The coupled cliche conundrum

[tarchon]

I disagree. It's not a matter of effort or laziness or any real negative personality trait at all, in general. It's just all been done before, in one form or another.

Human experience is not infinite. Neither is human imagination. Works of entertainment or art focus on that human experience, using human imagination, and by their own nature cannot be infinite. People struggle with the same problems of life, death, fate, the legal system, war, choise, etc. that even ancient Greeks dealt with. Art and entertainment are not new things. As early as Merry Shelly and before, people were writing every science fiction novel that ever has existed.

Like Wickett said, the devil is in the details. Ug the Tribal Singer may have sung a song about the dangers of fire and Things Man Was Not Meant to Know, and Lucas does the same thing with lightsabers. The trappings are different -- the cultures have changed -- but the story is the same.

"There is nothing new under the sun" is the exact same thing as "Every random number generator has a finite cycle." They're both old tropes that express the same idea that humans have experienced. But they express it in culturally distinct ways. There's no way Holmes could've really experienced much random number generators or know what a finite cycle for one would be.

And that's really where the variation comes in. Culturally. Every story has already been told, but not in every possible way. That's what's infiniate. Human variation.

First, you're arbitrarily redefining "originality" to make it fit your thesis. This is the first problem I have with the many incarnations of the MasterPlot theory, the way it defines a "new plot." OK, I say all plots can be fit in to one category: "This plot is about something." Tada! There's nothing new under the sun, because that describes all possible plots. It's a fundamentally empty statement because nobody really knows what "new" means in this context.

Second, this whole thing is pretty obviously the same fallacy as the "end of physics" that was famously proclaimed at the end of the 19th century (right before Einsteinian relativity and quantum mechanics came along - whoops) and has been at various intervals before and since. If we knew what the new things under the sun were going to be, they wouldn't be new. Lack of knowledge of something does not imply that it doesn't exist or is impossible. We can however look at the past development of literature and ask ourselves whether, when the statement "there is nothing new under the sun" first appeared, all plots were known already.

Current scholarship gives dates for the composition of Ecclesiastes anywhere from the 10th century up to the 3rd century BC. Novels had not been invented yet (arguably). Flashbacks had not been invented yet. Non-linear plots had not been invented yet. High school sex comedies had not been invented yet. Nearly all literature was still presented as if it was a retelling of actual events experienced by or communicated to the author. In some sense, the concept of fictive writing had in itself not been invented yet (and in fact the better part of the world didn't have any actual writing at all). I don't doubt that, with a sufficient amount of sophistic redefinition and wriggling and conflation of terms, someone could argue that the movie Memento is simply a retelling of the epic of Gilgamesh, but the simple fact is that much modern fiction would be baffling and unheard of to anyone living in 250 BC, even in its basic structure. They barely knew what a plot was, much less all the different plots that have appeared up to the present day. There was plenty of new stuff waiting to be invented back then, just as there is now.

OK, you say, but maybe things have changed and, while the statement "there is nothing new under the sun" was in hindsight patently absurd in 250 BC, it is totally true now because modern people are so much more prescient than people were 2250 years ago. In that case, there is something new under the sun - perfect prescience regarding the novelty of future invention. Reductio ad absurdum. The statement and the principle deny themselves.

 

[Dirigible]

Play up the conflict between Chaos and Order, and down the conflict between Good and Evil.

Rod of Seven Parts

Heaven and Hell unite in a struggle against an Elder Pantheon (lovecraftian) that threatens all that exists. Solar and Pit Fiend fight side by side, old rivalries forgotten.

Homeworld

A second schism occurs in the upper planes, and Heaven wars with itself - with the loser being cast out. And the loser is not Evil, but Good...

The Prophecy (almost)

The fact that afterwards the players might say, "Well duh! We should have expected that," if you set up your cards correctly they won't expect it.

Once again, the mighty tree that is Umbran produces the rich fruit of wisdom...

