# Writing > General Writing >  What To Do When Part of Your Book Resembles Something Already Written?

## OneOnOne1162

I am writing a fantasy book and I've recently discovered that another story which already exists has a back-story that somewhat resembles the back-story of my world and I don't know what to do. Most of the back-story can't be rewritten because too much of my story depends on it, without it I can't write my story. Of course I also don't want it to seem like I stole it (which is impossible considering I made up my story before the other one was ever seen by the public and I only recently actually saw the other story) and I don't want to tell the same story twice. However I also don't want to abandon this story considering that I've been working on it for quite a long time.

The story I'm talking about is a video game series called Assassin's Creed. If you don't want to be spoiled on it, don't read what comes next.
I've only played the first game in the series myself but I've recently discovered that in this series' back-story there was a group called "the first civilization" which was a civilization of humans that evolved on earth that became very technologically advanced and then created and enslaved our "species" of human until their slaves rebelled and won due to a numerical advantage. They also interbred with some humans to form "hybrids." They were then mostly destroyed by a solar flare until thousands of years later one of them attempts to come back. This one needs to be freed to stop cataclysm from occuring (a similar solar flare event as the one that destroyed most of them).
In my story there's also another group of humans that evolved on this planet that was more advanced (magically advanced in this case) than we are (although they didn't create us) which enslaved some of us. The humans also rebelled and won in part due to a numerical advantage, they also interbred with the humans and they were also devastated by a cataclysmic event that threatens to cause havoc in the story's present and may require their return.

I should note that these are the only similarities between the two stories that I could find. For example in Assassin's Creed the past is hidden to humans, while in my story it's known by everyone and this history has a significant impact on how human civilizations develop. Also my hybrids comprise about 1/5.000 of all people and are recognised as being hybrids and descendants of hybrids by others, while in Assassin's Creed the hybrids are rare and the fact that they're hybrids isn't known to anyone. Also the hybrids in Assassin's Creed have a few low-key powers, while the hybrids in my story have a large array of impressive powers. Of course my story also doesn't focus on assassin's or anything like that.

So do you guys think it sounds too similar to work? Does anyone have any idea what I could do? Perhaps some way to make it less similar? A workaround? A way to emphasize the differences vs. the similarities? Is it not a big deal and am I overreacting?

----------


## hillwalker

There's a theory that there are only seven original plots in existence - and that every novel or drama or short story is merely a new version of one of the seven. I can't say I completely agree with that, but I suggest you don't get too worked up about the similarities between your story and the video game.

Everything we write is influenced by what we have already read or seen or heard, so even subconsciously it's possible you took elements from the original game and based your novel on the scenario without realizing what you were doing.

The easiest way to overcome accusations of copying the AC plot is to set it on a totally different planet, have the slaves less humanoid possibly, and have a cataclysm that is not a solar flare. But since fans of AC probably like reading tales set in a similar fantasy universe perhaps you are indeed making too big a deal of it. After all, there's an entire genre based on 'fan fiction' - stories written to complement existing plots - and some of it sells exceedingly well (e.g.'50 Shades Of Grey').

H

----------


## Hawkman

Well, I don't think you should worry unduly. These are recurring themes. There are paralells in literature from the bible, through Azimov and any number of modern science fiction films. I don't think it is possible to copywright the idea, as such, only the specifics of the writing. If you were to steal characters, dialogue and situations form a specific text, then you'd be looking at a genuine problem. A degree of intertextuality is inevitable in the modern world as we are constantly exposed to stories through books, films radio pictures, history and now video games. It is almost impossible for a text to exist in isolation. Providing your writing is original I'd just keep working on it. At the very least, it'll be good practice.

Live and be well - H

----------


## cacian

Funny you should bring this up because I was just considering this subject:
Is an idea ever ours or is it simply just an adopted one? and If it is then how do we adjust it?
And I think your post just starts off this idea that we write is never ours at the first place. If it is not then instead of replicating it over and over again then it is best to just continue it.
For example if one said book is written about a pilgrim travelling to Jerusalem and the encounter of the journeys there then the next book may explore the assumptions of a pilgrim's wishes and expectations.
One cannot help but read and enjoy and as one does one picks up the ideas. The next writer to write a next book is to make it a continuation to what one has read rather then imitating the idea of the story.
One is better off culminating stories is series or a continuation rather then assimilating in plots/topics which lead to repeats and therefore unoriginal is the end result.

