Originality of a Literary Piece.

[Goodfella]

Hello!
My people, what do you think has a direct effect on any novel to loss it's originality as a good literary work among the follwing:
Setting. Plot. Characterization. Conflict. Suspense. etc
Why did make it so? How?

[Virgil]

Good question. It's probably a combination of all. I think a book can get away with one aspect being similar to other books, but when multiple aspects start coming up similar, then its doomed.

[Mari]

Conflict seems to be the easiest way for a writer to slip into unoriginality. I have read (or started to read) many books that set up fresh settings, combinations of characters, premises, etc., but when it came time to do something with them, they fell back on a cliched complication. If a book is going to lose me early on, that's usually how it does it.

[TodHackett]

If you want to know how to ruin a book with unoriginal devices, take a look at Dan Brown's _Da Vinci Code_. Then look at _Angels and Demons_ and _Invisible Fortress_. Stock characters, stock settings, stock plots... it's almost like he's playing MadLibs:

"Chapter 1: (Professor/specialist) sleeping with (female love interest) in (place). Chapter 2: (Mysterious secondary character) dies gruesomely in (place). Chapter 3: (Stock policeman) wakes (professor/specialist) with (knock/phone call). Chapter 4: (Peculiar villain) does (something strange and unnatural) in (place)..."

It's no way to write a book.

Many authors (including Chuck Palahniuk and John Irving) insist that the crux of the matter is original characters-- if you can create a believeable character, and get inside their head, then their actions/reactions will be original, believable and engaging. But I, for one, am not so sure. I think even stock characters can work, given other points of originality. Heck, Nathanael West makes a point of using shallow, stock characters in _Day of the Locust_. But he does it for the purpose of satire, so it works.

It's complicated. But as in anything, a truly fresh, original idea will always carry the day. (It's a cop-out, I know. But it's the best I can do at the moment).

[muhsin]

Hello!
My people, what do you think has a direct effect on any novel to loss it's originality as a good literary work among the follwing:
Setting. Plot. Characterization. Conflict. Suspense. etc
Why did make it so? How?

My friend, you a bit confused :confused: me.
Do you mean when one of these is absent? If this is what you mean I can say all, whenever a literary work lose one; it’ll certainly invites unoriginality. Just like a pillar of a building, when one collapse, the whole of the building will definitely break down.

[Goodfella]

My friend, you a bit confused :confused: me.
Do you mean when one of these is absent? If this is what you mean I can say all, whenever a literary work lose one; it’ll certainly invites unoriginality. Just like a pillar of a building, when one collapse, the whole of the building will definitely break down.
Thank you Muhsin. That is a nice observation.
So I exatly want to say.

[mono]

Hello!
My people, what do you think has a direct effect on any novel to loss it's originality as a good literary work among the follwing:
Setting. Plot. Characterization. Conflict. Suspense. etc
Why did make it so? How?
Hello, Goodfella, welcome to the forum.
Of all seemingly unoriginal literary works, I do not necessarily think that always subtracts from it seeming like a 'good' book. TodHackett gave an excellent example of Dan Brown's works; though I have never read them, I have heard very, very similar things of his repetitive plots, yet he remains immensely popular. Well respected literature can also exist with copied characters or stories, such as how Æneid by Virgil continued from The Iliad by Homer (yet both we consider as epics), how Christopher Marlowe wrote Dr. Faustus and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe wrote Faust, and multiple writers have recycled the story of Troilus and Cressida (even William Shakespeare).
In terms of inspiration, a writer may feel inspired by multiple sorts of plots, settings, characters, etc., yet will not entirely copy them; sometimes a writer can make such aspects of literature similar, but I would like to think that characters and settings have slightly more ease in variability than plot and conflict.

[Jean-Baptiste]

TodHachett, I like your outline! Very funny.

mono, very good point about well respected classics being reinventions.

This discussion reminds me of what I was thinking about "Ida," the novel by Gertrude Stein. On the surface the book would seem to be an extended study of the main character. However, I came to the conclussion that the only literary element of the book is Plot. The whole thing is just a series of events with no emotion and no judgement. Ida did this, and then Ida went here, and then Ida did that, and then Ida rested. With the lack of characterization and symbolism and setting and conflict, I have to say that I've never read anything like it; that makes it, as far as I can say, original. But this originality is acquired at the sacrifice of everything that would make me want to read a book. So there must be a line drawn between absolute originality and stock writing. One thing that bothers me (sometimes) is a retelling or continuation of the lives of popular characters. For instance: the sequel to Gone with the Wind, or (yes, they did) the sequel to Le Miserables. This is profanity.

