What To Do When Part of Your Book Resembles Something Already Written?

[OneOnOne1162]

I am writing a fantasy book and I've recently discovered that another story which already exists has a back-story that somewhat resembles the back-story of my world and I don't know what to do. Most of the back-story can't be rewritten because too much of my story depends on it, without it I can't write my story. Of course I also don't want it to seem like I stole it (which is impossible considering I made up my story before the other one was ever seen by the public and I only recently actually saw the other story) and I don't want to tell the same story twice. However I also don't want to abandon this story considering that I've been working on it for quite a long time.

The story I'm talking about is a video game series called Assassin's Creed. If you don't want to be spoiled on it, don't read what comes next.
I've only played the first game in the series myself but I've recently discovered that in this series' back-story there was a group called "the first civilization" which was a civilization of humans that evolved on earth that became very technologically advanced and then created and enslaved our "species" of human until their slaves rebelled and won due to a numerical advantage. They also interbred with some humans to form "hybrids." They were then mostly destroyed by a solar flare until thousands of years later one of them attempts to come back. This one needs to be freed to stop cataclysm from occuring (a similar solar flare event as the one that destroyed most of them).
In my story there's also another group of humans that evolved on this planet that was more advanced (magically advanced in this case) than we are (although they didn't create us) which enslaved some of us. The humans also rebelled and won in part due to a numerical advantage, they also interbred with the humans and they were also devastated by a cataclysmic event that threatens to cause havoc in the story's present and may require their return.

I should note that these are the only similarities between the two stories that I could find. For example in Assassin's Creed the past is hidden to humans, while in my story it's known by everyone and this history has a significant impact on how human civilizations develop. Also my hybrids comprise about 1/5.000 of all people and are recognised as being hybrids and descendants of hybrids by others, while in Assassin's Creed the hybrids are rare and the fact that they're hybrids isn't known to anyone. Also the hybrids in Assassin's Creed have a few low-key powers, while the hybrids in my story have a large array of impressive powers. Of course my story also doesn't focus on assassin's or anything like that.

So do you guys think it sounds too similar to work? Does anyone have any idea what I could do? Perhaps some way to make it less similar? A workaround? A way to emphasize the differences vs. the similarities? Is it not a big deal and am I overreacting?

[hillwalker]

There's a theory that there are only seven original plots in existence - and that every novel or drama or short story is merely a new version of one of the seven. I can't say I completely agree with that, but I suggest you don't get too worked up about the similarities between your story and the video game.

Everything we write is influenced by what we have already read or seen or heard, so even subconsciously it's possible you took elements from the original game and based your novel on the scenario without realizing what you were doing.

The easiest way to overcome accusations of copying the AC plot is to set it on a totally different planet, have the slaves less humanoid possibly, and have a cataclysm that is not a solar flare. But since fans of AC probably like reading tales set in a similar fantasy universe perhaps you are indeed making too big a deal of it. After all, there's an entire genre based on 'fan fiction' - stories written to complement existing plots - and some of it sells exceedingly well (e.g.'50 Shades Of Grey').

H

[Hawkman]

Well, I don't think you should worry unduly. These are recurring themes. There are paralells in literature from the bible, through Azimov and any number of modern science fiction films. I don't think it is possible to copywright the idea, as such, only the specifics of the writing. If you were to steal characters, dialogue and situations form a specific text, then you'd be looking at a genuine problem. A degree of intertextuality is inevitable in the modern world as we are constantly exposed to stories through books, films radio pictures, history and now video games. It is almost impossible for a text to exist in isolation. Providing your writing is original I'd just keep working on it. At the very least, it'll be good practice.

Live and be well - H

[cacian]

Funny you should bring this up because I was just considering this subject:
Is an idea ever ours or is it simply just an adopted one? and If it is then how do we adjust it?
And I think your post just starts off this idea that we write is never ours at the first place. If it is not then instead of replicating it over and over again then it is best to just continue it.
For example if one said book is written about a pilgrim travelling to Jerusalem and the encounter of the journeys there then the next book may explore the assumptions of a pilgrim's wishes and expectations.
One cannot help but read and enjoy and as one does one picks up the ideas. The next writer to write a next book is to make it a continuation to what one has read rather then imitating the idea of the story.
One is better off culminating stories is series or a continuation rather then assimilating in plots/topics which lead to repeats and therefore unoriginal is the end result.