I try and do with my poetries. I write in series. On poetry talks about the weather in general and the next will focus on the rain only and so on and so forth. It gives me a chart of ideas and I may never run out of fields to explore.

----------


## OneOnOne1162

> There's a theory that there are only seven original plots in existence - and that every novel or drama or short story is merely a new version of one of the seven. I can't say I completely agree with that, but I suggest you don't get too worked up about the similarities between your story and the video game.
> 
> Everything we write is influenced by what we have already read or seen or heard, so even subconsciously it's possible you took elements from the original game and based your novel on the scenario without realizing what you were doing.
> 
> The easiest way to overcome accusations of copying the AC plot is to set it on a totally different planet, have the slaves less humanoid possibly, and have a cataclysm that is not a solar flare. But since fans of AC probably like reading tales set in a similar fantasy universe perhaps you are indeed making too big a deal of it. After all, there's an entire genre based on 'fan fiction' - stories written to complement existing plots - and some of it sells exceedingly well (e.g.'50 Shades Of Grey').
> 
> H


I have heard of that. But the way I see it it's just mostly about how basic you're willing to go when you say that. I'm willing to accept that what they're claiming is true, but at the same time I'm unwilling to accept the idea that that means that they're really the same stories just because they are at their most simplified and basic the same. I have thought I might be overreacting, and yet I feel like if it was just one element that would be okay but it's really an element and then a series of events, and important ones at that, which seems a little too much.

That's impossible though, the game in which this info was revealed wasn't even out yet when I wrote this part of the story and I hadn't seen the promotional materials or had any info about what happened in the game. The only reason why I stumbled upon this information now is because I was looking on the Tv Tropes website. I had already played the first game before I started writing my story but it had only a single sentence as a reference to what would come and it was just a sentence which contained a single mention of "those who came before" without at all hinting at what they might be, or what happened, etc. and it didn't even contain any mention of any of the other similarities. I got the idea from reading about the neanderthals.

Well it's not just about that, I also just don't want to write the same story twice. I can't do either of the first two things but the cataclysm already isn't a solar flare though, it's something completely different. Yeah, but I really really don't want to write fan fiction or anything like it. For me it's less about selling and more about creating, I want to create something that I think is worthy of being created, something that's "the ultimate expression of who I am." After all, if I wanted to get rich then I sure as hell wouldn't have become a writer.

----------


## OneOnOne1162

> Funny you should bring this up because I was just considering this subject:
> Is an idea ever ours or is it simply just an adopted one? and If it is then how do we adjust it?
> And I think your post just starts off this idea that we write is never ours at the first place. If it is not then instead of replicating it over and over again then it is best to just continue it.
> For example if one said book is written about a pilgrim travelling to Jerusalem and the encounter of the journeys there then the next book may explore the assumptions of a pilgrim's wishes and expectations.
> One cannot help but read and enjoy and as one does one picks up the ideas. The next writer to write a next book is to make it a continuation to what one has read rather then imitating the idea of the story.
> One is better off culminating stories is series or a continuation rather then assimilating in plots/topics which lead to repeats and therefore unoriginal is the end result.
> 
> I try and do with my poetries. I write in series. On poetry talks about the weather in general and the next will focus on the rain only and so on and so forth. It gives me a chart of ideas and I may never run out of fields to explore.


