It's been a long time since I've written a non-review post on this blog. I think that's only happened one or two other times years ago. However, I have a lot of thoughts on this topic I would like to share, so here it goes.
I recently read the first in a dystopian series called The Testing, and really enjoyed it. It was similar to the Hunger Games in a lot of ways but was also its own unique story with aspects that set it apart from the Hunger Games. In a few negative reviews, though, I saw people complaining that it was a copy of HG. One review in particular listed out all the ways they were the same story. All of the things they listed, however, could be said of almost any dystopian book.
While a book is sometimes blatantly copying another book, I've never come across that myself. Most of the time, it just follows the same, basic premise as many other books. There's nothing wrong with that. Storytelling tropes exist for a reason. They are a framework to build from. Every story that's ever been told has followed some familiar structure. It's up to the author to take that basic premise and make it a unique story.
I mainly come across these complaints with dystopian books. Even though lots of other genres could have unoriginal elements, people like to call out dystopian more often than others for being unoriginal. I think this is partly because dystopian is a genre that, by nature, has to have certain elements to be a dystopian.
A dystopian society has to be negative, and that usually is a result of government oppression in some way and involves a lot of horrible things. Then, there is usually going to be a rebellion/uprising as the characters fight back and try to make things better. By saying a book that includes a terrible government, limitations of rights and freedoms, and fighting back is uncreative, then you're saying that the dystopian genre as a whole is uncreative.
Romance books follow all sorts of tropes, but I rarely see a complaint that a romance book is a copy of another. Name any trope - enemies to lovers, best friends to lovers, forbidden romance, etc. - and there are thousands of books that follow that trope. Thousands of books are not all copies of each other, though.
All of this being said, my point is that "unoriginal" does not mean uncreative. By definition, no book is truly original. Every story is based on some other type of basic plot. What makes books unique is how the author chooses to take the basic plot and do something creative with it that sets it apart from other genres. Yes, a book may have a lot of similar plots and themes as another book, but that doesn't make them the same story.
Comments