# The value of an idea...



## Morkonan (Dec 12, 2012)

I had dinner with a friend this weekend and we were discussing the development of some smartphone applications. He's an executive-level code-monkey (Programmer) that doesn't get a chance to code very much and he's looking for some interesting side projects. I'm a sort of polymathic independent genius or something...

So, I'm running through one of my ideas, stumbling over certain mechanics while attempting to put them within the appropriate realm, profusely apologizing for my lack of working knowledge, and he responded with something that I think has changed my opinion in regards to public writing.

_"Ideas are important. Any idiot can code something, but good ideas are hard to come by."_ - Sage advice from a very experienced programmer

In writing forums, we seem to be often faced with the question _"So, here's my idea, but what do I do about this, that and the other thing?"_ Or, we see a nice long description of what could be an excellent story, told in the right way, but the writer hasn't published it yet or may have even not written it. Any writer knows that ideas can't be copyrighted. There's also a commonly shared theme in many writing communities that it's not the idea that matters, but it's how it's communicated that counts. I agree with that in principle, but I've been forced to disagree with the accompanying theme that "ideas don't matter."

Any idiot can write well. Provided they're capable of rational thought, can learn their language, its grammar and learn how to communicate with it, anyone can write well. Anyone can be taught to write like "The Masters." It's not magic and it's not something you're only born with. There are even instruction books out there that will take you through the entire process, step by step. The only thing they won't try to do is write your story for you, but they'll help you do just about everything else involved in the mechanics of writing a story. The critical thing that they *can't* do is come up with ideas... That's your job.

Lots of would-be writers have ideas. They have them by the buttload, but they don't know what to do with them. For those writers, all they need to fulfill their dream is just learn how to write. It's really that simple. But, for writers who know how to write, ideas are what are truly valuable. Most freely offered ideas in forums and discussion groups aren't really novel or useful, but a few of them can be. Some can even be monetarily valuable, in the right hands. By and large, most "ideas" one comes across aren't worth the internet ink they're written with. But, some of them could be worth a house in the Hamptons...

This may come as no astounding revelation to even a particularly savvy person, not just a writer. I'm not trying to say that every idea for a story should be hoarded and discussion amongst writers should cease. Frankly, as the old saying goes, "Everything has already been written" and most ideas don't deviate very far from work that is already out there. But, for those few that do, I have changed my opinion of how they should be treated - They should be closely guarded and nurtured by their creators. It's these very special ideas that can turn a story from _just-another-pile-of-pages_ into a thrilling story. For myself, I've been forced to recognize that good work no longer rests within the value of some well turned phrases, though that is still important, but I must recognize that anyone can learn to turn a phrase well and it's experience and gifted insight that allows a writer to come up with something worthwhile to say. There's a caveat, though - Some hopeful writers don't appear to recognize the value of their story ideas or completely fail when it comes down to implementing them, thus ending up with a pile of junk destined for the round-file if they should ever seek a publisher. For those writers, it's a failure of understanding the art of crafting a story, not a dearth of interesting ideas. But, for a writer that has the skill to craft a story and just the lack of a significantly interesting idea... When *that* story gets written, the idea is no longer novel and its value is reduced.

Sharing ideas is wonderful and can even be instructive. But, I feel  that I have been forced to acknowledge that it's not always constructive  in the light of one's own interests. What's your opinion on the value of story ideas? How do you feel about the notion of new, innovative or unusual ideas being more valuable for a piece of work than the writing itself? How do you feel about sharing story ideas in a competitive environment, given that anyone can take advantage of them?


----------



## Staff Deployment (Dec 12, 2012)

Morkonan said:


> _"Ideas are important. Any idiot can code something, but good ideas are hard to come by."_ - Sage advice from a very experienced programmer



I find the opposite to be true. Thinking up an idea is easy, but turning that idea into a 300-page novel, or a film, or a computer program, or a piece of working furniture et cetera et cetera is immensely difficult, usually by a factor of ten times harder than you were expecting.

A buddy of mine and I used to spend hours sitting on a bench just shooting off ideas at one another, discussing them and fleshing them out. Hundreds of ideas. Maybe thousands.

Ideas are cheap, and hard work is expensive.


----------



## Morkonan (Dec 12, 2012)

Staff Deployment said:


> ...Ideas are cheap, and hard work is expensive.



But, for someone who is already capable of writing, it's the ideas that are expensive. Work is work and will have to be done no matter what you're writing.

All ideas are not equal, just like all writing isn't equal. But, some ideas are truly interesting and, because of that, have an intrinsic value that they bring to the work. Average writing, or even substandard writing, can take on a new importance just because of the addition of interesting ideas. Take "Harry Potter" as an example. It's not particularly outstanding in its presentation. It's not a feast for the literary brain. However, the ideas in Harry Potter are what make the story interesting for some readers. A "Quibbige" <sp> match? WTF is that? Some big hairy guy that loves fanciful animals? A school for wizards in a secret alternate-world? A unique culture existing alongside our own? These are *GOOD* ideas.  Even though some of the bits in the series are horribly overused tropes, the series is rescued by some truly fun ideas. Most of the relationships, interactions and general themes in the books are standard generic bits of storytelling that have been around forever. But, it's those unique bits of flare that were added to the story that so incite the minds of Potter fans, not the writing or even the skill evident in the crafting of the story itself.


----------



## Jeko (Dec 13, 2012)

> All ideas are not equal



I would disagree. In terms of stories, all ideas are equal (and some are _not _more equal than others, Mr Orwell); what we do with them shapes them into something different. The idea that there are good ideas will thus make you try to avoid bad ideas, and those bad ideas could actually be good ideas if you stopped thinking they were bad ideas. Hence, you will limit your creativity.

That said, throw me one bad idea and I'll agree with you.


----------



## squidtender (Dec 13, 2012)

Over the years, I've known many, many writers, and the skill that's lacking in most of them, is the sheer determination to finish a piece. How many times have you heard someone say they've stopped a WIP after writing tens of thousands of words? You can have the skills and the great idea for a novel, but if you can't sit down, night after night, cranking out the words, then you still end up at zero.


----------



## Sam (Dec 13, 2012)

> Any idiot can write well.



