Something Old, Something New, Something Borrowed, Something EWWWW

Before you read this post, I would like you to enjoy an analogy by way of a musical interlude. Please accept my apology on the ad, skip ahead to 17.50, watch until 19.20 and then return here to understand why I sent you to the link in the first place. Thank you.

For your viewing and listening pleasure.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the tune that elicited such a negative response from the pianist and the producer, that is “Stardust” – considered to be the most recorded song of the 20th century. If you are playing at home, it was also penned by Hoagy Carmichael, who lent his voice to his own piano-playing character in the cartoon.

And here is where the analogy comes in: if you are going to write, be original.

Before you pen (or type) another story about fay, fey, fae, Morgan le Fay (pick your spelling), Tina Fey, auto-da-fé or LaFe, stop and ask yourself, “Am I adding anything original to the canon by writing another story on the topic?” This applies to any of the many “supes du jours” that are out there, as well as to the vast number of overused (or overwrought) characters, conventions, themes, etc., in other literary genres.

Let’s face it. We have more than enough stories about humans fighting against or alongside “supes” or “myths,” who are fighting amongst themselves over a lost, enchanted bidet, and one of the parties of the first part falls in love with one of the parties of the second part; but that love isn’t allowed, so a party of the first part, once removed, causes a fight that turns into a war in which a party of the second part’s cursed gynecologist finds the Hoary Speculum of Hippocrates and blah, blah, blah.

Be original – but by original, I don’t mean writing new lyrics for an old tune and shouting, “Ta dah!” or writing the same book a few times and hoping that nobody notices. It’s that whole lipstick and pig thing – and none of us really wants to rehash that, do we?

I was once in the audience for a panel discussion that was tasked with answering the question, “Have vampires run their course?” One of the authors turned the discussion into a self-promotion of his latest book, in which his vampires broke the traditional historical and/or mythological rules. When asked why, he answered that he thought the rules didn’t make sense.

To me, that’s like staying on first base after being beaten by the throw and refusing to accept being called out because the rule doesn’t make sense.

If you are going to break or re-write the rules about anything, then you need to take a deep dive into said rules, understand them and then come up with a thread – something that logically and sensibly runs through and unites the “thing’s” story, from its origins to its present form. Call it being “myth-o-logical.” If you don’t, then you are selling yourself short as a writer – and, more importantly, you are selling your readers short.

The independent book market is under constant scrutiny and assault by supporters of “traditional publishing” – by individuals with a vested interest (read: publishers), critics and readers. One of the main reasons (the other is grammar – but we’ll talk about that in a later post) that “we” take a considerable amount of heat is because so much of what is coming out of “us” is, well, glue.

You know, as in that into which the horse has been beaten.

All of us – writers, editors, publishers and, yes, readers – need to step up our games and search for the unique, both in what we write and in what we read. Challenge yourself to escape, as trite as the expression has come to be, your comfort zone – you might just like what you find.

And learn a thing or two about yourself along the way.