Well the way I see that is that an idea is based in reality and reality works a certain way (especially because generally the ideas are also limited to human understanding and are generally about sentient beings and their thoughts or how they perceive things). All story ideas would thus be all possible permutations of reality that we could imagine. In addition we generally scratch the ideas that too closely resemble other ideas (such as rewriting an entire story but only with the protagonist wearing a white coat instead of a black one) and those that don’t make logical sense (although not always). We also tend to scratch those that have nothing interesting to offer or don’t conform enough to narrative rules (although of course not always, since rules in writing change over time and don’t have to be followed). 
In other words the ideas are “out there” in a way, we just find them. They’re really just observations about reality that are put into different permutations than the ways in which they’re observed. For example an observation we have is that people have siblings and another observation about reality is that people die, so a simple story is a combination of these two things such as a story about a person who’s sister dies. Luckily for us, there are many many factors that play a role and our imagination grows as well with new observations of reality (such as the fact that something like the internet is possible and has certain rules to it generating stories about the impact of the internet) that we can explore.
However this doesn’t necessarily mean an idea is any less ours. In some ways it means it’s more ours because the idea came from our observations and how we think. Basically it’s an extension of who we are and what we’ve seen. If you’re talking about ownership, then it means it’s not really “ours” but is anything? Ownership is really just a human construct after all, nothing is ever ours in any real sense. There’s only causality and a story idea, in my vision, flows from the causal path that makes up our life.
Of course because we all share a reality together, there are billions of us and in many cases our lives are the same in many ways (we all have fathers and mothers, experience feelings, have fears, many people live in a certain culture, etc.) we’re bound to come up with the same ideas sometimes.
Sorry for the incredibly extensive, and at times perhaps not quite coherent, reply here if you're still reading at this point.

I didn’t imitate this idea though, it was pure chance that they ended up being as similar as they are. Couldn’t even have done it subconsciously considering that I wrote the story before the other game or the info about it was ever revealed. But my story already has a certain form and I don’t wish to throw it away.

That’s an interesting way of doing things, of course that doesn’t really help me in this particular case.

----------


## OneOnOne1162

> Well, I don't think you should worry unduly. These are recurring themes. There are paralells in literature from the bible, through Azimov and any number of modern science fiction films. I don't think it is possible to copywright the idea, as such, only the specifics of the writing. If you were to steal characters, dialogue and situations form a specific text, then you'd be looking at a genuine problem. A degree of intertextuality is inevitable in the modern world as we are constantly exposed to stories through books, films radio pictures, history and now video games. It is almost impossible for a text to exist in isolation. Providing your writing is original I'd just keep working on it. At the very least, it'll be good practice.
> 
> Live and be well - H


Yes, but are they too similar in specific ways and too important? You can have two stories about love that are very different or even two stories about racism during the boxer rebellion that are very different but in this case it’s a sequence of events (human rebellion, cataclysmic event and a possible return to stop the next event) and several concepts (a second earthbound human civilization and hybrids) that are shared by both works, and it makes me wonder whether it’s a little too similar. Well I also don’t think they could ever sue me for it or something like that, mostly I just don’t want to write something that’s already been written. Concerning the intertextuality, I think you’re right but it’s not like it has an actual connection with the game’s story like references or themes that I take a look at in a different light or something, since the similarities are completely coincidental. The only problem there of course is, where do I draw the line between original enough and too similar?

----------


## Adolescent09

The human mind is a receptacle of plagiarized and rehashed ideas. You can only aspire to create 'revolutionary' writing, not 'original' writing.

Ex.: The bible is FAR from original but it has been the most revolutionary text the world has seen in the past two millennia.

The above sentences and example are more of a philosophical concept. In the literal sense of the word, something is not original if it is lifted straight from another author's writing *word for word*. Paraphrasing without citation is permissible since, hypothetically speaking there is not an idea under the sun that is original.

----------


## OneOnOne1162

> The human mind is a receptacle of plagiarized and rehashed ideas. You can only aspire to create 'revolutionary' writing, not 'original' writing. 
> 
> Ex.: The bible is FAR from original but it has been the most revolutionary text the world has seen in the past two millennia.


That's impossble considering that there needed to be a human mind to come up with those ideas in the first place, thus they had to be original at some point even though that doesn't necessarily mean it's still possible. Even though I do agree that people are "receptacles" for information including stories and that they do use and reuse some elements. It greatly depends on how basic you go, you can say all stories containing people are rehashed ideas, all stories about love are rehashed ideas, all stories about love between two women are the same and further and further down that line from most basic to most specific. However a story 

I agree on the frist point but disagree with the second, depending on what you mean with revolutionary. It certainly got a lot of people to follow it if that's what you mean.