The numerous posts on Facebook and other social networking sites would beg to differ.


----------



## shadowwalker (Dec 13, 2012)

Give five writers the same idea, the same basic outline - and you'll come up with five unique stories, told with five different levels of quality (both technical and story-telling). I have no problem sharing ideas because I firmly believe that any idiot _can't _write well. They may have a command of the language, may know how to 'turn a phrase', but they have no idea how to tell a story - how to create engaging characters, how to sustain suspense and/or interest, how to bring the story to memorable ending, or are deficient in some of the many other aspects of _story-telling_.


----------



## Sam (Dec 13, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> Give five writers the same idea, the same basic outline - and you'll come up with five unique stories, told with five different levels of quality (both technical and story-telling). I have no problem sharing ideas because I firmly believe that any idiot _can't _write well. They may have a command of the language, may know how to 'turn a phrase', but they have no idea how to tell a story - how to create engaging characters, how to sustain suspense and/or interest, how to bring the story to memorable ending, or are deficient in some of the many other aspects of _story-telling_.



Precisely. 

The art of becoming proficient at writing is nowhere close to that of becoming proficient at story-telling.


----------



## the antithesis (Dec 13, 2012)

Ideas are cheap. Any idiot can come up with an idea that sits there and does nothing until they forget about it. An idea without work behind it is less than worthless.


----------



## Foxee (Dec 13, 2012)

the antithesis said:


> Ideas are cheap. Any idiot can come up with an idea that sits there and does nothing until they forget about it. An idea without work behind it is less than worthless.


I don't know, I've seen a few people who can't seem to come up with a unique idea even if hooked up to an electric current and shocked repeatedly.

It was a fun experiment, though.


----------



## KarlR (Dec 13, 2012)

This looks llike selectivie argumentation to me.  Ideas _are_ critical.  So is the communication that puts those ideas out into the public.  I've read stories written by wordsmiths and I've read stories written by artists.  The artists usually do a better job, regardless the competence of the smith.  I really like your Harry Potter example.  No-one is ever going to accuse Rowling of being a Pulitzer Prize contender.  

Writing, as with computer coding, as with accounting, as with mail delivery or any other occupation you might think of, is only at its finest when the person doing the job is able to balance the nuts and bolts with nuance.  Anybody can be a traffic cop.  It take 'something else' to turn it into an art form.

And this is what makes our job all the harder.  We need to have the ideas AND communicate them in such a way as to bring the whole to life.  And buy us that home in the Hamptons.

Best of luck to us all on that last bit!


----------



## Foxee (Dec 13, 2012)

[video=youtube;Fp_95FbkKA8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp_95FbkKA8[/video]
Supporting video for KarlR's comments...


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 13, 2012)

I'm not sure that everyone responding to the thread is speaking the same language.  How, exactly, are we defining "idea?"

If we're talking the initial concept, it seems to me they're a dime a dozen.  I can think up ideas for ten stories during my morning commute.

If we're talking a fully fleshed out concept involving characters with arcs, a significant situation, and a plan for how weave the elements together, it seems to me that ideas are quite important.


----------



## Foxee (Dec 13, 2012)

Don't take that ability for granted. I've run into several writers who thought their initial ideas wildly unique and yet came pretty much straight from movies or games.


----------



## the antithesis (Dec 13, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> If we're talking a fully fleshed out concept involving characters with arcs, a significant situation, and a plan for how weave the elements together, it seems to me that ideas are quite important.



Is that an idea or an idea with execution?

I really hope this doesn't devolve into a semantic argument on what is meant by "idea." That sort of thing is pathetic and useless.

Tell you what, though. I have several story ideas that are fleshed out with arcs, significant situations and a plan for weaving the elements together. It's also worthless because I haven't written down more than a handful of words for any of them. It's all in my head, so it is nothing more than daydreaming. Ideas without work behind them are useless, no matter how fully formed the idea may be.


----------



## shadowwalker (Dec 13, 2012)

Plans are little more than ideas with some fat on them. Plans aren't a story.


----------



## the antithesis (Dec 13, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> Plans are little more than ideas with some fat on them. Plans aren't a story.



Precisely.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Dec 13, 2012)

Morkonan said:


> _"Ideas are important. Any idiot can code something, but good ideas are hard to come by."_ - Sage advice from a very experienced programmer



It's good advice, but it only applies to programming.  With a computer language, you're given very defined rules, and you're bound by those rules.  That's why any idiot can code something.

With writing, though, it's the exact opposite.  Any idiot can come up with an idea, but it takes true talent to bring those ideas to life.  Furthermore, you may be skilled at writing like a programmer (say, drawing up technical specs or something), but that certainly isn't going to make you a good storyteller.

This is actually a very important concept to me.  I'm a firm believer that until I get published, my work is useless.  Why? Because until then, there's no difference between me and some guy with a pen, a paper, and a lot of free time.  Anyone can write; not anyone can write well.


----------



## Jeko (Dec 14, 2012)

> If we're talking a fully fleshed out concept involving characters with arcs, a significant situation, and a plan for how weave the elements together, it seems to me that ideas are quite important.



That's not an idea; that's a story.


----------



## Morkonan (Dec 15, 2012)

I'm really loving the discussion I see here. I'd love to respond to every post, but I'm usually too verbose, so will spare all of you the pain.

I'd like to address a couple of general themes in the thread:

"Ideas are worthless unless acted upon" - Of course, I think we all agree on that. We all know that people have "ideas" for stories all the time. Many of those ideas aren't very valuable as they're usually not very unique. Some may be sufficiently fresh to be able to stand out from the crowd, though. That's the sort of thing that I'm talking about, here. Anyone can write a re-imagining of Cinderella, but only a few can make it memorable. But, recycling old stories effectively relies on the author changing the elements or adding unique twists. The "ideas" that help form those elements of the story are extremely important. Cinderella as a prostitute and Prince Charming as a rich, powerful, socially disconnected and heartless bastard who learns to love by seeing her heart of gold revealed is.. a good idea for the movie screen, if you've got beautiful and popular actors filling the roles. (It may not work with Mr. Nobody and Miss. Nobody...)The "idea" is truly worthless unless it is acted upon. But, when it finally is, it could be a real winner.

