Originality - It's How You See It

“True originality consists not in a new manner but in a new vision.” - Edith Wharton

Originality is possible in both ideas and stories. Every individual approaches subject matter from a fresh perspective. How a person views and portrays stories, or anything in life, is sculpted by that individuals personal experiences. Therefore, because no two people have the same backgrounds, their outlook will differ in some way. This makes it possible to have originality. Like Edith Wharton said, although the subject matter may be the same, no two story is alike; every author sheds a new light. Hypothetically, lets say both you and I are looking at the same cloud and we come to the conclusion that the cloud resembles a giraffe. Now we both write a story based on the creature we think the cloud resembles. Undoubtably our stories will be different because our brains do not work the same. My giraffe may be magical, and yours may be a giraffe in a zoo. However, neither you or I could accuse the other of unoriginality merely because they are both based on the same animal. Our stories are original because the manifestation of the giraffe in our stories are not the same. That is the essence of originality - the ability to take a familiar material and mold it into a new story.

For example, take Dracula and Twilight. Both center around vampires, but the two could not be more different. Not only are the plot lines very different, but the portrayal of the vampires themselves differ greatly. Dracula is a monster. The Cullen vampires are now idolized in our society as gentle and heroic. Stephanie Meyers adapted the vampire into a new and original creature.

Originality exists.

One Story??? Please!

In my opinion, the idea that there is only one story is an outrageous claim to make. I would definitely say that there are many stories that have appeared and reappeared on a consistent basis in literature. Yes it is true certain stories have appeared innumerable times, does not give us the right to say that these are the only stories in existence. I feel as if that would be very foolish of us to say.

One reason why we see certain stories repeated over and over is because the problems that are presented are almost always universal. Anyone can relate to them.

For example the story of the hero’s journey appears quite often in literature. One of the reasons for this is that most all those who read these stories have had experiences similar in nature. That is, that they encountered a problem in which they had to face certain situations, and upon facing those situations learned about themselves and finally the problem is resolved. This is a classic example as to why people repeat these stories, because they know that readers and listeners will be able to relate.

Another reason why I believe that it is not safe to say that there is only one story is because, although we as humans may face problems of similar circumstances, we may not all have the same reaction. For example if we continue with the example of the hero’s journey, we may find that some people don’t react exactly the same way to the problems that they encounter. Because of this difference in reaction, an entirely new story is created. In fact there are so many different possible reactions to the story that it can not be just limited to one single story.

Finally I believe that we can not come to the conclusion that there is one story solely based on all of the stories that we have seen or have encountered. It may be true that these particular stories have been repeated over and over, but that does not give us the right to say that these are the only stories. There are so many more people in the world, that have not even been created yet who may have the potential to create an entirely new set of stories for which have no relation to the stories that we have read before. There is so much potential for more stories to be created in the future and we should wait with great expectancy for these to be created.

It's all been done before, huh?

It’s difficult to measure originality nowadays. Adaptations upon adaptations thorugh the years, of seemingly superior stories of old, have jaded us, leaving us with the hopeless feeling that originality is dead, that a truly original story is impossible because, “It’s been done before.” A womanizing, utterly seductive vampire, you say? That’s definitely been done before. Taking a bite of some kind of “forbidden fruit”? Done before. An epic adventure, exploring the depths of the unknown? Done and done again. It’s all been before, it seems.

Sure, it seems nothing now can be deemed original. But back when most works were created, their concepts and ideas were new, for both their creators and their audiences. When we read Dracula, for example, everything from the Count’s vampiric nature to the story’s melodrama seemed so familiar because so many writers and artists thereafter were so influenced by the story and included such aspects in their works. But when it was published, the story of Dracula was new for readers, and those first readers’ curiosity and fascination spread to future readers like wildfire.

(Like so.)

But even Dracula wasn’t completely Bram Stoker’s creation. Vampires arose from Transylvanian folklore. And Dracula wasn’t the first vampire story, either. Still, the novel featured unoriginal lore in an original way, with a cast of Stoker’s own brainchildren and probably his own plot as well.

Which leaves us where we started. Is anything truly original?

Again, it’s difficult to pick an absolute stance. I think there’s originality in the way people interpret things—history, religion, folklore, even everyday happenstances—life in general. Our own perceptions are unique and, yes, original, for there really is no one else exactly alike with another. We’ve seen many themes and symbols shared among the stories we’ve read. (Innocent blood saving others; the uncontrollable nature of time controlling us; the clash between two differing factions, whether it be science vs. superstition, mind vs. heart, fantasy vs. reality; etc, etc, etc….) We didn’t analyze one story all semester, but we’ve witnessed reoccuring themes in each of the stories we’ve encountered. These ideas and concepts, I believe, seem to be a part of our human nature. However, the way we express these very human notions is our own.

(Perhaps...)

And that’s where adaptations have their redeeming quality: the story and its concepts may have been done before, but another artist may have been so inspired by it that he adapted it, marrying his own personal vision and interpretation with such inspiring concepts.