 

[two]

First, you're arbitrarily redefining "originality" to make it fit your thesis. This is the first problem I have with the many incarnations of the MasterPlot theory, the way it defines a "new plot." OK, I say all plots can be fit in to one category: "This plot is about something." Tada! There's nothing new under the sun, because that describes all possible plots. It's a fundamentally empty statement because nobody really knows what "new" means in this context.

Second, this whole thing is pretty obviously the same fallacy as the "end of physics" that was famously proclaimed at the end of the 19th century (right before Einsteinian relativity and quantum mechanics came along - whoops) and has been at various intervals before and since. If we knew what the new things under the sun were going to be, they wouldn't be new. Lack of knowledge of something does not imply that it doesn't exist or is impossible. We can however look at the past development of literature and ask ourselves whether, when the statement "there is nothing new under the sun" first appeared, all plots were known already.

Current scholarship gives dates for the composition of Ecclesiastes anywhere from the 10th century up to the 3rd century BC. Novels had not been invented yet (arguably). Flashbacks had not been invented yet. Non-linear plots had not been invented yet. High school sex comedies had not been invented yet. Nearly all literature was still presented as if it was a retelling of actual events experienced by or communicated to the author. In some sense, the concept of fictive writing had in itself not been invented yet (and in fact the better part of the world didn't have any actual writing at all). I don't doubt that, with a sufficient amount of sophistic redefinition and wriggling and conflation of terms, someone could argue that the movie Memento is simply a retelling of the epic of Gilgamesh, but the simple fact is that much modern fiction would be baffling and unheard of to anyone living in 250 BC, even in its basic structure. They barely knew what a plot was, much less all the different plots that have appeared up to the present day. There was plenty of new stuff waiting to be invented back then, just as there is now.

OK, you say, but maybe things have changed and, while the statement "there is nothing new under the sun" was in hindsight patently absurd in 250 BC, it is totally true now because modern people are so much more prescient than people were 2250 years ago. In that case, there is something new under the sun - perfect prescience regarding the novelty of future invention. Reductio ad absurdum. The statement and the principle deny themselves.

What he said.

Remember folks, movies (talkies, at least) are significantly less than one hundred years old. If all the movies made to date (a piddling total compared to, say, print/novel/newspaper/magazine output) already contain within their extent all possible plots, narratives, and outcomes -- wow! That's probably the most incredible achievement humanity has ever managed, bar none.

Of course, it's also manifestly false. American movie-goers are often shocked, surprsrised, and delighted by what "other" cultures do with movies -- some tell stories that "make no sense" in Hollywood. Some don't (apparantly) tell any story. Etc. It just takes a baby step to find "new" stuff (rent some Indonesian movies which are not simple Hollywood knock-offs and judge for yourself). Perhaps American movies don't, actually, have a choke-hold on the infinite possibilities of narrative...hm...

(leading to new ideas... leading to new narratives...even leading to some plots/narrative that NO movie has (gasp!) dealt with yet). Is it possible? Yup.

 

[random user]

Man makes bargain with unknown, turns out to be not what he expected.

Man changes bargain in some way and things settle into an uneasy truce/balance.

After some time, unknown demands more than man is willing to allow / does something the man doesn't like.

Man attempts to destroy unknown.


This is a pretty common theme, from Little Shop of Horrors (the plant is the unknown) to War Games (mmm WOPR). I'm sure I could come up with a lot more examples if I thought more than 20 seconds about it. Again, the variation is in the details.

I think it is possible to come up with a new idea; it's just very hard. I came up with a plot line for my campaign, and then later read a book that did almost the exact same thing! Though I came up with my idea independently, it nevertheless had been done before.

