Creativity and Originality will always be around. Anyone who says nothing is original anymore is because they can't come up with anything themselves. If it was that easy, everything would be original. You can't know if something can be original until you come up with the idea which is many ways is near impossible.
I feel like it's more of an enormous mosaic with millions of pieces. The pieces are never new but you can arrange them in a billion different ways and it's unlikely you'll ever run out of ways to arrange them in.
I’m trying to mix fantasy with science fiction. I’m not the first person to do it but a spell caster exploring space gives me lots of comments about my creativity.
Lol it is the laziest way of defining originality. Sure combining two genres that was never done before could be technically original, but is it truly creative? I don't think so.
@@quelorepario try to define it another way then. Whatever examples you can come up with, when you break it down to its base elements, there is only one way to explain its originality.
I disagree, originality best comes from execution in my opinion. Combining two or more elements can work but it can also cause a messy story. And at some point there are only so many combinations so you end up with the same "problem".
@@melancholyentertainment An idea can be original and sloppily executed. Original does not always equal good. I have seen original ideas sour because of bad implementation. I do not believe that combing elements in new ways is the only way to be original but that is the easiest way. Originality can also come from framing a familiar story from an overlooked perspective. A good example would be a typical LOTR medieval fantasy story told from the perspective of a merchant or a peasant rather than a knight or a king as is normally the case. I'm not sure its even possible to list all the ways in which it is possible to be original since creativity is such an unpredictable concept but like you said polishing an idea is as important as coming up with one.
Overcoming the monster (Beowulf) , Quest (Lord of the Rings), Comedy (Four Weddings and a Funeral), Tragedy (Macbeth), Voyage & Return(Alice in Wonderland), Rags to Riches (Cinderella), Rebirth(Beauty and the Beast)
Overcoming the monster = Lord of the Rings, the ring Voyage & Return = Lord of the Rings, to Mordor and back Rebirth = Lord of the Rings, innocent Hobbits to battle hardened adventurers Quest = Lord of the Rings, the ring Comedy= Lord of the Rings, Pippin. Tragedy = Lord of the Rings, Frodo. Rags to Riches = Lord of the Rings, I'm sure there's something in there.
I'm of the opinion that there really is only so many plotlines. The 7 mentioned are pretty encompassing, but I also think you could mix and match them as some take on two or more of these aspects. There's only so many story kinds you can tell and they've basically been told. However, I don't think that means people can't make original fiction, and therein lies the rub. I hope I can explain myself well. For example, take a chair. It's for sitting on. You can make it many different ways (arm-rests or none, three legs, four legs, backing, etc) but it's still a chair for a specific function. You maybe be able to get a few other unconventional functions out of it, but it was meant to be sat on and it needs certain things to do that. It will resemble a lot of other chairs, but not every chair has to look the same, and you could make an infinite different number of different looking chairs. I think books are the same. Yes, we may all be using only a handful of different plotlines and story types, only a handful of different character types, but how each person strings that together is what really makes it, and there is the originality. We will never run out of stories that could be told, and there is no limit on original stories and ideas even if they use similar elements of another work. People who dismiss fiction because it's all been done before have no idea what they're talking about. Everything has been done before. Nobody gets mad at a painting for using the same colour as another painting or the same kind of paints. It would be like yelling at a pumpkin pie for having pumpkin in it...its what you asked for! Stories have certain elements and structure that repeat, that's what make it a story just like literally anything else you can think of. That doesn't mean it isn't original. It would be like yelling at cars for having tires and telling Ford to start all over again, only this time get it rolling without the wheels.