There may be hope for originality after all.

The one story

I believe that there are original ideas for stories, but people tend to not look for the uniqueness of a story and try only to find something relatable within the text. The example Robert brought up of Tolkien where he created intricate details to his story make it an original thought, but the idea of the strangers traveling together on some great quest isn’t. The reason people look into the details and symbols of texts is because it helps us as the readers process the problem the hero will face in the story and relate them to others tales and their endings. The details in the story make the story original but I think that if we look at the broader picture that the story creates no really book has an original thought. Most stories can be simplified into two categories: The stranger comes to town, and the other being the journey. Even then it is the exact same story simply told from another perspective. These points of view are exclusive and in my opinion don’t really conflict because ideas are both original and unoriginal because with each new work of literature the author brings their own emotions and perspective to the idea being told. The fact that they used another author’s idea does not take away from the fact that their idea or opinion of an idea was actually theirs. The story of Alice and Wonderland is a quest to me and is a combination of the stranger being Alice coming to Wonderland and the adventure they go on. The idea isn’t original the perspective that Lewis Carroll and the characters he created was. Their perspectives on their adventure and how the characters impacted the audience and each other makes the idea original.

It's Like Story Pizza

               

               I personally believe that all stories may have one root or, if they are generalized, the same main theme as some other story, but I also believe that each story is unique. Even if all ideas have been thought of and used before, each idea can be put together in a new way to make an original work. I think that the concepts of some stories may be extremely similar to those of some story from the past, but others may be a totally new idea. Though many stories borrow, that does not mean that there can never be a new idea. My argument is that it’s the unique combination of already established ideas that can make something original.

                In the case of Dracula, the idea of a vampire creature existed in lore before the story was written. I’m sure the concepts of crusaders for the just cause and writing using the epistle style were not unique to Stoker either. The point is that he put these prior ideas together with his own thoughts and meanings in mind and created a unique work.

                The same can be said for Alice in Wonderland. Carroll is not the first to write fantasy or a children’s story, but he adds his own ideas and unique characters and makes a story that is original.

                I guess the conclusion I’m drawing is that it’s the combination of ideas and the author’s individual purpose for writing that makes a story unique even if the ideas themselves have been used before. The person’s intentions, meanings behind symbols, character designs and things of that nature form a unique combination and, therefore, an original story.  

An Original Adaptation

I stare at the screen, the blinding white of the blank word document glares at me mockingly. My fingers test the flat sea of letters, searching for words to magically form and give a direction as to where to take this little journey.

“Once upon time….”

No, no, no that’s wrong. This isn’t another fairy tale about pumpkins and princes.
How about...

“His red eyes glistened. I couldn’t say anything, I didn’t want to. All I wanted was him. He was my world, no matter if one touch, one kiss could kill me. His hands found their way into my hair as his lips teasingly walked across the edge of my throat. Before, I could tell him to do it already, his fangs broke the skin of my throat.”

What the hell?! Wait, I can’t do another Stephenie Meyer story.

Idwoiqueoqwuoieuqiwoeuoiqweuioqwuoeiudiowqu9e8128e1uiojalkwqdjlkqwjedkqwe;wkl;qe!!!!!
Think. Think. Think.

Maybe I should write about that…that would be original right? Thinking? No one’s ever written about thinking.

“I think I can. I think I can.”

Oh, God...This. Is. Futile.

The idea of originality is often seen as a pointless journey to embark on. Why attempt originality if all that we know are adaptions? But, is everything we know truly an adaptation? Can we not claim that there are original stories, and can adaptations have some measure of originality?

The idea of originality existing ranges from person to person. Some say that there is one ultimate story, that each adaptation stems from. They argue that adaptations could not have been formed without a source to adapt off of. However, there are others who argue that originality is possible, that in being created in one's own mind and out of one's own feelings and ideas something can be original because in essence it belongs to us. Furthermore, the issue is a society that is accustomed to adaptations rather than an original story.

One of the biggest concerns a professional writer has is if his or her story is original enough for someone to pick off of a bookshelf in a world accustomed to adaptations. Some would argue that if a story is original, a writer would not have to be concerned about such a matter. However,the question arises again, "Does originality even exist?"

The answer to this controversial question is yes and no. Those who favor the idea of there being an original story are correct in thinking that adaptations must have derived from an original source. In other words, an outcome must have a source. Furthermore, originality to some extent does not exist. However, what does this say for every story ever written? If they are all linked to one source, can one ever create something original. The answer is yes.

I believe that different stories can all be utilized and brought together to form an original story. In essence, the original outcome will have derived from adapting off of other stories, yet in combining those different attributes, something else, something original is created. It is all a matter of taking given stories and making it one's own.

One can see this simply in Bram Stoker's Dracula.

There are many adaptations of Stoker's undead that seek blood to walk among the living. True blood, Twilight, Vampire Diaries are among the many. However, like Stoker's Dracula they stem essentially from an original story that set the idea in motion. However, each creator of the new adaptations make each story original by transforming the old story into something new. Yes, the stories remain true to the basic concept of their being those who are undead and drink the blood of the living in order to live for eternity. However, each adaptation brings something new to the essential story of the vampire.

