Prompt #4
King Solomon wrote, "There is nothing new under the sun." Foster applies this precept to his contention that all "writing and telling belong to one big story." Do you agree? How does this idea add to understanding and the richness of the reading experience?
This was my comment on a post Ms. Mac had made regarding this prompt before the prompt was removed. I'm reposting it to make sure I can get credit for it.
ReplyDeleteSo what you are saying is that, “intertextuality,” can be applied to anything and everything? For example, the Lion King is reminiscent of Hamlet for there is fratricide and regicide in the form of Scar killing Mufasa parallel to how Claudius killed Hamlet Sr. Another example being that calculators have always existed just in various forms such as the abacus. Overall, the point of finding these connections is to “add to the understanding and richness of the reading experience,” or is it the making of these connections that add to the benefit of reading? Forgive me if my logic is off (assuming any logic is present in my thinking).
Dylan,
ReplyDeleteI think that we all learn by making connections. By connecting new information to what we already know, we can determine similarities, differences, and variations. Intertextuality is very much like that to me. We understand new ideas by relating them to old ones. Foster's idea is that writers change, refine, or sometimes repeat ideas or stories about the human condition that have existed throughout time. Being able to identify these connections helps us to understand and enriches the depth of the text.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen viewed through purely logical eyes, King Solomon's proposition appears to be true. The atoms that form the world we know are exactly the same atoms that were here at the very beginning, before mankind and any notion of originality. One can use legos to build towering structures, but in the end they are still just the same old legos. In that sense, Solomon was technically correct in saying that nothing new really exists, that everything is built on the past, but the fallacy comes when Foster attempts to extend this into the realm of the abstract. Foster argues that any given story can be sourced to its previous parts (and there will always be previous parts). The problem, though, is that when someone takes ideas and puts them together, they do make something new. Though the pieces are from various sources like Frankenstein's monster, the end result is something wholly new. The stories that people tell are mashups made from pieces of past tales, but these new tales combine the pieces in whole new ways. The connections made between each of the various pieces are things that previously did not exist. Despite being purely abstract connections, these connections are all unique. The interesting part of reading is discovering those unique connections hidden in the story.
ReplyDeleteFoster noted that readers are comforted when presented with familiar pieces of story. Most readers, he said, would be physically shaken at reading something new. With Beethoven, this happened quite a lot. Reviewers, at first, hated the pieces that Beethoven wrote because they were too unfamiliar, most like nothing the listeners of the early 1800s had ever heard. Eventually, though, the listeners came around, and Beethoven's music is considered a triumph today. His music, however, was not new. It simply combined the musical styles of his time with his experiences and emotions, creating something that people familiar with Baroque and Classical music had never experienced. The pieces were not new, but the idea to combine them in the ways that Beethoven did were. After all, a modern piano has only 88 notes, but those notes have been pieced together in ways no one would dare call unoriginal.
Perhaps Foster is right that there is some big story out there serving as the prototype for everything else. Perhaps there is a Platonic ideal that feeds every other piece. There might not be any original ideas. Stephen King likens the process of writing to digging up fossils. The story is already there, part of some big whole; it is the author's job to unearth it. The author assembles the pieces to tell a story. Beethoven assembled the notes to write a song. A child assembles the legos to build a house. The result of that child's hard work is still just a pile of legos, the sum of colored bits of plastic. Sometimes, though, a whole is more than the sum of its parts.
I'd expect nothing less from you than combining your love of science, music, and literature to make an explanation here, Ben. I believe every person has something special that they bring into the world when they're born, and I agree that you cannot label abilities such as Beethoven's as unoriginal. However, I see a different meaning in the belief of there being only "one big story". Writing, composing, etc. are all based on personal experiences whether those experiences are in physical life, dreams, or thoughts. These experiences become part of life's story as soon as they come into existence, whether they are loosed into the world in the form of writing, music, etc. or not. I like to think of these actions, thoughts, and experiences of all people as chapters, passages, and sentences within the "one big story" of life. Perhaps that's not quite what Foster meant, but in this interpretation at least, I believe there is only one story.
DeleteThere are two things I must say to this, Ben.
Delete1. I love the use of legos as examples.
2. I agree with your viewpoint. I think that some things, while being made up of old components and ideas, can realistically be termed “new”. As an additional example, building upon your atoms reference, mankind has discovered and invented several synthetic elements, of which many are believed to not exist naturally. In this way, elements are created (normally by smashing old ones together) but are classified as new.
However, Chandler, I also agree with you on this matter. My interpretation of your own interpretation is that you feel things may be new and different, but they are still part of everything else so, in reality, those things are not new, individually. Perhaps only as new as a set of adult teeth is new. They are still part of the child’s body, which is not new, but the teeth themselves are new extensions of it. Yet again, the elements come into play. Despite being new and unique, they still have pre-designated places in the periodic table.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that, yes, things can be new, but they must still be made of older stuff in order to fit in. If that makes any sense whatsoever.
