Just about …
… in spite of just having spent two hours of this afternoon trying to get Chinese students to understand the criticisms of Lakoff and Johnson’s “Cognitive Semantics” (Ex-Cognitive Linguistics) — a.k.a. the metaphor metaphor (Courtesy of Steven Pinker).
Mark
Incredibly impressed by the quality of thought on this forum, yet again. So much great stuff here, and I’ll try not to be too redundant (there we go with the urge for “originality” again…).
When I was writing my first book, one of the many critical voices in my head kept screaming, “A mob story? A f***ing MOB story?? Are you kidding me? That is SO done!” And so on. But the thing is, it hadn’t been done by me. I’ve heard editors and agents say repeatedly that they are not looking for “original” ideas (and the good ones are definitely not looking for High Concept ideas), what they’re looking for is an original “voice”.
And that is where your originality shines. In your voice. It’s not the ideas. It’s the way that YOU express those ideas, which distinguishes your work from other writers.
So my number one suggestion is, stop focusing so much on originality of ideas. If you must spend time focused on originality, focus on your use of language - your idiosyncratic voice - the thing that makes your writing read like “you”. There are only (X) plots, but a fresh voice is always exciting.
Second (and this is hard to accept at first) is to stop over-thinking. Just tell the story that you would want to read. It is as simple (and as complicated) as that. Let’s look at it:
Just tell the story that you would want to read.
That’s not the same as, “Just tell the story that you would want to have written.” You’re not writing to impress your mom or your English professor or your ex-lover. You’re not trying to prove how smart, or original, or literary, or tough you are. Those are all considerations if you’re trying to tell the story you would want to have written. That’s all ego and self-image.
Telling the story that you would want to read is different. And it will take you out of your comfort zone as a writer. Your characters will be less cool, less witty, less content with themselves. There will be less “wish-fulfillment” in your story, more “fear-exploration”. Because you are no longer feeding your ego-needs as a writer, and are now feeding your identification-needs as a reader.
Just tell the story that you would want to read. As simple, and complicated, as that.
Keep writing.
I’d like to respond to a couple more of these, so in reverse chronological order…
SeanC, that’s a whole other kettle of fish I think, the ability to read your own work as a reader and not as the writer. How do you silence your inner editor in order to just enjoy it?
Mark, Thank you for the insight into how different things are on your side of the world, you must have great patience and tolerance to remain sane!
Jaysen, I apologise for repeatedly drawing you out to discuss such philosophical things - but I get the impression you don’t mind too much 
What you and others say is of course true, and is obvious, if you already think that way. I need time to consolidate so much from these posts, in a way it panics me that unless I get it all my reflections on this material written down and start thinking about it, it will evaporate like a vivid dream upon waking.
It’s a bizarre yet deliciously irony that only a few days ago I thought I didn’t have an original thought to contribute to the world, and now I find myself unable to keep up with scribbling / typing my thoughts and ideas, and considering in each what is or could be different or unique about it or its presentation, instead of drearily contemplating how unoriginal it might be. Now who’d have thought that, eh? 
Sarah
Sarah, Sarah, Sarah… STOP IT. You’ve dismissed a potentially fine idea as difficult to write. A fine idea is no harder to write than a bad one. Believe me. I have just emerged from such an episode (and tried to blame it on a semantic bug in Scrivener, but Keith rightly wasn’t having it.)
What if…
What if it became so politically incorrect to be fat now that there was a cure that governments made it mandatory to be “realigned”?
What if they backed it up by economics: that obesity-related diseases were expensive in health care and lost productivity?
What if some people didn’t want to be realigned?
What if they went off into the (literal or metaphorical) woods and founded Fat City?
What if there were internal tensions in Fat City between (a) the crowd who liked being fat and (b) the crowd who didn’t like being told what to do by the state?
What if there were chubby-chasers sneaking in to predate on the sexy fat girls?
What if there were already-realigned fat guys – now slim guys of course – who wanted to live in Fat City to exploit the residents? How could they make themselves look fat?