"All writing is not equal" - I agree with this, unconditionally. However, the assumption in my OP is that the writing skill isn't really a factor, here. What makes a good writer? There's a lot of story mechanics that a good writer can juggle, not just on the plot-page, but in the actual creation of a story. It's one thing to have thunked up a bunch of stuffs.. It's another to turn it into a story and it's still another thing to have done it very well, with skill and attention to craftsmanship. But, a truly good idea can be very powerful, so powerful that it defies the sensibilities of other writers when they see the work that contains it turn into a monumental success. "Fifty Shades of Grey" is hailed by critics as being one of the most poorly written blockbusters that have ever graced the shelves. Yet, there it is. Now, the author can afford to take some writing classes or the publisher can hire a fixer to fix the problems in future books. Nevermind that "The Story of O" has been around for quite awhile. Here, and for reasons unknown, the author didn't take advantage of a fad, but created one on her own. I've already seen the copycat titles on the shelf... Maybe there was a fad building with all this gothic horror teen supernatural romance or something and nobody knew it? (There's a YA shelf in bookstores called "Teen Supernatural Romance" for goodness sakes!) Maybe all the blood, fangs, animal parts and fur flying all over the place in these books touched off something in bored housewives? Writing is surely not equal. But, if better writing is supposed to make for better recognition and sales, then what the hell just happened? 

That can't be refuted. We can say all we want about good stories being told by excellent writers, but the fact that a crappy story can be told by a less capable author and end up dominating the Best Seller list happens to speak for itself. (Not disparaging anyone out there who has a bajillion books published and could buy Las Vegas with pocket change, or anything...) If we can look at the market and discount, for the most part, trend-publishing and must acknowledge that the "idea" played a large part in inciting public interest, what must we be forced to admit to ourselves?

The idea of "Wagontrain" with an outer-space theme, coupled with a strong military/naval theme, ignited the imaginations of hundreds of millions of people. The stories, in the beginning, were simple Morality Plays about topical subjects. Yet, they were often so controversial that even the producers were hesitant to let them pass, as written. There were outstanding writers for Star Trek, the original series, but let's face it - It wasn't all "great." But, combined with the idea, the premise for the show, it stood the test of time.

I don't think many of us would have a problem with creating ideas. Maybe that's clouding our sensibilities a bit. Maybe we're being a bit too hesitant to recognize the importance of an idea because, for many of us, it's the act of writing a story that is truly difficult. But, what about someone who is capable of writing a story? What about any of us who is capable of doing such a thing? That's why we're here, right? So, what about *that*? We think we can write stories and many of us have. How much would we give for that truly hot idea that pushed our manuscripts into the acceptance pile?


----------



## shadowwalker (Dec 15, 2012)

Morkonan said:


> How much would we give for that truly hot idea that pushed our manuscripts into the acceptance pile?



But again, it's not the idea that gets the ms into the acceptance pile. Look at the ideas behind so many best-sellers. Are they really that "hot"? No. Was the writing always the greatest? No.

It was how the author told the story.


----------



## benluby (Dec 15, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> But again, it's not the idea that gets the ms into the acceptance pile. Look at the ideas behind so many best-sellers. Are they really that "hot"? No. Was the writing always the greatest? No.
> 
> It was how the author told the story.



Agreed.  I've read stories with weak plots and stories, but the writing was so good I just kept going and enjoying it.  Read others that had great concepts, but the writing was terrible.  Couldn't finish them because they simply bounced everywhere and and never really helped put the reader in the scene.
   But writing isn't like programming.  The code monkey comment was actually accurate.  There's a couple of games out on video systems where the mind behind the game is, at best, a mediocre programmer, but they are creative geniuses.  
   But writing a book is entirely different.  It depends on WHAT field someone is in as to whether an idea has some form of worth or not.  
   Writing, an idea is pretty much worthless without execution.


----------



## Morkonan (Dec 16, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> But again, it's not the idea that gets the ms into the acceptance pile. Look at the ideas behind so many best-sellers. Are they really that "hot"? No. Was the writing always the greatest? No.
> 
> It was how the author told the story.



How should it be weighted? A great writer can turn a pile of festering poo into an engaging adventure story. A bad writer can't do anything, even with the best imagination. But, what if they are of equal skill? (At least inasmuch as their audience is concerned.) I think that there is a point where a good idea, handled competently, not even expertly, can push the envelope and bring something to even mediocre talents that pushes them to the forefront.

Yes, building characters, establishing interesting relationships, advancing the story, creating interesting subplots, engaging the reader, raising the stakes, etc.. All that is part of good writing. But, what about a great idea for a setting? Ever see/read "Fantastic Voyage?" The setting was a human body. That "Idea" pushed the envelope. There was great casting, effects and good hard science fiction behind it, but the idea is what pushed the box. Of course, not anyone could have written it. But, for the sake of discussion, I'm laying out the assumption that writing skill is equal between two writers, one with a good idea and one with a really innovative one. If the idea doesn't matter and it's all just individual skill, then what answers for the fact that some works evidencing unremarkable skill inevitably end up on the Best Seller list, even if they're not riding a trend? Magic? 

The most marvelous idea will not carry a badly written work. I fully acknowledge that. But, the habit of writers maintaining that ideas "don't matter" is one I think should be dropped. I think they can matter a great deal in regards to how a work is received by the public. Critics may throw rotten vegetables at it, but they get comped for buying the work anyway, so who cares if they complain while the autograph line has tents set up for it?


----------



## Staff Deployment (Dec 16, 2012)

It's not that ideas aren't crucial, it's just that writing is hard and coming up with ideas is easy.


----------



## Freakconformist (Dec 20, 2012)

I think that in the discussion in the OP the idea that "ideas are valuable" is very applicable. How long have smart phones been out? A few years, but people have created millions of apps. Quite simply because anybody with an idea and the ability can do so. Now, it's not just coming up with something unique, but also something people will buy. 

I'm reminded of the joke, where the guy is sitting in the coffee house listening to a couple of young guys throwing out names for the web company they're going to start. At the end of the discussion the guy gets up with his laptop in hand, and turns to the young fellows and says, "Those are all great names for a website, too bad for you, I just bought them all." Lesson Learned.

