What makes the writer original?

[osho]

Is the style or intricate sentence structure? Maybe craft comes second to theme. Language is important so is content. Or plot somebody may take side with. There are other things to take into consideration. I reserve judgement.

[cafolini]

Hey, resenve is for beer, wine, birds, etc.
Origin could be (0,0,0), (0,20,1), etc.
ROFLMAO!

[Ecurb]

Here's an good example of an "original" work, from Ecclesiastes:


What do people gain from all their labors
at which they toil under the sun?
4 Generations come and generations go,
but the earth remains forever.
5 The sun rises and the sun sets,
and hurries back to where it rises.
6 The wind blows to the south
and turns to the north;
round and round it goes,
ever returning on its course.
7 All streams flow into the sea,
yet the sea is never full.
To the place the streams come from,
there they return again.
8 All things are wearisome,
more than one can say.
The eye never has enough of seeing,
nor the ear its fill of hearing.
9 What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
10 Is there anything of which one can say,
“Look! This is something new”?
It was here already, long ago;
it was here before our time.
11 No one remembers the former generations,
and even those yet to come
will not be remembered
by those who follow them.

[cafolini]

During a very hot day in outer space, I was able to perform something new under the sun. I fried an egg by throwing it up in the air. But my wings charred, which was not new under the sun.

[Ecurb]

If you were in outer space, how did you know which way was up and which way was down? Maybe you were over the sun, not under it. Maybe you threw the egg down, not up. Also, isn't oxygen necessary for "charring"?

[cafolini]

Oxygen was provided by Mongo Aurelio, a famous Argentinean character. Sorry I forgot that point. LOL

[PeterL]

I agree with Qoheleth. There is nothing new under the Sun.

Originality in works of fiction is aa matter of finding a new wway to express the same old things. SOme succeed, while others do not.

[ennison]

If there are only a limited number of plots (As some fairly intelligent folk have argued for) then originality in prose fiction must come more from the how than the what.

[Adolescent09]

Making the barbaric more sane, the abstract more plausible, the confounding more pleasing, oh wait... I'm talking about what physics does to mathematics. My bad!

[cacian]

A good reserve of judgement and a combination of attentiveness to details and a momentum that occurs when it's due that makes a writer original.
Original to me means words to meanings and vice versa. I may write the same letter several times but everytime the meaning changes. If I can handle that I can handle all.
In all seriousness writing is perfectly legit and obedient when it comes to writing it in the sense it is meant to be.
To write against its nature the language it nurtures is herecy of a different kind. Herecy is to obide laws of others and then to make them as though they were yours.
In principle it may look good because it has all the charms of plagiarism has to offer but then it does not have plot.
Essentially plot is important because it is where the origin begins and idealism finishes.
origin from original is the link that misses when what is written hits a high note of brittle and gives no clue to what is its mission. It gets lost in transcript transit never mind translation.

[osho]

In fact the idea of originality is delusive since nothing is original in all aspects. You maybe original in structuring your sentences and using different vocabularies than the rest but somewhere one has to borrow something from others. Shakespeare had little to say new and most of what he had said, mainly the narrative part was already said by his predecessors. In fact most of what we do in the name of uniqueness is deceptive and though the issue of plagiarism has gathered much dusts of late but the fact is one way or the other we all plagiarize and to be totally outside of is a lie.

[chrisvia]

As others have said, the content of a work is no longer the place for originality. As Cormac McCarthy stated, "The ugly fact is books are made out of books. The novel depends for its life on the novels that have been written." But I think an author can still be original with the aesthetics of their work. Some recent examples that come to mind are Danielewski's House of Leaves and Foer's Tree of Codes. And yet--I am of the school of those who have been taught to never say never!

[cacian]

As others have said, the content of a work is no longer the place for originality. As Cormac McCarthy stated, "The ugly fact is books are made out of books. The novel depends for its life on the novels that have been written." But I think an author can still be original with the aesthetics of their work. Some recent examples that come to mind are Danielewski's House of Leaves and Foer's Tree of Codes. And yet--I am of the school of those who have been taught to never say never!

It interesting that 'House of Leaves' and 'Tree of Codes' both interrelate because of the word 'Tree' and 'Leaves'.
I am not sure I understand what you mean by' to never say never' in this context.

[cacian]

In fact the idea of originality is delusive since nothing is original in all aspects. You maybe original in structuring your sentences and using different vocabularies than the rest but somewhere one has to borrow something from others. Shakespeare had little to say new and most of what he had said, mainly the narrative part was already said by his predecessors. In fact most of what we do in the name of uniqueness is deceptive and though the issue of plagiarism has gathered much dusts of late but the fact is one way or the other we all plagiarize and to be totally outside of is a lie.

Hi osho I think it impossible to not sound the same or repeat what others have stated or written before. The fact that the language we use to write is the same. It would be impossible not to seem to be backpaddling what has been paddled before.
A suggestion of perhaps recreating new meanings with intended words and recreating new ones is a move forward towards originality. Nuances and such are what allow for a combination of meanings and word to evolve into something new everytime.

[Panglossian]

Perhaps literary originality is out there - yet no publisher can see it, no agent understands it, and no reader knows it's there (or even desires it!) - perhaps ;]
I dunno, the best a writer can hope for is to have a unique turn of phrase...?/ - or a likeable style that isn't shallow...?/ - or sumthin'-------------

[PeterL]

Perhaps literary originality is out there - yet no publisher can see it, no agent understands it, and no reader knows it's there (or even desires it!) - perhaps ;]
I dunno, the best a writer can hope for is to have a unique turn of phrase...?/ - or a likeable style that isn't shallow...?/ - or sumthin'-------------

It is more likely that the publishers won't touch it, because they aren't willing to gamble on things that no one has ever done before.

There is a limited number of ingredients that can be mixed in various proportions and baked in various ways, so that the flavour can come out different every time. And the languages are constantly changing, so you can just take your little cake and put it into a different pan.

[cacian]

ANother thought. How is unique in comparison to original in terms of literature?