It turns out that the magistrate accidently unleashed a horrible curse one hundred years ago. He barginned with the witch for a long life and a prosperous town. In turn, she slew him and made him undead, while for the town, she made it so every person in it would alway bear twins. The magistrate then struck a new bargin with the witch. He would be returned his mind, and given the appearence of human, and the witch would in turn be allowed to take one of child from each pair of twins at birth. The town was inflicted with kind of amnesia so that they would never notice they had been under the same mayor for a century, nor that a mysterious woman always appeared seemingly out of nowhere to be the midwife.

Recent events conspired to change this though. A terrible plague swept through the witch's domain, killing many of her underlings. Unfortunetely for her current plan, she needed a certain number of living test subjects. So she sent her sons under the guise of monsters rampaging through the town, swapping the dead twin for the live one. Feeling that the witch has broken the agreement, the mayor sends for the heroes to hunt her down and kill her, but fails to tell them the whole story because he fears for his own life. And from there our story begins.

 

[Gez]

When I was in college (note: in France a collège is what you would call a secondary school, I think), I read in French an excerpt from a late medieval (or early Renaissance, don't remember precisely, it's quite old).

It was quite interesting, the writer was constantly speaking to the reader (something you don't see much in modern writings); and all the introduction to the tale was, principally, a saddened rant on the impossibility to tell something new, all having already been written.

It was stuff like "So, reader, my good friend, here comes the lament on the author, who should have been born before the Ancient Greek, and maybe even before them, to really create a story. Ah, dear reader, you don't know how hard it is to tell something that has already been told a thousand times while still being surprising and interesting enough to avoid being boring. All I can hope is that you will like our heroes enough to forgive you already know the story. The first was..."
Then there was the description of the three heroes, and it was much cliché too: a brave and noble-looking young blond guy, a grimmer and brooding guy with dark hair, and an energic-looking redhed. All three depicted riding at night on a dirt track in a forest.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Remember folks, movies (talkies, at least) are significantly less than one hundred years old. If all the movies made to date (a piddling total compared to, say, print/novel/newspaper/magazine output) already contain within their extent all possible plots, narratives, and outcomes -- wow! That's probably the most incredible achievement humanity has ever managed, bar none.

They did before they were made. Movies are entertainment and storytelling. They're just a particular cultural take on it. Every story ever told in movie form has been told somewhere else already. The Chase Scene is nearly as old as the Hunt itself.

Of course, it's also manifestly false. American movie-goers are often shocked, surprsrised, and delighted by what "other" cultures do with movies -- some tell stories that "make no sense" in Hollywood. Some don't (apparantly) tell any story. Etc. It just takes a baby step to find "new" stuff (rent some Indonesian movies which are not simple Hollywood knock-offs and judge for yourself). Perhaps American movies don't, actually, have a choke-hold on the infinite possibilities of narrative...hm...

Because this is cultural variation, not artistic variation. It's not "new" it's just "new to them." Americans are used to movies being done in a particular way. Greeks were used to plays being done in a particular way. Chinese lexographers were used to literature beign done in a particular way.

None of these are 'new.' They use different trappings, but tell the same story.

First, you're arbitrarily redefining "originality" to make it fit your thesis. This is the first problem I have with the many incarnations of the MasterPlot theory, the way it defines a "new plot." OK, I say all plots can be fit in to one category: "This plot is about something." Tada! There's nothing new under the sun, because that describes all possible plots. It's a fundamentally empty statement because nobody really knows what "new" means in this context.

It's not an empty statement -- plots are always about something. That's a common theme of human experience, not mere drivel. From cave paintings to Sienfeld, plots are always about something, and there can be no new plots, because all plots have forever and will always be about something. Ergo, there are no new plots. It's not laziness, it's not bad writing, it's a case of there bing nothing new to write about. There are cultural variations on the themes, and specific contexts to frame them in, but it's all about something.

If we knew what the new things under the sun were going to be, they wouldn't be new. Lack of knowledge of something does not imply that it doesn't exist or is impossible. We can however look at the past development of literature and ask ourselves whether, when the statement "there is nothing new under the sun" first appeared, all plots were known already.

