So you thought you were original?

[The Book]

 Let's face it - it's extremely hard to tell a story that's 100% original - in the games we make with AGS we all include at least one common/cliched element. I confess I thought "Sar" and "Ambers of Dream" to be based on totally original concepts - till I found THIS list of fantasy cliches:

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Labyrinth/8584/stuff/cliche.html

  Now, I shamefully admit "Sar" to be guilty of incorporating following themes from the list:

  - Retelling of Arthurian legends or the Robin Hood story (although in a setting that's not quite typical for this type of story)

  - Fantasy names with too many vowels (Lee-yan-day).

  - Warrior cultures based off of the Samurai or Spartans.

  - Churches based on the medieval Catholic Church but that have a history totally unlike the Catholic Church: 

   
   

  - True feudal societies where the king holds absolute power.

  - No such thing as an atheist in the world; everybody believes in a god/gods

   That would be all for "Sar". Is there anyone else who'd like to admit what cliches he/she had used in their own games?

[BOYD1981]

well, i once made a stupid little game in which you flew around a graveyard as a dead deformed baby in a jug... i thought that was pretty original. tasteless, but original.
but to be honest there really isn't such a thing as an original game, movie or song because there are so many cliches attached to each.
a game in which you fly around an environment isn't all that original, but it's how you use it/portray it that can make it atleast slightly different from other things.

[Nikolas]

There are differences between original and cliché! Also there are differences between original and unique!

Since we are who we are taught to be eveyrthing we say/do/act is based 99% on our experience! End of story!

I have decided that this applies to virtually everything so there is no need to seek out orininality!

But

In my opinion the way to go a little further in your art, whether you name is game devloping, music, graphics, theater, whatever, you must be able to use your own filters, and make this cliché your own. And this is what makes something unique...

What an interesting thread... A pity that's it's already been discussed at least once (I won't go searching now though...) (<- )

[GarageGothic]

A quick search brought up wikipedias: "List of cliché lists":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_clich%C3%A9s

Dare I read this?

[Ali]

I don't think we should worry about this too much. Homer's Odyssey includes more than one of these including:

Someone goes to the underworld, either spiritually or physically

Heroines who always remain pure no matter what, even if all the other women around them are defiled.

No such thing as an atheist in the world; everybody believes in a god/gods (the exception being worlds where the gods are a real physical presence.)

[The Book]

Ali: According to my humble knowledge, Homer was the first to come up with these ideas (assuming there really was a guy named Homer, some researchers argue there was none)... or was he? Perhaps in his times they were already cliches.

IDEA: Let's stop calling them cliches, and call them ARCHETYPES instead. Sounds better, doesn't it? From now on every time we copy and paste some cliche into our game, we'll be able to explain ourselves by claming that it's an ARCHETYPE. Read: something universal. Timeless. Mythical. Our story doesn't simply rip off stories told before, oh no. It simply reflects the universal and timeless ARCHETYPES. And every time we do it, let us thank Eliade and Jung for having invented this oh so handy term.

[Ali]

'Archetype' is much better because it doesn't have the pejorative connotations of 'cliché'.

Many entries on that list were over-used hackneyed ideas and were inherently quite poor. Plenty of others were perfectly good ideas that have been used and reused because they are good.

[Stefan Z]

Reading that giant list of cliches immediatly makes me want to try and make a game with ALL these cliches in it. That would be original!

The sooner you abandone this idea you can be original, the better. This may seem harsh, but as Nicolas said: most (if not all; see Chomsky) of what we know comes from experience.
Making a game that's 100% original would mean it offers a totally different set of experiences, I doubt anyone would understand it.
I think The Box That Ate Time is an attempt at this.

I believe that if you want to tell a story that makes people feel it's original, you need to combine things in a new way.
For example: Loom has lots of cliches: hooded men, pseudo-medieval environment and magic. But the system of using magic by music is new.

