Skip to main content

unoriginal

Watching the waves at Lunan Bay, Scotland.  Each one slightly different.
This past week I had to pitch an idea for a play to my fellow writers in a Playwriting class.  It was a bit scary because all of us were putting something out there that was not fully formed, and though we were excited about it, we didn't really know if anyone else would be.  And if no one is interested to see the story or meet the characters...that's a pretty bad sign for a play.  As I was waiting to do my pitch, I got to listen to a lot of other play ideas, most of which were pretty good and some which were quite outstanding, to be honest.  One of them in particular caught my attention: it was a scenario presented by a young guy who had chosen two characters almost exactly like mine and a situation that was very similar to the one that I had typed on a paper and stuffed in my notebook.  I am pretty sure I turned a shade whiter as he described his protagonist/antagonist and the storyline. 

When it came to my turn, I made light of the fact that my ideas were so similar to my colleague's and assured everyone that we had not been sharing brains.  The teacher graciously indicated that people often write about similar topics or situations and not to be discouraged about this; nothing is really new, she said, but no one will write the play that you write.  That helped...a bit.  My presentation was well-received (people seemed interested to see it fleshed out) so I was happy about that.  But at some point that afternoon I did think that I was one of the most unoriginal people on the planet.  Could I really not come up with something unique? Or original?

I was reading a book a few days ago which uses the model of improvisation to talk about ethics.  One of the ideas that made me sit up and take note was regarding the notion of being original.  The author suggests that being original is not the point in improvisation; the goal is to be obvious.  Hmmmm.  In fact, he goes so far as to say that we are in dangerous territory when we have "being original" as our goal.  I have read this in books on playwriting as well, that writers who try to be original usually write bad plays because they tend to sacrifice too many elements that have been proven to be helpful and important to storytelling.

Anyway, back to the book.  A claim that Samuel Wells makes is that even original sin is not original.  (By the way, original sin is a concept that Irenaeus developed in the 2nd century and Augustine built upon so it is technically not a biblical idea.)  Basically, what Wells is saying is that when we try to be original we attempt to place ourselves in the first act (creation) or in the final act (eschaton) when only God rightly occupies these places.  He suggests that instead of pursuing the idea of being "original" we should go for "obvious."  He defines obvious as "trusting that God will do what only God can do."  Part of me is annoyed that Wells is trying to take my originality and creativity away from me, but a larger part agrees with him and is actually relieved.  You have no idea how much pressure a creative person feels to always come up with something new and exciting.  And how much we believe that for the most part, we fail at this.  Or perhaps you know this very well.

Yes, we can be very creative creatures, but nothing we come up with is totally new; it is always based on something we saw or heard or observed or experienced or read and the best we can do is put our own twist on it or come up with another version or combine it with something else or package it differently.  In the case of sin, I would venture to say that it is our attempt to improve on the freedom which God gifts to us, and which is really no improvement at all.

A perfect example of the difference between trying to be original and being obvious is the Hans Christian Andersen story called The Emperor's New Clothes.  An Emperor, bored by everything, hires two weavers who promise to deliver a suit of clothes which will be invisible to those who are stupid and not suited for their station.  When the suit of clothes is delivered, the Emperor is too embarrassed to admit he cannot see it and so, it seems, is everyone else.  It takes a child to state the obvious and uncover the scam.  Chasing after originality can lead one down some slippery slopes. 

One of the most important things I have learned over time is that the things which are obvious to me are not obvious to everyone. For this very reason, I need to bring my "obvious" to the equation and offer it for the consideration of others.  So, I don't need to write a play about a never-before-thought-of situation; I only need to write a good story that states the obvious.  Obvious things like "love is stronger than hate" or "forgiveness is harder than we think but easier too" or "you don't have to be perfect to be a good friend" or "everyone feels lonely sometimes."  The play I am writing seems really obvious to me, but that is because it is something I have experienced.  And no one will be able to tell the story exactly like I do.  You might call it truth-telling or honesty.  And if people can recognise that aspect in my work and in my life, then I have done well.  Even if I am not original.

The book: Improvisation: The Drama of Christian Ethics by Samuel Wells (Baker Publishing, 2004).

Comments

Shelley said…
wow thanks for this Matte. I stress most of the time that I don't have an original thought, so why write?

But I too have been told that I sometimes put things in a way that makes it more accessible to someone else...I guess that's a bit like your 'obvious' point.

thanks for this...sometimes I feel like this journey I am on is just a huge ball of yarn that I can't untangle, and then I get a bit of string out with a bit of revelation like this post.

Popular posts from this blog

what does the cross mean?

Words which we use a lot can sometimes become divested of their depth of meaning. In the Christian tradition, we talk about the cross a lot. We see visual representations of the cross in prominent places in our gathering spaces, we wear crosses around our necks, some get crosses tattooed on their bodies. The cross is a ubiquitous symbol in Christianity, so lately I have been asking myself, what exactly does the cross mean? For the most part, the cross as portrayed in contemporary Christianity is a beautiful thing, festooned with flowers and sunsets and radiant beams of light (just google cross or cross coloring page). But in the first century, the cross was a symbol of disgrace. To the Roman empire, this ignoble instrument of death was for those who were traitors and enemies of the state. We are many centuries removed from this view of the cross as the locus of torture and death and shame. The fact that Christianity has made the cross a symbol of hope and beauty is a good thing, but p…

stained and broken

Recently, I was asked to speak at another church, and the passage of Scripture which was assigned to me was John 1:6-8. "There came a man commissioned and sent from God, whose name was John. This man came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe [in Christ, the Light] through him. John was not the Light, but came to testify about the Light." (John 1:6-8, Amplified Bible)

The first question I usually ask when reading something in the Bible is this: What does this tell me about God? Two things are immediately obvious - God is a sending God and God wants to communicate - but there is a third which merits a bit more attention. Though God could communicate directly with humanity, sending truth and love to every individual via some divine mind-and-heart-meld, God chooses to send messengers. Not only that, instead of introducing Jesus directly to the world as the main event, an opening, warm-up act appears as a precursor. What is the point of incorporati…

the songs we sing

NOTE: I am going to make some pretty strong statements below, but understand that it is my way of taking an honest, hard look at my own worship experience and practice. My desire is not to be overly critical, but to open up dialogue by questioning things I have assumed were totally fine and appropriate. In other words, I am preaching to myself. Feel free to listen in.

---------------------

When I am in a church meeting during the singing time, I sometimes find myself silent, unable to get the words past my lips. At times I just need a moment of stillness, time to listen, but other times, the words make me pause because I don't know that I can sing them honestly or with integrity. This is a good thing. We should never mindlessly or heartlessly sing songs just because everyone else is. We should care deeply about what we say in our sung, communal worship.

At their best, songs sung by the gathered body of Christ call to life what is already in us: the hope, the truth, the longing, t…