When it comes to stories, I realize that my ideas aren't all that unique, but I have to believe the way I treat them is unique to me. Hopefully that's enough. Look at the WPA projects in the '30s and '40s. Thousands of artists were given the same idea, make posters selling war bonds. Today, each of these posters are worth thousands, and some of them are considered true works of art. Anybody with a paintbrush could have made a poster, but the results in the end were some truly spectacular pieces that launched several careers.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 20, 2012)

I agree with you, to some extent, Mork.

I'm very excited about my current project, and eager to tell everyone all about it because of that excitement, but I've told myself to bite my tongue and just describe it as a "literary steampunk adventure", when really I find myself cringing at the near-insult of pigeon-holing my story into a genre description. What I _want_ to talk about is my character, her unique situation, the intricate world, culture, and new species I've created, and especially the path from character arc to critical choice and climax... But, like you said, these things are valuable to writers, especially when there are writers who have the ability to write, but are looking for new ideas to expand upon.

If you were to ask me what fueled the success of _The Hunger Games_, I would say it was mainly the concept that did it. Even though _Battle Royale_ came out earlier with a similar plot, that novel was not as well-known by the readers of _THG_. I scoured the message boards and the youtube fan videos of Katniss and Peeta and, aside from the obvious love story, a common sentiment was, "Wow! I've never read anything like this! She created a whole new world with rules and it's just so cool and different." What they're commenting on is not the writing, but the idea.

Case in point, if someone were to rewrite _The Hunger Games_, or _Harry Potter_, but with more intricate, nuanced, and vivid writing, despite the improvement in the literary quality of it, I guarantee a large portion of readers would respond by calling it a "rip-off" or "it's just a fancy copy of _THG/HP_, don't read it!", which, in my opinion, would prove that what matters more to the everyday reader is the concept, not the execution. 

So it would be fair to say that concepts are a valuable commodity, indeed. Guard yours like a stack of gold, if you feel it is worth such, I say!

I do also agree with those who say that ideas are cheap, that anyone can have them, and that the writing is what seperates the dreamers from the doers. Absolutely, the writing is critical, and where the pretenders are distinguished from those who excel.

But I would also like to ammend that and say, "_cheap_ ideas are cheap. But some ideas are valuable."


----------



## shadowwalker (Dec 20, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> ...She created a whole new world with rules and it's just so cool and different." What they're commenting on is not the writing, but the idea.



I'd have to disagree (disclaimer - haven't read the book or seen the movie). She clearly would have to create such a world - but how did she use words to describe that world? How did she communicate that world to the readers? It was in the way she wrote about that world that garnered the praise, instead of readers sitting back, scratching their heads as to what she was talking about.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Dec 20, 2012)

Freakconformist said:


> Anybody with a paintbrush could have made a poster, but the results in the end were some truly spectacular pieces that launched several careers.



...Have you ever made a poster?

It is difficult, and you need more than a paintbrush.


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 20, 2012)

the antithesis said:


> *Is that an idea or an idea with execution?*
> 
> I really hope this doesn't devolve into a semantic argument on what is meant by "idea." That sort of thing is pathetic and useless.
> 
> Tell you what, though. I have several story ideas that are fleshed out with arcs, significant situations and a plan for weaving the elements together. It's also worthless because I haven't written down more than a handful of words for any of them. It's all in my head, so it is nothing more than daydreaming. Ideas without work behind them are useless, no matter how fully formed the idea may be.



Do you mean a creative way to kill someone who is on Death Row?  That could take a few days.


----------



## Freakconformist (Dec 21, 2012)

Staff Deployment said:


> ...Have you ever made a poster?
> 
> It is difficult, and you need more than a paintbrush.



Freakconformist on deviantART

I'm not talking about the work, I'm talking about the hiring standards of the WPA. Not all the posters that were submitted to the WPA were used, but because the whole point was to get money into the hands of the people, they paid for whatever posters that were submitted.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Dec 21, 2012)

I'm not sure how a rouge cleric with a crooked chin "lol" is relevant...? I am dazed and confused. I'm sleepless in seattle, punch drunk love, dead poet's society, I'm not sure why I'm naming movies I've never seen; someone please help me because I'm in big trouble in little china citizen kane the wicker man pan's labyrinth the exorcist skyfall


----------



## Freakconformist (Dec 21, 2012)

Staff Deployment said:


> I'm not sure how a rouge cleric with a crooked chin "lol" is relevant...?



You asked me if I know how to Arts, and my response was to give you a link to my ART gallery. Apparently, you're not familiar with the biggest ART site on the Web.

Really, it doesn't matter, because you're deliberately missing the point and getting off the subject. If you have a point relevant to the topic, make it.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Dec 21, 2012)

Ah! That explains it. I didn't really ask if you could arts. We're typing things into a site that is devoted to people artsing so I kind of assumed you could.
I was specifically referring to the dubious art of making posters, which I've had the misfortune of doing on more than one occasion (two occasions). There's a surprising amount of work that one has to put in.

The point with isolating that little detail from the larger volume of text you produced was to point out that hard work is hard and ideas are easy.
As I was typing this I developed three poster designs in my head. If I wanted to make any of those, it would be several days of work each (if I wanted to do a slapdash job of it).


----------



## Morkonan (Dec 22, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> I'd have to disagree (disclaimer - haven't read the book or seen the movie). She clearly would have to create such a world - but how did she use words to describe that world? How did she communicate that world to the readers? It was in the way she wrote about that world that garnered the praise, instead of readers sitting back, scratching their heads as to what she was talking about.



You know, I think I've got it..

See what KyleColordo was reporting? The "Hunger Games" as well as "Harry Potter" do have a unique idea, something that hasn't been done very frequently with YA/Children's fiction - They are complex settings.

YA and Children's Fiction don't usually have lots of complex settings involved with them. I admit, I don't read a lot of either genre, but the usual "rulebook" for writing these sorts of stories doesn't start off with Chapter One stating "Develop a complex setting for your story."