So what your saying Mr. Jones is that the building blocks or "legos" for great works of art have been around since mankind has been on planet Earth. That these piece are the only original things a writer has, but Foster has the mind set that none of these piece are completely original. You argue that whenever a author takes these blocks of literature they build something completely original on top. Foster bases his thesis more or less on generic symbols of the unconscious slipping into these purely original works of art by accident making their pieces of art not fully original. There original in a sense of organization as you alike this to Beethoven and his symphonies. I like how you qualified Foster's position on literature especially fiction. Fiction being fiction though has to have originality. So I am inclined to agree with you.
DeleteBen,
DeleteWhen I first considered Foster’s notion that “wholly original” works do not exist, I was also a bit skeptical. Yes, ideas will inevitably be recycled throughout history, but does this mean everything must be derivative? Yet, upon further consideration, I gradually began to understand what Foster was implying. Of course innovations will always exist, but the basic method of construction always remains the same. As with your lego analogy, elements may only build upon a pre-existing foundation, individually contributing to the greater whole. Though, as you said, the finished product may be unique, it is still composed of a variety of pre-conceived ideas, reshaped into a different pattern. So while I agree that a finished composition may be far from unoriginal, I must also agree with Chandler’s suggestion that all of life’s elements contribute to “one big story” that is constantly evolving throughout time.
“There is nothing new under the sun.” This is a concept that I have recently come to the conclusion that I must accept. There is no such thing as original thought; every human must base their ideas and creations off of those that have already arrived. No matter how hard you try, you naturally take in the beauty and tragedy from whatever and whoever surrounds you.
ReplyDeleteAs an avid reader, writer and musician, this depresses me; and should to any of those who wish to create; all artists wish their products to be the first of their kind. Though, regardless of their wishes, it is simply not possible. Every story follows in likeness to one that has once been written, every piece of music is composed on the same set of notes, every idea is built upon what was seen and felt before the idea came to be. Foster used the expression, “writing and telling belong to one big story,” to describe this same concept; he felt the same way. With that being said, it must be kept in mind that to be a great artist you must strive to create something different other than new; for the concept of new does not truly exist. As an example, the famous poet, E. E. Cummings, took his poems to a new level by using unorthodox formats, and disregarding grammatical rules at his own accord. To all of his readers, this was seen as an entirely new concept, but it was simply different.
Billy,
DeleteI couldn’t agree more with your whole response! It makes me wonder though who did have the first original thoughts. I think that is why cultural anthropology is so interesting. Who had the first idea to create a certain language, clothing, food, architecture, or culture, and why is it so different in different regions. Sure geographic locations, landscape, and surroundings have a major influence, but there also had to be a person or group of people with the initial thought or idea.
I hate that with music and art, too. I feel like I’ll never create a fully original drawing or anything because of what I have already seen and been exposed to, even subconsciously.
Do not despair, Billy! You should definitely try to create something unique that would surprise your audience (I'm waiting), the notion that there is nothing new to make does not have to be entirely a bad one. Foster mentioned it himself that one of the great perks of this "one big story" is the delight in finding old pieces of the story woven into something new. I have this joy when hearing a Liszt piece that steals a little bit from Chopin or when I play a song and realize a certain theme is taken, wittingly or not, from a favorite cartoon of mine. For the composer, you're right that it is a daunting idea, but for your audience it is a wonderful way to spark interest in your works (so long as you don't blatantly rip someone off; then you just look like a butt).
DeleteBilly,
DeleteI totally agree. As an artist it does appear as a tragedy, but we must accept it and utilize to our best ability. I had just recently had a discussion with my piano teacher on a similar topic and he noted that many authors only read nonfiction while writing literature in fear of unconsciously subscribing to a preconceived style. I agree that while in the process of working on a piece (be it music, literature, a sculpture, etc.) it may be beneficial to isolate onself from possible influences. On the other hand, when we are not creating (or attempting to create), it may be most beneficial to embrace multiple works of other artists. Although we may take upon multiple styles of various creators, we have the ability to derive our own uniqueness through extraction, combination, and surpassing our comfort zone.
William,
ReplyDeleteWhile reading How to Read Literature Like a Professor I stumbled upon this very concept myself for the first time. The author says that every story, every song, and every movie is part of one big thought that has been going on forever. The only difference between you and me is that I really like this concept. It excites me! You are upset you cannot be original while I am ecstatic at the opportunity to add to this massive thought that has been around since mankind. Essentially I am adding onto stories that Shakespeare, Dickens and Dr. Seuss added onto. Nothing is more exhilarating than that. So maybe you should try looking at the one though concept in a different light.