[PeterL]

Originality in literature!! It's a little late to look for that. Pretty much everything that is found in literature can be found in the "Enuma Elish". Character types, plots, settings, and themes have been used before. The only original feature of a novel that is possible is the way that different story elements are assembled.

[PeterL]

I believe "lol"s are in order.
We would do well, I suppose, to notify the publishing industry of the death of the novel.
I am afraid I am ignorant as to this "Enuma Elish". Could someone perhaps enlighten me?

Enuma Elish is better known as the Gilgamesh Epic. It is the oldest piece of literature that still exists. The oldest versions of it dates from about 2000 to 2100 BCE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh

Just because everything has been written before is no reason to stop trying to write it in a new way.

[Jean-Baptiste]

T.S. Eliot said, in his essay (wonderful essay) "Tradition and the Individual Talent" that the objective of the poet (though his thoughts need not be restricted to poetry) is not to discover NEW human emotions to depict, but to depict the old ones in a new way. I don't have the essay in front of me at the moment, so I can't quote, but I recall his idea that searching for new things always leads to decadence. This seems relevant.

[muhsin]

I now re-think and discover that; What abscent most invalidate a literary work to loose it's originality is SUSPENSE. Sincerely reading a novel without suspense to me is just like obeying command when there is a mouth of a gun pointed at my head -boring simply it is.

[mono]

The lack of variety in literature may have reasons beyond the pen and page, in my opinion, as in concerning the creation of characters, plot, conflicts, etc., the subject aims more towards the author rather than the literary piece.
Despite any experience, a finite number (sometimes a very small, finite number) of resolutions can come, and it matters not the number of characters involved. Take, for example, the common 'falling head over heals in love with someone' in an average novel; this very basic structure has few resolutions built into it, ranging from success in love, failure in love, initial failure followed by success, or initial success followed by failure. All occurrences in literature seem restricted to common experiences in life and the author's imagination; in realistic literature, not including science fiction and fantasy, these seem all earth-based, slightly more attainable events that a reader could possibly experience himself/herself.
Taking the limited plot choices into consideration, the only originality in literature found, I think, relies more upon expression - what combined events happened, how they happened, how the character(s) felt, and how the characters conform (or lack thereof).

[Jean-Baptiste]

Very good point, muhsin, and I agree to a degree. Suspense within the body of a work is necessary. However, I personally cannot care whether the ending of a book has been divulged to me before hand or not. I generally don't read Mystery novels, for the reason that the outcome is often the focus. One book that I've read recently that displayed a mastery of suspence was The House of Mirth by Edith Wharton. It wasn't so much a "what's going to happen next" hysteria that I found intriguing, but rather the awareness of all of the options available to the character and dreading the inevitable. If a book is well written, with all necessary elements in place, the outcome is a minor consideration.


Edit: Sorry, mono, I didn't see your excellent comment when I posted this. I concur.

[Bookworm Cris]

This discussion is really good; my mother used to say that "Nothing is created, everyting is copied". All (or nearly all) possible themes, plots, emotions, dramas, tragedies, all of it was already used more than once in literature. If all has been said, what can be done? Say it your way, and it will be said differently. That´s the originality, I think. Every human being is different, is original, and if you tell a tale your way, it will be different than if I told it.


Jean-Baptiste said:
"However, I personally cannot care whether the ending of a book has been divulged to me before hand or not. I generally don't read Mystery novels, for the reason that the outcome is often the focus."

I agree, Jean-Baptiste. I don´t care either if I know how a book ends, I may read it for the pleasure of reading a good story. If not, why should we re-read books? It´s not the ending that gets me, but how the author got there. The theme and the plot may be stock, but if the author tells it in a way that captivates me, with good writing, then the book got me. It´s like Mono said:


"Taking the limited plot choices into consideration, the only originality in literature found, I think, relies more upon expression - what combined events happened, how they happened, how the character(s) felt, and how the characters conform (or lack thereof)."

[subterranean]

It wasn't so much a "what's going to happen next" hysteria that I found intriguing, but rather the awareness of all of the options available to the character and dreading the inevitable. If a book is well written, with all necessary elements in place, the outcome is a minor consideration.


I recently experienced this when I read An Ideal Husband by Wilde. How the play ended, didn't really matter to me. But the unexpected events and dialogues between the characters are completly breathtaking. You didn't expect something would came up, but it came up so nicely and it'd make you think it's indeed suppose to came up like that.