I try and do with my poetries. I write in series. On poetry talks about the weather in general and the next will focus on the rain only and so on and so forth. It gives me a chart of ideas and I may never run out of fields to explore.

[OneOnOne1162]

There's a theory that there are only seven original plots in existence - and that every novel or drama or short story is merely a new version of one of the seven. I can't say I completely agree with that, but I suggest you don't get too worked up about the similarities between your story and the video game.

Everything we write is influenced by what we have already read or seen or heard, so even subconsciously it's possible you took elements from the original game and based your novel on the scenario without realizing what you were doing.

The easiest way to overcome accusations of copying the AC plot is to set it on a totally different planet, have the slaves less humanoid possibly, and have a cataclysm that is not a solar flare. But since fans of AC probably like reading tales set in a similar fantasy universe perhaps you are indeed making too big a deal of it. After all, there's an entire genre based on 'fan fiction' - stories written to complement existing plots - and some of it sells exceedingly well (e.g.'50 Shades Of Grey').

H

I have heard of that. But the way I see it it's just mostly about how basic you're willing to go when you say that. I'm willing to accept that what they're claiming is true, but at the same time I'm unwilling to accept the idea that that means that they're really the same stories just because they are at their most simplified and basic the same. I have thought I might be overreacting, and yet I feel like if it was just one element that would be okay but it's really an element and then a series of events, and important ones at that, which seems a little too much.

That's impossible though, the game in which this info was revealed wasn't even out yet when I wrote this part of the story and I hadn't seen the promotional materials or had any info about what happened in the game. The only reason why I stumbled upon this information now is because I was looking on the Tv Tropes website. I had already played the first game before I started writing my story but it had only a single sentence as a reference to what would come and it was just a sentence which contained a single mention of "those who came before" without at all hinting at what they might be, or what happened, etc. and it didn't even contain any mention of any of the other similarities. I got the idea from reading about the neanderthals.

Well it's not just about that, I also just don't want to write the same story twice. I can't do either of the first two things but the cataclysm already isn't a solar flare though, it's something completely different. Yeah, but I really really don't want to write fan fiction or anything like it. For me it's less about selling and more about creating, I want to create something that I think is worthy of being created, something that's "the ultimate expression of who I am." After all, if I wanted to get rich then I sure as hell wouldn't have become a writer.

[OneOnOne1162]

Funny you should bring this up because I was just considering this subject:
Is an idea ever ours or is it simply just an adopted one? and If it is then how do we adjust it?
And I think your post just starts off this idea that we write is never ours at the first place. If it is not then instead of replicating it over and over again then it is best to just continue it.
For example if one said book is written about a pilgrim travelling to Jerusalem and the encounter of the journeys there then the next book may explore the assumptions of a pilgrim's wishes and expectations.
One cannot help but read and enjoy and as one does one picks up the ideas. The next writer to write a next book is to make it a continuation to what one has read rather then imitating the idea of the story.
One is better off culminating stories is series or a continuation rather then assimilating in plots/topics which lead to repeats and therefore unoriginal is the end result.

I try and do with my poetries. I write in series. On poetry talks about the weather in general and the next will focus on the rain only and so on and so forth. It gives me a chart of ideas and I may never run out of fields to explore.

