My fourth-grade mind struggled to
stumble upon a truly original idea for the last “invention convention” of my
schooling career. I was repulsed by the notion of “inventing” a device that
someone had already thought of. If not for my father’s reassurance that “every
idea comes from another idea,” my pursuit would have been futile and endless. I
recalled this instance from my childhood as I read Foster’s words, “there is no
such thing as a wholly original work of literature.” Whether consciously or
unconsciously, writers site, allude to, symbolize previous stories, poems,
plays, movies, as well as the themes, characters, and motifs from them. With
this knowledge in mind, how then does a writer make his/her work truly unique
and, as the commonly reoccurring command that every English teacher threatens
to his/her students states, “not merely restating what has already been said?”
According
to Foster, how the author weaves the elements of other works into his/her own
work, how they themselves interpret the work, and how the correlation, the
“conversation” between the author’s work and an older piece, is what makes each
story unique (while also strengthening the message). It is analogous to why
musicians still play Brahms, Bach, and Beethoven. Each artist’s interpretation of the pieces of music has to be individually their
own (not just playing the notes or “restating what has already been said”). Or
take Jazz where the same standards have been played for decades. There is, of
course, improvisation after the original melody is played where the musicians
harmonize their own melody based on the chord progression of the tune. In both
cases the artists, the writers, are creating their own unique work from somebody
else’s famous piece that still resonates with people.
Resonance.
People love resonance. We love making connections and associations with things
we are familiar with (that’s why the psychologists who make the SAT are evil).
So when a ghost appears to a young boy warning him of the evil new
ruler/stepfather and his betrayal to the crown/family, or when a character
sacrifices himself to save a large group of people, we as readers are drawn
towards these connections helping to make the reading experience more
meaningful. Making parallels between texts adds more depth to the story and
helps to implant the themes and meaning in our minds. But, as Foster
underscored, recognizing a reference in a text is not an imperative for still
obtaining the full potency of the story. Take Lord of the Flies for example. The first time I read the story I did
not recognize that Simon was a Christ figure. Yet the story still maintained
its powerful efficacy. Knowing that Simon was a Christ figure certainly did add
significance to his death and magnified the brutality of the savage boys; it
added a layer of meaning. However, Golding did not simply make Simon entirely
alike to Christ. The differentiation between Simon and Jesus, the fact that
Simon was not able to save the boys, by dying, from their sins, further
intensifies the viciousness of the boys and causes the reader to beware of the evils man is capable of. Seeing the reference to the Gospel in Lord
the Flies enhances the themes and message
Golding imparts to his readers.
So it is for good reason that English teachers reiterate the necessity to stray away from plain restatements. The world has become increasingly more demanding of creative and clever insights and ideas. When we start working after college we are using prior knowledge to help us carry out our job just as the writer uses prior texts to write their story. But our job is to use that prior knowledge, the prior texts, in unique and meaningful ways to better the world around us.