be their agent so this thread will just run and run.”
I’ve already been rejected by Nathan. Doesn’t mean I don’t think he’s a great agent. I see him as a must read because he is a lighting rod for agent thought at the moment. Don’t you all agree? If his blog is being written about in the UK, he could reasonably be seen as a cultural icon. Maybe it’s temporary, maybe it’s not. Time will tell. There are a lot of blogging agents, but Nathan seems to have touched off a sense of belonging in the writer psyche with his open and helpful nature. He is an agent who “clears the adversarial air” between writer and agent. Sorry, Nathan. I know you’re human and all…don’t mean to relegate you to culture icon.
lospi says
I still say there’s a difference between the canard of “only seven stories” and a shelf full of books where a civilian and a law-enforcement professional, one or both of whom have secrets from the past, fall in love while eluding a serial killer. It’s not archetypical, it’s derivative.
Neil says
Uh-oh, Mechelle. You gone and done it now. You called Nathan a “cultural icon”. Prepare for the emergence of his hitherto well-concealed gargantuan diva’s ego! *braces himself*
PurpleClover says
Of course you’re right.
*says through clenched teeth*
I thought it sounded “done” so I passed. But I should have considered that it was a new voice. Bad PC! But I agree with your post.
And I have a new genre for you.
Suburban Fantasy 😉
Celebrity Philosophy :{
SciFi Non-Fiction (?)
Sorry. I’ll be serious now. Though I really think Suburban Fantasy can work…
frau says
I want to add this thought: not even truly new genres, ideas and plots come out of any one individual author, but from big societal shifts.
The basic tropes we have here in the West are somewhat recurring within other cultures, but then again there are those tropes and story arches from, say, the African or Asian literature tradition that don’t resonate with us as much – because they’re not as familiar. So of course you can say there are “three fundamental plots”, but their fundaments came from the building blocks our culture used to build a tradition of thought. Linear thinking here in the West, for example.
Anyway: new tropes and ideas come in spurts, as our society undergoes big shifts – the Sci-Fi genre, for example, was a direct reaction to the industrial revolution. It wasn’t any one writer or story, but a wave of individually unrelated authors cementing it.
True originality seems to come from being able to fully understand a trope, then push and flex it in different ways. Consequently it frequently comes from authors that have a meta-insight into culture: I’m thinking of Murakami – I think he understands how to use elements of Japanese storytelling culture in a way that resonates with the Western reader, too.
Am I making any sense? Anyone have more examples?
Marilyn Peake says
Nathan said:
” … 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.”
I think that’s because literature arises out of human need. People read books or see movies because they want to see human problems resolved. The arts are limited by human nature, not by lack of imagination. We live on Earth, we only have so many needs, we perceive a limited number of physical dimensions, we see a limited range of the light spectrum and hear a limited range of sound. In The Metamorphosis, Franz Kafka wrote about a man waking up as an insect, but the short story dealt primarily with human emotions. If we were cockroaches with the I.Q. of Kafka, we might write horror stories about huge boots floating overhead trying to squash us, historical novels about how we used to inhabit the ancient civilization of Egypt, and romance novels in which … oops, that would be human literature.
Neil says
Marilyn —
I think you’re onto something. I think “The Cockroach Chronicles” — if you’ll forgive the pun — has legs…
Laurel says
I was gratified to read this post. I AM that reader…finish a great book and after tearing through everything else by that author I immediately start trolling Amazon for “readers who bought this book also bought…”
Rowling, Paolini, David Eddings, and dozens of others in the fantasy genres almost all do a version of Arthur and Merlin. Tolkein’s Gandalf is Middle Earth Merlin with Frodo as a humble Arthur. Pride and Prejudice gets redone because chicks dig Byronic heroes, not because everyone is trying to rip off Jane Austen. Rick Riordan has done great things with Greek mythology in his Percy Jackson series.
When I see a story that looks familiar with a character I haven’t met yet, I can’t wait to read it. Sometimes the only new twist I need is a compelling character.
But what do I know? I’m just the end consumer.
Marilyn Peake says
Neil,
I like it!
Mira says
Frau, you make a good point about the time creating the genre, but I’m not sure it holds true across the board.
Let me give you two examples.
My understanding is that Tolkien was heavily inspired by the horrors of World War II to create his saga.
Whereas I’m creating a unique and original genre because I want to have lunch with Nathan.
Now, granted these are two similar examples, but I think you can see that the indivdual motivations contributed to the scenarios.
Dorothy says
Guilty as charged. I am always the one looking for something different. In books and in the rest of my journeys. Wise words. Thanks
bukarella says
I think this is one of those things that everyone knows, but not everyone remembers. I guess nothing matters as much as voice. I think I can read just about any genre, if the voice appeals to me.
