posted
Has anyone else come across this problem. You write away, are full of inspiration and spurred on by the seed of a wonderful idea. It takes shape, it grows and when it has developed and you are happy with it.....
Suddenly you notice something that you recognise, you scour your memory and there it is.... An idea that has been used before!
Take the Tear of the Gods for instance; Raymond Feists book. For quite a long time I worked on an idea that turned out to be quite good. Then I happened across the above book whilst checking out writing styles and there it is! Someone else had done something similar, but what a dreadful book it was!
How do you combat this kind of thing. It seems that as more books are written the scope of those who come after is reduced because there are only so many original plots. Any ideas, thoughts etc?
posted
In my opinion, it's not that there are no more IDEAS out there, they just happen to have similar ELEMENTS. Take the Lord of the Rings, for example. An excellent book, whether you enjoy the plot or not. However, any fantasy book with elves and dwarves that pits a "good" power against an "evil" power is going to be called a spoof off of it, no matter how different it is. Why? Because they are similar in some of their elements. They both have characters of the same type (ie., elves & dwarves), and they both have an "evil" power that's being fought off. The writer just has to set his own story off from anything else every written. You have to come up with at least one thing that will differ your story from anything and everything ever to be or that has been written. For Tolkien it was a hobbit and a ring. For Margaret Weis it was a kender and a mage. For one of my own projects, I believe it was a squirrel. You just have to make it your own. Of course, I am spending my Sunday afternoon flipping quarters and picking the vegetables out of my Lean Cuisine, so it could just be me.
[This message has been edited by Soule (edited January 13, 2002).]
posted
I would suggest, though, to avoid as hell elves, dwarves, and an evil overlord. You can write better fantasy without them. Take examples like Martin's Song of Ice and Fire, and Erikson's Malazan Book of the Fallen, or Glen Cook's Black Company for that matter.
Posts: 80 | Registered: Sep 2001
|
posted
Yes, this has happened to me. I outlined and plotted a story, then THE NEXT DAY I sat down with the anthology Science Fiction 101 and read my story -- "The New Prime" -- as written 50 years ago (By Jack Vance, IIRC).
DAMN it, I thought.
As far as plot goes, there will always be similarites. However, it's possible to get new ideas, still!
Perhaps my group members could comment on this: I've submitted stories recently in which I came up with (what I believe to be) new takes on old ideas.
I came up with a scientificly new means of constructing cyborgs; although it was an old-fashioned space-opera, the consequences of my scientific speculation led to NEW plot points (I hope!). My current piece is a new way to break a spaceship and get an Apollo-13 plot.
The plots might be similar, but by getting new and interesting details, you can make it (hopefully!) interesting to read.
[This message has been edited by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (edited January 14, 2002).]
posted
Just time for a quick reply, a point by way of anecdote.
I'm working on a story, several shorts actually (well, one short, with others to follow) that will eventually involve the "hunter/savior" to be conceived through a rape, and he'll grow up to hunt evil and save both civilizations (he'll be of both races). Am telling a buddy about it (with a few more details) and he says that it sounds an awful lot like Blade the Vampire Hunter. I say, "Really? Never seen it." He says, "No?" and then explains some of the basic similarities.
Am I frustrated? Gonna chuck the whole ball of wax? Just because someone else has done a story similar to mine? Nope, not in a heartbeat. What I'm going to do is -- first, NOT see Blade until my stories are written, don't want any more similarities popping up than humanly possible; second, I take comfort that a) my 'bad guys' aren't traditional vampires b) my hero isn't some sword wielding half vamp and c) the main tension and the story HAS to be different and will offer readers something different EVEN IF they see the similarities to the movie.
posted
There are no new ideas. There are only new combinations of old ones. Therein lies the fun. Had I stopped there, I might have sounded quite smart, but I couldn't resist responding to a point made by Bardos, which went along the lines of 'avoid elves and dwarves and etc'. Why? You say you can write good fantasy without them, and this is true. You can write good SF without space ships and aliens. But few say not to write about either of them. So why is it bad to write about elves and dwarves and evil overlords (which are just bad guys, and there's always got to be a bad guy, even if it's just Chance or Accident or even Death)? Just because some writers are falling back on old cliches of elves and the like, doesn't mean we can't use them. I am now done *grin* JK
Posts: 503 | Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted
My point above is that there are new ideas -- or at least, new twists on old ideas -- if you work hard enough to find them. My new way of making a cyborg above came to me as I researched "Shape Memory Materials" for my phase transformations class.
