Reading, Writing and Originality

[raspberryhat]

I try to avoid reading anything much when I am working on something of my own. I find I tend to absorb stylistic intent without meaning to. And I worry that it'll influence what I produce too much.

Then again I also have the view that there's very little true originality in the world and a lot of writing is about subtle interpretation and pov on things that have been told in other ways. I hope I am wrong. I just struggle with finding my own originality. I guess I am saying a good telling seems to be what's so important and if you can gain genuinely originaly insight in the process then great. A good telling of a familiar story can be so good.

This might be two different issues really. I personally think we should strive to develop our own style and view on the world. The frustration I have is everytime I think of an idea I can usually build some kind of relationship in a few steps to something I've already read/seen/heard. So maybe that just says I am not very original. Or maybe it says a lot's been done. Or maybe it says we all crave certain kinds of stories which is why certain themes are so popular.

I was just wondering if anyone else has had the read/write concern or the wider originality concern.

[The_Lord_J]

Ahah, someone gives voice to one of the dilemmas I have

The way I see it, true originality is limited; it's SO rare that something is *truly* original, however, it is possible to create something that seems MORE original than most things by combining two or more influences.

Music, for example. When you've got one person writing material when they only listen to one or two bands of the same genre, the music will inevitably turn out sounding like those bands. Put 5 people together who listen to all sorts of diverse music, (but have a common theme) and you'll end up with something a bit more original (as long as they're all not heavily into exactly the same bands at exactly the same time). Or equally get one person who has a massively diverse musical taste and you'll invariably get something a bit new sounding.

The problem is when you (later) find out that someone else with the same influences has already done what you did

This applies to fic as well as music; generally when I start writing a fic it's an amalgamation of basic ideas that I've come across in other stories or fics that I've read recently. It's what inspires me; I never feel inspired to sit down and work out some new theme for a fic, or to try and come up with something absolutely original. But maybe that's just the way my brain works, it's the same with my music: I tend to just start writing something and whatever influences are at the forefront of my life at the time get chucked in there, but the whole writing process would have been kickstarted by me listening to something I really liked and thinking "I wanna write something like that!".

Maybe that's a bit childish in a way, but it's just how I work. The bad thing is when you become disillusioned with one of your influences, or get bored of it; you end up with an unfinished product that you just don't have the energy to fulfill.

Looks like I've just poured out a load of useless information there about myself.

Ah well, such is life.

[raspberryhat]

It's not useless information. We're all fundamentally built the same way. The fact people can be so different and write so differently is one of the things that makes us so interesting. I think. Doesn't matter if you believe in genetic pre-determination or that a person is a product of their environment. There are seemingly so many variables.

I tend to get swept away by passion for a particular idea and I'll get inspiration when I see something done in a certain way. I like to think I am able to abstract enough so I can try an approach without copying the actual material. It takes thought of course.

I absolutely agree with your point about how a band works. The writer/beta relationship is not entirely dissimilar. In my view. I know my ideas have gone in different directions from small comments I've been given. I also know my thinking can be shaped by things happening around me.

That's what's so interesting about serialised fiction. You have an outline but you don't know where it's going. I know music massively influences what I product. The sort of thing I am into at the moment definitely has an effect and it certainly helps me set mood. I was listening to some Billie Holiday (Gloomy Sunday) and found it perfectly set the mood for a piece I was working on. It just put me in the right frame of mind.

I still think I was probably conjuring up a cinematic cliche in my head, but it still works. Maybe the point is that with all those variables and influences what comes out might have echoes of familiary but be something new. Maybe work has to have familiarity for people to understand it. Come out with something utterly different and will people get it?? Have you over tried Phillip K. Dick's Valid trilogy? Now I might be opening a can of worms with that example. Knowing his history and the like I know there's a lot to that. It's just you could take the view that he was operating from a position so far out (no pun intended) the norm that his work was hard to get.

[Hemiola]

It's worth remembering that "originality" as a concept is over-rated. Shakespeare, for example, never wrote a single original story: all of his plots come from somewhere else--history, literature, or myth.

The "Cult of Originality" is something that dates from the 19th century and the "High Romantic" era. It was at this time that the image of the artist as a kind of "Inspired Magus" was promulgated, in which a totally independent and uninfluenced "genius" was supposed to be grabbed by the irresistable "Spirit of Inspiration", which forced him/her to create a unique "original" work devoid of any outside influences. Of course, this was nonsense. Even the most "original" works of art, literature, and music produced in the 19th century show influences and precedents, sometimes very obviously.

Perhaps it's worthwhile remembering a famous comment attributed to Picasso. The influence of several classical paintings was pointed out to the great Spanish artist, and he was complimented on how well he had incorporated these "borrowings" into his modern concepts. Picasso is supposed to have bristled and replied "Please, only hacks borrow. I steal"

[Sassette]

I sometimes think that if anyone ever had a truly, wholly, uniquely original idea, no one else would have the frame of reference to understand it.

-Sass

[binky]

I agree with The Lord J (corrected) on this. Writer’s mystique or creator’s privilege? Not for me. As long as it’s not plagiarized, I’m all for intertextuality. The critic in me prefers stuff that can be interpreted lots of ways, and I’m trying to train my inner writer to accept this as Bible. That’s actually the big draw of Buffy to me as a viewer. Once a work is out there, it’s going to be altered in interpretation by the reader anyway depending on what they’ve read before, so why bother with the pretense of originality?

On the other hand, I do get the need to want to assert your own ego as a writer. There’s a pride factor there that you were the one who started the conversation, even if others have joined in and taken it to places you didn’t really envision when you began it. From that point of view, I think there’s plenty of chops to be made by either being the first person to make an utterance, or the third person who’s said it in their own unique way or added something new to the mix. If you look at it that way, as an ongoing multi-party conversation or like a party, there’s no shame being second, third, last, the latest, etc.

b

ETA: That's also why I don't think there's any real conflict in reading as you're writing.