There's a Japanese novel that I can't find an English translation of. I read it in Mandarin. The story begins with the death of a child, hit by a fallen tree. Then we see the all the characters and circumstances that caused the tree to fall, and why the child couldn't be sent to the hospital in time. There's an retired man who couldn't find purpose in life and because of his conservatism and passive-aggressiveness, is ostracized by his family. He buys a pet poodle, and walks the dog daily to the tree to poo. There's the woman who's afraid of driving because her house is at the intersection of a road, and every time she drives out, the traffic gives her anxiety, but her family forces her to drive. There's the night-shift doctor who refuses to take major cases because he doesn't want the responsibility of screwing up, so he tells the hospital staff to turn away emergency calls when he's on shift. So the dog's poo made the old tree sick and weakened its roots, and fell, hit the kid. The ambulance came too late because the nearest hospital won't take the call. And the ambulance, after picking up the kid, couldn't make it to the hospital in time, because a woman got frustrated and left her car in the middle of the road in front of her house. There are many other characters too, all with their own motivations, but have no direct relation to the kid, each contributing to his death because of their own little selfishness. And that's the whole novel. So tell me which of the 7 plots does this fall into? There are more stories out there than you think, dear white dudes.
i think it's the structure that is creative here, it seems like a tragedy. each character has their own flaws that they do not appropriately address which leads to the death of a child.
I remember getting The Seven Basic Plots (an absolute *c h o n k e r* of a book) out of my local library multiple times to try to finish it, but every time I got derailed by the "Sex and Violence" chapter, which was a lot, uh, spicier than anything my innocent-but-also-incredibly-horny teenage Pastor's kid brain had encountered before.
With people who teach screenwriting, some writers will even say everything fits under one catagory, like a "there and back" story. There are different opinions about which structure stories have, as if there can be only one. Then, skip to literature teachers and suddenly there are lots of possibilities and lots of kinds of stories.
I listen to this and I immediately think about is how every story can actually be put in every category by just phrasing what the protagonist goes through differently to yourself
My theory: there are 7 types, but each story is a mix of those. For example, the main plot may be of the 1st type, but subplots may be of different types. If you use math techniques you can compute how many combinations there are. I got more than 16 million. So yes, I would say there is lots of space for criativity, even if there are only 7 basic plot types ✨
The "seven basic plotlines" part is fine, but saying nothing original can be made from them is ridiculous. People fall back on this are either trying to justify their own reliance on cliches or attempting to sound authoritative. There are allegedly only six (some scientists say four) basic emotions and yet people are infinitely more complex than that. Originality often comes from the tone, the voice, and the overall style.
I have a purely original foundation for my magic system and a little-known concept that serves well as a basis for inventing puzzles in an underground complex. There have been long spans of time where I did not feel I had a purely original concept and I suppose it did slow me down a bit. It is your imperfect, unique writing style that makes the work original.
In my opinion my favourite book “ The golden cloud spent the night” by A. Pristavkin is a tragedy. It’s perfectly suits this plot because there is no “Happy end”. Answering your second question, of course there are millions of books that don’t falls under that 7 plots - it’s special literature. For example - psychology, economics, philosophical books. Their aim is to tell or teach you something, not just to enrich your life experience.