Then of course, as a writer, you get this wonderful idea, and you are thrilled at how original and unique it is, until the day after… You do a little bit of research, and realize there are 20 books with the same premise already out on the shelves. heh!
Anonymous says
Nathan,
That was beautiful. Hope to the hopeless, yet hard a work.
frau says
Mira,
Haha. The desire to eat lunch with / via / served atop of cute guys is of course a natural engine of change, so that would be an exception.
But I do think that, as much as individual situations enable writers to produce something, the mojo mind stuff that comes to infuse it with something new sneaks its way in by virtue of larger societal conditions having changed.
I think, for example, that we’ll be seeing a lot more meta-tropes in literature because of the internet. We’ve gotten very self-conscious of what identity means and how easy it is to recreate it by yourself, so a possible new genre in the future would focus on that.
Genres are a way to deal with some new addition or complication to human life, ultimately.
Anonymous says
T. Anne said…
It would be an interesting exercise to give a group of writers the concept of a story, then see the different directions they each choose to run with.Wow, Anne, I love that.
Maybe you could sponsor that or maybe Nathan could consider it for his next contest.
(And, in my dreams, afterwards, we could possibly *nicely* workshop the results.)
Mira says
Actually, Frau, in all seriousness, I agree with you.
I think it’s not just societal changes, but the collective unconscious.
Sychronicity is a really interesting phenomenom, where several people think of the same new idea at the same time.
It’s almost like the collective unconscious has decided it’s time for a new vision, and it tries to send that vision out several different channels until it’s been seen.
frau says
Mira,
exactly! Originally I wanted to say something about how the light bulb, the telegraph, etc actually had two different people invent them at the same time – but I couldn’t remember names or details so I just didn’t go there.
It really IS a question of a deeper, collective thought process suddenly finding the right moment to mature, at which point those people that’ve paid attention to its rumblings the most snatch it up and do something with it.
I’m so psyched to see what kind of literature will start popping up in a couple of years. Internet has changed our whole way of living so much, SOMETHING’s gotta shake up.
Mira says
Frau – I know. The internet an amazing new playground for creativity.
I do think that there is a relatively new genre that’s been created – narrative non-fiction, and the internet contributed to the creation of that.
Never before, in the history of man, have so many people had so much access to information.
You used to need to buy huge encylopedia sets that were rarely, if ever, updated. Now, constantly changing and updating information is available and the click of a mouse.
In terms of the collective unconscious, it means we can go back and look at history with very fresh eyes.
Thus, narrative non-fiction.
In theory, anyway.
Beatriz Kim says
How can stories be really that original or different from what’s been done before? It can’t be done. Were human and we can’t help writing from that perspective…unless there really are aliens among us…just kidding!
It’s also why stories still sell. In the end, we want to connect with the human experience. Thank goodness that we’re so different at the same time. Our different perspectives are influenced by our experiences, cultures, philosophy, and religious beliefs.
Many readers are curious. They want to see new ways of looking at the same old thing. For example, Monet, Van Gogh, and Georgia O’Keefe painted flowers, but each had a very unique way of painting them. No one would deny that all three are masters at their craft.
Writers must also work on their craft, to create masterpieces. They must take the same old story and give it a fresh appearance.
Monet abandoned the classical and realistic paintings of flowers; he painted just the impression of them, using color and light. Van Gogh changed the world of impressionism by using an impasto style; his works were more violent and passionate than Monet. Georgia O’Keefe made a small Pansy the size of a 6 foot man; giving people the opportunity to feel like the hungry bee.
Writing is the same. What makes your story special? Why should people read it?
Like I do for painting, I study the masters. My favorite is Tolstoy. He can show you the personality of a character, by how they put away their coat or hold a cigar. Wow! If only I could have 50% of his talent!
Sorry for the long entry. I was on the debate team; I’m always debating my point.
Nathan,
I could never do your job! I couldn’t get past 15 entries. I’m glad there are people like you in the world of publishing. How else would good books find their way to the readers?
Have a great day everybody!
Lady Glamis says
Well said! I’ve had these same thoughts and always try to combine two different things to create something fresh and exciting, but comfortable for the reader.
Anonymous says
I don’t think any prospective writer should have an aversion to standing on the shoulders of giants.
You will literally go insane if try and avoid all established literary tropes, themes and motifs. They exist because they work, and because readers respond to them.
That being said I do think there are occasions where we have to call a spade a spade. There’s a difference between taking influence and inspiration from previous works, and putting yourself in a position where if Joe Eszterhas’ lawyer rings, you aren’t taking his call.
