On derivative fiction

[Lost_Wanderer]

I notice a lot of interesting movies lately have been derivative works. Hansel and Gretel. Wizard of Oz. Jack the Giant Killer. All of these are based on older stories that have remain popular until now.

It made me think of all other derivative works of fiction like that game American McGee’s Alice. Though on a more serious note, it had me reflecting on something else.

Am I the only one who notices how some Christians have a sort of venomous hatred for anything that derives outside their picture of Christianity? I’ve seen this behavior in both Protestant fundamentalists and their Catholic counterparts.

I mean look at crackpots like Hislop with the notorious ‘fish hat’ claim. I gotta ask, so what? I mean, it’s like these people are saying you can’t make anything that doesn’t derive itself from Euro-Christian sources (even though much of medieval European art, lore, and even fictional tropes was also derived from paganism).

 

[Crescentinus]

There’s a general disdain for the fantasy genre within Born-Again Protestantism.
It goes way beyond Harry Potter or even Final Fantasy!
For instance, some of them are against drawing anything other than the Bible because according to their interpretation of the Bible, drawing something = graven images and idolatry. Really? Good grief! Someone needs to debate with these modern iconoclasts!

 

[Baelor]

My problem is not with derivative works, but that the derivative works being produced now are so sterile.

Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy and Jackson’s LoTR trilogy are examples of well-done derivative work. Most other instances are not, because the derivative-ness is actually a symptom of a total absence of creativity.

Novelty is underrated. If I wanted to know about Jack and the Beanstalk, I would read the story. Produce something new instead of rehashing other media.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Novelty is underrated. If I wanted to know about Jack and the Beanstalk, I would read the story. Produce something new instead of rehashing other media.

Really? Well in any case, I personally think they’re not all completely copy-pasted from the original. Many deviations from the originals I’ve seen have been quite novel in my eyes.

Heck, I myself love doing it whenever I read an old tale or two.

 

[OxygenMan]

I don’t think it’s because they are outside of Christian experience that they are excluded or not popular with filmmakers. It’s just that many other cultures have tales that wouldn’t be familiar to a lot of people here. So the story of Gilgamesh could make a great movie, but because it’s less well-known than Hercules, the filmmaker will make the safe bet and go with a movie about Hercules.

 

[Baelor]

Really? Well in any case, I personally think they’re not all completely copy-pasted from the original. Many deviations from the originals I’ve seen have been quite novel in my eyes.

Heck, I myself love doing it whenever I read an old tale or two.

I agree that not all derivative works are copy-and-pasted. I would say that we need to move away from derivative works and start creating original settings. Time for some new.

 

[Crescentinus]

I agree that not all derivative works are copy-and-pasted. I would say that we need to move away from derivative works and start creating original settings. Time for some new.

Then, let us be careful about that. Last I checked, Avatar is a sci-fi leftist version of Pocahontas.

 

[Baelor]

Then, let us be careful about that. Last I checked, Avatar is a sci-fi leftist version of Pocahontas.

I do not disagree, but this discussion is about the novelty of settings, not plots.

 

[Crescentinus]

I do not disagree, but this discussion is about the novelty of settings, not plots.

Point taken.

As far as setting novelty goes, it can be quite tricky to make new settings for stories. Hence, there are those in the movie industry who decided to go for the rehash route, like James Cameron with his Avatar flim.

 

[3DOCTORS]

Interesting reading here: time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1619573,00.html

 

[Baelor]

Point taken.

As far as setting novelty goes, it can be quite tricky to make new settings for stories. Hence, there are those in the movie industry who decided to go for the rehash route, like James Cameron with his Avatar flim.

Exactly. I find that unfortunate. Literature is innovating while film is becoming a medium of remakes, sequels, and adaptations. Even some of the best movies of all time are merely adaptations.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I agree that not all derivative works are copy-and-pasted. I would say that we need to move away from derivative works and start creating original settings. Time for some new.

In all honesty, I am not really comfortable with that need. Don’t get me wrong, I like original works if they’re really good.

Unfortunately, your experience with spin-offs is similar to my experience with things that attempt to be ‘original.’

Good triumphing over evil is not exactly an original idea but I’d take that cliche over several nasty pieces that promote the opposite for the sake of being unique.