So, what both the HG and HP authors did was to develop very complex settings for their YA/CF stories. The writing isn't spectacular at all. (I haven't read the HG books and only read a couple of the HP books, just to see what all the fuss was about.) In fact, with HG, critics and writers alike throw poo at the cover on a regular basis. Neither story is particularly remarkable, either. In fact, both have "been done before" in a great many other works.

The one property that both of these titles share, and which probably contributed more to their success than anything else, is their complex settings. They did what some other writers have been saying for years - Don't treat your YA/Child audience like children! (Aye, I know...)

In this way, the "idea" to develop a complex setting is what turned these rather unimpressive works into blockbusters.

So, for those of you working on YA fiction, ramp up the complexity of your setting! Then, extend that to other story components. Complexify the relationships between characters. Complexify your sidekicks, allies, mentors and antagonists. Complexify your protagonists motivations, desires, goals and struggles. Complexify your complexities and add lots of little bits that the reader can play with. Hunger Games and Harry Potter have literary bits in them that are like puzzle pieces, without the box cover. There's no sense to some of them, but maybe it's just the _novelty_ of having them, in the first place, that the reader enjoys.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Dec 23, 2012)

Morkonan said:


> Complexify



Yeah, I did that and turns out even I can't understand what I'm going on.

FOR EXAMPLE

There's something about these factions that are fighting, and the rebellious faction leader claims he's the heir apparent but the whole governmental system was overthrown and replaced with a libertarian dictatorship led by two of the four dudes (foreigners who arrived on a boat when they were seven) who summoned an evil demon thirty years before the events of the novel (the other two went into hiding, and one of them is the main character's father; the mother was a native lady who died failing to give birth to a second kid), and that demon has been decaying and sterilizing the entire population of the little country so that there's rarely anyone under the age of 15-20, also it raises the dead (no exceptions) into tens of thousands of zombies, but the dude who took power found a way to exert control over some of the zombies so that they could be used for agricultural and transportation purposes, but lately the zombies have been wriggling out of his control and back into the control of the Demon, meaning huge organized attacks on certain cities, which is all a Xanatos Gambit by the Demon to subtly influence events into happening that ensures that in the climactic battle it'll be sent back to its home dimension, rather than killed. The narrator is a consciousness that thinks it grew up in modern-day America, but was placed into the zombified body of the main character's dead girlfriend, whose mind still exists somewhere in there so the narrator starts to lose control of her own sense of identity, which isn't helped by the fact that she can astrally project herself wherever she wants and also can fracture parts of her consciousness into other various people upon contact. Also, the Demon appears to her in the form of her imaginary little sister Emily, revealing that the Demon created the narrator's mind from scratch and let it fill in the blanks, meaning that our reality as we percieve it is just totally made up in a fevered demon-created mind that infests a zombie. The setting alone gets ridiculously complex; it's a big island slightly smaller than Tasmania, populated by about 20,000 people now and 50,000 thirty years before the start of the story (the Demon murdered a lot of people). The southern region is mostly fishing villages, which keep to themselves and are sparsely populated, but the middle is filled with fertile farmland and hence a huge portion of the population are self-sustaining farmers and their families. However, the more urban, city-dwelling regions reside in the forested northern area, and they're not quite capable of sustaining themselves so food constantly has to be imported from the farmers, which was initially difficult because of the lack of sufficient trade-highway infrastructure. When the Demon started murdering everyone and the main dude who summoned it took control, he built up walls around every city to keep the zombies out, took advantage of the tunnels dug between each major city for communication purposes (the tunnels were dug because the previous King's wife went psychotic and demanded they be dug... the King and his six children were all murdered within a month of each other, the King having his entire castle falling down around him and crushing him due to the Demon... the Queen died of natural causes), and also the dude made a pact with the Demon that he would ensure its escape back home if it maybe laid off the zombie horde a little. Under the new governor's direction the economy improved, infrastructure was put in, and he helped the farmers with their food production. Since it was due to the zombies that he controlled, however, it also served as an implied threat to make sure that they followed the new regulations (if they refused, he would let the zombies eat them). Over thirty years, the island has begun to decay, and entire zones devolve into a blasted heath of uninhabitable land, spreading from the north-west to the rest of the island. A few cities collapsed, and a huge portion of one of the major forests has simply been scorched to the ground. I'm going to stop here because I think that's enough to make my point, not because I don't have more to explain. I have much, much more, and most of this is an oversimplification.

If you read all of that I have pity for you.

Anyway complexity isn't necessarily a guarantee of making a blockbuster. One pattern I've noticed in these record-breaking series is that the mechanics of the setting allows a kind of customization that the reader can apply to themselves. For Harry Potter it was all of the stuff you got to pick out like your pet and your wand and your House, and for the Hunger Games it was the specialized weapons and the flexibility of the challenge itself. My theory is probably as vague and as generalized as yours, but I like mine.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 23, 2012)

So Mork says what makes stories successful are complexities.

Staff says it is customization.

I like both of those theories, and I think they are worth investigating. :encouragement:

In my opinion, the secret ingredient that hooks ravenous fanbases is: a love story. One that involves the protagonist, preferably one that runs with its own peaks and valleys (highs and lows) alongside the main drama or action.

You don't _need _to have a love story, but I think, if your story allows for one, and if you feel confident that you can execute it well, inserting one into your main story is probably a smart decision. Just my opinion!


----------



## Staff Deployment (Dec 23, 2012)

I think there's definitely a correlation between uber-popular works and an included love story but I'm note sure that means that there's a causation (an argument which of course applies to every single theory thus expressed including mine).

But anyway I often feel that love stories are needlessly tacked on, almost as if they're there because the creator wanted to put one in, or the executives demanded one, rather than being essential to the plot or even making sense. I mean, Christian Bale and Anne Hathaway, really?

[/SUBJECTIVE]


----------



## shadowwalker (Dec 23, 2012)

But again - complexity is just a jumble if the author can't get the readers to understand it and appreciate it. And that's done within the writing.

(Yeah, I know - I'm stubborn! :friendly_wink: )


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 23, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> But again - complexity is just a jumble if the author can't get the readers to understand it and appreciate it. And that's done within the writing.
> 
> (Yeah, I know - I'm stubborn! :friendly_wink: )




Frank Miller might be the king of this.  He was the author of Sin City.