Sure people have used cyborgs before, people are developing SMM's to make "artificial muscles" for use in robots, but I'd like to think I came up with a new and interesting combination.
Here's another hint: think of the CONSEQUENCES of your idea. It is an unavoidable consequence of my invention that the cyborg character will constantly be in danger of heat stroke (trust me, because I don't want to go into details here), so that was his "kryptonite," so to speak. My story would have been as boring as early superman comics had I not thought out the consequences of my weird science.
posted
JK, I don't know about scifi, for I rarely write it or read it. But about fantasy, yes, I am of the opinion that the writer should use something new in their stories, something out of their own imagination. After all, isn't that fantasy all about?
Posts: 80 | Registered: Sep 2001
|
posted
The problem with Tolkien is that he didnt invent any creatures! The Orcs were always goblins, Elves are a part of Celtic and Nordic myth, the dark lord? Loki, Hel, Morpheus? Dwarves! The Ring of the Niebelungen? Hobbits stealing a cup from a dragon? Sounds a bit like Beowulf to me. Wizards? Done loads of times even before Tolkien. Nazgul erm let me think ah yep Valkyrie! Balrog- Norse Giants! And so we can go on. It just annoys me that the minute you say Elf, everyone says Oh yeah Tolkien. So I have decided just to go ahead with it.
The point sank home last night when I said to my wife, right here is chapter one of 43 Read it and tell me what you think. She doesnt like fantasy but she replied, "Thats excellent, it feels as if we are back in Yorkshire with all of your relatives!" Which was a compliment because if you live in Yorkshire you tend to speak differently and act differently to the rest of the UK - in lots of ways. Anyway then she said, "Its very like the Lord of the Rings." My Heart sank. Then I passed her another book, one by David Eddings and she said, "Yeah thats like the Lord of the Rings as well." I tried again with Terry Brooks and she said, "Theyre all like the Lord of the Rings arent they?"
That was it! I have stopped worrying about it. Everything I ever write in this genre will end up being compared to LOTR. So I am just going to write it. After all, no one is going to stop reading stuff like this just because it has Elves in it!
posted
The reason why people say "Tolkien" when you say "elves" is because of the extensive work Tolkien did on them. There is more "history", "culture", and whatnots behind Tolkien's elves than we know about most ancient real human cultures. He even went through the trouble of creating a viable language for them (based on Welch I think). Its a speakable, translatable language. Actually, if I recall right Tolkien started his middle earth stories and histories more to play with language, which he loved, than to actually set out to write an epic story.
The Fantasy genre is general has always been closely tied with mythology. And since Tolkien is the "King" of the genre, everything will always come back to him.
Sci-fi hasn't gotten like that just yet. However that is partly because it advances with normal human advances. Fantasy will always be set in the time and technology level that it is currently set just because of its nature. Sci-fi, however, changes. One year its a nice little sci-fi idea to have these portable devices that Kirk and his crew can use to contact his ship. In a few years that isn't so sci-fi since they are like cell phones. What I am trying to say is that the background of Science fiction is constantly changing so it helps to discourage people from finding similarities between.
There have never been "new" ideas. I have, from time to time, heard someone say that if anyone can write a truely new idea then they would be the next William Shakespear. However even he (if he existed, but lets not go there) stole his ideas from other writers of the time. And they likewise stole their ideas from earlier authors, some hailing back to Greek/Roman plays. Homer's Iliad is even thought to be a composition of various other storytellers.
