If we take a leaf , my eyes are limited to how small of a part I can look at it. If we use a microscope, my ability to view the leaf changes, with an electron microscope, it changes again, an x ray, again, and so forth and so forth and so forth. Objects might be limited in mass and space, but the lens through which we view them are many if not infinite, and so are the results. If we take two chemicals, put them in a vial, we might just have a mixture of a and b, or, we might wind up with something brand new. I believe that nature is infinite in it originality , and because literature ultimately reflects nature, literature is also infinite. Intellectually speaking, if the world is "infinite"in originality, so too can can literature. If you want to define originality based on themes that resonant with human kind, that is legitimate , but I do not believe those themes can be trivialized by just a few .. While the emotions I feel in a pure sense are limited, what I feel is combined with how I perceive things, which I believe should be considered as diverse and growing as philosophy, the academic field. Many people won't even read Lolita. They imagine some perverted romance between a man and a young girl. This is trivialization. What is lolita really about? Is it about love? This man destroyed this girls life. Is it about overcoming his pedophillia? No, he never came close to that. Is it a game between him and his nemesis? The narrator explicitly states this a novel about Lolita, so no. Is it really about Lolita then? What exactly. We know he doesn't really love her. We know he doesn't win her. And we know he doesn't save her. Maybe it us about immortalitizing her through art, but the novel to me is too nihilistic to truly believe that. Someone with poor taste buds will say that a Big Mac and a gourmet burger taste the same. Other people will spend ten times the cost of a Big Mac just to avoid eatin one, the taste is so different . I think the better question is not "can literature still be original?" But rather, do I personally possess the perception to get the profound differences? I know this for a fact because I am still amazed by new ideas. Moreover, it's dangerous to say nothing is new, you just have to give it your own flavor. Because then that's exactly what you get, a story about blue skinned elves instead of white skinned ones.
Even if the base story's the same, the details are different. That's what matters. So what if boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy lives happily ever after with girl has been done a million different ways? People still write new love stories, and readers gobble them up.
Even if there are no new ideas, it's not as if your reader base have all experienced every idea in existence. If that were the case, they'd be all-knowing and wouldn't need to read for entertainment.
It's a good thing humanity doesn't change, at least as far as literature is concerned. The reason why we can still enjoy stuff written thousands of years ago is because things like love, jealousy, war, etc. haven't changed one bit. It's why Homer is still relevant today. It's why we can still enjoy Shakespeare. It's why we can still learn from the mistakes of the Roman Empire. So the cyclic nature of history isn't necessarily a bad thing.
You're assuming its cyclical and not additive. I can enjoy taking a leak in the woods but I also enjoy these conversations. Old plus new.
It's both cyclic and additive. History is nothing more than the same types of events repeating itself over and over again, though these events may manifest themselves in different ways. It reminds me of Stephen's quote from Ulysses: "History is a nightmare from which I'm trying to awake." We are incapable of rising above our history. But like I said, this isn't a bad thing when it comes to literature.
You're assuming this. Where's the proof. Some things are repeated. Other things, like the NSA, or global warming, are new.
Sorry, not a math or physics major, but what mathematical operations Every day you wake up you are presented a new set of stimuli. Some days these stimuli are repeated, some days they are new and different. Would you say that your reactions to these stimuli are the same every day? No, they are different depending on circumstance.
I think there might have been some confusion in my phone loading a previous unsubmitted post in conjunction with a new post. However, my contention with Mr Numbers (@123456789 ) still stands. No matter how complex the equation (even though it would take hundreds of pages and you would probably be forced to use a number 2 pencil) it can be boiled down to elementary operations. Nonetheless, we do agree that with non- cyclical history , every turn of events, whether it be a new day or fall of a government, every day is a new story.
It is not directly related, but it is a comparison of functions. Every function can be reduced to the elementary operations given enough graphite and paper. The Kronecker delta would not exist without previous data based on mathematics that could not be extrapolated using elementary operations.
I think you're unnecessarily trivializing mathematics. e^x is not just a number to the power of another number. E is a special constant that exists for specific reasons. There's nothing arbitrary about it. 4^2 and e^2 are more different than 4^2 and 2^2. **edited to add: If all math was simply a combination of + - / and *, do you really think we'd have this much math in the world? Would you have thousands and thousands of mathematicians going to their offices everyday if it was that simple? The same can be said for literature. Sure. Harry Potter is fun. And so are steamy romance novels (if you're a loser ). But there's more to it than just mixing and matching a couple of basic ideas. If that's all it was, you wouldn't have how many thousands of scholars dissecting great works of literature. You wouldn't have critique. There's nothing trivial about literature.