Well the way I see that is that an idea is based in reality and reality works a certain way (especially because generally the ideas are also limited to human understanding and are generally about sentient beings and their thoughts or how they perceive things). All story ideas would thus be all possible permutations of reality that we could imagine. In addition we generally scratch the ideas that too closely resemble other ideas (such as rewriting an entire story but only with the protagonist wearing a white coat instead of a black one) and those that don’t make logical sense (although not always). We also tend to scratch those that have nothing interesting to offer or don’t conform enough to narrative rules (although of course not always, since rules in writing change over time and don’t have to be followed).
In other words the ideas are “out there” in a way, we just find them. They’re really just observations about reality that are put into different permutations than the ways in which they’re observed. For example an observation we have is that people have siblings and another observation about reality is that people die, so a simple story is a combination of these two things such as a story about a person who’s sister dies. Luckily for us, there are many many factors that play a role and our imagination grows as well with new observations of reality (such as the fact that something like the internet is possible and has certain rules to it generating stories about the impact of the internet) that we can explore.
However this doesn’t necessarily mean an idea is any less ours. In some ways it means it’s more ours because the idea came from our observations and how we think. Basically it’s an extension of who we are and what we’ve seen. If you’re talking about ownership, then it means it’s not really “ours” but is anything? Ownership is really just a human construct after all, nothing is ever ours in any real sense. There’s only causality and a story idea, in my vision, flows from the causal path that makes up our life.
Of course because we all share a reality together, there are billions of us and in many cases our lives are the same in many ways (we all have fathers and mothers, experience feelings, have fears, many people live in a certain culture, etc.) we’re bound to come up with the same ideas sometimes.
Sorry for the incredibly extensive, and at times perhaps not quite coherent, reply here if you're still reading at this point.

I didn’t imitate this idea though, it was pure chance that they ended up being as similar as they are. Couldn’t even have done it subconsciously considering that I wrote the story before the other game or the info about it was ever revealed. But my story already has a certain form and I don’t wish to throw it away.

That’s an interesting way of doing things, of course that doesn’t really help me in this particular case.

[OneOnOne1162]

Well, I don't think you should worry unduly. These are recurring themes. There are paralells in literature from the bible, through Azimov and any number of modern science fiction films. I don't think it is possible to copywright the idea, as such, only the specifics of the writing. If you were to steal characters, dialogue and situations form a specific text, then you'd be looking at a genuine problem. A degree of intertextuality is inevitable in the modern world as we are constantly exposed to stories through books, films radio pictures, history and now video games. It is almost impossible for a text to exist in isolation. Providing your writing is original I'd just keep working on it. At the very least, it'll be good practice.

Live and be well - H

Yes, but are they too similar in specific ways and too important? You can have two stories about love that are very different or even two stories about racism during the boxer rebellion that are very different but in this case it’s a sequence of events (human rebellion, cataclysmic event and a possible return to stop the next event) and several concepts (a second earthbound human civilization and hybrids) that are shared by both works, and it makes me wonder whether it’s a little too similar. Well I also don’t think they could ever sue me for it or something like that, mostly I just don’t want to write something that’s already been written. Concerning the intertextuality, I think you’re right but it’s not like it has an actual connection with the game’s story like references or themes that I take a look at in a different light or something, since the similarities are completely coincidental. The only problem there of course is, where do I draw the line between original enough and too similar?

[Adolescent09]

The human mind is a receptacle of plagiarized and rehashed ideas. You can only aspire to create 'revolutionary' writing, not 'original' writing.

Ex.: The bible is FAR from original but it has been the most revolutionary text the world has seen in the past two millennia.

The above sentences and example are more of a philosophical concept. In the literal sense of the word, something is not original if it is lifted straight from another author's writing word for word. Paraphrasing without citation is permissible since, hypothetically speaking there is not an idea under the sun that is original.

[OneOnOne1162]

The human mind is a receptacle of plagiarized and rehashed ideas. You can only aspire to create 'revolutionary' writing, not 'original' writing.

Ex.: The bible is FAR from original but it has been the most revolutionary text the world has seen in the past two millennia.

That's impossble considering that there needed to be a human mind to come up with those ideas in the first place, thus they had to be original at some point even though that doesn't necessarily mean it's still possible. Even though I do agree that people are "receptacles" for information including stories and that they do use and reuse some elements. It greatly depends on how basic you go, you can say all stories containing people are rehashed ideas, all stories about love are rehashed ideas, all stories about love between two women are the same and further and further down that line from most basic to most specific. However a story

I agree on the frist point but disagree with the second, depending on what you mean with revolutionary. It certainly got a lot of people to follow it if that's what you mean.

[Hawkman]

I can't help feeling that you are getting far too hung up on this issue. What you have highlighted are the similarities between your back story and a pre existing set of back stories. The back story is not the issue. Your story is. Where you take it is entirely up to you. This applies equally to how you write it. Whether your story stands up or not will depend entirely on the quality of your writing. What, exactly is your story? Only you know the answer to this. How does the back story effect your characters and their evironment, and what is it they are trying to achieve. Who are their antagonists; what are the obstacles they must overcome? how do they do it and are they successful, or does everyone die in the end? Concentrate on this.