I'm not saying that our knowledge has come to an end, or that our creativitiy has come to an end. I'm saying that the variation is specific, rather than general. There are no new plots because all plots are about something -- but there can be variations on what they're about, how they're told, etc. These variations are cultural, and because cultural variation is infinate, there is never an end to these variations. But they are all about something.

Novels had not been invented yet (arguably). Flashbacks had not been invented yet. Non-linear plots had not been invented yet. High school sex comedies had not been invented yet. Nearly all literature was still presented as if it was a retelling of actual events experienced by or communicated to the author. In some sense, the concept of fictive writing had in itself not been invented yet (and in fact the better part of the world didn't have any actual writing at all).

These are all cultural variations. There's nothing remarkably new or innovative about non-linear plots (for instance). It doesn't do anything grand or new or spectactular. It does the exact same thing that human expression has been doing since we were capable of it -- talking about something. That's it.

I don't doubt that, with a sufficient amount of sophistic redefinition and wriggling and conflation of terms, someone could argue that the movie Memento is simply a retelling of the epic of Gilgamesh, but the simple fact is that much modern fiction would be baffling and unheard of to anyone living in 250 BC, even in its basic structure. They barely knew what a plot was, much less all the different plots that have appeared up to the present day. There was plenty of new stuff waiting to be invented back then, just as there is now.

Invention is not innovation. You're not developing anything new by having a word for "plot." You're just doing a variation on the whole theme of doing something that is about something.

Yeah, I've heard all this before too.

 

[random user]

Well I think that new ideas do pop up now and then. Certainly at some point someone had a revelation "the earth revolves around the sun." Calculus didn't exist in any other form before it was invented.

I think there are some new ideas out there still waiting to be discovered.

 

[am181d]

Issues of "whether there can be new plots" aside, I think most people play role-playing games to play out experiences depicted in fiction. So you don't necessarily want to avoid cliches. Avoid repeating yourself by all means, but give your players the chance to slay the dragon, defend the misunderstood monster, or free the princess from the tower.

[As to the issue of "whether there can be new plots": If you can boil all plots down to "something happens" (and you can, that's pretty much the definition of the word "plot") then the whole issue becomes moot. There is a level at which all plots are identical. There is a level at which all plots are unique. And there is everything in between. Same for structure, themes, conflicts, etc.]

 

[Umbran]

Rod of Seven Parts
Homeworld
The Prophecy (almost)

Also note - while a great many people have been playing for years, nobody has encountered everything. Despite being a gamer for years, I have never played "Rod of Seven Parts". I've no idea of what you're referring to in "Homeworld". So, even though they've been done, they'd still be new to me. The same is true for many others.

Thus, part of the trick is to know your audience - use those things that these individuals haven't seen. I know, for example, that none of my usual players has ever read any Larry Niven. So, if I were to run a sci-fi game, I could steal from Niven wholesale and everyhting in it would be fresh and new to them.

 

[Gez]

Don't confuse plots and science. "The Earth revolves around the Sun" isn't a plot. At best, "The Earth started to revolve around the Sun (while before it wasn't the case)" can be a plot -- and that plot is "dramatic event altered the whole world".

You can browse ENWorld with the default theme or the d20 Modern theme or the Blue Screen of Death theme; you'll still browse ENWorld.

You can tell Romeo & Juliet in space, with Romeo and Juliet being aliens from two warring empires, it will still be Romeo & Juliet. Rather than aliens in a sci-fi flick, they could be dwarves and elves in a fantasy flick. They could be prehistoric, medieval, or modern. They could be Maya or Chinese. They could be cat and dog in a saturday night cartoon. It'll still be Romeo & Juliet. And it'll still be a plot much older than Shakespeare. Impossible love is as old as humanity, and maybe older.

Same with all plots. What you can change is the clothings, not what's clothed.