There’s a huge debate that has waged for ages among the literary elite, much like the way politicians today bicker about policy, where both sides believe their opinions and stances are the best. One side argues that to be deemed ‘original’, a writer must write something, (a concept, an idea, an illustration) that has never been done before, and the other side argues that there’s nothing wrong with taking an established idea (formula, event, story foundation.) and write it better, making it an original work.
I find they both are correct. There have been many great stories with an original concept that were well written, but through years of advanced technology, broader wisdom, easier access to information and study, that same story – mixed with this new information and technology, can be transformed into a new work. This new story would be classified as original, because it (in its entirety) hasn’t been written before.
I like both concepts. I’ve used both; sometimes within the same body of work.
Don’t let those who are follow the idea of one or the other change what you desire for your story. It’s YOUR story, write it the way you want it – and let everyone else worry about their own works.
Till next time,