Live and be well - H

[OneOnOne1162]

I can't help feeling that you are getting far too hung up on this issue. What you have highlighted are the similarities between your back story and a pre existing set of back stories. The back story is not the issue. Your story is. Where you take it is entirely up to you. This applies equally to how you write it. Whether your story stands up or not will depend entirely on the quality of your writing. What, exactly is your story? Only you know the answer to this. How does the back story effect your characters and their evironment, and what is it they are trying to achieve. Who are their antagonists; what are the obstacles they must overcome? how do they do it and are they successful, or does everyone die in the end? Concentrate on this.

Live and be well - H

Well I'm not gonna claim you're not right in saying that I'm getting too hung up on this issue, I might well be. It's just that I really hate the idea of writing something that's already been written and I believe that having the same framing here will cause it to run along similar lines too much. If I understand what you mean here, you're saying that it's far more important to consider the way these elements play out and interact with other elements rather than focus on simply considering the combination of these particular elements. I've actually given other writers similar advice, and yet it bothers me because of how important/central this part of the backstory is to my story and how closely it seems to overlap in some of it's specifics with the other one (it's not just a story with a rebellion, it's a story where humans rebel against a humanoid race that also evolved on earth who are then wiped our by a cataclysm which may repeat itself if they're not returned).

In any case, thank you for attempting to allay my worries.

[cafolini]

Legally, it is impossible to copyright ideas. Otherwise, some people will own the dictionaries in a few years. We can only copyright applications.

[cacian]

The human mind is a receptacle of plagiarized and rehashed ideas. You can only aspire to create 'revolutionary' writing, not 'original' writing.

Ex.: The bible is FAR from original but it has been the most revolutionary text the world has seen in the past two millennia.

The above sentences and example are more of a philosophical concept. In the literal sense of the word, something is not original if it is lifted straight from another author's writing word for word. Paraphrasing without citation is permissible since, hypothetically speaking there is not an idea under the sun that is original.

About the Bible Adolescent you do make a good point. The bible could not or never be original because what is written it is taken from real life event according to the bible. In effect if one transfers reality into a book then it could not be original. It is just a diary of a sequence of events that happened. Originall means there no like it in real life. Ie for something to be original it has to be entirely different to life that nothing in the story has a tiny weeny reflection of reality. That is an impossible task to achieve but yeah that is my interpretation of original.

[OneOnOne1162]

Legally, it is impossible to copyright ideas. Otherwise, some people will own the dictionaries in a few years. We can only copyright applications.

Yeah, I realise that. But this isn't so much about any fear I have of lawsuits or copyright issues, but rather about me not wanting to write a story that's already been written or for it to seem as if I stole their stuff (just seem like to "the public", not necessarily anything involving lawsuits or anything).

[OneOnOne1162]

The human mind is a receptacle of plagiarized and rehashed ideas. You can only aspire to create 'revolutionary' writing, not 'original' writing.

Ex.: The bible is FAR from original but it has been the most revolutionary text the world has seen in the past two millennia.

The above sentences and example are more of a philosophical concept. In the literal sense of the word, something is not original if it is lifted straight from another author's writing word for word. Paraphrasing without citation is permissible since, hypothetically speaking there is not an idea under the sun that is original.

I don't know what you're referring to exactly when you say "those sentences and that example are more of a philosophical concept" or what point that makes. Saying that they're a philosophical concept doesn't make clear what the words "original" and "revolutionary" are defined as to me or what those sentences mean other than what I already thought they meant, making it kind of useless information. Unless you're saying that they're just a sort of a "thought experiment" in which case great, but that doesn't really answer my question. I'm assuming that's not the definition of original you're using here, since in that case many things would be original but rather a really strict definition you're putting forward. And I still disagree with your assertion that there is no idea under the sun which is original. In the end I still believe the truth of the idea that there are no original ideas left depends on how far you're willing to take what you think is original and how much you simplify the idea.