----------


## Hawkman

I can't help feeling that you are getting far too hung up on this issue. What you have highlighted are the similarities between your back story and a pre existing set of back stories. The back story is not the issue. Your story is. Where you take it is entirely up to you. This applies equally to how you write it. Whether your story stands up or not will depend entirely on the quality of your writing. What, exactly is your story? Only you know the answer to this. How does the back story effect your characters and their evironment, and what is it they are trying to achieve. Who are their antagonists; what are the obstacles they must overcome? how do they do it and are they successful, or does everyone die in the end? Concentrate on this.

Live and be well - H

----------


## OneOnOne1162

> I can't help feeling that you are getting far too hung up on this issue. What you have highlighted are the similarities between your back story and a pre existing set of back stories. The back story is not the issue. Your story is. Where you take it is entirely up to you. This applies equally to how you write it. Whether your story stands up or not will depend entirely on the quality of your writing. What, exactly is your story? Only you know the answer to this. How does the back story effect your characters and their evironment, and what is it they are trying to achieve. Who are their antagonists; what are the obstacles they must overcome? how do they do it and are they successful, or does everyone die in the end? Concentrate on this.
> 
> Live and be well - H


Well I'm not gonna claim you're not right in saying that I'm getting too hung up on this issue, I might well be. It's just that I really hate the idea of writing something that's already been written and I believe that having the same framing here will cause it to run along similar lines too much. If I understand what you mean here, you're saying that it's far more important to consider the way these elements play out and interact with other elements rather than focus on simply considering the combination of these particular elements. I've actually given other writers similar advice, and yet it bothers me because of how important/central this part of the backstory is to my story and how closely it seems to overlap in some of it's specifics with the other one (it's not just a story with a rebellion, it's a story where humans rebel against a humanoid race that also evolved on earth who are then wiped our by a cataclysm which may repeat itself if they're not returned).

In any case, thank you for attempting to allay my worries.

----------


## cafolini

Legally, it is impossible to copyright ideas. Otherwise, some people will own the dictionaries in a few years. We can only copyright applications.

----------


## cacian

> The human mind is a receptacle of plagiarized and rehashed ideas. You can only aspire to create 'revolutionary' writing, not 'original' writing.
> 
> Ex.: The bible is FAR from original but it has been the most revolutionary text the world has seen in the past two millennia.
> 
> The above sentences and example are more of a philosophical concept. In the literal sense of the word, something is not original if it is lifted straight from another author's writing *word for word*. Paraphrasing without citation is permissible since, hypothetically speaking there is not an idea under the sun that is original.


About the Bible Adolescent you do make a good point. The bible could not or never be original because what is written it is taken from real life event according to the bible. In effect if one transfers reality into a book then it could not be original. It is just a diary of a sequence of events that happened. Originall means there no like it in real life. Ie for something to be original it has to be entirely different to life that nothing in the story has a tiny weeny reflection of reality. That is an impossible task to achieve but yeah that is my interpretation of original.

----------


## OneOnOne1162

> Legally, it is impossible to copyright ideas. Otherwise, some people will own the dictionaries in a few years. We can only copyright applications.


Yeah, I realise that. But this isn't so much about any fear I have of lawsuits or copyright issues, but rather about me not wanting to write a story that's already been written or for it to seem as if I stole their stuff (just seem like to "the public", not necessarily anything involving lawsuits or anything).

----------


## OneOnOne1162

> The human mind is a receptacle of plagiarized and rehashed ideas. You can only aspire to create 'revolutionary' writing, not 'original' writing.
> 
> Ex.: The bible is FAR from original but it has been the most revolutionary text the world has seen in the past two millennia.
> 
> The above sentences and example are more of a philosophical concept. In the literal sense of the word, something is not original if it is lifted straight from another author's writing *word for word*. Paraphrasing without citation is permissible since, hypothetically speaking there is not an idea under the sun that is original.


