While We Wait: Boredom Strikes Back

[nutranurse]

Non-sequitur:

I'm angry at the way they ended Camelot this week. Seriously, WTH!

 

[Shadowbound]

I'm angry at the way they ended the Chicago Code. Seriously, WTH!

 

[nutranurse]

Jesus Christ. My computer crashed or something--it's been freezing up randomly since I came home and I believe it's the heat here in maryland--and my goddamned map that I've been working on all day is now corrupted or something.

 

[Ekolite]

Sucks when that happens.

 

[nutranurse]

I hate photoshop's touchiness. You'd think that if they charge hundreds of dollars for the program they'd be able to implement some kind of autosave/recovery feature.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Originality is dead. Accept it, and you move into a new area of struggling to write well instead of struggling to write new.

What do you mean by 'originality is dead'? I think I disagree with you, unless you're using a definition of originality that requires creating something unlike anything else out of a vacuum.

"Commander! We have driven off the bats and reestablished our Pylons? What are you new commands?"

"I will look within the NESing Multiverse and check upon my children. Now Shoo"

"But Commander! There are Homeworld Work to be done and missions to complete!"

"Blam them! I am going NESing!"


I'MMMMMMMMMMM BaCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK!

Welcome back Charles.

I hate photoshop's touchiness. You'd think that if they charge hundreds of dollars for the program they'd be able to implement some kind of autosave/recovery feature.

Join the Church of the GIMP my child...

 

[nutranurse]

Spoiler :

NEVER! I've made decent progress, imo.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Broken link nutra.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

I'm hoping to gather a group to start a new game of Neptune's Pride in 48 hour's time, or at 2300 EDT/2000 PDT on Friday. Meet on #nes so we can coordinate and join a free game en-masse at the same time.

 

[Starlife]

nutra: I can't see your map!

LI: It is an interesting discussion. Let me try to articulate myself better, because I wasn't really commenting on the subject of originality at its core, but more what a writer usually works towards. I believe in originality of style, but not originality of content. That is probably simplifying things way too much, because they are closely related most of the time. I think sometimes people strive for originality of content too much, which results in poor writing. The concept and setting might be novel, but I don't actually care about the characters or what happens within the setting.

I think many people believe the opposite: originality of content exists, but not originality of style. I am not saying necessarily that originality of style exists, but I am saying it is better to work towards that than to work towards originality of content. I sincerely believe that everything you and I have ever wanted to write about has been written about before. Every single idea. To me, finding a voice as an author or a is more important than trying to think of the newest 'thing' (even if my voice is similar to another's voice, it is still my own). It is a shame when someone tries their hardest to be original, and it comes out a mess. This exists in visual arts these days, too. Someone might try to make something for the sake of making it because it hasn't been made before. But inevitably, their ideas originated from something already done and their effort comes out seeming insincere and lacks proper technique or significant presence. Some people like this, but I don't.

To me, content is part of the human collective mind - not a single setting or idea is truly original.

I am not a critic or judge, though - everything is subjective in what I am saying (which I think is something we should all keep in mind, pertaining to the fanfic subject as well).

For example, we often see beginnings to paragraphs in (fanfiction?) that go like this:

John Smith stood in the doorway, looking out at the lonely desert.

[ _____ (character name) _____ (present tense verb) etc. ]

Sheesh - terrible example. Anyway. This type of style is extremely common, and it shows that perhaps the author has not let themselves find a 'unique' voice. No matter what content is placed in this structure, I will not like this sentence (I have, of course, crafted sentences like that - so I am guilty). I am not negating influence, by the way. I think influence is a credible thing. But influence of another voice on your own is different from not striving to find your own. I think that struggle is what makes a good author (at least the ones I like to read!).

Sorry. That was incredibly long-winded.

 

[nutranurse]

Spoiler :

There! Note-- the sea looks much more violent now.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Many people share their styles of art, but I think that all people ultimately come up with unique quirks and remixes of concepts. It seems bizarre to me to try and conceive that every idea has already been done, in fact, it seems impossible to imagine that we have even begun to make a dent in possible ideas.

 

[Starlife]

Maybe, but I still think that striving for original style is infinitely more important than striving for original content.

EDIT: By the way, a unique quirk and a remix is inherently unoriginal. I am using originality in the strictest sense of the word.

By the way, has anyone noticed that all of these recent Liam Neeson action movies are rip-offs of old Arnold Schwarzenegger plotlines? It's like they think putting a better actor in there will suddenly make the plot better, or more 'classy' or something.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Okay Starlife, we're working on different types of originality, but I still disagree. It seems like your idea of originality involves inventing a new colour or something.

Or is that just ripping off the electromagnetic spectrum's already established system of varying wavelength photons?

 

[Starlife]

It's an acknowledgment that all human experience is shared by the collective conscience. I know it sounds silly, but again - I'm not really talking about originality for originality's sake. I am talking about what makes good writing (in my opinion, which is subjective). And I prefer authors who tend to strive for an original style, struggle even, rather than authors who try to create content that is supposedly new and unique. The reason for this is because authors who do not do the latter have accepted the fact that all human experience has its origins, whether that be the colors we see or the fact that Tolkien uses mostly Norse mythology. Authors who have accepted the fact that everything they are writing is indeed appropriated are more likely to be successful in driving a good story. Knowing origins and where content began is a powerful asset.

It isn't simply me saying inventing a new color is the only way to be original. If I have a strict idea of content originality, it is to show the contrast between those who attempt to create new ideas without knowing where they came from and those who are well-versed in the origins of their content.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

What is the difference between style and content then?

 

[Starlife]

Another interesting aside. As I said before, it is hard to separate them most of the time. To me, style is the way in which something is written, while content is the plot, setting, characters, and so on.

An author who wants to tell a story might focus solely on the content of that story and they might strive to make that content unique. But they would be coming after thousands of years of history, philosophy, religion, archetypes, etc. etc. etc. (and other writings, of course). Once they acknowledge that any content they create is part of a shared human experience and is indeed appropriated - and know the origins of much of their content - they can focus moreso on how to tell the story they want to tell using their style. The more they attempt to find their own voice and create a unique style (even if that attempt is futile), the better the writing will be.

And from knowing about the origins, many of those authors are later perceived as original. Example (a totally unoriginal example, but so what): Tolkien and Norse mythology. In the strictest sense of original content, nothing Tolkien wrote is original. But his writing style is incredible and because of his writing style, the work can be perceived as highly innovative.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Why not try to do both? And yes, my definition of 'original' fits within what you're saying, I think of any new synthesis or bringing together of ideas as being 'original'.

 

[Starlife]

I guess what I'm saying is that overtly trying to be original content-wise often winds up sacrificing the quality of the work. I think writing what you know is indeed the best way to write (or at least for me is the most interesting writing to read). Writing what you know is automatically unoriginal in that strict view of the word, but it is unoriginal for a purpose - because those archetypes, symbols, etc. have been powerful indicators of the human experience. The appropriation of such archetypes, especially if they are well thought-out and translated via personal experience, deeply moves readers such as myself. I imagine that even 1,000 years from now, those same basics (which have branched into more complex forms, of course) will still deeply move us.

I'm off to bed now. It was nice talking to you, Iggy. Goodnight.

 

[Northen Wolf]

Are you taking credit for the 200+ WWW posts none of which appear to have been reported? Was i wrong to give think that all those who posted contributed to the effort?

Can't let good thing go waste, can we?

Oh you wanted three words. How about: "Not right now." There are other possibilities, but his one seems most ambiguous.

Oh, so there's possibility in the future, that's good