stephen king asserts that the last thing he wants to do is spoil a good book/story with plot. he says it is better for him to follow characters and their situations, and i largely agree with him. things come out organically, and its easier to determine what ideas are 'keepers' and which are drivel that can fall away, be replaced, altered, left out, etc.. So, while characters and their situations are typically derived from plot/structure, they arent bound by it at all. its like music theory, if you stay in the lines it sounds boring to anyone with an ear above novice level. in order to create/compose original and decent music, a musician needs to modulate and play with spicy modes and ideas and sounds. sure most popular songs are a 4 chord progression or fall into some very generic archetypes, but good bands and composers are less likely to be confined to boring structural archetypes. depends on what you like, and i dunno about you guys, but im verysomuch done with the hero's journey archetype and its mild variations. it smacks of unoriginality, nothing happens that doesnt seem to be obvious, i mean, you can usually see these plot pivots coming a mile away. the predictability, to me, inhibits suspension of disbelief, and therefore immersion. same with cooking. fast food is extremely popular, but if you talked to a michelin star chef he wouldnt tell you that it is good or even decent eating. it seems elitist, but its just discerning. if i was elitist id say i never have eaten nor would eat a big mac. i have enjoyed them and even occasionally do, there's just a place in my life for them, and that place is not one of great accomplishment or even par. i generally try to avoid consuming them whenever possible. and certainly never cook one or even look to, when its my turn to create a dish for myself, or others. im gonna go ahead now and throw a fun little challenge out there, possibly a useful writing exercise for any nerd like myself who really wants to try to change the formulaic approach to storytelling embraced by most. create a story, doesnt matter how long or short, but it must have a clear conflict and resolution, and it must be good. (compelling, appealing, satisfactory in some dramatic sense; if it was a dish, it would have 'to work' ) this story must have as little plot/structure as possible, including and up to, none at all. a successful completion of the challenge could be a conversation between two people with little or no context, or something. but the challenge would be to see how far you can take this concept, and to find your voice in your own writing of characters/situations. (hint: dont use characters as a mouthpiece for your own ideas, in this challenge, or really ever, cause it will suck)
Something I found a while ago that I just can't seem to find again is a video that shows how most stories throughout history use the basic hill-shaped plot of buildup, climax, and resolution. Then there are tragedies and more detailed graphs of how these structures work but what really stuck out was how there are some with very little rise and fall in tension. The graph looks like a mostly straight line as there are no huge points of contention. These stories are considered compelling because they are more aligned with how we experience our own lives. We aren't gliding along until a massive conflict appears then we solve it and live happily ever after. I wish I could find the name for this though it's driving me crazy I can't find it.
This sounds like the argument that since you're using only a few basic parts in a design, you can't make new or claim copyright on electronic designs and products. Ford lost this lawsuit over this type of argument.
Bonnie and Clyde were definitely not fundamentally good, but it’s still a tragedy. Joker is definitely not good, but that’s a tragedy. I would even say Lord of the rings is not just a quest, but a defeat the monster archetype as well.
We actually can’t know how many plot lines there are because we have created/discovered them yet so we can create an original story but not until we create/discover it
Maslow's Hierarchy of needs: Each item must be attained or can be taken away. Act One can start with the main character pursuing something near the top of the hierarchy, then have their world changed by external events (or the pursuit of the higher want), and be forced to deal with survival itself.
Saying there cant be any original stories anymore because there are only 7 plot types would be like saying you cant write original songs anymore because there are only 12 notes
This to me seems like a double edge sword. While it possible to rehash the same ideas in stories, the flip side is that you put a new spin on said story. Like there's many different ways you can put a new take on Shakespeare's work like MacBeth or Hamlet. Writers just need to put the effort in.
There was an earlier version of this that was told to me by an English teacher, but it only included four plots... boy meets girl, hero's journey, barbarians at the gate, and then I can't remember the fourth one. Almost all the ones here fall under the hero's journey and none include either boy meets girl or barbarians at the gate. Does anyone here know the source and/or can remind me of the fourth plotline?
Hi there, i just discover your channel and even tho i am not a book writer it has provided me with amazing advice and guidelines on how to improve my writing abilities. I would like to launch my own blog and i would really love for you to share your insights on the matter. More so, how to write engaging blog articles and posts. Cheers and keep up the great work!
Also, I think the issue is not that much that you can’t find a story that doesn’t fall into one of these as much as there’s many stories that fall under many of these.. and the question then is - do these stories become better or worse being a hybrid between two or more? Do they become unclear, lacking precision, clarity and direction / legibility? Or do they become more interesting because they are more atypical, more varied, less standard and seen-before, more playful? Imagine writing a story that is all of the above.. starts as a quest which is about overcoming a monster and about a character who is undergoing a rebirth, the quest takes them on a voyage with a return, the main character comes from nothing and becomes famous and rich but on the way back they die only to find their peace in heaven where all of their friends are waiting for them. I think that envelopes all? In fact, the Odyssey is a bit like that?