So for the most part, don't worry too much about ideas being similar to other, already, published books... unless its disturbingly similar, as in so similar that it looks like blayant plagerism. That can be bad.
posted
There is nothing wrong with using old ideas. Most old ideas can be changed and made better. I've also learned that if you don't look for a story with similarities, then you won't get frustrated. In other words, don't go looking for trouble. See, I do not know if my ideas are original, and I really don't care, so I keep writing. But thats just my opinion.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Jan 2002
|
The best stories are the old ones, stories about the same old emotions and passions and problems that all humans have in common.
The peculiar genius that each of us strives for is not to tell a new story, but to tell it in such a way as to reach and affect a person that has never heard it before. And that is a field that is wide open. Every day the world people experience changes a little, and over time we need to find new ways to tell our stories so that the reader can fit it into the world we share.
As members of this generation, sharing these experiences, belonging to their community, we have a unique ability to relate the timeless lessons of human experience to our contemporaries. Don't bother writing for the ages--they might not come anyway, and if they do, they will almost certainly not be what you imagine. Don't bother writing to the past, those generations have their stories already. Write to the people around you, choose the setting, the style, the dialect that they relate to, and then tell them a story that they never understood when it was in Shakespear or the Bible or Homer or any of the thousands of ancient works.
For some, science fiction is the new fantasy, the modern tale of the strange but possible. For many others, epic fantasy is the modern heir of the fairy tale. For most, perhaps, the broad canvas of the modern, cosmopolitan world we live in is wide enough for all the strangeness they are ready to face. And the past, now so estranged from our experience, is new again as a tale of the strange.
Every story can be told again for each person that has never before experienced it. Don't worry about not having new stories to write about, just tell the ones we have to those that have never before really heard them.
posted
I have actual read a story with elves and completly new ideas .. . I didn't like it much the first time I read it. It was just so different, and different is scary. Granted I liked it when I re-read it, but my point it (yes there is one . . I think) sometimes boring id good because it gives us a base to work off.
posted
When someone is using elves etc, they are not copying Tolkien. What bothers me is that they use a tired old clich already used a hundred times before. It is also for me a sign that the writer is lazy, to create (or discover, if you prefer) their own world and creatures that populate it. Remember that some people used their imagination in times past to create legends. Is our imagination weaker than theirs? Cannot we create something new?
(Of course, all this goes does to person taste, as usuall...)
About fantasy and scifi, IMO, scifi is a subgenre of fantasy, for fantasy has a much, much broader horizon than scifi. In fantasy you can write about anything; in scifi it has to be based in our own, known technology.
posted
Just on the subject of Tolkienesque Elves like the Sindar and Noldar and all that as they relate to science fiction.
The human mortality mechanism is genetic, and is actually fairly well understood already. In time, there seems little doubt that human genetic engineering, if it is used at all, will be used someday to create immortal, physically perfect, highly intelligent and skilled, beautiful humans.
At the same time, I doubt that they could successfully exterminate the old, flawed, mortal, but prolific humanity (I would hope that they wouldn't even try, but I'm quite cynical about Ubermenschen, even really beautiful ones).
Someday, that may be us, our children, playing out the tale of divided races, human and inhuman, and a quest to destroy an ancient weapon before it can be used to enslave the world.
Just to base something on our own, known technology.
posted
Boy, I've seen it written here a few times and I still don't see it. How are elves, as a type of character, chliché? It would seem to me that if you take that line, then you'll be excluding a lot of other types of characters to use, play with, and put into new situations -- vampires, robots (they've been done out the wazoo, everybody knows what they are, better not use 'em), wizards (regardless of where they get their magic or how they weild it), rangers, dwarves (obviously, just like elves), dragons....
To avoid using elves or any I've mentioned above, simply because someone very popular has used them and becomes identified with them -- Tolkien, Rice, McCaffrey, Asimov -- is a mistake. To use them is not clichéd, it's simply more of a challenge. It's fine to use them, to capitalize on the familiar about them, make up new for them if you like, and use them in ways that haven't been seen. The challenge is in not rewriting every elf or dragon story you've read before. But can't you say that about just about anything in genre writing?
posted
That's why fantasy progresses so painfully slow: for most of us are afraid to use new things --either that be a new race, a new creature, culture, or whatever. Personaly, I never use elves deep in the forest, dwarves in the mountains, etc stuff. If I wan't a mountain-dwelling race, then I'll invent one, thank you very much. And most modern authors do this also: Martin, Erikson, Haydon. For me it's not about the reader; it's about that I'm bored to write about elves again, when I've read that stuff again and again! I don't write, if I don't have something new to tell --I don't feel the urge to.