One example that comes to mind, is Richelle Meed's Vampire Academy. The story involves vampires who seek to escape from a darker type of breed of vampires called Strigoi. The Strigoi, unlike the Moroi vampires, drink the blood of and kill innocents human beings as well as Moroi. The Moroi, instead, drink blood from humans who are willing to give blood. yet they refuse to take human lives. Moreover, they have special powers that can either be the element of water, earth, fire, air, or spirit. To throw an even more rare concept into the plot, the Moroi are protected by dhampirs , a breed of super humans who are the offspring of humans and vampires.

Meed stays honest to the idea of there being vampires who drink human blood to stay alive. However, although she clearly uses Stoker's idea as the foundation of her story, she utilizes it to make her own. Furthermore, I believe there is an ultimate original story, but one has the opportunity to not let the original story define one's own entire story. Writer's have the chance of creating an original adaptation.

The Story: Originality Impossible?

It is really hard to come up with an original idea, especially one for a story. With so many stories and tales in this world, being original is almost like owning a talking dog, and even that idea isn't original. This has led to a debate in class; Is it possible that all stories are just a part of an unconscious tales of the past? Or are original stories possible?

I would say that original ideas are possible. They are just REALLY hard to come by this day and age. For example, Bram Stoker wrote his novel based on an older tale of vampires. But was the original based off an even older story of blood sucking beings? regardless, this novel was something that was very original in its own way, especially when it was released. Who ever heard of such horror? Of monsters and terror and of slaying said monsters? The idea has become less of a ground breaking money maker and more of a novelty over time. Still the idea of a vampire is an intriguing one, otherwise all the remakes and spin offs would not exist.

It is also possible that originality is a point of view, based of personal experiences or from the experiences of others. Of course people aren't attacked by vampires, but being attacked isn't a rare occurrence. Neither is pain or fear. They happen daily. But to someone who has never felt pain or a loss, the feeling or idea is a new experience for them. It is original, even if the feeling is not new to someone else.

What is original to one person may not be to someone else. Alice in Wonderland, for example, is not something that happens every day. People don't talk to playing cards who command be-headings every five minutes, they don't wander around with a floating cat that talks, nor do they dance with lobsters. This may all sound silly, because it is. But when we first read the story, it was unexpected. It was original to us when we first started to read it.

If a person has a new idea, even if its been thought before, to that person it is original. The same epiphany can be shared by fifty people around the globe, but to those people, this is a new thought, something that they have never thought before. An example is from Heart of Darkness. In the beginning of the story, Marlow says, "And this also has been one of the dark places of the earth." He goes on to talk of the Romans, and how they once discovered a new part of their world, something alien and unexplored. Now of course, we know of England and have no mysteries left in the area. But in the story, they had started to explore the Congo, the new dark place of the earth, which doesn't hold much mystery for us now. But at the time, this was an original place, unclaimed territory (by British standards). For us now, the so called "final frontier" of space is original, alien, and unexplored.

To me, an original idea is a point of view. Based of experience and the discovery of information for ones self, originality can be something that is wonderful to some, and lost on others.

"Original" Thoughts

In relation to verbal or written stories, I believe in the idea of “one story.” We are all a part of each others’ stories, every person we come into contact with, even those we never meet, affect our lives daily and eternally. Stories are recordings of the lives we once had, do have, and what we wish our lives to be. If we are all on this human journey together, existing solely but co-existing with one another, there is an individual story for every person. Thinking realistically, not everyone will be the President of the United States or be a movie star, so therefore not every life can be overwhelmingly original by our societal terms. But to some, being a mother and creating new life can be the most rewarding, fulfilling, and original roles in life. It really all depends on one’s own perception of life.

However, even if our thoughts are original to ourselves, they might not necessarily be original to everyone else, or had been preconceived by someone else. But since we cannot meet every person in the world and know every thought they have ever thought, then there is a margin for error to think we have original thoughts.

Author Chuck Klosterman puts it this way:

“There are two ways to look at life. Actually, that’s not accurate; I suppose there are thousands of ways to look at life. But I tend to dwell on two of them. The first view is that nothing stays the same and that nothing is inherently connected, and that the only driving force in anyone’s life is entropy. The second is that everything pretty much stays the same (more or less) and that everything is completely connected, even if we don’t realize it.”

― Chuck Klosterman, Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs: A Low Culture Manifesto

^^^^ (A really good book, by the way.)

I tend to agree that on the course of humanity nothing has really changed. We are born, search for meaning and happiness or not, then we die. Whether or not we have original thoughts from one person to the next is mostly irrelevant to our existence. I am not saying that one should not waste thinking on unoriginal thoughts but that our thoughts can’t hold that much weight to the person sitting next to us if they don’t agree or don’t have similar ideas. Like I said, it’s all about your perception and how you view your life, my life, and the world population around us.