This is fantastic summary. Simple and concise. Thank you. Question: it feels like these 7 plots can coexist in a complex story, having subplots inside /alongside others over different arcs/chapters, rather than 1 blanket plot for the whole book. An example that came to mind was Gandalf the Grey going through "Rebirth" into the white; or perhaps over the entire Odyssey's "Voyage and Return" plot the are many chapters of "Overcoming the monster" be it cyclops or Circe. What are your thoughts on applying these 7 to subplots?
I would like to take a bold front and say that this "classification" is obsolete if not entirely meaningless. It is more than possible to incorporate all of these tropes in the same book. In fact if you were to leave either tragedy or comedy then you can probably incorporate them into a single character. Not to mention that the category of rags to riches is basically a comedy or rather a comedy after a tragedy. Modern writing is too complex to be restrained by plot "types". They are more like tropes or cliches, which can also be broken entirely if enough thought is put into it.
You can actually have all of these plotlines in one long, long story, but a lot of subplots, etc. But Generally, you'll have atleast 2 or 3 mixed, to structure it firmly and good.
I know this video is super old, but does anyone know where the idea of coming of age would fall under this division? I was thinking of novels like Call Me By Your Name, or Catcher in the Rye, how would this system classify those
American History X is an example of Rebirth, but it was much more like MacBeth (i.e. a Tragedy), until he finds redemption. Also, King Lear is a tragedy, though whether King Lear was a fundamentally 'good' person would be my only concern with the label.
i do think you can since people write from the human experience and perspective even in fiction is from the human experience to an extent why because every story has already been told its repackaged over and over again which is not a bad thing by the way you just decide which veneer to put that story in
Humans are so funny: We always have to fit things into a box. Even here, discussing CREATIVE writing, we have people who want to force things into boxes. OK. Yes, if you say there are only 7 plotlines, then you can categorize every story into one of those seven, THE CLOSEST MATCH, but there are infinite stories to tell, and every story is unique from another perspective. If this categorization is used as a tool to help writers or readers understand stories, GREAT! If it's used to be reductive/insulting and tell artists everywhere "What's the point of even trying to write a new story?!" then it's stupid. This is like saying THERE ARE ONLY 2 COLORS, LIGHT ONES AND DARK ONES!!!!!!!
Yes it is possible to write something original it happens all the time. Film director Ron Howard use to believe there were only seven story structures now he believes there is only one. He also believes because there is only one the possibilities are limitless.
I think it's a poorly defined question. What is original? What is unoriginal? How you define these terms will determine the answer to "Can you write anything original?" Does original have to be good? I could write a story about a guy who just sits there. Does nothing. Thinks nothing. Says nothing. Boom, totally original. Where's my book deal?
What about "My Neighbour Totoro"? I feel like it doesn't fit any of those 7 plot lines. Maybe Asian cultures have a lot of different ways to tell stories, the west hasn't really noticed yet? What do you think?
well, kind of yes but-- these work because they are too general. it only focused in the most basic aspects an story can have. Deathnote could fit into overcoming the monster but it doesn't feels quite right still. Blame!'s plot is extremely vague, despite being a quest it feels like it's much more and much less. Many of Issac Asimov's stories are focused on wide perspectives of human civilisation, and I don't know where that would fit. Is frankenstein truly about overcoming the monster, if for the most part the conflict is not to directly face him until very late on the book?
I. Overcome: -person(s) -place(s) -thing(s) -confining state of living, such as poverty, disease, disability II. MacGuffin quest III. Mere experience (voyage, quest, along for the ride "Almost Famous" or "Lost In Translation") Good stories usually have two or more of these obstacles. There are other story types because there are other obstacles to overcome through self-improvement. There are other dilemmas that any number of characters may face. Good comedy is about saying and doing things that would get you fired if done to a hard-nosed boss. All stories require that some characters have flaws that they either overcome or are forced to recognize and learn to live with.