(Of course, that again goes down to personal opinion. )
posted
You say you'll invent a mountain-dwelling race. Kudos to you, Bardos, but don't you think that comparisons will be made between this new race and dwarves? Why bother, when you can call them dwarves, but make them the way you want them to be. They don't have to be Tolkien dwarves, or anyone else's dwarves. They just have to be your's. I think the fear is, JP, not that elves and the like are cliches, but that they are tired and reused so many times; there's little imagination going into it. But you are right, that's no excuse to not use them. I'm bloody sick of seeing aristocratic, gothic and poncy vampires, but that doesn't mean I won't write about them. I'll write about the vampires I want to see. BTW, SF is not a subgenre of fantasy. They're very different, but there are similarities I'll admit. And you point about being limited in SF because we have to write about something based on our own known technology is very wrong. JK
Posts: 503 | Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted
As I said, look at the consequences of your inventions.
In the sequals to _Ringworld_, Niven invents the "Spill montain people" who are mountain dwellers on the ringworld. Niven examined what HIS mountains were like, applied that investigation through the lens of evolution, and invented a new and interesting race of demi-humans.
Read all three _Ringworld_ novels, simply to see how a master created scads of different types of near-human races. Nominally vampires, or ghouls, or giants, and all interesting to meet, because he looked at how their enviroment shaped their evolution, then how that would shape their personalities.
posted
JK, just to clarify your post, I didn't say anything about SF being a subgenre of Fantasy or it being limiting or anything like that....must have been someone else.
Bardos, you've got a lot of thoughts flying about that don't all stick to the same point. Fantasy writers who use elves and dwarves aren't "afraid" to create other things, they're writing what interests them and what they want to write about. Hopefully for the readers they're trying new things with them, or creating uniqueness in some way, but the very fact they use them does not necessarily convey any trepidation on the writer's part. You said yourself that for you it's not about the reader, but about you having something "new" to write about. For others it's the same, and what they want to write about is elves. Their elves or your "something new" won't pass the readers if it's not well written, on that I'm sure we agree.
As for creating your own race of mountain dwellers, just take care not to make them short, stocky, bearded, ore mining and smithing beings and simply call them something different. Talk about being worse than using "dwarves". And if they're tall, lanky, albino, smooth-faced, and make medicine out of herbs, then you'd better have a good explanation of how that fits with them living in a mountain. Not saying you can't, merely echoing Chad's point about understanding the implications and ramifications of the world/environment you create on the characters that dwell there.
JK, "tired and reused" is only a function of the writing, not the fact that there are elves in it. Again, my point, if it's written well, and unique in some way, what's the difference if there is elves in it.
posted
<<You said yourself that for you it's not about the reader, but about you having something "new" to write about. For others it's the same, and what they want to write about is elves. Their elves or your "something new" won't pass the readers if it's not well written, on that I'm sure we agree.>>
But, of course; if someone wants to write about elves, why not? I'm just saying I am bored of the elves. What I'm trying to point out is that some people -perhaps- write about elves b/c it comes "easier" to them, while not really liking them. Now, if you (and I'm not refering to you personaly) like elves so much, then you should write about them, for then you're going to write something good about elves. But, if you use them as an excuse.... You get the point.