Interesting reading here: time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1619573,00.html

This is actually fairly balanced and mirrors a lot of what I’ve personally believed on the current state of modern fiction.

In fact, I never realized that it can be quite saddening to present children with a satirized version too soon and exposing to cynicism in their stage in life.

But still, you gotta admit we might be doing them a favor if we can give their imaginations a more balanced diet sooner instead of letting their age be an excuse to keep them boiling in syrup.

The only question is, when and how will it be better than our disillusioned generation?

P.S.

Although, I do think giving Walt Disney flak was a little unfair in comparison to even greater literary horrors I’ve seen Christians recommend as ‘counter-cultural alternatives.’

I mean at least Disney had that wonderful Kingdom Hearts series to add a surprisingly well-received spin on itself.

The likes of Wisdom Tree’s Bible Adventures on the other hand are just beyond redemption. Seriously, parents. Say no to that. Just… no.

 

[Crescentinus]

Exactly. I find that unfortunate. Literature is innovating while film is becoming a medium of remakes, sequels, and adaptations. Even some of the best movies of all time are merely adaptations.

Point taken.
I want to see better movies which have a new setting. And no, Sucker Punch does not qualify! Movies which overcompensate for a lack of plot and a boring setting with CGI overkill will never qualify!

 

[Kamaduck]

I notice a lot of interesting movies lately have been derivative works. Hansel and Gretel. Wizard of Oz. Jack the Giant Killer. All of these are based on older stories that have remain popular until now.

It made me think of all other derivative works of fiction like that game American McGee’s Alice. Though on a more serious note, it had me reflecting on something else.

Am I the only one who notices how some Christians have a sort of venomous hatred for anything that derives outside their picture of Christianity? I’ve seen this behavior in both Protestant fundamentalists and their Catholic counterparts.

I mean look at crackpots like Hislop with the notorious ‘fish hat’ claim. I gotta ask, so what? I mean, it’s like these people are saying you can’t make anything that doesn’t derive itself from Euro-Christian sources (even though much of medieval European art, lore, and even fictional tropes was also derived from paganism).

Pretty sure people are just more familiar with European and Christian themes. People are afraid of stuff they don’t understand (especially if they lean conservative). Even if they’re not, it’s still harder to do research on something they’re not personally familiar with.

I’m OK with both original works and adaptations, but I prefer stuff that plays with old ideas or alters them for the modern world. I wouldn’t know how to write something that was 100% original. I’m not sure it’s even possible. As long as you have one or two interesting, new ideas in a story, you’re doing it right.

 

[Baelor]

Unfortunately, your experience with spin-offs is similar to my experience with things that attempt to be ‘original.’

Good triumphing over evil is not exactly an original idea but I’d take that cliche over several nasty pieces that promote the opposite for the sake of being unique.

Again, we are not talking about plots. Your original post was about derivative fiction in terms of setting and characters, not messages, themes, or plot elements. I was responding to the post that you wrote, and you disagree with me by completing changing the topic of discussion. Please clarify what you mean, because this most recent post contradicts your OP vis-a-vis the topic.

 

[Kamaduck]

Again, we are not talking about plots. Your original post was about derivative fiction in terms of setting and characters, not messages, themes, or plot elements. I was responding to the post that you wrote, and you disagree with me by completing changing the topic of discussion. Please clarify what you mean, because this most recent post contradicts your OP vis-a-vis the topic.

It’s not an entirely different topic, since a European setting generally goes along with European themes and other writing conventions. This isn’t always true of stories about other cultures, which, when handled by Western writers, are often given Western themes and familiar plots anyway.

Although if we broaden the discussion to include “good triumphing over evil” and other extremely general things, I’m not sure originality is even possible. There are only so many options for something like that.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Baelor, I’ll refer to Kamaduck’s tying of themes and settings as my response to you. In fact, even googling the term derivative fiction does not give the examples I put in my OP. The top results are actually about copyright law which in turn only goes to show that this does not need to be limited to merely adaptations of setting or more aesthetic elements.

