[alcatraz]

Or so you'd think. If one book takes something from another book and you happen not to like that book, then it must be unoriginal.

Every book took ALOT from other sources! People just don't care about that if they like the book. Stealing things is okay. Every author takes ideas, consciously or unconsciously, that have been put into their mind from other times and elaborates on them. This is how things are created - in an endless chain reaction. Everything has an origin; nothing comes from nothing (after thinking about that, I think I've heard it before. Cool, I didn't even mean to steal that idea. I did not steal the wording). hmmm..."What is, is; What is no, is not"

It's so incredibly annoying having people critique literature that I like for being unoriginal. So what! So is everything else. I like to think of it as the communal improvement of an idea. Someone creates it from some event in their life or something, and others steal it, try and improve it, steal that, try and improve it, and so on.

It's all good.
-Alcatraz

[Crysania]

There's a difference between taking tried and true formula and either a, addding your own spin or b, paying homage to a story/legend - and completely rehashing the same mundane shlock that an 12 year old could do.

[kassimir funk]

I agree with you to a large extent. It's extremely rare to stumble across a truly original idea.

I think the delivery of the idea can be more important than it's originality.

Many of my ideas for my story have originated from something I read and "that's a good idea... but I think I can make it better"

Though I do think believe that the line that divides stealing and burrowing is broad indeed.

[Tagalie]

there's some theory about there only being 7 plots in the whole of Literature, and everything ever written is a variation on these 7 themes. I'm not sure what they are exactly, but would guess it would include:
revenge
rites of passage
love triangle
journey/quest
rags to riches

mmmm can't think of anything else. Think it came up in an A-Level English lesson when we were studying Jonson's The Alchemist, which is apparently completely original.

[Lawson]

Shakespeare plagarized a lot of works. No one's down on him. If say, Jordan took large snippits of Tolkiens work verbatim and slammed them into his stories, there'd be a huge uproar. But, Shakespeare did it with Ovid, and even now it isn't looked slightly down upon. I don't think it's wrong either, really. As long as you add your own things to it. It's kinda like a band who covers a song.

[Penumbra]

Writing is not like science where you depend on the discoveries of other people to make progress. There are two kinds of plagiarism in literature, intentional and accidental. If a writer deliberately uses another author's words or phrases without crediting them, he is guilty of intentional plagiarism and subject to being rebuked. On the other hand, it is quite possible to accidentally conceive something previously thought and recorded by another without meaning to. This can be an awful trial on everyone concerned because proof either way is exceptionally difficult to deal with. Personally, although I realize the necessity of standing on the shoulders of giants like Shakespeare, Tolkien and Bradbury, I get greater satisfaction by conjuring my own ideas, however poorly expressed, and stating things my own way. Of course, there are some writers who quite naturally find it hard to give up a good thing, especially one belonging to someone else. For me, I try to limit myself to deliberate quotations, putting the similar thoughts of others at the front of my chapters and thus avoid the possibility of reproducing another's ideas.

[alcatraz]

If you intentionally steal, that's stupid. But the reader can't really tell the difference.

My point was that no matter how original an idea seemed to you, it's influenced by every other idea you've read, heard, seen, or experienced before. If you think about it, all writing is a jmble of stolen ideas. It's not a bad or avoidable thing.

-Alcatraz

[Alucard]

My only problem is when Author's (or genres) keep repeating themselves without trying to move in different directions. As fun as it is, I can only read so many "Boy raised on farm is destined to destroy great evil and rule the world" kind of stories. I don't ever expect to read something completely original, but I do expect something new, or in the least, something fresh out of the stories I read. Because without twists or changes in the traditional formula, I can tend to lose interest.

For example, dragons are nowhere nearly as novel a concept as when I first read about them. They no longer seem as special after reading about them hundreds of times.

[Vitriol]

I agree Alucard; dragons have been done to death.

But look at how the way they are portrayed changes. At first they were creatures of vast evil, not just historically but by authors like Tolkien.

But with the advent of Pern and others, dragons are now seen as a wise, ancient race, old and weary but still capable of wielding vast magic. Every kid wants one!

Now we need a new direction for dragons. i personally vote for Norton/Lackey's Elvenbane series; the majority of dragons are arrogant and lazy; totally uninterested in the squabbles of other races and wishing only to remain hidden so there is no need for them to fight. Much like the other races in fact.

Still, changing a set idea seems to require a vast effort; this must be the only 'Tolkienism' to have been altered; elves are still long-lived, tall and wise, orcs & goblins are still green and evil, and dwarves still have long beards and quaff ale when not wielding mighty rune-carved axes.

[This message has been edited by Vitriol (edited March 16, 2002).]

[Blizzaurel]

Actually I think elves are portrayed in a new way in the Elvenbane series along with dragons. They oppress the humans and are generally not a very nice race at all (although they're still long-lived, at least they're not very wise or good). I thought that was pretty cool.