About inventing another race, I meant another race; not elves/dwarves/hobbits in disguise. E.g. (and I'm creating this right now, so excuse if it is kind of gufy ), the Algraths dwell in mountain caves. They go deep in to these caves, when it's cold and the snows fill them mountainlands; but, when Spring comes, they live in the upper caves of the mountains, and hunt in the woods and the valleys. They are usually 8 feet tall (or even taller), they walk on four muscled and clawed legs. Their head resembles that of a hawk without hair in it's shape, but they don't have a beak; they have large maws filled with sharp teeth. Their tails are long, and they use them to snatch their pray. Although, they migh seem unintellingent monsters to those that don't know them well, the Algraths have a whole civilization in the deeper caves, where are their true homes.
posted
i think i get the point Bardos is getting at. may i elaborate? the thing with elves/dwarves/etc. is that they've been done so often that, coming into a story, if a reader hears the name "elf" they have a general idea about what to expect. this can be good and bad. on the plus side, the reader likely has a hazy history of the "elves" in mind (especially if they've read Tolkien!) and you therefore COULD put less work into developing that and instead focus on an individual character/plot line. the character's species would not feel so unreal. on the down side, if you want an interesting twist on the species, using "elf" would imply so much to the reader that it could be a difficult task. in some cases, you might as well create your own species.
this is one facet of the problem i'm having with one of my own works (see skipping around). it doesn't take place on earth, and making a believable race isn't working out the way i'd planned....
posted
I say "Tolkien", you say "elves". You say "Tolkien", I say "I wish I could borrow some of his spare time so that I could come up with stuff like that because believe me that must've took A TON of spare time, o my golly garsh". Ish. There ARE new ideas, JK, I'm telling you now and don't you dare say there aren't. There are just hard to find. Ender's Game was a new idea. The DragonLance Chronicles was a new idea. (Same examples, I know...). The Brightest Light, Star Wars (not really a book), Harry Potter, The Alvin Maker Series, MARY FRICKING POPPINS!!!!!!!!!!!!! All original ideas, many of them "recent". You just need to think harder than Jane Austin or Mark Twain (excellent writers) did, because there are so many more stories now than there were then. And I'm afraid that dwarves, elves, and such have been a little "over-used"; IMO, they are fine to be used in fantasy, so long as there are some "newer" creations to set them off (ie., Margaret Weis' kender or Pullman's Specters). Original ideas to, again, set your story off from everything else, because, again, those same elements will make them sound the same, no matter how different they are.
Posts: 79 | Registered: Aug 2001
|
posted
I THINK EVERYONE WHO WROTE ANYTHING HAS RUN INTO THE PROBLEM OF SIMILAR IDEAS. BUT I DON'T HONESTLY THINK ALL THE GOOD IDEAS ARE TAKEN. THATS LIKE SAYING WRITING ORGINIAL MUSIC IS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE THERE'S NO NEW NOTES. I KNOW I HAVE ENOUGH IDEAS IN MY HEAD ALONE TO PROVIDE ME WITH SLEEPLESS NIGHTS AND ABOUT 27 UNFINISHED NOVELS AND SHORT STORIES.
Posts: 401 | Registered: Jan 2002
|
posted
The problem of originality does not seem to be one of creating original species.
No one is going to second guess your 'elves' and 'dwarves'- however they fit or don't fit as stereotypical genre critters in respect to traits and actions - as long as they are engrossing characters.
This is the challenge of all writing originality.
Of course, I see the point that over-used species can be a turn-off to a veteran reader of the genre...unless you have them hooked already with your fresh voice and innovative style.
posted
I don't think the point of storytelling is to find an entirely new story. The storys that come out of your head are probably bitsand peices that come out of books you've read, storys you've heard, your own experiences, ect. I think the important thing in storytelling is that you tell it your way, with your characters, and your attitudes. That's what writing is, anyway, is expressing the story in your head through words on paper. wow...i seem to be posting a lot today. huh.
