Okay, so as I understand it, the argument for The Magicians being original places much more emphasis on the journey/ end point rather than the strikingly similar starting point. So let's say I wrote a trilogy called Baron of the Bracelets. And in this fantasy world there's a village of small, hairy-handed humanoids called Bobbits. And as the great evil creature that used to rule this world, Bauron, begins to raise new armies, one of these Bobbits inherits a magical bracelet that used to belong to Bauron. So this Bobbit needs to destroy the bracelet by dropping it in a far-away crevasse. And this Bobbit, let's call him Dodo, teams up with a human wizard that never uses magic, three other Bobbits, and a smattering of other humans/ elves/ dwarves to go on this crevasse quest. Also, there will be a lot of walking, an untrustworthy hunchback guide, a spider, some wraiths, some boring songs/ poems, and a whole lot more walking. But, on their many adventures on the way to the crevasse, Dodo becomes swayed by the evil bracelet and starts acting out on his psychopathic impulses, eventually sacrificing every one of his allies before defeating Bauron, only to take his place and rule the world with an iron (and still sort of hairy) fist. So instead of all those familiar and unoriginal epic/ high fantasy tropes like good against and ultimately triumphing over evil, I instead offer a treatise on ultimate power corrupting ultimately. It's now a character study of a once honorable chosen-one farm-boy slowly sliding into psychopathy. Now, is this new trilogy of mine original? I mean, it ends entirely differently and has a totally different theme to it. Do those two aspects alone make it unique?