Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
STORYTELLING/RETELLING
Posts
Pages:
1
aprilschild
View playlists
CloseHey guys, I've been meaning to post this for a while. Since it came up in the Code Monkeys Podcast, I felt now would be as good a time as any.
Anyway, there is a school of thought that all stories are just retellings of the very basic stories that float around in the collective unconscious. Even the old Bard ripped everything he ever wrote from history or other peoples' tales.
Even now, basically every story has the same themes and archetypes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archetype). Asa has already brought up the mysteriously re-occurring Slade, but games also have the female priestess/white mage, and so on.
I posit that even if ancient stories are not ripped wholesale to create every single fictional creation thereafter, we as humans at least recycle the same elements of story, which means that very little is truly "original" or "new." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hero_with_a_Thousand_Faces)
But, there are plenty of movies, novels, and games that are considered "original," and are incredibly enjoyable even if they have elements and story we've seen before.
So, what, for you, makes something "original" or at the very least "enjoyable" in spite of being a retelling? When can a writer get away with the use of the archetype, and when can't they?
(This topic can be moved if the mods feel it ought to be, I just put it here because I felt it was the safest bet. : D)
Anyway, there is a school of thought that all stories are just retellings of the very basic stories that float around in the collective unconscious. Even the old Bard ripped everything he ever wrote from history or other peoples' tales.
Even now, basically every story has the same themes and archetypes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archetype). Asa has already brought up the mysteriously re-occurring Slade, but games also have the female priestess/white mage, and so on.
I posit that even if ancient stories are not ripped wholesale to create every single fictional creation thereafter, we as humans at least recycle the same elements of story, which means that very little is truly "original" or "new." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hero_with_a_Thousand_Faces)
But, there are plenty of movies, novels, and games that are considered "original," and are incredibly enjoyable even if they have elements and story we've seen before.
So, what, for you, makes something "original" or at the very least "enjoyable" in spite of being a retelling? When can a writer get away with the use of the archetype, and when can't they?
(This topic can be moved if the mods feel it ought to be, I just put it here because I felt it was the safest bet. : D)
This should be in Artistic License/Literature...probably.
*Side note: Whenever I type an ellipsis instead of putting "..." my first instinct is to type "\..\..\..". Any RM users will know what that means. )
Anyway...
I have no clue. I can't honestly say I've really been striving for originality in my own work. :P
*Side note: Whenever I type an ellipsis instead of putting "..." my first instinct is to type "\..\..\..". Any RM users will know what that means. )
Anyway...
So, what, for you, makes something "original" or at the very least "enjoyable" in spite of being a retelling? When can a writer get away with the use of the archetype, and when can't they?
I have no clue. I can't honestly say I've really been striving for originality in my own work. :P
This is a very good topic actually, and kind of a central question to the craft of writing/creating/storytelling. I just sadly have nothing to contribute. :'(
Canuck
0
I'd flat out disagree. There's many stories that don't follow old archetypes. In fact, I find it harder to think of stories that do follow archetypes. All of my favourite authors (Orwell, Pirsig, Camus, Kerouac) have quite original books.
Storytelling in RPGs can by nature have to be quite simplistic (despite pretentious games), so I can archetypes would pop up a lot more in this medium than in novels or whatnot.
Storytelling in RPGs can by nature have to be quite simplistic (despite pretentious games), so I can archetypes would pop up a lot more in this medium than in novels or whatnot.
Clest
0
Nice topic :)
Canuck: Orwel at least tend to take roots in historical events that unfold or were actually happening when he wrote, basically what he did was just add his point of view on then and mask then under a different setting. (Well at least in the books I´ve read and studied from him that is). And for that I think he is brillhant, not original.
My point is exactly that: what matters is how the story is told and what does it transmit, not if it is tottally new, but if it offers satisfaction to the reader.
Also, a scientific proven fact is that any idea we have is at least linked to something we saw before, even if our minds complete the missing components to invent something, the base comes from some memory or reference.
Now, as time passes and we have more and more to learn and remember with means to access all that knowledge faster, it is natural that things get less original, but they can still be good regardless.
Canuck: Orwel at least tend to take roots in historical events that unfold or were actually happening when he wrote, basically what he did was just add his point of view on then and mask then under a different setting. (Well at least in the books I´ve read and studied from him that is). And for that I think he is brillhant, not original.
My point is exactly that: what matters is how the story is told and what does it transmit, not if it is tottally new, but if it offers satisfaction to the reader.
Also, a scientific proven fact is that any idea we have is at least linked to something we saw before, even if our minds complete the missing components to invent something, the base comes from some memory or reference.
Now, as time passes and we have more and more to learn and remember with means to access all that knowledge faster, it is natural that things get less original, but they can still be good regardless.
Asalieri
200
You can still tell a similar story to someone else, and have it seem original because
of the way you tell your story. Styles are different, and some styles can be really
entertaining!
I don't subscribe to the belief that all the stories in the world have been told already, and as such, we're just retelling the same ones. I think too many people simply aren't thinking outside the box, and are too comfortable with stereotypical hero/sword of doom/7 maidens/cursed king/etc, etc, etc.
of the way you tell your story. Styles are different, and some styles can be really
entertaining!
I don't subscribe to the belief that all the stories in the world have been told already, and as such, we're just retelling the same ones. I think too many people simply aren't thinking outside the box, and are too comfortable with stereotypical hero/sword of doom/7 maidens/cursed king/etc, etc, etc.
TMAC
0
I'd have to agree with Asa and Clest. For me it depends on presentation; it's all about how each person ultimately shapes and changes the archetype due to their own personal experiences. I find it interesting how you can tell a little bit about the person(s) just from the way they relate it. Basically, if one gives a tried and true story their own twist and makes the characters (archetypes or not) interesting and entertaining I'm happy. Maybe I'm nostalgic, but I like the classics!
TL:DR: Make it your own.
Edit: Oh hai, I'm back!
TL:DR: Make it your own.
Edit: Oh hai, I'm back!
Yeah, but you guys are answering the question with the question. I'm asking, what makes a style unique, and you're saying, a unique style! :D
Is it skill? Is it ingenuity of setting? What makes style unique even when the story isn't?
Although I do get what you guys are saying and agree. I'm just asking what makes a style intriguing, I guess. :)
Is it skill? Is it ingenuity of setting? What makes style unique even when the story isn't?
Although I do get what you guys are saying and agree. I'm just asking what makes a style intriguing, I guess. :)
Clest
0
April: Maybe there is no exact secret to it. My point is that different people have different ways to view things and like their stories portrayed in a different way.
Now if you ask me: what usually grabs me in a narrative is how simply emotional it is regarding the flow. Unless it relates to specific objects or machines here and there, I want simple and and symbolic descriptions. I also like it when stories are presented in a way that makes the characters seem human and not super human.
Those are general points for me, there are mediun specific points to be made as well, but I gotta go off now.
In the end it comes down to your audience, or your target audience more precisely.
Now if you ask me: what usually grabs me in a narrative is how simply emotional it is regarding the flow. Unless it relates to specific objects or machines here and there, I want simple and and symbolic descriptions. I also like it when stories are presented in a way that makes the characters seem human and not super human.
Those are general points for me, there are mediun specific points to be made as well, but I gotta go off now.
In the end it comes down to your audience, or your target audience more precisely.
Pages:
1
