I have a question.

Some of you know, I write a lot of retellings. I go from Beauty and the Beast to The Nutcracker to Phantom of the Opera. Heck, even the murder-mystery story I'm trying to do is inspired by Zootopia.

But, is a retelling "original?" I know my answer, but sometimes people don't see it that way.

If I compare the outline in the Grimm's version of Sleeping Beauty to the Disney version, I'll get differences, but it's about the same.

Grimm (Bare with me. I'm going from memory)

1. Girl is born.

2. Girl gets cursed.

3. Curse happens.

4. Girl wakes up.

There are major pieces that I left out, but that's the general idea.

Here's the Disney version.

1. Girl is born.

2. Girl gets cursed.

3. Curse happens.

4. Girl wakes up.

Again, I left out some pieces, but that's the general idea. There you go, story of Sleeping Beauty.

But those pieces. Those pieces that I so conveniently left out are what defines each story.

In the Grimm version, she falls asleep and wakes up after giving birth to children because she was raped while asleep by "Prince Charming."

(It's called Grimm for a reason, folks.)

The Disney version is more kid-friendly. Aurora is awoken by her "true love," whom she met while dancing with animals in the forest.

It took someone to sit there and think "Okay, how do we end this without giving three year olds a crash course in Sex Ed" for the ending to be different. Wouldn't that mean that Disney is original?

I can hear what some of you are saying. "Well, Disney is Disney. There are retellings that come after that. It's an overused story, so the things now aren't original."

Okay, well here's my response. Are the movies and books that come out now not original? 

If you'd like the original tale, there's the Grimm version. Want something more happy? Go the Disney route. There are movies out that are retellings. Does that mean that 

Maleficent 

and 

The Curse of Sleeping Beauty

aren't original? They seem pretty original to me. 

But what about the books? I mean, if a story has been told more than once, then is there any originality in the new versions? If there's not, then does that mean that the author did next to nothing? They came up with names and boom! they're done. 

Or did they come up with meaningful names for their characters, make up a scenario that the character would have to examine, give them backstories that builds them, and makes up a place that they would be. Does the author think about the dialouge, or do they just slap some overused words down on paper? Do the screen writers come up with a new story, or just tweak something here and there and then they have "new" a story?

 The backbone of a retelling is the original story itself. A science-fiction retelling of Phantom of the Opera is always going to be based off a version of the story, whether it be the Broadway show, the movie with Charles Dance, or the original tale. And guess what? The Broadway show and the Charles Dance movie are based off the book. All the vampire tv shows, movies, and books out now? They all come from folklore and books. I mean, even Twilight (as much as I hate to say it) is a retelling of vampires. 

Very recently, I've seen something that says some retellings aren't "original." Personally, I disagree. True, the backbone of the story is something already done, but the story itself is something the author came up with. There's a twist in the original story. 

But goodness knows I'm biased. I write retellings all the time. 

What's your opinion?