What's Really Unoriginal?

Blood Born Angel

Blood Born Angel

Emissary of Oblivion
I've kinda wondered this for a long time. Maybe it's just me seeing things in a different light then most others, but I feel like we push many important components of storytelling away by labeling them as "unoriginal" or "cliche". What makes things unoriginal? Their over-use? If we avoid such things then, aren't we negating their over-used nature, thus making them original once more?

I find the concept actually really silly that things can be cliche. I see lots of people in the roleplaying community that add rules like, "Avoid making Mary Sues and Gary Stues." Why? What's wrong with making a character that fits an established trope? Just because it's common? Obviously if the trope is popular then it has some literary value, right? Some of my favorite characters in games, movies, and books could be classified as a Mary Sue or Gary Stue, just because they're type is so commonplace! There really isn't such a thing as a completely original character in my eyes.

Sure, you can make a character unique in ways that many other people might never have thought of. Then you could say you created your very own OC; however, if we picked apart the character I'm sure we could find similarities to many other established fictional people! It's a misconstrued concept from what I've seen over the years, and I feel it really detracts from our creativity.

Let's say you're roleplaying with someone who is a cannon character in some manga, or television show. If you found another person playing the exact same character, do you think you'd get the exact same experience? Maybe if both individuals were very good at portraying the characters exact persona you'd have similar events happen, but even if you yourself made the exact same actions in both role-plays, both your partners would make different choices. Thus, making two identical characters completely unique variations.

This can go beyond characters too! Settings, genres, fanfic universes, and story plots all have the potential to be labeled as cliche or too generic. I feel like this is a negative way of looking at our writing, and that we stifle our own potential by having these mindsets. This is simply my outlook on things though, and by no means do I want to say I'm completely right. It's just how I feel about the things.

So, let me know how you feel! Does any of what I say make sense? Do you think I'm blowing steam out of my-

*coughs*

I'd love to hear other thoughts and opinions. I just felt like sharing something that's been on my mind for some time. If you got this far, thank's for dropping by and taking a look!
 
TL;DR: An Archetype is a mold. Often a fantastic starting point, but if you don't take it father past a cast, you end up with the same thing, crude and exceedingly similar, with only minor, inconsequential variances. Uniqueness =/= Quality.

-Now for the long winded version.
If you've looked at OCs for a while, you'll start to see the same things pop up over and over again. The character will be an orphan. They'll be exceedingly attractive. More than likely, they have heterochromia or unnatural eye colors, if not both. They will have a tragic past, and be either very rich, or dirt poor. I could continue this on and on, especially if I chose some common archetypes to list out, but I'll leave it here.

These tropes are often pushed away because people lack the originality to play them differently. People are very similar, and generally have the same desires. For a beginner roleplayer especially, all they can RP is themselves, projected onto their cookie cutter character, who usually has a handful of bizarre powers and unusual traits that supposedly 'make them special,' but in reality add nothing, or next to it, to the character. If someone says all they can RP is one type of character, you're going to end up with them making the same decisions, time and time again, with near identical characters. Predictable, and oh so boring.

In more advanced roleplays, you see the roleplayer playing more normal characters. In a generic fantasy setting, for example, a beginning roleplayer might make a character who had their family killed by bandits, so they mastered the sword and discovered they had powers over fire, and traveled the land in trenchcoat and fedora, bringing swift justice upon the evil, searching for the bandits that killed his family. An advanced roleplayer might play an ordinary farmer, who happened to get involved in the story through circumstance. I know which one I'd rather see RP'd, regardless of the story.

The whole issue, for me at least, is people who RP the same character, story after story, setting after setting, ever static and ever predictable. Everything is defined by how deep one can make their character's, well, character. For Gary Sues, one of the novels I read once, called Coiling Dragon, fit the description of that perfectly. The character, however, was so multi faceted that even in what could readily be described as a power fantasy, the character still adapted, changed, and grew throughout the course of the story, whose morals shifted and wavered, and was weak at times, strong at others. It depends on how the character is played, and not what the character is.

That being said, you also have to factor in whether Uniqueness = Entertainment. At the end of the day, we're all here to have fun. If something is unique, but not particularly interesting, it's not fun, and people don't want to see it.

I.E. A hundred careless scribbles in Paint will all be unique, but they all look the same.
6ce44b04075ca27aeef7402139dd69a9.png

No where on the internet can that exact image be found but here. but that doesn't mean it's noteworthy, or good by any reasonable measure.
 
