What?
Yeah.That's what I thought too. but, as always, he can support himself. He admits that he doesn't know what that one story exactly is, but he has a guess. We write about what it means to be us. We write about what it means to be a living thing. We write about what it means to be human.
He says that originality is almost impossible. The very way you think has been shaped by the writers' works which you have read before. But referring to others work can be a good thing. It adds depth to your work and allows the reader to make connections. Basically, when you write, you are accessing your brain's database of others' works that you read and applying it to your own work. Even when you purposely avoid connecting your work with others' work, their work is influencing yours.
This is called intertextuality.
Another concept he mentions is archetype. Archetype is another word for pattern. Throughout many works, we can see patterns forming in the texts. Examples of archetype include a quest, a form of sacrifice, flying, etc. These all help add to the effect of the text the more they are used, not like cliches.
After reading his argument for his point of view, I have been moved by his writing and now agree with him.
Do you?
No comments:
Post a Comment