Why Originality is Overrated

May 4, 2024 - Published

Let me get something very clear upfront: I LOVE works that have a ton of originality, and I do NOT condone plagiarism of any kind. If you're not sure what falls under plagiarism, I discuss it in my article about using references, though I do encourage you to do more research if you're worried about that sort of thing.

However, I think that artists and writers worry WAY too much about being original. I see a lot of people doubt in whether they should even create their own art and stories at all if it means their creation isn't original. This concern isn't necessarily unfounded -- even disregarding worries about plagiarism, a common criticism used against a lot of popular media is that it's "too unoriginal," "too familiar," or "too predictable." I don't think that this should be a worry at ALL for people still learning their craft since they generally have to learn from someone else (meaning that they essentially HAVE to work through mimicry), but for this article's sake, let's assume that you're experienced and ready to create a commercial product.

What is "Original"?

As usual, we have to start by defining our terms. There are a few definitions on Merriam-Webster, but the one that looks to be the most relevant is: "not secondary, derivative, or imitative." Imitative would suggest that it's copying something, derivative means that it's based on something, and secondary would mean that it's built on a primary source. To make something truly original, it would have to be something that not only has never been done before, but ALSO has no attachments or influences from anything that has already existed.

And my question is this: would you... actually want to watch a movie that was completely original?

Most movies have a main character. A more original movie wouldn't have a main character at all!

Most movies have a villain, and a conflict. A more original movie wouldn't have either.

Most movies have action. Most movies try to be interesting. Most movies use a camera. Most movies feature people. Most movies feature backdrops.

If you avoided all of these to make the movie "truly original," would it be improved? Personally, I strongly disagree. It could lead to an interesting experimental piece, but when making things for a general audience (or even for most niche audiences), making something more original for the sake of being original will not improve a piece. 

Like, if one day you decide "boxes are so boring, let's start storing cereal into cardboard spheres because it's more interesting and original," it would ignore the fact that those spheres would be 1) awful to create, 2) harder to open, and 3) much more difficult to store, since you can't stack them properly. It's ignoring the fact that cereal has been stored in boxes and bags because those are just the most effective storage methods for everyone.

Similarly, if you make a human character with 3 arms, that would be less common and therefore more original, but it wouldn't improve them or make them more relatable or add to their character, not unless you worked hard to fit it into their character and story arc -- and that's the important part!

Originality is rarely the part that matters

There's a term in the anime community called "The Big Three," referring to One Piece, Naruto, and Bleach. You can read about them in more detail here (which is the only academic source I could find, but you can read a better description here, even if ew Fandom), but the gist is that they are 3 extremely well-known and well-renowned long-running anime series. 

I bring them up because anime is the type of media that often and regularly employs heavy use of tropes. The Big Three have large similarities -- they have younger male main characters who are headstrong, impulsive, and have special powers, with plots that focus on action and adventure. Many anime in the same genre (shonen, meaning they're anime aimed at boys) that aren't The Big Three will still have striking similarities. Examples mentioned from the Fandom link are My Hero Academia, Dragon Ball, and Haikyuu.

Despite the fact that they all have an immense number of similarities which I won't be able to properly convey here (the main characters all have spiky hair!! how unoriginal!!), they are all incredibly popular and well-loved. More than that, fans of each series would be sure to tell you that they are VERY different. 

While there are clear differences between each of these shows, they aren't popular because they're built on some never-before-seen premise (even if that can help garner initial interest). They're popular because they're well-written, and often for great animation and action sequences. At their base, pretty much all of them are just "boy discovers power and wants to be the best, so he goes on an adventure and grows to be the best" -- and while it's not said often enough, a big reason why people like seeing these so much is probably BECAUSE it's familiar and something they've seen so many times before. And this is the part where a lot of people will say "EVERY story is essentially the same and built upon the same premise, so originality doesn't exist," and this is also the part where I will argue one of my biggest pet peeves.

Originality is NOT dead

Having gone over the meaning of originality and what it implies, I'm sure you understand that originality is a bit of a spectrum. If we go by the definition that something original has absolutely zero DNA with any work that has existed before or since, then yes, sure, originality doesn't exist, but that's also the type of originality that matters the least. If we say everything is either 100% original or 0% original, then it's essentially a useless metric.

So, one idea can be more original than another -- if it features more ideas that haven't been seen before, then we can say it's more original than another piece of work. Using that definition instead, that means that unless it is an exact copy, there is no creative work that is 0% original, since even the smallest changes to something will make it different.

Some people will like the movie adaptation more than the book. Some people will like the spiritual successor more than the original. Some people will like the prequel more than the sequel. Even if you make something strongly inspired by another work, even if you PLAGIARIZE another work, you made something original and different that is not the same as the original. That doesn't mean that it's better, or worse, or that people will even like it, but it means that it's original. 

I know this article is mostly talking from a theoretical point of view, because the truth is that people's perceptions of originality tend to be a lot more complicated, and VERY subjective. I would personally say that media that swings too close to either the 100% mark or 0% mark tend to not garner much interest from people, even if vague. It's my personal opinion that you shouldn't care at all about whether people find your work original, but I know that's more difficult in practice.

If you want to feel more secure in having work that feels like your own, here's my approach: question everything! If there's a common trope that you don't like very much, try changing it. What are the consequences? Why do people always avoid this approach? Are there any ways that you can circumvent the issues with this new approach? How can you turn it into an interesting and functional twist? I find that you rarely need to do this with more than 1-3 points to make something feel truly original -- Megamind is a good example of a cult classic that was renowned for inverting tropes, when it was essentially just "what if 1) the bad guy won and 2) was also a good guy at heart," with the rest just being carried by good writing. Everything else in the movie actually followed tropes very closely, from the characters' origin stories (being a hero/villain from space) to the general character archetypes. 

• Vecderg