As for my own games game, in Snake (my MAGS april entry) you have no hands at the beginning and have to find hands before you can pick stuff up. I haven't seen anything like it in another game (but it probably has; replies anyone?)

Grtz,
Stefan

[The Book]

 Let me remind you of one title that I consider exemplary - "Solaris" by Stanislaw Lem. What makes "Solaris" exceptional is that it gives us a glimpse of reality that can really be labelled as "alien". Why's that? In my opinion Lem was one of the few sci-fi writers who made actual use of his imagination. Although both sci-fi and fantasy offer relative freedom for the writer/director/designer, what most of them do with this freedom is take elements from realistic literature/cinema and put them in context of imaginary world. Take "Star Wars", for example: what it in fact is - is a melange of themes taken straight from western, war films (Lucas is said to be fond of cinematic dogfights, and so X-Wings and Tie-fighers behave exactly like German and British fighters in the battle of Midway), samurai movies (the whole Jedi affair) etc. There's an excellent online paper written by Elana Gomel on the subject of fantasy - especially Tolkienised fantasy - which contains an excellent line: "What is peculiar about fantasy as a genre is how little fantasy it actually requires." It's retelling of the same story over and over, in different settings.

But then Lem proved that it is in fact possible to imagine something that transcends our ordinary experience. "Solaris" is the proof. And the basis of the entire process of imagination is - mind me - analysis. They are often thought to contradict each other, but in my opinion imagination works only if it is supported by analysis. It's intellectual discipline that gives the imagination strenght to break through the barriers of ordinary experience and envision something new. Why? Because analysis is - speaking in the terms of computer programming - the reverse engineering of reality. Once you had disassembled the surrounding world into smaller components, you are free to reasemble them into completlely new and original structure. It's a bit like difference between "mythos" and "logos". "Mythos" is greek for "repeating without understanding". What most fantasy and sci-fi writers of today are doing falls into the cathegory of "mythos". "Logos", on the other hand, means "to understand". I consider "logos" the pinnacle of creativity, and "mythos" merely a form of creative stagnation.

EDIT: Here's link to Elana Gomels article:

http://www.lord-of-the-rings.org/books/tolkien_elana_gomel.html

[Stefan Z]

You can't remind me of Solaris - I take it you're talking to me - since I haven't read or seen Solaris. This also makes it hard to comment, but I'll do my best.

The main difference between Solaris and things like Star Wars is that Stanislaw Lem tells us something which makes us think about what he means, while George Lucas only wants to show us his cool special effects.


Interesting article about Tolkien. Don't agree completely, it does take imagination to create a world with new races and languages.


You say Lem 'proves' it is possible to imagine someting that transcends our ordinary experience.
In the same way Star Wars is based on western and samurai movies, you could say Solaris is based on the feeling of not really knowing people - including yourself. From what I've understood the story is about, alienation is the central theme. I know that feeling.
The movie "Invasion of the Bodysnatchers" is also about that theme.

You could also argue Star Wars transcends our experience. I've never seen a light sabre.


Being original is indeed all about taking things apart and putting two parts together that no man has put together before (to stay in science fiction jargon).
But: when the player/reader/audience can't project their own emotions onto it, they will fail to understand it. In that aspect Solaris deals with the experience of alienation.


btw Your enthusiasm of Solaris makes me curious. I'll try to read it in the not-too-distant-future.

Grtz, Stefan.

[The Book]

when the player/reader/audience can't project their own emotions onto it, they will fail to understand it.

Definitely - there must be some kind of umbilical cord between our reality and the fictional creation. What I disagree with, however, is that your opinion seems to be emotion-centric: the task of storyteller, in my own humble opinion, is not only to stir emotions,  but also to make his/hers audience think, to broaden its horizons, to show it possibilities it never thought existed. Good sci-fi, I believe, operates in the realm of possible, in the magical Between: it doesn't describe reality that is immediately present, but it doesn't spin fairy-tales either; rather, it is trying to envision what could happen if certain conditions were fulfilled. That's where the best authors (Lem, Dick, Asimov, and even LeGuin) excel.