I don't know what you're referring to exactly when you say "those sentences and that example are more of a philosophical concept" or what point that makes. Saying that they're a philosophical concept doesn't make clear what the words "original" and "revolutionary" are defined as to me or what those sentences mean other than what I already thought they meant, making it kind of useless information. Unless you're saying that they're just a sort of a "thought experiment" in which case great, but that doesn't really answer my question. I'm assuming that's not the definition of original you're using here, since in that case many things would be original but rather a really strict definition you're putting forward. And I still disagree with your assertion that there is no idea under the sun which is original. In the end I still believe the truth of the idea that there are no original ideas left depends on how far you're willing to take what you think is original and how much you simplify the idea.

----------


## OneOnOne1162

> About the Bible Adolescent you do make a good point. The bible could not or never be original because what is written it is taken from real life event according to the bible. In effect if one transfers reality into a book then it could not be original. It is just a diary of a sequence of events that happened. Originall means there no like it in real life. Ie for something to be original it has to be entirely different to life that nothing in the story has a tiny weeny reflection of reality. That is an impossible task to achieve but yeah that is my interpretation of original.


So you interpret original as something that doesn't resemble anything in reality? That seems a rather unhandy definition though. Since it's literally impossible. Just from a pragmatic point of view, isn't it kind of a worthless definition? If nothing has or can ever have the properties of what you're defining, isn't it useless? Plus depending on how far you're willing to take the idea of not reflecting anything in reality (simply not reflecting any real world events, or not reflecting events and not reflecting human psychology, or not even reflecting physical laws, etc.) would it even be desirable? Isn't the whole point of writing a story, aside from things like entertainment value, that it reflects things that exist, existed or could exist? I mean the whole reason for writing books is really just an examination of reality and what it means to be human. If a book has no basis in reality, then it can't say anything about reality, so then it can't have anything useful to say.

----------


## cafolini

> Yeah, I realise that. But this isn't so much about any fear I have of lawsuits or copyright issues, but rather about me not wanting to write a story that's already been written or for it to seem as if I stole their stuff (just seem like to "the public", not necessarily anything involving lawsuits or anything).


Your question regarding that aspect has already been answered very appropriately by Hillwalker as well as Hawkman. You are misreading, still stubbornly putting your focus on the same old song with which you started. The main idea here is not avoiding the lawsuits. The main idea is that you have nothing to worry about being a thief of ideas. The lawsuits would be consequences of that thiefing if it were possible to genuinely steal. But it is impossible. So why would you care about the gossip of idiocy.

----------


## cacian

> So you interpret original as something that doesn't resemble anything in reality? That seems a rather unhandy definition though. Since it's literally impossible. Just from a pragmatic point of view, isn't it kind of a worthless definition? If nothing has or can ever have the properties of what you're defining, isn't it useless? Plus depending on how far you're willing to take the idea of not reflecting anything in reality (simply not reflecting any real world events, or not reflecting events and not reflecting human psychology, or not even reflecting physical laws, etc.) would it even be desirable? Isn't the whole point of writing a story, aside from things like entertainment value, that it reflects things that exist, existed or could exist? I mean the whole reason for writing books is really just an examination of reality and what it means to be human. If a book has no basis in reality, then it can't say anything about reality, so then it can't have anything useful to say.


Well I am just thinking hypothetically I am speculating and of course nothing I say is final it is just me thinking out loud. An original means there is no thing like it and if there is it is a copy which takes the original away from its origin because it is not longer one and only.
To write a book is to say it different to reality. One cannot be hundred percent away from it but if we took one bit of reality and turned it on its head in a story ie take one piece of reality and write up in its total opposite/parallel then that is one snipet of originality.
For example if the week starts on a Monday then let's in a story start it on a Friday instead. That one story different from reality.
If there are four seasons in a year then let's have two seasons only in a year instead. It is a book so we are allowed to perform.
I am suggesting that we write with the natural and what is according to us and let's write everything else such as the the orders of things/the appearances of things/ the intellectual side of humans and so on with a new different image ideal shorten it or give it length.
Let's prolongue what we enjoy in stories and what we don't we shorten. This is to intercept routine and give an impression of boost in stories. Stories must help rid off routine
The differences with which we write are to be subtle and in harmony with reality and not against as to not distract from it.
The reason I suggest such changes if for writers and readers to experience a new style of existence to away from the routines of life.
Routine is what grinds a human being to becoming less challenged. The same of the same in books is after a while unchallenging to the human spirit.
Exaggeration of what is natural and real can also be unruly unattainable and down right disheartening to the human mind. If and when the mind cannot trace back unrealism to reality then one becomes deflated and depressed because what one is reading is unachievable. Humans thrive on challenges and achievement let's not the stories take that away from them.
So originality is simply to try and work around what is natural and real by performance of harmony with it but never against it.
It is the little details that make a huge different to a book a story. They do say the devil is in the detail.