Isn't an idea only worth the hands of the author it's in?  I can come up with a million ideas, but until I magically become a great writer, or one of my ideas winds up in the hands of a great writer, my ideas aren't even worth wiping my butt with.  That would be nasty, they aren't concrete, of course.


----------



## Jeko (Dec 23, 2012)

I think the most valuable ideas are the ones you never talk about, because while they're hidden away no-one but you can touch them.


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 23, 2012)

Cadence said:


> I think the most valuable ideas are the ones you never talk about, because while they're hidden away no-one but you can touch them.



I'm a blabber mouth, it would never happen in a million years.  You ought to hear my newest idea, it would blow your mind...


----------



## Jeko (Dec 23, 2012)

I think it's one of Mark Twain's rules, to not discuss what you're writing while you're writing it. 

Wonder what he thinks of the forum.


----------



## the antithesis (Dec 23, 2012)

Cadence said:


> I think the most valuable ideas are the ones you never talk about, because while they're hidden away no-one but you can touch them.



I think that's what makes those ideas worthless. When you hold an idea in your head, you not only work on the idea but you build up the idea in your own mind. Next thing you know, eighteen years pass and you post excerpts on a couple internet forums and when you get a negative response, you turn into a angry two year old stamping your little feet because they're all jealous of how great your story is.

Ideas that you keep to yourself is just daydreaming. Daydreaming is just masturbation. It doesn't really accomplish anything. I ought to know, I daydream a lot. Constantly, in fact. I daydream about stuff I will never share with anyone. I daydream things I will take to my grave. All that daydreaming hasn't accomplished anything. I haven't earned one red cent off of it nor has it improved my life in any way. In fact, I'd say my life is worse because all I ever do is daydream and play Minecraft.



> I think it's one of Mark Twain's rules, to not discuss what you're writing while you're writing it.
> 
> Wonder what he thinks of the forum.



That's really not the same as what you'd said earlier.

Stephen  King expanded on this idea as "writing with the door closed." Meaning,  when you're writing the initial draft, you need to shut the door and  work alone. Resist the temptation to show anyone your incomplete  manuscript because you won't finish it. Just write it all down first and  then edit it before you show anyone. Why? Because it's a first draft  and likely to be filled with horrible mistakes. Fix it now before you  show anyone and embarrass yourself.

Then you can "write with the door open," showing it to your trusted friends, family members and, indeed, internet writing groups. The work should be at least a second draft if not further. It's as good as you can make it by yourself. Now you need others to see it so you can see what happens when someone else reads it, and make corrections. This is necessary if you want your work to be any good and especially if you plan to publish. You need fresh eyes and opinions from various people to see how the general public will see your work, decide if that's what you want, and how to change it to get the reaction you do want.

The problem with the forum is many, myself included, are posting too many first drafts, or worse, incomplete first drafts. Writers are needy. I am especially so. I posted the first couple paragraphs or two stories that I had literally written less that two hours previously because I'm as needy as a hungry kitten and twice as ugly. It's self-defeating since you do yourself a disservice to show others your work before you can correct the more embarrassing gaffes.

So, that's what I think Mark Twain and Stephen King would think of the forum. It's a useful tool but a shame so many do not use it properly.


----------



## Kevin (Dec 23, 2012)

@ antithesis- Funny, it's the opposite for me. The more I think about the idea the more driven I am to do something with it. It's when I can't come up with the next step of that idea that I struggle to continue. If I just give myself the time to sit long enough I'll come up with something.


----------



## Jeko (Dec 23, 2012)

> I think that's what makes those ideas worthless. When you hold an idea in your head, you not only work on the idea but you build up the idea in your own mind. Next thing you know, eighteen years pass and you post excerpts on a couple internet forums and when you get a negative response, you turn into a angry two year old stamping your little feet because they're all jealous of how great your story is.



You missed my point. Posting excerpts of the idea makes it no longer hidden, so it no longer has any releance to the concept of keeping an idea hidden.

And relating the deep process of individual thought to masturbation is wrong. You've added a mindset to what is only a thought process.


----------



## the antithesis (Dec 23, 2012)

Cadence said:


> And relating the deep process of individual thought to masturbation is wrong. You've added a mindset to what is only a thought process.




You had said:



> I think the most valuable ideas are the ones you never talk about,  because while they're hidden away no-one but you can touch them



I disagreed with this because I've had ideas like this for forty years and those ideas have no value. They have no external value, obviously, since they are kept to myself. They have no internal value because my life is not better, but worse because of these ideas I just keep to myself.



> You missed my point. Posting excerpts of the idea makes it no longer  hidden, so it no longer has any releance to the concept of keeping an  idea hidden.



You missed my reference. I was saying that to do that, next thing you know, you're ET.


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 23, 2012)

Why don't you guys quit arguing about ideas, and take your balls home with you.


----------



## Jeko (Dec 24, 2012)

the antithesis: just because you cannot see the value in an idea does not mean it has no value. I hold that hidden ideas have the potential to be far more than those you expose.

To avoid debating the meaning of the word 'value', I'll end my argument there.

And I did not miss the reference to ET. I ignored it because it was childish.


----------



## Vitaly Ana (Dec 28, 2012)

A person with a new idea is a crank until the idea succeeds - Mark Twain

That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God - Albert Einstein

Interesting that Twain seems to think an idea is worth a penny and, Einstein seems to think an idea is invaluable. 

Personally, I think positive energy towards work or idea, is divine and, I don't think they can be completely separated. An invention for example is born from the idea of a mind but, often would be quite little without minds geared towards planning, logistics and hard work that drives that idea from conception to reality.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Dec 28, 2012)

Mark Twain was talking about the double standard in that we celebrate inventors but discourage invention.
Einstein was talking about reconciling his belief in God with science.

Pretty sure neither of those are quite what you were looking for. Personally I'd go with "Underneath this mask is not a man, but an idea. AND IDEAS ARE BULLETPROOF!!!" *strangles Creedy to death*


----------



## Vitaly Ana (Dec 28, 2012)

My main argument is this: Every human being has intrinsic value which we can not claim to know. Ideas belong to mankind therefore they have value.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Dec 29, 2012)

I strongly disagree! I believe that the only value anyone has is what they're willing to contribute. I don't believe that everyone is a special flower waiting to bloom. Nobody is born with natural talent, only a natural aversion or inclination towards broader subjects. Skill directly correlates to dedication.

