Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/33096
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

I think you're taking the wrong lesson from Amadeus' post. There were any number of kids' books about magic schools before Rowling, and the idea of secret conspiracies at the Vatican probably is as old as the Vatican itself. For that matter, _The Lord of the Rings_ is founded heavily on old myths, and _Star Wars_ is basically a fairy tale set in space. So that evidence alone argues against the absolute necessity of a wholly original concept.

There's an oft-quoted aphorism of uncertain provenance to the effect that "good artists copy, great artists steal." All artists and writers borrow from each other. But [a derivative work](https://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2015/06/10/grossman-vs-lewis-a-trip-to-an-atheist-narnia) makes you think of the original, whereas [a great work](http://www.shakespeare-online.com/sources/romeosources.html) makes you forget it had any antecedents.

What makes the difference? In my view, writing (or other arts) involves solving both technical and artistic problems. Plot is largely a technical problem --there are certain structures that work, and others that don't. And it's okay to imitate other people's solution of technical problems. But every great work of art also solves some artistic problem, and those problems --and their solutions --is what makes a great work of art truly unique. If your work doesn't have some artistic problem at its heart that it solves better than any other work ever did it, then people might as well skip your work entirely, and stick to the original.

Original score: 29