By mono: All occurrences in literature seem restricted to common experiences in life and the author's imagination; in realistic literature, not including science fiction and fantasy, these seem all earth-based, slightly more attainable events that a reader could possibly experience himself/herself.
Taking the limited plot choices into consideration, the only originality in literature found, I think, relies more upon expression - what combined events happened, how they happened, how the character(s) felt, and how the characters conform (or lack thereof).

Hi mono, I'm pretty slow here. But don't all expressions completly rely on author's imagination and creativity?

[mono]

Hi mono, I'm pretty slow here. But don't all expressions completly rely on author's imagination and creativity?
Hiya, sub! ;)
Firstly, I would never consider you 'slow.' Secondly, indeed, I would think that all expression rely on an author's imagination and creativity. Both imagination and creativity, however, in my opinion, also rely on past experiences, exposures in the author's life, and the potential for those events to whimsically turn into fiction by utilization of the author's imagination and creativity; an author, for example, would never have the ability to imagine a mouse with an aligator's snout, a beaver's tail, and the speech of a human without having exposure to a mouse, an aligator, a beaver, and human speech.
I may have phrased my previous message strangely, and I apologize, but I certainly agree that all expression (yet not all content) relies entirely on an author's imagination and creativity. :D

[Goodfella]

Hello!
Actually what mono says is what really does matter to me. i.e aim(theme) that a writer based his novel upon.
Though still. As I was told and also see, nowadays books are just written without paying atention upon this, whilst, its what is fundemental and indispensable.
Why is it so?

[mono]

Though still. As I was told and also see, nowadays books are just written without paying atention upon this, whilst, its what is fundemental and indisputable.
Why is it so?
Good question, yet I have no idea of the correct answer.
Though I may express a more cynical, pessimistic perspective of contemporary literature, many of the subjects of recent fiction seem . . . repetitious. Though I think one of the aims of all of literature appears the desire for monetary value, hopefully secondary to the desire to express and create art, I find that more and more literature intends to make the top 10 best-seller, rather than with the primary intention of creating something beautiful; if an author can fulfill both of these intentions - wonderful, though I really wonder of how much thought seems placed in the typical best-seller novel. :p

[Jean-Baptiste]

Hi, Goodfella! Do you mean that contemporary authors tend to drift through a story with no firm direction? I cannot rightfully comment on this, as I'm dreadfully unfamiliar with contemporary literature. Perhaps that's because the new books that I have attempted have either, as you point out, been simply written with no aim, or have stuck too close to one aim, which makes for rigidity. I want to blame this on the Best-Seller craze and marketing, but I realize that there have been dime novels since before Horatio Alger. So I like your equation of aim with theme. It would seem that writing for a purpose will always win against just writing. I certainly like to read something written with purpose; I even like something written for the same purpose as something else. However, I don't feel that theme can stand alone as the element that makes a novel.
What would be your second most important element?

[PeterL]

Hello!
Actually what mono says is what really does matter to me. i.e aim(theme) that a writer based his novel upon.
Though still. As I was told and also see, nowadays books are just written without paying atention upon this, whilst, its what is fundemental and indispensable.
Why is it so?

That comment is a little too broad to be completely accurate. I have read some recent books that didn't really go anywhere or have a clear theme, but there are others that are beautifully written and have clear themes and even have clear resolution of the conflict. I am thinking particularly of Umberto Eco. There area of literature that I am especially unhappy with is the so-called "fantasy" subgenre. It seems like plot and resolution is discouraged in that subgenre. Another region of literature that lacks theme is made up of authors who believe the literary theories developed by some postmodernists. Ironically, Eco is a postmodernist.

[Jean-Baptiste]

I agree with your distinction, Jamesian, between contemporary commercial, and literary; at least I feel that there Must be some examples of the later, though I'm not personally familiar with any. The most recent "serious" writer that I've read is Gary Soto, and I am not impressed at all. Perhaps it's a personal bias, and not so much his writing; he came to speak at my college a couple of years ago, and he said that he went to school to learn to write so that he didn't have to do manual labor. While I'm all for personal options, and having the right to choose one's profession, escaping "real work" should never be a decisive factor in becoming a writer. A person is either a writer or they're not; they either have something to write about, in a decent fashion, or they don't. This does sound like quite an elitist philosophy, but I don't usually feel this way about writers. Soto aroused my rancour. Relating this to the idea of originality, Soto's poetry and prose were written by a twelve year old mind, simply recounting everyday experiences. This goes sharply agains T. S. Eliot's idea of restrictions on "personal" expression, which I am quite fond of. In his play, "The Cocktail Party," Eliot gives the main character a line about another's poetry: something like--Celias poetry is interesting, if one is interested in Celia. The same must go for Soto, and the myriad writers who assume that the whole world is interested in their personal lives. All I ask is to be given something Universal and Real. I can't care about the time some kid almost burned down the house and his sister told on him.
Anyway, fortunately there is a seemingly endless supply of classics, but that does not necessarily appease my longing, as I'd like to see something new and good. Um, I guess I'm forgetting Sherman Alexie, another recent author that I know; he is a lying God of writing compared to Soto; I love him.