There were a string of forum topics recently all by the same guy wanting someone to release his inner writer or whatever. I believe that there is no inner writer, and there is no intrinsic value to a person. The only value to a person is what they make of themselves. This is actually kind of idealistic! It means that you have no limits, as long as you stay dedicated.

_this is totally related to the topic you don't even know_


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 29, 2012)

I'll be honest, I would give up most of the cut on my idea just to see it come to fruition.  I'm not trying to get rich with writing or my ideas, I'd just like something to hang my hat on, and the ability to sit in a place I call home, be able to shoot the bull with fine folks like you guys, and buy useless stuff of eBay to mess with.  I'd probably like a truck and trailer to travel every now and then too!


----------



## shadowwalker (Dec 29, 2012)

Staff Deployment said:


> Nobody is born with natural talent, only a natural aversion or inclination towards broader subjects. Skill directly correlates to dedication.



Have to disagree with you on that 'natural talent' bit. I believe there have been other discussions on that, but suffice it to say that no amount of dedication will turn someone with a tin ear into an opera singer.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Dec 29, 2012)

Put a decade or two of experience in, and you could be an opera singer yourself. They said a blind man could never play the piano.


----------



## shadowwalker (Dec 29, 2012)

Staff Deployment said:


> Put a decade or two of experience in, and you could be an opera singer yourself. They said a blind man could never play the piano.



You don't have to see to play the piano, any more than you do to type. You do, however, need to have a keen ear for the music (as do those who play by ear) and/or a tremendous memory to learn the correct notes. Neither of which, in and of themselves, will make you ready for Carnegie Hall. Without talent, you will merely be mimicking what you heard or repeating what you memorized.

Anyone can type up a story. Not everyone can write "War and Peace". Anything in between those two depends on _combining _talent and dedication.


----------



## Kevin (Dec 29, 2012)

The best pugilist in the world has that rare combination of natural gifts _and _the dedication/self-discipline to use them. Some few of his peers (world-class) _are_ as gifted, but have been beaten by lesser gifted, yet more disciplined, opponents.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Dec 29, 2012)

Obviously the blind man and piano thing is a metaphor, not a specific example. The idea is that you can overcome your handicaps with practice and discipline. Think of the Paralympics, as another metaphor.

I'm not sure why I keep pressing. This isn't really a philosophy that people will think "oh yeah no, he's right, out go my preconceptions of the world based solely on a forum post"

Anyway, value of ideas: One that's often overlooked is that when you query agents, you are first and foremost selling them on your idea. Beautiful prose supporting a lackluster story won't get read.


----------



## kitt.moss (Dec 31, 2012)

For me personally, ideas are not hard to come by. I have a whole folder full of ideas waiting to be written. Turning them into decent stories and finished products is the hard bit.

This is why it cheeses me off to see people claiming that others "stole their idea". What rubbish. If the so-called thief put in the thousand hours or so of hard work needed to turn an idea into a finished product, whereas all the victim did was come up with an idea, then all credit to the "thief"...


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 31, 2012)

kitt.moss said:


> For me personally, ideas are not hard to come by. I have a whole folder full of ideas waiting to be written. Turning them into decent stories and finished products is the hard bit.
> 
> This is why it cheeses me off to see people claiming that others "stole their idea". What rubbish. If the so-called thief put in the thousand hours or so of hard work needed to turn an idea into a finished product, whereas all the victim did was come up with an idea, then all credit to the "thief"...



Yeah, that's true, and I agree.

Although, in some fields ideas can be stolen. It depends on the craft a bit. In screenwriting, for example, I imagine there's a big emphasis on ideas.

I thought this was interesting (screenwriter suing Pixar, claiming they stole his concept and made it into a movie): http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/screenwriter-sues-disneypixar-claiming-cars-169543


----------



## the antithesis (Dec 31, 2012)

If that's interesting then this must be very interesting.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Jan 2, 2013)

Staff Deployment said:


> Put a decade or two of experience in, and you could be an opera singer yourself. They said a blind man could never play the piano.



It doesn't quite work like that.  I've recently begun to try singing (I've always DONE it; just never well), and I know that no matter how much practice I put into it, I'll always be "going through the motions."  I'll know the "proper" way to sing and I'll eventually be able to execute well, but it will never be natural.  Writing, on the other hand, DOES come naturally for me.  Sure, there are tons of people better than me, and sure, I can grow even further with practice, but I've never taken any creative writing courses, read much, or even written extensively, and (I like to think) I write fairly competently.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again (and I'm sure it will be just as unpopular every time).  If you need to be taught to write (through instruction books, workshops, whatever), you'll never be a great writer.  You may be successful, but there's nothing that compares to natural talent.


----------



## the antithesis (Jan 2, 2013)

You know, I've been thinking about the question of idea over execution and I'm starting to think that separating them is incorrect. They are not two different skill sets or talents. They are the same. Ideas come from connecting things. You connect A to B to C and find that connecting A to C is a good idea. The more connections, the more choices and then it becomes a matter of making good choices. This same thing is done at the execution level. There are some different skills involved, but a lot of the same skills, too. Drawing connections and making choices. It's the same skills on different levels. Putting one above the other is kind of silly. Someone with any kind of ability to make connections and choices at the idea stage is likely to be able make connections and choices at the execution stage.

Since it's come up already, I should state that Stephanie Meyer did not come up with a good idea. She came up with a marketable idea. There's a difference. He idea spoke to a very base fantasy in young girls and mormon housewives (a comparison that amuses me no end), namely the "bad boy" stereotype.  I read a blog post by a Twilight fan that explained this. She looked at it as a guilty pleasure. I wish I could find that blog again, but the forum I had encountered the link no longer exists. So Twilight is basically porn because it's appeal is on the same level. It's not a good or even new idea. The bad boy stereotype has been done many times. It's an idea that has consistent appeal no matter how poor the execution.