What if the thing were the result of fierce lobbying by Slenderpharm, Inc., the makers of Slenda™, who had bribed and traduced government officials?
And what if Slenda™ turned out to have teratogenic properties (cf. Thalidomide) either causing some somatic mutation (cf. radiotherapy, which can produce weird effects in the ateriovenous epithelium 10 - 15 years after the event but nobody cares because the survival rates go up to 5 years and dropping dead from am RT-mediated cardiac event is just off the radar) or just plain screwed their gametes?
What if Slenda™ then reversed its effects and the realigned either suddenly grew fat or by an irreversible mutation (see above) and an awful irony, the F1 generation were barren?
So that – and here’s your title, [i]The Fat Shall Inherit The Earth[/i] --?
Or if you want to go 2nd-gen, what if all the above is the backstory for a world in which everyone is FAT? And what would such a world be like?
Well. That took 10 minutes and is very very rough but it just goes to show: never kick out an idea.
Now write it.
Or one of the vultures on this board will steal it and write it themselves. (Except Bodsham, far too taken – and too successful – with the bella figura in Rome to lower himself. For the potential plagiarist my money’s on… well, me, actually.)
Yes, that is another kettle of fish, but I’m not talking about reading your work as a reader (as vital as that is); I’m talking about writing your work as a reader (i.e. writing the story that you would want to read).
I don’t silence my inner editor. And I don’t just enjoy it. I love writing, but it’s not just enjoyment; it’s hard work. I try to silence my evil inner-critics who say nasty things in my head, but those voices are different than my inner editor.
The scientific approach? A synopsis here: http://www.newscientist.com/special/creativity
H
I suspect Sarah is really labouring with a version of my perception of the problem … I have already read the book that I would write that I would want to read[1], … it’s already been written by somebody else.
Actually, I think you’re right, Sean C, but my perception is one hell of a hurdle to cross.
Mark
[1] I hope that that[2] somewhat Jaysenian construction makes sense to other readers! 
[2] Structures like this constitute one of the reasons that I hope a grammar checker will never be built into Scrivener! I hate perfectly good structures like that being flagged as ungrammatical because of the two "that"s which the damned things can’t distinguish between …
Makes sense to me!
That first footnote makes me nervous. If the fact that an awkward somewhat circular phrase given free association to my name good? Or bad? Your not teaching this to your students are you?
My favorite is “do do”. As in “you do do that don’t you?” I guess I never grew all the way up.
Well, Jaysen, as seen on this forum, you are a master at, to my mind unnecessary, self-deprecation in terms of your ability to express yourself. It is a feeling I share re my own self-expression, so that footnote was intended as a, perhaps somewhat back-handed, complement … therefore good.
As for what I teach my students, well, thank god, I no longer have to try to teach them language, something I never felt comfortable teaching … but I would certainly be more than happy were they to produce structures like that in both the main sentence in question — sadly, they are likely to mangle the tenses and auxiliaries — as how could I criticise them for producing something I produce myself. And as for the structure in the footnote, I would point out the lack of clarity of structure if they left out one of the "that"s.
And I applaud your favourite!
Mark
OR that it IS being written by someone else.
There’s another!!
–Greg
You’re right - it is one hell of a hurdle, but you’ve got to find a way to cross it.
If you hold up a book, any book, and say, “This is the book I would want to read, and it has already been written,” then you are saying that there is only ONE worthy book in the world, and that you only want to write ONE book in your life.
Surely you can see how self-limiting that is.
Hell, if I wanted to, I could make a list of dozens of books to wish that I’d written. But there’s no percentage in thinking that way. That sort of thinking paralyzed me (along with such myths as, “If I were a real writer, I’d get it right on the first draft,” and, “If I were a real writer, I’d have a desperate urge to write every day, I’d never put it off.”) for far too long.
Writing is hard, and we are never certain that what we write isn’t trite or derivative. So what to do?
Write. That’s what to do. I know, it’s easy to say, and I still struggle with it. But that’s the only way. You don’t need to know your big themes when you sit down to write - they will emerge. You don’t even know what kind of book you’re writing. As you move forward, your writing will tell you what kind of story you’re writing, and what you’re writing about.
