Scott Thao's thoughts on the "new story"

Hey all,

I'm Scott C. Thao, a senior majoring in English, Creative Writing Prose. I'm from Sanger, CA (the boring central valley) and I believe I've found my calling in being a writer or "champion" (as I'd like to imagine sometimes) for my people, the Hmong.

To answer the question posited, I do believe there is such a thing as a new story. But particularities must be defined as we may not be on the same page considering the notion of what the question is really asking. My interpretation of a “new story” concerns anything “original”, whether it be just the setting, character(s) possessing different personalities and desires, different issues/conflicts at stake, introducing a different culture/people, etc. So a Hmong rendering of The Odyssey would be considered a new work in my mind. Of course, even if all of these things are (intentionally) the same, the writing at hand will be inevitably different. The voice, our narrator, will (theoretically) give us different perspectives, hone in on different key items or emotions at hand. The voice’s personality, based on the author’s own approach to the subject, will also vary. And lastly (though I’m sure I’m also missing something here), syntax itself is key to the rhythms of a piece and can already do so much to set the readers to a particular pace. Of course, it is a joy for writers to defy all conventions and even the “impossible” and so the notion of inventing a new story (in what I define it to be) will continue on for all of humanity.

I know of those who would lump stories together based on their genre, their meanings, their narrative structure, etc., that there is no such thing as a new story, as all have been told. There are some that even say there are only two types of stories (1. the journey, 2. love?—I can’t recall this one), and they’d even simplify it all further by suggesting that both are one and the same (that it’s all just “the journey”). But I would have to completely disagree with their categorizing minds. To me, having this kind of a perspective is too analytical, too uncaring as the particularities are what really draw us and keep us to a piece, what makes us treasure the artwork the most. These people/critics are missing the point of a piece, the specifics of these particular characters in their set circumstances. It is what they do with what they have that is important here, and this is all lost when one lumps it all, saying that “there is no such thing as a new story.” In dismissing this and seeing the structure alone, one is deadened to the beauties of life and what it means to be human.