Even if Twilight was a genuinely good idea-- I should say I have not read the books, but all reports are that they are terrible-- the poor execution would reveal that she simply had gotten lucky. On the idea stage, you need to make just one connection and decision. During the execution stage, you make numerous connections and decisions. A poor writer can get lucky finding some good idea for their story. But luck does run out during the actual writing phase. How many Meyers wannabes fail because they just didn't luck out (or get their church to publish their drivel if the rumors are true)?

So this is the line I'm thinking. Both idea and execution comes from the same place and someone with any skill or ability on the idea phase should likewise be skilled on the writing phase. Exceptions exist, to be sure. But that doesn't matter as Meyers falls into obscurity now that Twilight is done. More likely she'll revisit those characters like a mormon George Lucas, cashing in on past popularity and failing to get new ideas to work, _see: Radioland Murders_. I think they are related so if someone didn't come by a good idea by dumb luck and has developed skill on both the idea level and the writing level, then their work is liable to be good.


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 2, 2013)

the antithesis said:


> You know, I've been thinking about the question of idea over execution and I'm starting to think that separating them is incorrect. They are not two different skill sets or talents. They are the same. Ideas come from connecting things. You connect A to B to C and find that connecting A to C is a good idea. The more connections, the more choices and then it becomes a matter of making good choices. This same thing is done at the execution level. There are some different skills involved, but a lot of the same skills, too. Drawing connections and making choices. It's the same skills on different levels. Putting one above the other is kind of silly. Someone with any kind of ability to make connections and choices at the idea stage is likely to be able make connections and choices at the execution stage.
> 
> Since it's come up already, I should state that Stephanie Meyer did not come up with a good idea. She came up with a marketable idea. There's a difference. He idea spoke to a very base fantasy in young girls and mormon housewives (a comparison that amuses me no end), namely the "bad boy" stereotype.  I read a blog post by a Twilight fan that explained this. She looked at it as a guilty pleasure. I wish I could find that blog again, but the forum I had encountered the link no longer exists. So Twilight is basically porn because it's appeal is on the same level. It's not a good or even new idea. The bad boy stereotype has been done many times. It's an idea that has consistent appeal no matter how poor the execution.
> 
> ...



I think you have a point, and to some extent I do agree with you.

But as for Stephenie Meyer, she is successful as a writer and will continue to be successful. She's not one who simply, "got lucky." I mentioned this argument before that people who think she is a bad writer are looking at the technical quality of her sentences, while overlooking the emotional quality of her work as a whole.

She's already written another novel (begun another franchise, actually, as it's part of a trilogy), called "The Host", about an alien invasion, a Sci-Fi romance sort of deal. And it's done very well in the market, too. Best-seller, also being made into a Hollywood movie.

"The Host" movie trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syUlVFpw_f4

I think some of the Meyer-haters will finally begin to grudgingly accept Meyer as a successful author after she writes several more best-selling franchises (which I predict she will). Everything she publishes blows up in the market and in Hollywood as well. She's a storywriting, world-building, money-making machine. One of her secrets to success, in my opinion, is she knows that the romance element is a powerful attractor for female readers.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jan 2, 2013)

the antithesis said:


> Both idea and execution comes from the same place and someone with any skill or ability on the idea phase should likewise be skilled on the writing phase.



I think that's a false premise. I've had some jim-dandy ideas for mechanical contraptions (endorsed by mechanically-inclined people) but totally lacked the skills to bring them to fruition. I've known several would-be writers who discussed "exceptional ideas" for stories with me - but when it came to actually writing the stories, they were lost. They could write out the general story (maybe five pages) but had no idea of how to make the characters real, how to describe the setting, how dialogue worked, etc.  And let's face it - if your premise were true, ghost-writers would be out of business. ;-)


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jan 3, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> You know, I think I've got it..
> 
> See what KyleColordo was reporting? The "Hunger Games" as well as "Harry Potter" do have a unique idea, something that hasn't been done very frequently with YA/Children's fiction - They are complex settings.
> 
> ...




I don't think you could make it any more clear that you have no idea what you're talking about.  YA hasn't been treating readers like children for much longer than Hunger Games has been around.  You say you don't read much of the genre, yet you feel qualified to dismiss it as simplistic while citing the Hunger Games and Harry Potter as breaking the pattern?  Not only is that arrogant and ignorant, but it's extremely insulting to the many, many YA authors who write works that are as sophisticated or more than a great deal of adult fiction.




As far as the topic of the thread, ideas are not worthless.  But neither do you need to hoard and hide them for fear of them being stolen.  Authors of a skill level to be published have folders overflowing with ideas many of which they will never even have time to write.  Discussing your ideas does absolutely nothing to diminish their value.


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 3, 2013)

Ilasir Maroa said:


> I don't think you could make it any more clear that you have no idea what you're talking about.  YA hasn't been treating readers like children for much longer than Hunger Games has been around.  You say you don't read much of the genre, yet you feel qualified to dismiss it as simplistic while citing the Hunger Games and Harry Potter as breaking the pattern?  Not only is that arrogant and ignorant, but it's extremely insulting to the many, many YA authors who write works that are as sophisticated or more than a great deal of adult fiction.



I believe he mentioned _The Hunger Games_ and _Harry Potter_ simply because they were two of the most successful YA series in recent history. Other YA authors have been around and have no doubt written some great literature, but not many have reached the level of success (or earned the amount of money) that Collins and Rowling have.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jan 3, 2013)

KyleColorado said:


> I believe he mentioned _The Hunger Games_ and _Harry Potter_ simply because they were two of the most successful YA series in recent history. Other YA authors have been around and have no doubt written some great literature, but not many have reached the level of success (or earned the amount of money) that Collins and Rowling have.




Just read what I quoted:  "_YA and Children's Fiction don't usually have lots of complex settings involved with them._"  Demonstratably false.

And here: "_They did what some other writers have been saying for years - Don't treat your YA/Child audience like children!" _

Excuse me?  YA has been doing that for years.  Well before the Hunger Games.  And as much as I hate to go here, the Twilight series is YA, and made probably as much or more money as either of the other series mentioned, and it lacks a complex world while being at least as bad writing-wise.

I'm not saying he is being intentionally insulting or dismissive.  But he himself says he doesn't know much about YA, and hasn't even read the books he talks about.


----------

