In this chapter, Foster states that no work of literature is original. Each subject is based on another subject and so on. I suppose this is true. Though I could list several books I have read that I find no resemblance in any classic or other works of literature, it is not a stretch to believe that the similarities are sitting trapped in some book I have yet to lay eyes on. As Foster states there are numerous examples for “stolen” ideas. She’s The Man (starring freshly crazy Amanda Bynes) is a direct nod at Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night. It’s blatant, her name is Viola and her brother’s is Sebastian, she pretends to be him. It’s not exactly the same, she isn’t lost at sea, she doesn’t fear for her life, she knows where her brother is, but at the root of the story the most important idea is still there. She falls for a guy, while she’s pretending to be a guy herself. (And hilarity ensues.) Although this isn’t just referencing a Shakespearian story or borrowing pieces, it is clearly based on it. It is the use of an old idea made new. We saw Viola in the 1600s and then we saw her anew in 2006:
Shakespeare’s work and ideas are
found in numerous stories today, although many of “his” ideas were originally in Greek Classics or based on historic events. Mean Girls has an overt reference comparing Regina George to Julius Caesar, and as Foster points out
the references flesh out the characters without the writer having to do much
work. With all of our built up emotions and understanding of the referenced characters we
assign traits to the new character without the author having to subtly assign
them.
I like the idea on a basic level.
Even Foster thinks there is no harm done whether one sees the reference or not.
On one hand, either consciously or subconsciously, the reader experiences greater
insight into the text. On the other, they continue to read on, oblivious to
deeper meaning. No harm no foul, right? I don’t know about that. The idea that
no idea is ever really original is upsetting. Who’s to say that just because
one thing resembles another, it is directly based on it? The idea of synchronicity has always intrigued me. I know it’s
not really relevant to this chapter, but who’s to say that two writers couldn’t
come up with an idea at the same time; one just took a little longer to develop
his/her writing? Maybe the writer wasn't influenced by anything except their own
neurons and synapses.
I’d like to hold onto my idealistic
fantasy that literature, as Foster suggests, is not really a bucket of eels at all (mainly because
eels scare me). He believes that each work or eel as you
will, is now in the great barrel of the public eye and that whether you like it
or not, the eel has wormed its way into one's psyche influencing everything one
does or more specifically, writes. I understand why he believes this. Looking
around each thought I have is almost never my own, it’s been formed by the
things I have heard and seen. I am much less likely to think of something
original then I am to remember a movie quote or the plot of some funny
commercial. And yet… part of me wants everyone to have a blank page in front of
them, let a little of their own out, and not have someone pointing to a previous
canvas or book comparing, crediting the first for influencing the new, when the
first may deserve no credit at all.
SIDE NOTE
I realize this post is a little lacking in comparisons and I
apologize. My summer brain is still in overdrive and this is why I can only
think of chick flicks at the moment. I’m working on getting my school brain
back. When your brain is a mush it is hard to hunt for the theoretical
mushrooms Foster mentions at the end of this chapter but I’m working on it.
No comments:
Post a Comment