----------


## OneOnOne1162

> Your question regarding that aspect has already been answered very appropriately by Hillwalker as well as Hawkman. You are misreading, still stubbornly putting your focus on the same old song with which you started. The main idea here is not avoiding the lawsuits. The main idea is that you have nothing to worry about being a thief of ideas. The lawsuits would be consequences of that thiefing if it were possible to genuinely steal. But it is impossible. So why would you care about the gossip of idiocy.


Has it been answered by them? Yes. But I'm here because I want to hear many different viewpoints on what I should do, to then be able to select the one I think is best or even select the best things from all of the answers I've received after weighing the validity of their arguments. That I've already received multiple answers to that particular question doesn't mean I don't want to receive more of them. There may be a better answer, or an answer that contains information that wasn’t in the previous ones. In any case even if no other answers have any new information they’ll still either confirm or dispute what the previous people have said, thus making my conclusion more likely to be the best possible conclusion. 
I assure you, I didn’t misread anything. I understood the point of what you were saying, however I asked this question for a particular reason and what you were saying didn’t answer my actual question. I thus clarified that what I was asking had nothing to do with legal issues or a fear of stealing something according to the legal definition or being a thief of ideas according in the eyes of the law but rather with it seeming stolen (to the public or to me) so that you’d have a chance to answer what I was actually trying to ask. In addition I already knew what you told me.
I know the main focus here isn’t on avoiding the lawsuits, however the only reason to bring up the legal point of view, it seems to me, is concerning lawsuits and copyright issues. Other than in relation to issues like that the legal definition of something isn’t necessarily valuable. You can for example still think you’ve done something wrong even when there’s no law against it. In other words legal issues or definitions, aren’t relevant to what I was actually trying to ask.
Considering that the people I refer to as “the public” are the ones that will be reading what I write, I care plenty. But more importantly I care about what I think of it, and even though it may not be legally considered stealing that doesn’t mean I necessarily feel good about it or feel that I should continue writing it. Because once again the main idea behind my question is that I don’t want to write something that’s already been written.

----------


## Calidore

I think Hawkman had a good point, in that you're talking about similarities in two backstories. Your responded that "I believe that having the same framing here will cause it to run along similar lines too much", to which my reply would be: Then make sure it doesn't. Background is background, but the flow of the current story is what's most important, since that's what people will be engaged with. 

Still, you know what you've created better than anyone here would. If the similarities are enough to bother you, then maybe you need to bite the bullet and make whatever alterations are necessary to make you more comfortable with it. Every writer understands not wanting to make wholesale changes to work already done, but every writer has done it at some point. How many finished works bear more than a passing resemblance to the original thoughts that birthed them? That's how development works. Look at it as construction, not destruction.

----------


## hillwalker

> Well I am just thinking hypothetically I am speculating and of course nothing I say is final it is just me thinking out loud.


Don't we know it!

It would be so much more useful if you spent a little more time thinking in silence before sharing your thoughts on here instead of typing every single idea your brain comes up with as soon as it enters your head.

H

----------


## cacian

> Don't we know it!
> 
> It would be so much more useful if you spent a little more time thinking in silence before sharing your thoughts on here instead of typing every single idea your brain comes up with as soon as it enters your head.
> 
> H


It would be nice if you kept your thoughts to yourself too. As far as I can recall the post was not addressed to you.
I am sure you are not OneOneOne 1162 unless you are telling me you are confusing you.~
If you do not like what I write I suggest you keep your snappy remarks quietly to yourself.