posted
No, JP, you didn't say SF was a subset of fantasy. I didn't mean to imply that you did. That one was Bardos. And I phrased my post badly. Elves themselves aren't tired and reused, but the common concept of elves is. All elves are portrayed Tolkien-style; they're lofty but ancient, wiser beyond our imagining and far greater than any man could be. Not only a ridiculous idea, but one that people are all-too-ready to use without adding or modifying it at all. Doing that is like plugging an Elf into your novel without doing any work yourself, and it's lazy. I'm fine with elves, so long as they're the author's elves, not someone else's. And dwarves and dragons and the rest. It's not unimaginative to use these races and species. They're a part of the fantasy genre, and ignoring them is ignoring a rich, fruitful and interesting part of that genre. So use them, if you want to. Sorry Soule, I stand by my earlier statement. There are no new ideas, only combinations. Let's look at some of the examples you cited (obviously, only the ones I've read *grin*). Ender's Game; training children from a young age, combined with zero-gee fighting, combined with an alien threat to the human race (on a very basic level, of course, but that's what ideas are). These have been done before. Harry Potter; wizards and magic, young boy finding out that he's more than he thought, orphaned, learning how to control this new power. Done. However, I might have been a bit hasty. I will admit that there are a few new ideas, but that they're so few and far between that they'll either be very bad, or very good. It's all about combinations, though. JK
Posts: 503 | Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted
JK: Did you just say Tolkien's elves are a ridiculous idea?? *shock*
Regarding new ideas, I do think there are probably some new ideas out there somewhere; they're just extremely hard to find. In SF, especially, there should be new ideas, because new discoveries are being made every day in science.
For instance, in the last couple of years, it was observed that the expansion of the universe seems to be accelerating. Just yesterday I wrote a silly little 500 word short story based on this idea. (If anyone wants to read it, just send email. )
Later, Erk
[This message has been edited by epiquette (edited January 17, 2002).]
Also, I have to second what JK said about everyone using the same concept of what Elves would be like (though not what he says about Tolkien's Elves being ridiculous, if you've read the Simarillion, then you find out that there has been a eons long selection process at work, weeding out the bad apples [and since Elves live forever, the accumulation of selection really tells] and that the "good" elves are only a small, select, chosen fraction of their races).
See, part of what makes it ridiculous is that everyone else just has the Elves be good by nature, whereas Tolkien never had anything like that sort of idea...he just had already divided the good from the bad earlier in his history. Most elves are actually enemies of humans (and everyone else) and just want to exterminate them (this is where Orcs and goblins come from in Tolkien's book, by the way). Even many of the "good" elves are less than "jolly fine chaps" when it comes to being nice to "non-Elvish" people (and sometimes other Elves that happen to live in the next forest over).
My Elves are less "ancient" than Tolkien's, and that helps me get a more easily apparent diversity of morals, attitudes, and nationalities within what is still recognizably a single species. I fully intend to have "good" elves, but I also make it clear that they choose to be that way (they are members of a sect that serves the "good" goddess, and membership is both voluntary and typically involves celibacy, so no one is "born" that way). And of course, there is always the possibility of apostacy, rebellion, and moral failure (although the probability of a person that has held fast to the faith for a thousand years apostacizing is pretty small, I think, still, it can happen).
My point? I'm not going for originality of concept, I'm taking the concept and making it my own...rather than take Tolkien's ideas about where Elves come from, I use my own thoughts on the subject. So what if Elves aren't original? They're mine.
posted
I think perhaps that the real issue in writing is not the coining of new species, locales, or even ideas. I fear I'm a little biased on this issue, since the value of my prefered variety of fiction is its speculative nature. I don't value dwarves for the sake of dwarves, starships or the sake of starships, or anything that exists or the sake of a "good story" rather than to engage the reader on a deeper level. I'm not trying to be snobbish. There's plenty of room for stories for the purpose of entertainment, but I think that the burden of originality falls lighter on them because basic enjoyment and ease of reading are in fact encouraged by drawing heavily on a reader's previous literary experience -- If I want to sit and vegetate with a fun bit of literary fluff, I certainly don't want to have to learn about N'ArD''BlllHerran244ians and their culture and their hideously complex naming structure. I want dragons and knights and things.
Now. If the writer's goal is more along the lines of drawing the reader into a world, connecting with them in a significant way, and using that connection to open their mind about our world and its problems and possibilities, then that's a whole different kettle of fish.
I think that when it comes right down to it, the most important factor in the success or failure of a story is the Telling. Somebody earlier mentioned Shakespeare. Shakespeare owes NONE of his success to original ideas. All of his plays were either ripped directly off from previous incarnations, taken from the news of the day, or in some other way 'lifted' from existing sources. Does that make him a bad writer? Well, it could very well have. But it didn't, and doesn't. The reason his works are in print and on stage so many years later is because he told the SAME stories BETTER. It was his presentation, not his content.