[Ali]

"Mythos" is greek for "repeating without understanding". What most fantasy and sci-fi writers of today are doing falls into the cathegory of "mythos". "Logos", on the other hand, means "to understand". I consider "logos" the pinnacle of creativity, and "mythos" merely a form of creative stagnation.

I think this distinction is very interesting, and I wasn't aware of the meanings of those words. I do think there is some value in repetition, reuse or reappropriation of ideas.

The importance of originality has decreased with the advent of postmodernity, but I think it's interesting to look at pre-modern (stay with me here) narratives.

With folk tales, unoriginality and heritage were very important. Stories were told in such a way as to indicate that they had been told many times before. Folk tales were always set in the past, even in the past.

I think it's possible to strike a balance between the transcendent originality of "logos" and the mindless repetition of "mythos". By reappropriating a familiar fantastical narrative it is possible for a storyteller to express a unique conception of "happily ever after".

[Stefan Z]

Maybe we're drifting off the main point, but I think it's still relevant. Forgive me the long posts.

What I disagree with, however, is that your opinion seems to be emotion-centric: the task of storyteller, in my own humble opinion, is not only to stir emotions,Ã,  but also to make his/hers audience think, to broaden its horizons, to show it possibilities it never thought existed.

Is my opinion emotion-centric? Maybe. But stirring emotions should never be the centre.
In that I agree with you totally.

I do think the best stories are driven by the emotions of the creator - he/she is angry about some development (Brave New World, 1984, The China Syndrome) and tries to convince others of his opinion through his art.
But this is not enough for a original story: you have to tell something that's not been told before. Any compassionate writer should not want to retell another story.

Ironic that originality didn't become important until Romanticism in the late 1800's, a genre which is also known for it's overemphasis on feelings. From Wikipedia: "It stressed strong emotion (...), legitimized the individual imagination as a critical authority and overturned some previous social conventions."

You seem very focussed on Sci-Fi. Surely you don't think originality is confined to the sci-fi genre?

The importance of originality has decreased with the advent of postmodernity, but I think it's interesting to look at pre-modern (stay with me here) narratives.

Hm. Postmodernity is a very vague idea, but I don't think it's led to a decrease of originality. The combining and adjusting of genres opens a window of possibilities.
A novel like "Less Than Zero" by Brad Easton Ellis is not only important but also highly original in it's utter lack of morality.

Some time ago I read "Women who run with the wolves" by Clarissa Pinkola Estes. It said on the back Oprah recommended this, so I'm guessing some of you already know this.
It's quite excellent in it's analysis of legends. Helped me a lot in writing better stories.

[fred]

Great that somebody brings up Solaris!!

I can only talk about the movies (the old one and the remake), which are both excellent, imo. Lem was also buliding on cliches, but he used them very well. His cliches are those of "the alien lifeform", and of "the nature of god/extreme being". Intelligently he wasn't so much concerned with these things by themselves, as with how humans use these "abstracts" as mirrors or objects of self-reflection, and as a way of understanding each other. The way I see it, this is the narrative 'engine' of Solaris, that drives the characters and story forward and give them shape. In a way, the characters are facing the unknown (god/woman/alien/themselves) and the story is 100% loyal to their bewilderment, using the weird setting where dreams and inner fears turn real (which makes everything seem unreal). But as viewers, we are in a suspension of disbelief for much the same reason that the characters are, we want to make sense of it all and understand ourselves better. Actually it's a highly psychedellic, self-reflective way of telling a story, and I think it succeeds because of two things: Reflecting on the archetypes/the myths on which it is based and, staying true to it's characters' psychology.