I can see where if a role-player continuously RP'd the exact same way every time how that could get old, and I'm slightly guilty of recycling character ideas over and over... I like to keep to a few established character roles because they're easiest for me to portray. Otherwise if I try doing something I'm not quite familiar with or incapable of putting myself in the role of I fall into this "This is what I would do" mind-set.

I guess I've been mainly questioning what's with people calling things cliche because I prefer to play cliche things at times. Like you said, sometimes it's not always entertaining to play the unique character, and we role-play for entertainment after all! It might be harder for me to see as well cuz I'm sort of an intermediate level role-player. For example, for the last 6 years I've been repeatedly recreating my first RPC that I ever made. He's dramatically changed as times gone on, but has had the same core character for a while. I don't think I've ever done the same thing twice with him though. Sometimes he's a good guy. Sometimes he's a bad guy. Sometimes he doesn't care, others he cares about a few. I feel like I may still be attached the the "newbie" trends but have enough insight to set my characters apart, and that is why I question things.

I wouldn't really be able to tell you if my characters are good at all. I like them. Though that's a very biased opinion. Maybe some are more unique than others, but I think it's the way a character is role-played that sets them apart. Even if beginners tend to do the same things, I still feel like having an RP with different individuals will always receive different results. No matter how similar things might be.

I appreciate the feedback! It's enlightening to see others views on the subject. ^~^ Thank you SedentaryCobra.
 
I could warrant a massive response but in sum? I don't think anything is truly original these days. You could easily find something and probably show reference as to where something similar was done. Today is it really about just blending a bunch of unoriginal concepts into one in order to present all these different elements in a new way. But, that is just my two cents. Could have probably tossed a bunch more on the subject but I don't really have the time. Will keep an eye on this thread.

~M
 
In my thoughts, I feel you should make any character you please. Just mix it up a little, say your a female try role playing as a male a few times and vise versa. Say your OC was an orphan trying to get vengeance, then for your next character try having them have both parents, or one parent, even adopted family. Your mind is endless and you should try different scenes with different diversities. (unlike this years Oscars runner ups) Even playing as the same character everyone see's that one character differently, so of course the same character will be different because of the people playing them. I believe you can make your character, however, you want, from crazy eye color, to dramatic back story, just make it how you visualize it. Expand your horizons make everyone's mind go "woh, what an interesting perspective of this character."
 
I like where you're going with this, Blood Born Angel! I would have to agree with you, because I often have very similar thoughts on this subject. However, at the same time, I do believe that there is something of a limitation on what's fine, and what's really just over-the-top. I found this blog to be fairly helpful; albeit I did disagree with the author on a few minor things.

I'll break it down a bit. Clichés and tropes are not inherently bad. When done correctly and utilized to their fuller and more unique potential, I find that many of these stigmatized 'mainstream' ideas can work very well! Honestly, there shouldn't be a set of rules to adhere to when it comes to making a character. As long as you didn't copy it from someone else, then where's the problem? (taking inspiration from other's characters is a-okay in my book, too. just need to have a spice of originality.)

And as Meliodas stated previously, there most certainly isn't anything truly original. You could take the most insignificant aspects of an OC and compare it to another person's, or to an already pre-existing canon character; and find similarities. I think this may be due to something of a lack in supply. There are only so many hair colors you can have, and so many different personality types you could be. Even the most well thought out of backstories resemble another sort of story in at least a few ways - and that's fine. The key to creating an interesting OC is to mix and mash these ideas together in a way that makes the character seem idiosyncratic.

What do I mean by this? Here's an example:
A common cliché that many new roleplayers tend to overuse is the dead parents, or dead family one. Does that mean that mean it's bad, and that your character shouldn't have a tragic backstory at all? No! Quite the opposite - having some sort of significant stress or traumatic event happen in your character's life is actually a sound plot point. It provides basis for the character to grow, and possibly even a goal for them to work towards in the current roleplay. Because let's face it. Nobody has had a perfect life, and if all of our roleplay characters did then it wouldn't be as fun or interesting to see them overcome the pain they've dealt with in their past. Through experiences like this, it's easy to connect with your muse and have a deeper understanding of them.
However, there are cons to this as well. If your entire character's backstory consists of: "His parents were murdered when he was 10 years old, and Ricky fell into a state of depression. Now, he wants kill the murderers and get revenge on them for taking the lives of his loved ones!" Then you have a bit of a problem. There has to be more than that, something else that could define him as a person other than 'his parents are dead and he is sad'. What about the happy things, memorable moments from his childhood and beyond? What was his relationship like with them? Does he have any other goals or hobbies that he pursues?

