A Writer's Notebook, Day One-Hundred-Twenty-Five

One idea which I have encountered many times, in many different forms, and which, honestly, I find rather upsetting, especially knowing it to be so widespread, is the concept that originality is not truly possible in a world as saturated with creative output as our own.  While there are forms of this that exist in every medium, those in the writing world are, for obvious reasons, those that I most often encounter.  In some cases, these are rather straightforward statements, with a writer saying, perhaps, that every story has already been told, that it is impossible to craft something unprecedented.

Now, I tend to see that as a very limiting perspective and a self-fulfilling prophecy, and I can easily explain the illogical nature of this, with a simple example of what I mean.  One of the subtler forms of this belief comes up often when a writer makes a grand pronouncement about how to write well.  For example, they might tell you that all successful plots follow a certain structure, or that every protagonist conforms to certain ideas.  This is nothing but a self-imposed limit, but suggest that perhaps it would be possible to go beyond those ideas and explore them, the answer I invariably receive is a request for examples of it having already been done.  

In many cases, I can find examples that fit those criteria, from writers that I admire and find to be very successful in their work.  Some of those writers are more obscure than others.  In the last several years we have seen work that does go beyond the traditional and do new and innovative things, work that is creative and daring, and that originality has been rewarded.  The last two Man Booker winners were both in that category, for example, and they are not alone.  For me, it is important to realize that possibility.

If I am honest, really, I find it rather hard to consider someone a genuine artist of any sort if they truly believe that only what has been done before is what is possible, and for me that is a bit like a person lying with their face in the ground, when they could roll over and see the sky.  What is most frustrating, though, is that attempts to discuss these issues generally result in people assuming that I am deluded or just an ass.  I recently had an ongoing debate over such an issue, and it really is quite frustrating.

My goal, in these interactions, honestly, is to hopefully inspire some others to think past the stupidity of saying it all has to be done one way.  For me, it is useful to learn those rules, but it is worth knowing, as well, that they are rules and not facts.  To say that a character, for example, must have certain attributes is a perfectly fine way for a writer to operate, but it does not mean it is the actual way things are.  For example, I have heard writers discuss the need for a character to have agency.  If a character lacks agency, the story is dead and boring.  Yet, these same people have all read Slaughter-House Five, a book in which the main character has absolutely no agency, by definition.  

But, I should not need to provide an example, indeed, needing to provide examples is by its nature a sign of the very issue.  I am not saying that we can't discuss how to do what other writers have already achieved, and I am not even suggesting that their are not rules to writing, but instead, I am stating that it is a responsibility for any who considers themselves to be creative, to recognize that the act of creation means being able to do something new.  It is not merely doing what has already been done, it is adding to the possibilities that exist.

I am sure that a lot of writers would find this somewhat absurd, or even potentially hostile, but I want to ask anyone who thinks that, to question for a moment the possibility that their are more things we can do, and to ask if it is really all that awful of me to encourage that kind of thinking.  It seems to me that the real crime would be in stifling our own potential by not exploring and playing with new possibilities.  I think it is very important to do that, and I think that those who don't remain open to those possibilities really are not capable of being truly creative, as they cannot generate ideas and implement them in ways that are not derivative.

A great deal of derivative art is good, and not merely in the sense that it is enjoyable.  It can be intelligent and beautiful, it can be thought provoking, and it can be extremely deep on both emotional and intellectual levels, but it is still limited in what it can achieve.  It lack that dimension, and can never make it up.  That is not to dismiss the value of the work, but to suggest that it must be only one aspect of the work that is being written and produced, and that other kinds of work are needed.  

For me, that is a large reason that I wrote W/R,  as it is a book that is very much about thinking in new ways, and a book that attempts to give readers unique experiences that they haven't experienced yet.  In other words, it is an attempt to show that things can be done that don't really fit into those molds, and which take the reader in new directions through understanding their experience.  To me, it is important to do work that goes beyond the boundaries of what is considered possible, or perhaps just what has been considered.