In a way this is more advanced storytelling than that of the folk tales, where supernatural thought-ups would be justified by "I learned this story from a _wise_ old person" or by following conventions of other "true" tales (magic numbers etc.).

So I couldn't agree more: use the clichés, but use them consciously (or they will be using you). And, keep a character in there, be true to it.

[The Book]

I've only seen Soderbergh adaptation of Solaris and all I can say is that he missed the point entirely. Anyway, Soderbergh's adaptation has very little to do with the actual novel. You pointed out that "Solaris" is about confronting the unknown, and that the theme itself is a cliche... Well, confronation with non-human reality plays a major part in all novels written by Lem. What he liked to do was to collide our own way of thinking, which is - after all - a product of circumstances that we as a species are accomodated to, with reality that cannot be comprehended in human terms. The theme of confronting the unknown - even if it's cliche - is used very sparsely both in literature and movies, mostly because it's the one most difficult to implement. There are very few artists who can do it well, and the only one that comes to my mind at the moment is Peter Weir, specifically his "Last wave" and "Picnic under the hanging rock". The hardest part of this fare is not to create the mystery, but to sustain it.

Note as well that in "Solaris" Lem managed to avoid many cliches that plagued and still plague the sci-fi genre: first and foremost, the encounter between human and alien is pictured as non-confrontational. In most stories you have the proverbial "little green men" arriving to Earth either to conquer, or to befriend mankind. In other words, whether they're our friends or foes, the aliens are envisioned as bigger and smarter versions of ourselves. The Ocean in "Solaris" is completely non-human; its actions don't make any sense in the human eyes. If someone else was behind the story, the ocean would turn out either to be a benevolent sage, or a giant predator. Here's where "Solaris" masterfully avoids cliches.

Read the book, please! Cinema adaptations don't do this novel justice.

[fred]

I just might read the book when I have time, but I do consider any film by Tarkovsky to be high art (at least those I've seen). I think the modern adaption was en excellent film too, but my impression may be tainted by having seen the original first. But wow, if the book is even better... And thanks for the tip on Peter Weir.

Just to avoid misunderstanding: I'm not in any way using the word cliche as a derogatory term about the work of Lem. I'm using the word in the sense discussed above, that all stories derive from something and have been told before (at some level of abstraction), because they all stem from human experience. You can fit most modern novels into a scheme from some Greek myth if you want (Solaris could be interpreted as a modern day medusa- or narcissus- or icharos- adaption). What's important is to be aware of the stories you're building upon because it's the only way you can hope to add something new to them (besides from changing the 'skin' of the story).

I think you're absolutely right about Lem masterfully avoiding the cliche of turning the ocean into friend or foe - it is simply 'unknown', like a very true reflection of what we are to ourselves and to each other.

Many movies/books have this approach as well - Space Odyssey for instance (the Monolith) or the 'Aleph' in the tale by Borges. A poet like John Ashbery also tries to maintain a core of doubt/unknowing in his poems, because, as he says, if there was a mystery or riddle in the poem, it could be solved, and then the poem would become uninteresting. That's what I was trying to say about always keeping a character in the story, a geniune 'subject', not an 'object' that can be fully explained (like so many b-movies treat their characters). 

[lo_res_man]

Well I like to write sci-fi, and I still think I am original. I like to write the human reactions, for example, I am working on, ( but having a tough time with) a story where a female scientist develops a viable human cloning method, where it is MUCH less 'wasteful" then the "dolly" method, that is it basically works on the same ratio as natural human cloning, that is, twins. when her research gets destroyed she decides to preserve as much as she can by cloning herself and implanting the zygote in herself. What I am working on are not the technical mumbo jumbo, but the human reactions to the results, what do her colleges think, what does her husband think? what does SHE think? These and other questions are more important then giving a star trek type over explanation. of course I must do a lot of research on cloning and bio-engineering, but it is the human issues that are important.

[Radiant]

Cute list, I like it.

(goes off to double-check ATOTK...)