A successful story stems from its ability to connect with the reader. To do this, it must be full of things which are TRUE and REAL. But the trick is that dwarves, elves, dragons, magical rings and every other enduring piece of fantastic chattel CAN BE REAL, whether or not they actually exist. The difference between a story in which the dwarves are successful, and one in which they are hackneyed and unnecessary, lies in the truth and reality of what they are doing.
Most stories deal with the triumph of a person or society over adversity. Why? Because whether it's hobbits against a magic ring, knights against dragons, Battle School children agains buggers, or whatever else, all these stories are really about us. Us, as individuals and societies. They are about the strength it takes to live in the world today, about the wonderful and the horrible realities of our existence, the defeat that comes from weakness and complacency, and the hope which can always be rekindled if each little one of us can commit to do our best.
ALL stories are about humans. They tell us things about ourselves or they tell us nothing at all. Good stories are assembled from interconnecting webs of 'truths', or they don't work. "Ender's Game" is not an original idea. It is merely storytelling at its best. It takes the fundamental 'triumph over adversity' motif and colours, twists, and contorts our impression of it through the addition of a great many 'truths' and fragments of our enduring cultural mythology. In the end, it is successful for its ability to connect with us, open our minds and hearts to the layers of good and bad in the human experience.
So yeah :-)
Just a few of my little thoughts... Basically, bad writing is bad writing, and good writing is good writing.... :-)
posted
I agree that all stories are about the human condition. Whatever we write --want it or not-- it's (a) a reflection of our inner self and (b) a reflection of the world as we understand it. But remember that the reflection and the actuall image is not always the same; it can be large, smaller, etc altered.
But --and that's a large but-- I personaly believe that however well writen the story, if we don't like it as an idea, that's it... Why read, e.g., Terry Brooks, who costantly repeats his story and copies Tolkien, and not read Steven Erikson, who has created a whole new living world?
posted
Then I stand corrected; I have not read Tolkien's Simarillion. However, my statement about Elves being big and noble and old still stands, just not for Tolkien. A number of writers make their elves like this with no good reasons. Call me odd if you like, but I like to see some fallacies in my elves - and yes, I admit that Tolkien's elves had fallacies. The point made by epiquette, about new science producing new ideas, is perhaps true. And BTW, we've known for some time that the universe expansion is accelerating, it's just that it's only now becoming common knowledge. Chuckles, you said 'ALL stories are about humans.' Not true. It may be that many stories are about humans, and it may be that many of those stories that aren't about humans at least feature them in some way. But in no way are all stories about humans. JK
Posts: 503 | Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted
------------------------------- Chuckles, you said 'ALL stories are about humans.' Not true. It may be that many stories are about humans, and it may be that many of those stories that aren't about humans at least feature them in some way. But in no way are all stories about humans. JK ---------------------------------------
Hi JK Well, I admit that it's a pretty strong statement, to say that 'all stories are about humans'. But I do say it. The misunderstanding almost always comes from my wording of the idea -- people assume that I mean thematically, or that I mean all stories must have humans in them. I certainly don't mean that.
What I do mean is that all stories are about us. Humans. Stories are written by us, for us, about us, regardless of whether we feature in them. Stories about aliens are about us. Stories about animals are about us. They are not designed to be read by anybody other than humans, they reflect our values, our concepts, our society...
So that's what I mean. Not very well explained at all, I'm afraid. If you still disagree, I'd be happy to try and jot down something a bit more eloquent and convincing :-)
posted
Ideas are there, whether new or old. Our biggest problem with them is the accessibility of them. Not only is it very difficult to come up with new ideas, but even coming up with old ones can be a challenge, purely for the fact that there are SO MANY OF THEM OUT THERE. I think that the only way for us to come up with truly new ideas is for us to have instant access to every old idea ever thought of, AND a running link to all the new and currently old ideas that people come up with every second we breath on this earth... and maybe even beyond.