I’m OK with both original works and adaptations, but I prefer stuff that plays with old ideas or alters them for the modern world. I wouldn’t know how to write something that was 100% original. I’m not sure it’s even possible. As long as you have one or two interesting, new ideas in a story, you’re doing it right.

I sense a kindred spirit here. I’ve always felt the same way towards the concept of creating something 100% original. (This goes especially in terms of plot.) Every time I hear someone whine about rip-offs or cliches, a part of me cringes inside. There are a fair number of cliches I despise too actually but these have more to do with my taste for them. I’ve come to realize that it’s not really the fact that they’ve been ‘done before.’ (I mean if you’re going to repeat something, make sure it’s something good. Don’t make it Marxist like most of my country’s modern soap operas. )

Adaptations from the old for the new are something I have strong inkling for too. For me, it’s kind of the culture shock factor that comes with it (usually subtle, in my opinion). I like the contrast of then and now, especially at how it does away with more ‘conservative’ interpretations of certain eras. (It pains to put that label on them though as I lean strongly towards conservative in a political sense.)

 

[Baelor]

It’s not an entirely different topic, since a European setting generally goes along with European themes and other writing conventions.

The OP was even more specific than a merely “European” setting. It listed the following examples:

Hansel and Gretel
Oz
Jack the Giant Killer

All of those are derivative in a very strict sense, i.e. plots based on “older stories.”

A European setting could be anything. A Song of Ice and Fire is clearly in a European-ish setting but hardly can be called derivative in the same way that the three above stories are.

Although if we broaden the discussion to include “good triumphing over evil” and other extremely general things, I’m not sure originality is even possible. There are only so many options for something like that.

Exactly. I thought the OP was extremely clear but now I am confused about what the topic of discussion even is.

All I asked for was original characters and “settings” in a specific sense (i.e. not a retelling, adaptation, remake, or sequel). No one has actually responded to what I posted, but rather to things that I did not say at all. I am a bit frustrated.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Exactly. I thought the OP was extremely clear but now I am confused about what the topic of discussion even is.

Sorry but that misinterpretation was indeed on your part. I never intended this discussion to be quite specific in the manner that you are describing. Otherwise, you wouldn’t see me mentioning the second half about Christians despising anything that derives from even the slightest sliver of a pagan source.

I once met a particularly vicious Catholic here who was just like that. He railed on about the use of terms like ‘wizard’ like it was a rip-off and how even the likes of Tolkien were unoriginal as well as unfit for ‘Christian’ consumption. Consider him one of the fellow Catholics I’ve come to despise on these boards. The guy sounded just like those who demanded for something ‘original’ in the worst possible ways. I guess you could say the only difference was that he wanted to ‘challenge’ Christian writers to come up with their own unique art exclusive to our religion. No dabbling in fantasy or horror apparently, just simply ‘original Christian.’ (God, he sounds like Sheldon Cooper’s mother when I think about it.)

All I asked for was original characters and “settings” in a specific sense (i.e. not a retelling, adaptation, remake, or sequel). No one has actually responded to what I posted, but rather to things that I did not say at all. I am a bit frustrated.

I repeat: You misunderstood my OP. Not my fault. And for the record, McGee’s Alice is in fact a sequel. The way I use the term derivative is quite loose here (as evidenced of my talk of Christian hatred for things that derive from ‘pagan’ lore and mythology).

As a matter of fact, finding derivatives in a lot of ‘original’ works is part of my more underlying reasons for opening this thread. Besides, I’ve noticed a trend that threads that are too specific end up dying faster.

 

[Baelor]

Sorry but that misinterpretation was indeed on your part.

It really was not. If you intended a broader scope, you should have considered including an example of “derivative fiction” that was not part of a narrow definition. Wikipedia’s article on derivative fiction essentially equates it with my definition, not yours.

I never intended this discussion to be quite specific in the manner that you are describing. Otherwise, you wouldn’t see me mentioning the second half about Christians despising anything that derives from even the slightest sliver of a pagan source.

Which is not even derivative fiction, otherwise all fiction is derivative. Originality is an illusory concept.

This thread is stillborn. No discussion is possible: there is only one thing to say, and that is that derivative fiction, if defined sufficiently broadly, encompasses all fiction, rendering a quest for “original” fiction simply in vain.