Holy moly, Sydney, I did not read your response until after I read Billy's and posted mine, but I really like your idea now too. It is still kind of weird to think that there will never be an original idea, but I like that is adding to the existing forms.
DeleteSydney, I think I agree with you on this subject. Rather than being concerned with an inability to be original, I prefer to embrace it. Being conscious of that fact while creating takes some of the pressure off, in a way. While direct plagiarizing is obviously wrong, a little borrowing is impossible to avoid, and remembering that helps keep me from stressing about how to be original. After all, if true originality is impossible, why worry about it? This concept gives you the freedom to just tell your story the best you can without constantly looking outward to make sure you didn't copy someone else.
DeleteSydney,
DeleteI agree with you and Katie. I do understand Billy's standpoint that it is disappointing we can no longer have an original thought or story. However, with this realization I believe as Katie said, we should embrace the idea and use it as we can. I also agree that it is exciting to be able to share ideas with the most famous and authors perhaps in all of history. I think it is interesting how somehow, every story can relate with another due to this idea that everything stems from and original. It's really just an interesting concept to think about.
Sydney,
DeleteThank you for bring a new way to approach this dilemma. Though, I cannot say that adding on to anything someone else has done, no matter how famous or brilliant they are or were, excites me. I do not wish to create a story off of those that are already written, nor do I wish to be classified with other writers; I want to be my own writer, not an extension of another. This is not to say that I will abandon all creative endeavors. As I said at the start of my other passage, I have come to terms with it. Though that does not mean it gives me excitement.
I’m not sure I would phrase it the same way, but I know that I do agree with Foster’s statements. To me, his explanation puts too much emphasis on the specific idea that there’s “one story”, but the real point to me is that humans can’t write about anything but themselves, no matter whether they’re writing about mythical gods or fantastical dragons or futuristic aliens or regular people from any point in time. If something does not behave like a human, it isn’t a character but a plot device, and since every book has characters, they all have essential human ideas and stories in them. Each story doesn’t have to be about the same aspects of humanity, but they’re all about humanity, and everyone is always writing what they know because everyone knows what a human life is like from the inside.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I don’t believe Foster’s discussion of this idea added to my reading experience, mostly because like everything Foster discusses in this book, it a was fairly obvious idea without being one I was already conscious of. Every chapter made me say, “oh, that makes sense,” without feeling like I was reading something that was below my level or too simplistic. So in the same way, I already understood this level of fundamental similarity in fiction, already read through that lense. Upon reading the chapter and this prompt, my thoughts and opinions on the subject sprang readily to mind--I had already been thinking about it on a semi-conscious level, needing only the push provided by a prompt such as this to bring it fully to light and articulate it properly. That’s something that most of How to Read did well for me.
Katie,
Delete"If something does not behave like a human, it isn't a character, but a plot device." That is such a great point. Honestly, I never looked at it that way before. I have been sitting here trying to remember any story that did not contain humans or a being with a human's characteristics and I have come to the conclusion that it does not exist. We can only write about ourselves. Even children's stories contain talking dogs and smiling flowers. I hate to admit it, but I would not read a book if it only contained non-human characters. It would be terribly boring. I am sure it has been done before, but who would want to read a novel like that?
Katie,
DeleteI totally agree that Foster's claim seems too radical. He seems to be suggesting "one big story" as fate, or some predispositioned, inescapable plot/derivation. It is true that, as you and Ellie point out, we cannot write without including some form of human interface. We know of nothing but our human perspective and its scary to ponder this enclosing idea. How could one write about inanimate objects without including some form of personification of life, that's what makes those works interesting.
"There is nothing new under the sun." Although I believe King Solomon was referencing the makeup of the physical world in comparison with the spiritual, Foster is still correct when he stretches this statement to encompass all forms of literature.
ReplyDeleteI first began to think about this idea of physical perpetuality while watching the movie Gladiator. Proximo says,"We mortals are but shadows and dust. Shadows and dust, Maximus!" This statement really made me think about existence as a whole. A more recent encounter of this undeniable reality came while I was reading Hamlet. Hamlet says, "Imperious Caesar, dead and turn'd to clay,(205)
Might stop a hole to keep the wind away.
O, that that earth, which kept the world in awe
Should patch a wall to expel the winter's flaw!" (Act V, scene i). Both of these quotes are among my personal favorites, and both of these quotes reflect wise King Solomon's words.
In regards to Foster, he rightly claims that all stories are connected in some particular way. Personally, this idea of intertextuality really enhances the reading experience for me. This is so because I am able to find similar philosophies in bodies of work that are not similar in nature. This to me adds to the reading experience because an individual can make connections between works of art that beforehand one may not have thought existed. This, in the end, makes the reader feel more literate upon these discoveries and really makes reading a much more entertaining activity in general.
