I have an interesting philosophical question. At least, it's interesting to me.

Let's suppose, hypothetically, you are writing a short story or a novel where the premise is SITUATION X HAPPENS to CHARACTER Y in SETTING Z, and then Mr/Ms. Y responds.

You, as the author, think this is a really neat idea, but you begin to discover that a number of other stories, novels, television shows, movies, radio plays, comedy sketches, and Broadway musicals have also featured a similar premise. Sometimes it's the same SITUATION, and then others have the same SETTING, while others have a character who is *similar* to Mr/Ms X. Some even feature similar combinations of SITUATION, SETTING, and CHARACTER, although none of them are identical to your own idea.

Still, you find out that there's lots of stuff out there that starts from a similar premise. Your most obvious choices are:

1) Give Up
2) Ignore what's come before, and strive for originality
3) Read all that's come before, and strive for originality
4) Steal every idea you can from what's come before

Allow me to rule out option 1, except in extreme circumstances, because there are no original situations in fiction. Any situation you decide to write about, it's been done. Settings, however, can vary (some can even be original), and *every* character should be unique. If you work cleverly, you should be able to come up with an original story, even though others have contemplated a similar initial situation, because you are exploring that situation with unique characters in a setting that you make your own.

Let's also rule out the fourth option. I've already stated my feelings about plagiarism in other essays on this site. Can you? Yes. You might even get away with it. You might even sell better than those whom you are ripping off. But that's also a testament to how lame you would be. You, as an author, want to tell an interesting story. Telling a story that's already been told is cheating.

Okay, so that leaves us with my interesting dilemma: is it preferable to read what's come before in the hopes of developing an original angle, or is it preferable to *not* read what's come before so as to organically pursue originality.

I think there are strong merits in both cases. When I had first found out that someone else had already written a novel that had a similar opening to my novel-in-progress (the novel-formerly-known-as-The-Do-Over), I decided not to read it, because I didn't want to fall into any possible traps of shaping my work as an answer to the previous author's. I didn't want to subconsciously mimic, nor did I want to deliberately oppose. My novel wasn't intended to answer the previous author's points... I had a story of my own to tell.

(I did, however, ask someone who is familiar with my project to read the other book and let me know if we were too obviously covering the same ground. Fortunately, the reader found nothing similar between our two books except for the initial situation.)

My next project, however, poses a bit of a challenge. It takes place in a world with an advanced network of individuals, connected in thought but retaining individuality. This has already been handled extensively in the sub-genre of science fiction called Cyberpunk, which I've only barely skimmed. A sub-plot in my new project involves the neural network developing self-awareness. This is also a sub-genre of speculative fiction unto itself, and I've only read a couple of novels and short stories that have this as a premise. There is vast, global conspiracy afoot, another sub-genre (this one I've read some of, but I've passed on the cult phenomenons of X-Files and the like). There's terraforming, another sub-genre. Hi-tech civil war, another sub-genre. There's major grounding in the Biblical framework, which is also a popular science fiction motif. And so on, and so on.

My original intent was not to write the Uberscifiction novel. It all started with a situation, a character, and a setting. As I developed these ideas, however, it became clear that I would be covering a lot of ground that has been covered before.

So, do I spend some time doing nothing but reading up on the seminal works from the sub-genres I'll be touching upon? Or, do I ignore them and create my own universe from whole cloth?

The problem is one of re-inventing the wheel versus the risk of becoming derivative.

On a side-note, I've started collecting a long list of short stories, novels, movies, and television episodes that have started with a similar situation as my current novel-in-progress. Once I finish this novel, though, I don't know whether I want to read/view them, or just let them be. I think once I've finished, I'll have been thinking enough about this particular premise. Perhaps I'll let it rest for a while before I see how others have handled the concept. Dunno.