You will find the essence of your book. It’s hiding, somewhere on page 75. But you won’t find it unless you write your way there. Then you can go back and fix everything that came before.
So you have to get started. Michael’s “What if…” game is pure gold. Use it. It works. Come up with some authentic characters that you care about, play the “what if” game, and then stop brainstorming and start putting words down.
Again, I’m not saying it is easy. I’ve heard authors who’ve written dozens of books say that they still struggle with the blank page. They still wrestle with these issues, every time out. It seems that the struggle is part of the process.
If you’re wrestling with these issues while you’re writing your first draft, it’s tough enough. But if you’re wrestling with these issues instead of writing your first draft, you’re sabotaging yourself.
I am doing my phd…when I did my MA several years ago in London I was told that the problem was is that it was an original piece , which I only needed to demonstrate when doing my Phd. Now, I am it expanding my MA argument for my Phd, but the problem is the mechanics of Phd the reading and summarizing the writing…I really behind.The point is my problem is REVERSED … I never lacked original ideas…but the mechanics of things…we all have our flaws , but .but without scrivener , I would know where I would be . So any help on getting focused on taking off is welcome . BTW this B&W pill is a nice touch … not the least because it goes with particular Matrix framework of my Phd !!
I am doing my phd…when I did my MA several years ago in London I was told that the problem was is that it was an original piece , which I only needed to demonstrate when doing my Phd. Now, I am it expanding my MA argument for my Phd, but the problem is the mechanics of Phd the reading and summarizing the writing…I am really behind.The point is my problem is REVERSED … I never lacked original ideas…but the mechanics of things…we all have our flaws , .but without scrivener , I would know where I would be . So any help on getting focused on taking off is welcome . By the way this B & W pill is a nice touch … not the least because it goes with particular Matrix framework of my Phd !!
No one’s replied yet, so here’s a brief perspective.
A metaphor for structuring is in terms of washing-lines. I don’t mean to be facile or facetious. This is a metaphor I’ve used many times.
In some writing the washing is more important, in others it’s the washing-line itself. But always the washing-line has to be there. So get the washing-line, the argument, down on paper first is my advice. Add the washing, the evidence, later.
Works for me.
H
You say you wouldn’t be surprised if your post had already been written by someone else. I don’t think it has, but I do know you wrote my exact post for me. I couldn’t possibly have expressed my feelings as well as you did! Every idea I come up with is derivative and all my writing so far has been academic. People tell me to read to generate ideas, but all I do is analyse the books!
I will be following this thread with great interest, and I hope you get lots of answers, for my sake as well as yours!
If you’re working in genre fiction – particularly the region once known simply as fantasy/science fiction – you might find help here.
http://wondermark.com/554/
ps
I’d like to add that apparently, a large part of the reading audience don’t like original ideas: They like books that are like books they liked.
Here’s a tool that should help immensely not to get too far away from the bestselling mainstream:
http://www.slate.com/id/2228327
In respect of movies, someone - Goldman, Towne, McKee? - has quite a nice take on this: “The task is to give the audience what they’re expecting, but not in the way they’re expecting it.”
Applicable to mainstream fiction too I think. (Not that Mr Brown can be said to have followed this advice, though.)
I love it when you see a movie and the plot kicks in a way you hadn’t seen coming. You don’t really want to walk out saying “That movie was exactly how I expected it to be”.
It has to be within or close to the realms of the style or genre that you enjoy otherwise you’ll be uncomfortable with it, but if the story takes you to a new place, you walk out feeling uplifted.
With a book, it’s not just the plot, or the type of characters, or the setting that sets it apart, it’s the style of writing. It’s how all the words come together in a wonderful ride that has you devouring every word. Some books might spend far more time describing things and less time on the “action” and yet you find those descriptions delicious because the author has such a clever way with words that you don’t realise you’re still in the same room and the protagonist hasn’t even put on his leather tunic (or whatever!) and you’re on page 20!