Simon
Anonymous says
I would think this fear of repeating an idea would only be mortifying in those cases where a piece of writing relies heavily on one central conceit.
eg. the perfect murder (you do it with a knife made of ice. don’t tell anyone)
I guess it would be a crushing blow to find the revelatory twist in your whodunnit had been dunn before, but any story that rests so heavily on a single idea is likely to be seriously flawed regardless.
Simon
Marilyn Peake says
frau said:
“I’m so psyched to see what kind of literature will start popping up in a couple of years. Internet has changed our whole way of living so much, SOMETHING’s gotta shake up.”
I think that’s already happening. I think one of the main reasons emphasis is now placed on tightly-written novels is because computers have made editing so much easier. I think that the demand to strip down writing to its bare essentials, taking out extra adjectives and adverbs is because readers have been trained to soak up huge amounts of information from social networking sites, and have come to appreciate information in thoughtfully worded sound bites. Readers don’t want to ponder and decipher long Russian literature type paragraphs. They want info. And they want it now. In as few character spaces as possible. Flash fiction’s a popular modern art form. I heard someone’s creating a flash fiction anthology over at Twitter where every entry must be 140 characters or less (don’t know if it’s true or not).
I read today that Susan Boyle doesn’t own a computer. She might not even know what a sound bite is. Is there no end to her lack of conformity? 🙂
lotusgirl says
Holy cow! You’ve gotten so popular I can hardly scroll down to the bottom of your comments anymore, and I wonder sometime, “What’s the point of adding my voice to the rest of these?” My voice is unique, though, so I add it even if it’s repetitious. Nothing new under the sun and all that jazz. It’s at least as much about the storyteller as it is about the story. Execution! Do we slay the story or the readers?
Robena Grant says
For what it’s worth, I read an article years ago on The Seven Original Story Ideas. Don’t have the original to give credit, only my notes. The article claimed all plots whether simple or complex, novel, poem, play, or movie, were born from one of only seven possibilities:
Fact
Failure
Fantasy
Fear
Fidelity
Freedom
Fortune
What do you think?
PurpleClover says
We were having a similar discussion at the blog Lisa & Laura Write (Lisa & Laura Roecker).
We've had the experience to write something and then pick up a book (obviously a genre we love) and find that certain aspects are very close to what we've written. Spooky.
Even those with brand-spanking new ideas probably share these ideas with others.
So Mira – I like your concept on the collective unconscious.
We will always have a WOW artist. But for the most part we just have to give different spins on the same ol' idea.
word ver: tatte
Aimless Writer says
After playing agent I have a few questions.
1. Does the kiss-up in the first paragraph really mean anything to you? When I say I love your blog and think you’re the best agent in the world …do you even read that? (I found myself skimming)
2. If they say its one genre but you can tell it doesn’t fit there but the hook looked good would you still request?
3. What would make you stop dead? Is there anything that would make you toss it before reading the whole page? Punctuation mistakes? A misspelled word?
4. Do you like it when we attach a chapter?
Which famous author would you love to have in your stable?
Max Cool says
This is a really interesting place, but you’re wrong about the alien DNA theory.
What really happened – this was about 65,000 BC – there were two groups of competing humanoids.
One colony had 6 fingers on each hand, had mastered construction, domestication of animals, hydraulics, and even basic flight.
On the other side of the valley was a bunch of inbred hick good ‘ole boy wifebeaters who only knew how to brew alcohol and cook crack cocaine.
Then there was a war.
Dawn Maria says
If anyone has read Jasper Fforde’s wonderful Tuesday Next series (well worth the time), one of the plot devices he uses in his Book World is the last (and highly guarded) original story idea. Some even doubt if it actually exists.
Jen C says
I don’t agree at all that it’s impossible to create an original plot. Just because none of us can come up with one, doesn’t mean that some bright genius won’t be able to do it in the future.
After all, it was our ancestors who invented the plots we have in the first place, so it stands to reason that someone with a massive uber-brain in this day and age could have the capacity to invent something new.
It’s only that tiny, minuscule number of people who are able to truly dream up something new, but that gosh for them…
Mechelle Avey says
I know Neil. It sounds like pandering, doesn’t it? Nathan seems remarkably lacking in ego, but what do we really know about him?
Then again, when you are surrounded by the titans of publishing, it’s hard to be a big-head.
By the way, Marilyn, I tried to post compliments about your submission to the blog yesterday. For some reason, they never took. I requested your story anon… I also loved the Japanese one. Inunga? Can’t remember the title. I requested 8 stories in all. Oops. Stopped requesting after I realized that this was not a free-for-all. There were many more that I would have liked to request.