I'd be interested to hear about members' views on the notion of ORIGINALITY. Does our writing have to be totally original? Is there any room for cliches?

The reason I ask is that it's only very recently in human history that writers and artists focus on originality being the ideal. There has always been a long tradition of recycling and deliberate preserving of existing stories (e.g. oral myths/histories such as for example the Indian Vedas). And ofcourse people have and still do dip into the reservoir of Ancient Greek stories as a framework on which to add flesh to their ideas. Also, there are numerous Bollywood films that are modern Indian versions of Oliver Twist or take their story ideas from other 19th century writers.

What do you think guys? Good thing or bad?

Anybody fancy doing a modern English language version of the Ancient Egyptian work 'The Eloquent Peasant'?

Well- you know what they say. There are no new stories. There are only 8 stories in the world and everything anyone writes is a version of one of these, like it or not. But is that true? In a way, wouldn't that put you off ever picking up your pen/turning the PC on again if it was? What a can of worms you've opened up now! But it's an interesting point, because many writers working now, particularly in film and TV, are shamelessly recycling old stories eg. Clueless was a funky version of a Jane Austen novel, and Mark ravenhill the acclaimed playwright has worked in a similiar way. Loads more examples... I don't think this has to mean cliche though, does it?

Oh, I wasn't really meaning that doing new versions (or basing stories on...) was synonymous with cliches. I was really asking that as another part of the same question. Can we justify the use of cliches? I think sometimes the answer has to be YES. For example in dialogue. Even if it looks like it's been lifted off the mouth of a soap character. TV is a big part of many people's lives. And, I think that the occassional use of soap dialogue would make some characters more believable.

...obviously, if someone fills the whole of their work with borrowed dialogue, then it becomes tedious.

You're original, therefore if you write 'you', the originality problem doesn't exist, does it? It's when you start repeating other people's thoughts (maybe because you liked them or were impressed by them) that you have a problem. So write about 'you'...you ARE interesting.

Re:cliches...cliches are truth, aren't they? Isn't that what makes them cliches? So what's wrong with using them, up to a point? They can say what you want them to say in a nice clear way that everyone will understand. People up their own bums tend to deride them; I won't mention any names, but you know the pretentious writers I mean, and have you ever read any of their books? They usually end up having to suppliment income by becoming celebs, appearing on game shows and radio 4 programmes that no one listens to.

I'm ranting. Sorry.

You could probably write a marvellous short story (very short) or poem that was literally a collection of joined up cliches. In fact, someone already has, probably....

It’s always great to have something totally new but unfortunately that is rare since there are only so many ideas out there. I think you can make an old tale your own, put your own spin on it, and leave your personal impression. You can be original with a old cliché, I mean Star Wars just for instant is merely your basic good verses evil, the heroes save the girl yarn but it has its own spin, for one its set in the back drop of space and then each of the characters bring there own to the story to create a tale that seems very unique but certainly is not.

I once wrote a film script about my home town Bonnyrigg just outside of Edinburgh, it was all about the gang violence between the neibourhing towns, I threw in a love interest, pleased with my self I read it all and discovered I´d inadevertedly re-written West side story. I think ideas are just based on ideas which are based on idea, blah blah
sad

Sad, maybe, but true David!

you know what though roger, I kinda wish I´been living in an earlier period when things did seem original, imagine if you´d been the first to write theatre of the absurd stuff instead of Ionesco or Beckett. or the first to write about gay rights, or kitchen sink stuff, I mean it seems on the old days there was more things to discover, more things to comment on. War, and poverty.
I´ve always maintained that I´m just an old hack rehasing stuff but trying to tell it a different way. Bit romantic and nostalgic today.

But in those days, it might have been easier to find things to write about that hadn't already been done, but then most of use were uneducated so weren't in a position to write at all. At least now we get the chance, but maybe just have to try harder. Am I talking garbage? - probably. On the other hand, new stuff to write about does come along all the time - gay rights weren't an issue until quite recently and it's not so long ago that the kitchen sink didn't exist. So maybe we just need to keep our eyes and ears open...ready to pounce, to be the first!

So maybe it makes us work harder to be original, then, which is probably a good thing... if tiring.

mind you maybe being un original can benefit, theatres alway seem to look for trends, always trying to replace, at some point they´ll look for the new Mark Ravenhil, david harrower, sarah kane who in their own way replaced their predecessors, still i do think it would be nicer coming up with something new or a new approach

The world is still full of so much that's wonderful and painful to comment about and discover. Also, I like the famous Newton quote that scientists use... 'On Giant's Shoulders'. I think as writers we'd be fooling ourselves if we believed that in some way we weren't doing something similar. I actually find that quite comforting - strands of language and ideas floating through time.

Also, I often find stuff that's written from a personal perspective (either the writer's own or one of the character's) is what makes something 'original' for me - the familiar (or even the not so familiar) seen through fresh eyes perhaps.

It would be interesting to go back in history for a visit in a time machine. Though, as a woman, they'd probably think I was a witch and burn me at the stake...

excellent point

I think it's every writer's responsibility to TRY and be as original as they possibly can - otherwise they will never have an original voice, and isn't that what most of us strive towards? The subconcious brings out enough cliches in the pen as it is - so I think at least wilfully trying to avoid them can only be a good thing... There will always be what people call a 'cliche' in every story - (unless it's psychobabble waffle), whether it's in the framework or a recognisable character etc... And sometimes they are neccesary to act as a foundation, but I think it's concentrating on avoiding cliches in the smaller details that makes the difference. Most times, in your heart you know if you've written a cliche description - it's just plain lazy not to exercise the imagination and do something about it...