@123456789 , I believe from previous posts that you are a physics major, I do not mean to demean your expertise of mathematics for you can sure make an idiot out of me in the subject. However, pertaining to the OP (mine), you cannot dismiss the fact that, no matter how involved they become, that math is based on the most simplistic terms, and out of which an infinite amount of equations can be derived, much like the infinite amount of data that is gradually introduced into our knowledge, can produce an exponential amount of stories. 1+1 might equal 2, but in psychology 1+[an individual's reaction to the stimuli(where reaction is variable)=unknown The population of original ideas is infinite.
I hesitate to agree with the first paragraph, only because there is a lot of math out there that will look alien to both us. That's pure math. Yes, there is a lot of math (applied) that can be broken down to the most simplistic terms, but I certainly don't have the expertise to claim that is always the case, even in applied. I think you're absolutely right that the human mind can only conceptualize using a few basic methods, and yet, like you said, "infinite" amount of unique equations can be defined. And of course I agree about the psychology part
I've been thinking about this thread a lot. Interesting. My own feeling is that each person is unique, and I don't think anybody will disagree with that. With the exception of identical twins (whose behaviour AFTER birth is influenced in different ways by different stimuli) nobody has the same exact genetic makeup. So we all start out 'different.' Okay, we all have certain things in common, unless something goes wrong between conception and birth. We all have a brain, two arms, two legs and other common features. But within these categories there is a limitless amount of variation. I feel stories are similar. While there will be a fairly limited number of categories—same as there aren't too many people with 6 arms and legs, or who have a proboscis in the middle of their face used to suck up mud from a river bottom—within each category is a limitless number of variations. Therefore, while each story can probably be categorised, the DNA of each story will always be different, unless the writer chooses to clone their story with somebody else's. I'd say don't worry too much about this.
The idea that all stories are the same when broken down brings to mind the theory of the five elements- earth, wind, fire, aether, and water. We don't live in an Aristotlian world anymore. Things are not that simple. Our world is comprised of atoms and strong and weak forces and non deterministic principles. Our morality is grey and our lines are thin. We have black holes and chakras and the approaching singularity between man and machine. Love, hate, war, grief- these are classic principles of humanity but humanity is not static. It evolves, and there are new realities as time goes on. Literature will reflect this whether you want it to or not.
My issue is with the word "variation." It brings to mind (to me) superficial differences, like voting democrat or republican.... A red suit and a blue suit are variations. A dress is unique to a suit. I don't think all stories are mere variations of each other. Most are, but there are unique stories out there that are significantly different, even only if by invoking the "whole is greater than the sum of its parts."
Without getting too deeply into semantics, I'd say 'significant variations' is where creativity comes in. Some writers are more creative than others, and willing to play with their imaginations and create unique stories—no matter where this takes them. Others always have an eye on sales and are concerned about their appeal to certain types of readers. These latter writers are going to aim strongly for the accepted categories, while the creative ones will allow the stories to develop naturally. The skill levels of each of these kinds of writers will vary, but I think it's a no-brainer that the more creative, less sales-focused writers, will push the category boundaries and create the most 'unique' stories. I personally get quite a kick out of 'uncategorisable' stories. Like the one entitled An Abridged History by Andrew Drummond. That novel was so bizarre the bookstores didn't know where to shelve it. It was stuck first in the 'History' section, then in the 'Local Interest' section. It is actually a fake autobiography, of historical interest to people from a certain area of Scotland, except many of the 'facts' about the area, as presented in the book, are not actually true. It's an alternative history masquerading as a real one, and done so subtly that many people don't 'get it' until partway through the book. When those of us who were fans of the book FINALLY convinced the booksellers that it was, indeed, a piece of fiction, they didn't know whether to put it into the 'Historical Fiction' category (which it is) or the Humor section (which it is) and settled for the General Fiction (which it is.) I had a great time following that saga. It was evidence that this author had blown the lid off convention, and created something totally unique.
Sounds like a pretty good book, actually. Your second and third paragraphs bring this following thought to mind. If you find yourself inspired by certain genre or story( Song of Ice and Fire and Twilight are probably the best examples for people in this forum), and you try to add your own unique spin and variations, then yes, you might very well have produced an example of an ultimately unoriginal work. However, for those who write from the heart, who aren't thinking about what they saw on TV or read last week, but are putting out words to reflect an essence of themselves, either how they feel, or some insight they had while driving toward a mountain range at sunset, their works might be original.
I totally agree with this. As for Andrew Drummond's book ...I was fortunate enough to be at the Ullapool Book Festival the year the book was launched, and to hear him reading from it. (I'd already read it beforehand.) The Ullapool-based audience was convulsed with laughter. However, they also knew what bits of the story were real (and meticulously and hilariously presented) and what bits the author had totally made up. This contrast provides not only the humour, but the main thrust of the story. The book goes right over the heads of outsiders. Although this author is NOT from that part of Scotland, he obviously knows it well, and he must also have known the book would not be popular with people who don't know the area at all. So he definitely wrote this because he wanted to, not because he had an eye on international fame. I really like his attitude.