----------


## cafolini

If Cacian didn't have a kind heart and went everywhere with bad intentions, poisoning dinners, banging down castles, etc., we couldn't hesitate in sending seal team 6 to eliminate the terrorist.
But as it is, she gets you so pissed off that you run the risk of thinking about marrying her. And even make spaghetti with meat balls for her.

----------


## hillwalker

> It would be nice if you kept your thoughts to yourself too. As far as I can recall the post was not addressed to you.


This is a public forum so any post is addressed to whoever chooses to read it. If you wish to restrict your thoughts to a select few then PM them.

It's not a case of not 'liking' what you write. It's a case of either watching in mute desperation as you single-handedly clutter a site, supposedly intended for intelligent discussion about writing and writers, with your daily dose of claptrap - or asking you to think before you type.

Since you obviously have no intention of changing your ways I'll leave you to continue your wrecking spree.

H

----------


## OneOnOne1162

> I think Hawkman had a good point, in that you're talking about similarities in two backstories. Your responded that "I believe that having the same framing here will cause it to run along similar lines too much", to which my reply would be: Then make sure it doesn't. Background is background, but the flow of the current story is what's most important, since that's what people will be engaged with. 
> 
> Still, you know what you've created better than anyone here would. If the similarities are enough to bother you, then maybe you need to bite the bullet and make whatever alterations are necessary to make you more comfortable with it. Every writer understands not wanting to make wholesale changes to work already done, but every writer has done it at some point. How many finished works bear more than a passing resemblance to the original thoughts that birthed them? That's how development works. Look at it as construction, not destruction.


Well, it mainly bothers me because it’s a full sequence of events (such as the rebellion and cataclysmic event) and concepts (a second more advanced human race) that interact in a similar way, occur in a similar order and perhaps most importantly that are the basis for the overarching plot in the present. The main plot in Assassin’s Creed can be reduced at its most basic to “this advanced human civilization was there that evolved on earth, it created humans, it enslaved humans, it created hybrids, a human rebellion happened, the cataclysmic event happened and then hundreds of years later the cataclysmic event threatens to happen again and the end goal of the plot in present day is stopping it which may require the release of one of the members of that civilization.” If I copy-pasted what I just said there and applied it to the basis for my overarching plot I’d have to change almost nothing aside from the “creates humans” part and the fact that for me it’s “multiple members” instead of one that threaten to be released. In both there’s also a particularly charismatic leader that’s part of that advanced civilization that had a plan in all this that plays into the plot in the current day. Plus I place a great importance on this back-story and it’s consequences for my setting concerning the themes I treat in the story. So when I put it like this, do you think there are too many similarities or do you still think it’s not that important?

Well, certainly. And the story I have now already barely resembles the original ideas that created it, I generally have no problem with this. I have thought about changing it and I’m trying to make any changes I can. However the problem is that all similarities happen to be integral to my overarching plot, if I take away one of those things then my entire plot falls apart and I have yet to figure out a way that I can change them without losing my entire plot. If I can’t do this then every event driven by this plot falls apart as well and obviously I lose my entire story (including the characters, since they were shaped by these events, and the themes brought forward in the story), so at that point I have to drop pretty much every single thing I wrote which would be the same thing as just dropping my story, which is exactly what I’m trying to avoid doing. I mean large changes I can deal with, but a change like this would leave absolutely nothing because these events are at the core of my story. And the only other options are either leaving it as it is and trying to somehow put less emphasis on the similarities (which would also be problematic considering how important it is but perhaps do-able) or just dropping it (which after all of my work I really want to avoid). So you see my problem here.

Nevertheless, I thank you for your help and I’ll definitely take into account the importance of current day plot over background and possibly just making whatever changes I must even if they essentially leave nothing. After all even that is better than writing what's already been written.

----------


## Shaman_Raman

> This is a public forum so any post is addressed to whoever chooses to read it. If you wish to restrict your thoughts to a select few then PM them.
> 
> It's not a case of not 'liking' what you write. It's a case of either watching in mute desperation as you single-handedly clutter a site, supposedly intended for intelligent discussion about writing and writers, with your daily dose of claptrap - or asking you to think before you type.
> 
> Since you obviously have no intention of changing your ways I'll leave you to continue your wrecking spree.
> 
> H



Kudos for trying.

----------