Although I fully understand Foster's perspective in stating, 'all writing and telling belong to one big story," his assertion can easily be disputed. In contemporary society, many people see a new idea or "creation" as a combination of phenomena that we have previously observed at some point in time. Essentially, our thoughts are based off past influences, to sometimes produce what we see as a new thought or image. However, there is some faultiness in creating this claim. If humans are incapable of creating original thought, how did we first come up with a thought to base our thoughts off of? Confusing right? Imagine an era prior to any literary traces whatsoever. Obviously, during that time, any scripted thought would have no previous influences. Correct? With that being said, is it possible humans can philosophize new ideas based on no prior understanding? In addition, we have no scientific evidence to validate all our "writings and tellings" originate from "one big story." So, why can't we produce original thought? I fully understand extracting ideas from various material and sources then combining them is not an entirely new thought, it is just different than before, which is consistent with Foster's claim. So, in my opinion, other than the creator of this original thought or "big story" we, as human beings, thought process is not based off originality, but instead, we conjure up different ideas. So, what exactly is this "big story" and how did it get here?
ReplyDeleteYou question, "how did we first come up with a thought to base our thoughts off of?", I answer: experiences. Maybe our first thoughts as evolving metaconscious bipeds were rudimentary and not exactly much superior to other species who, some argue, think only as their bio-chemical-machines allow (or dictate for that matter) their thoughts. However, (if you believe in evolution and natural selection) we humans slowly developed, ever so subtley began to think, consciously, and think about thinking. Then we began communicating, and with that we began to attempt to communicate the experiences and ideas which we had derived from previously learned knowledge. Then we began to philosophize, and as we shared these ideas, more and more began developing their own thoughts (first opinions; positions on such arguments) and depending how we felt upon another's idea we developed our own (yes we created, but it was initiated, founded by some experience or shared belief).
DeleteWhy can't we produce original thought? Well, if you believe we are bio-chemical machines operating at our bodies' desposal, then anything original would only be a result of some already established thought process, determined by genetics, environment, mutation, or all of the above which are concieved by time and through physical interconnections of relationships between chemical bonds. There is no such thing as an effect without a cause, and no such thing as a cause without an initiation for a cause, and so on.
I agree with King Solomon’s idea that there is no such as “new” or originality, but beg to differ with the “one big story” as proposed by Foster. My interpretation of Foster’s argument is much like a stretch from Carl Jung’s collective unconscious: that we are all a part of one whole; we each have predisposed characteristics determined by a natural force granted by the whole which we are combined to be. Maybe I am taking Foster’s claim too literally, but I do not whole heartedly believe in a “big story” or fate. But I do believe that we cannot be entirely original, or build off a foundation separate from our “big story”. Contradictory? Well, sort of. There is no feasible method (at least according to my opinion) to be truly original; everything is somehow intertwined with something else. One way to think of this are the branches of a tree: each individual, each with its own uniqueness, yet all root the same trunk. The trunk of the tree may be considered the “big story” for now, and these branches do derive from the “big story” but are not a part of it. (I’m aware this is not a perfect analogy because you can arguably suggest that the tree is a whole and branches some part much like Jung’s philosophy, but please disregard my attempt to expound upon my not-so-precisely decided position.) Humans can be creative, but only so creative as to stretch the ideas, experiences, objects, innovations, etc. of what already exists into a [relatively] new invention. Nothing can exist without a beginning, unless that beginning is still in process of becoming established, but in that case, then time would be a bi-directional continuum: ever-evolving its beginning as it travels progressively forward. If this were/is true, then we humans would be/are scammed for being blind and ineptly deceived from ever comprehending such a realm.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first read Foster's idea of everything being one story, I shrugged it off and decided to let him think as he wished. But I found myself straying back to the idea as I read, and finally set the book down and thought about what he meant. I believe that I understand, and based upon my understanding, I agree with him. My understanding is this: there is only one story, that of Life. Every written or oral story that is ever told comes from something that happened (or, in many cases, and amalgam of events) to someone at sometime in some place. People have been around for a very long time, and we've told stories to pass the time since we showed up. Further, things have happened to us since we showed up. Because of this, nearly anything that a person can think of has probably happened to someone at some point in history. Examples: Be eaten by a velociraptor. Check. Be struck by lightning. Check. Be hit by a meteorite. Check. Be eaten by cannibals. Check. See? We could go on all day naming things. My point (and Foster's, I believe) is that no idea anyone has is truly original, because it's probably already happened. The person may see it as original because of ignorance of its happening, but in the grand scheme of things nothing that happens to a person is original. Even things that couldn't have p[possibly have happened aren't original. Example: Be probed by an extraterrestrial. Extraterrestrial, no, but Foreigner yes. ("You look different... Are your insides the same? Yes, it would appear that they are. Intriguing.") In short: anything that you could write down as a story is either an event that has happened, or is based on an event that has happened, leaving room for only one true story: that of Life itself.
ReplyDelete