And referring to another common Mary Sue archetype, many people complain that someone's OC will be 'too beautiful' or 'everyone either adores her and all the boys crush on her, or everyone picks on her even though she's gorgeous and a great person'. To that I say, it depends on the character. I don't mind an OC being exceptionally beautiful because, well, this is an alternate universe isn't it? All of us more or less want to be like our character in some way - and most people wish they could be seen as attractive to other people. Normally it's just not fun to roleplay an unappealing person, unless they're like a villain or a side character. And having a popular OC is potentially able to work well, if you provide good reasons. The same goes for being hated by everyone.
Are they really popular because they naturally have an approachable and charming personality that draws people in? Or maybe it's because there's a spell on them that makes the average person admire and love them for no reason, and they actually hate all the attention because they can't form any real, intimate relationships with other individuals. And if everyone bullies them, why? Maybe because their family is well-known and disliked amongst others in their city, and that hate gets reflected onto them, even though they have nothing to do with it. Being bullied because they're 'emo' or being popular for nothing other than the sake of being popular is a red flag.

Lastly, and this one's a given - don't make your OC perfect at everything. Try to limit their talents/abilities in general, or provide adequate weaknesses that can be exploited by others to make up for that. Maybe your character is extremely skilled at swordplay, but she couldn't even hit the side of a barn with a bullet. Perhaps your character is actually fairly intelligent and writes eloquent speeches, but he's too nervous to really get up on stage and deliver them? Balancing their mental/emotional weaknesses and their physical weaknesses is key to avoiding godmodding and building a structured and genuine character. Realism is important.

TL;DR: I will conclude this painfully long rant with summarizing the main idea - not all clichés and tropes are as bad as some people make them out to be, and employing a few of these commonly used ideas does not automatically make your OC a Mary Sue/Gary Stu. It all depends on the skill and experience of the roleplayer on how well they can work with these visions, and recreate them into something distinct to their style. So continue writing and striving to improve; and have fun! Even if one person doesn't accept your OC, there will always be someone out there willing to create a story with you and help you blossom into the best writer you can be. ♥
 
I also agree with you all; clichés are not inherently bad. And another good point that I read here too is that a cliché is a building block, a starting point. A fun way to start a character is to take an archetypal character and put a twist on it (for example, a rather cliché example at that: a tough guy/brutalizer that drinks milk)
But I do have an original thought to contribute. The reason why unoriginal ideas are trashed and loathed is because the people using them are often not terribly educated on the elements of good storytelling. Greenhorn character creators are excited and want to do everything and anything, often leading into the Mary Sue/Gary Stew problem. You will have to forgive me for this, but my reference example would be to google "Coldsteel the Hedgehog" as an internet (in)famous original character, based off the Sonic The Hedgehog series.
The further into reading and writing you go, the more you realize that good characters contain human essence in them, and that essence is conveyed through actions and thoughts written for the reader to observe. When we write characters into a narrative, we must breathe life into them. I myself feel as though I am a man who wears many masks, constantly changing my shape or form to fit how I feel in the current moment. No person can be about a single thing at a single time; we are all diverse and layered in emotion. It is emotion that shows through our characters, and if our characters are absolutely perfect at everything, they cease to possess the one thing we desire to see in them; humanity. Humanity is flawed at its core, and that is why advanced characters often sound like normal people you'd meet on the street.
Tying back to the original prompt, its a struggle to make a truly "original" character. But even so, there is no such thing as an original idea anymore. Everything is always a spin-off or a hybrid of other things, in sum. Everything fits into a genre. In that respect, we should not be afraid to use common "cliché" character archetypes, as long as those characters change and evolve emotionally throughout the storyline.
 
There is no such thing as an original idea, by virtue of the fact that humans cannot create something from nothing. It's really that simple. People who aim to be original are really aiming to be unique--the two are not one and the same. Star Wars is unique, but it's built on a foundation of cliches--laser swords, space knights, space princesses, space magic, et cetera. It's fantasy, recycled in space--but the sheer amount of passion and hard work put into it, made it into its own property, with its own mythos... A mythos that now influences others.

If you want to be unique, simply create something you enjoy, and work hard and passionately on it. Uniqueness, like complexity, comes with time. It's a byproduct of hard work--like a house: Built out of materials all found in nature, but whose end appearance and purpose can be something truly different... If you work hard enough on it.
 
Vampires.

The paranormal romance craze of the early aughts all but killed the concept, which is now the Centralia, Pennsylvania of fiction. It looks fine from the outside, but a closer look reveals nothing but desolation and death.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top