I imagine you can write something much more original, but using a common and popular structure can be very convenient at times. I wish I could write something much more original, but it doesn't feel that easy for me
Plus, even if you use a familiar structure, if the story is interesting and the content original, readers might not even notice the structure is familiar.
@@Reedsy yeah you're right. i like to think about movies when considering this. movies have the common 3 act structure with about 2 hours lenght, and there are still so many great movies. of course, its a visual art form too, but still something to consider
I believe that SCIENCE is the key to writing something truly original. After all, the universe is mostly mysterious to us. Therefore new scientific discoveries can provide writers with ideas that no person has ever conceived of.
nothing comes from nowhere. originality is just a new mix of stuff that already exist. And IDK if there are 7 plots, but I know that is funny to watch the same but different thing. Is like a Football match, the same thing over and over, but always is different.
Glad you don't buy into the idea that there are no new stories-- To assert no one in the future will come up with anything new, that seems arrogant to me. A categorization system should be useful, but this 7plots idea requires rationalizations to make things fit, I don't see the utility. To be clear I actually like things which outline building blocks of stories, skeletal aspects, but if the claim is all stories are "the same" because they have things in common? That seems needlessly sweeping, and false. Especially when the core essence of the story isn't even necessarily part of the way it's categorized. A story about characters dealing with loss and grief--- Where does that fit? Anywhere depending on the other components. If they get befuddled, it could be billed as a comedy. If they fight themself, maybe it's a 'monster' story. If they never recover it's a tragedy. If they rise above it maybe some claim it's rags to riches. So on for each category, but the core of the story could be none of those things. Those are all outcomes for a character, because that's all this sorting mechanism is for. The essence of a story about Grief might just be exploring a very human experience, an emotion, an aspect of life. Really if 7Plots can't find a place for stories which are about core human experiences in life, then I just don't think this particular way of categorizing is useful for even most stories.
Wouldn’t the Big Lebowski be different? For example I know it’s a comedy but, the ending doesn’t really see him in a better or worse place...he doesn’t change at all either
I haven't seen it, but The Coen Brothers definitely play by their own rules so I wouldn't be surprised if it was subversive in that way! But, there's definitely no reason any story has to fit any of this plotlines neatly.
also yes its definitely possible to write something original even if it fits one or more then one of these 7. Just because it follows a basic structure that has been used before doesnt mean its unoriginal, like a story about a quest is pretty damm unspecific.
OF Course there are only handful of plotlines because ALL stories ever written are about Human characters and they are limited by the things humans desire. Which is Love, Adventure, Triumph over Adversary, Knowledge, Morality and Existentialism. Every story ever told is just a combination of all these things.
@@hexadeciamldm3447 I made a list of genres that use the plot structure of "Mystery". Puzzles and crime solving. The classic "who done it?" These are all geners that follow the same plot structure. The defining feature of this plot structure is that there is a puzzle to solve / mystery to uncover, and that there are clues to the final answer long before the final act. The plot goes something like this [more or less]: (Act 1) Character introductions. The first body. (Act 2) Investigation by procedure Second body / plot twist (Act 3) Investigation by insight The reveal The explanation (maybe) final chase scene.
@@shanerooney7288 I hadn't thought of it like that. I viewed mysteries as a variation/combination of tragedy, overcoming the monster, and the quest plot lines (depending if you want to go the route of The Bone Collector or Detective Pikachu in tone).
Thinking about it... a lot, I found that every book i have ever read kind of falls into one of those categories. Rick Riordan books for instance even though they are mostly about him writing Greek mythology in his own words, it usually ends up being able to beat the monster or the voyage and return and the others. I can't think of one single book which doesn't fit into one of those categories, but i believe that just because every book follows those archetypes doesn't mean that u can't enjoy the book or any other creative ideas that come within it. If u think that i am wrong then can u please name a book which doesn't fit into any of these archetypes?