[Jean-Baptiste]

I think your idea of being a post officer is quite admirable. It reminds me of Wallace Stevens, who stuck with the Insurance business even after he had won the Pulitzer Prize and The National Book Award. I really get a kick out of him, since it wasn't until after he died that his coworkers had any idea that he had been a poet. That's called Artistic Integrity!

"Again, any suggestions for GOOD contemporary literature would be very much appreciated!"

Yes, perhaps this isn't the thread for the question, but I would love to have the same.

[muhsin]

Goodfella, mono others, your posts did really suprise me.
Why should I mentioned aforesaid: No any author and of any book will west his time and energy to write a novel without a set of goals. Don't even talk about 'theme' because this is a mother of all apects, isn' it?
What I actually and others said before is what I think do matter-i.e suspense. But think again!

[miss tenderness]

On a novel? Mmm…well,these factors ,you mentioned,are all important in any novel, together they mingle and give us an extraordinary piece of work. I like the novels that touches our daily life or come up with an idea that is new or not being discussed before because it's either a taboo or never been in a writer's mind.

[muhsin]

On a novel? Mmm…well,these factors ,you mentioned,are all important in any novel, together they mingle and give us an extraordinary piece of work. I like the novels that touches our daily life or come up with an idea that is new or not being discussed before because it's either a taboo or never been in a writer's mind.

Miss tenderness. Godfella seems to know this, but what he was here asking was: Which is which? They are all important but one must have an importance over onother, isn't it?

[miss tenderness]

well,Thanks for trying to clarify this to me muhsin . but my point was clear that all of the factors are important and if a novel cover up all of them quite well except one factor ,then you may like the novel but with a feeling that it loses something, not perfect .I think that there is no factor that has importance over another, they are all important and complement eachother,don't you think?

[Jean-Baptiste]

That is a very good point of view to take, miss tenderness, and I don't want to disagree, but do you think that there can be something gained by purposely omiting any one element from a work. I'm thinking of the movie (I know, sacrilege) "Lost Highway," by David Lynch; the acting is definitely stilted, as though the actors were told to simply repeat their lines without emotional investment. It gives the performances a perculiar effect, and I doubt that it was accidental. Could a similar tactic be applied to literature, in whatever form? Perhaps leaving out, or just stripping down one particular element for a desired effect, or would this put a damper on the entire experience of reading for you? Again, I agree with your position, in general, but I wonder...

[miss tenderness]

That is a very good point of view to take, miss tenderness, and I don't want to disagree, but do you think that there can be something gained by purposely omiting any one element from a work.
jean,honestly I did not understand your question .Is it realted to my above post?. I was not talking about omiting any factor,I meant that all factors are important and play their rols in a literary piece.But I'll answer your question anyway, nothing is gained out of omiting any factor except some weakness in that work,it'll always be better if a work covers all the factors.I'm interested in your point of view about (does any litrary element has supremacy over another?and can define a work as sucsseful or failure?)

[Jean-Baptiste]

Yes, your immediately prior post is what I was referring to. I understood that you did not want any factors omitted.

"nothing is gained out of omiting any factor except some weakness in that work,it'll always be better if a work covers all the factors."

I'll take that as the answer I was seeking. But I still wonder if an author could make some subtle point by purposely omitting something. I was thinking about writing a short story, in the conventional way, with a purposeful hole in the plot; I wanted to ignore the main character's means of living independently, by giving no clue to her secular or monetary pursuits. This may seem to be to the detriment of the satisfaction of reading, as it would call up unanswerable questions, but that was part of the point. I wanted remunerations to be completely divorced from her character. Would such a tactic be unconscionable to your reading preferences? It would, I assure you, be a minor omission, but one that would focus the entire point of the story.

As a related thought, I know that some authors will consciously manipulate, or even dispense with proper grammar or punctuation as a means of drawing attention to a particular point. Does this count as detrimental to the reading?