"Examining texts 'intertextually' means looking for traces, the bits and pieces of Text that which writers or speakers borrow and sew together to create new discourse." (Porter)
That sounds like an awesome patchwork quilt that I'd like to have lying across my bed. But it's also the subject of what I am constantly thinking - no, worrying - about whenever I sit down to write. Not just in essays and research papers, but when I sit down to work on my novel. And that worry is that, if all of my ideas were struck by something that influenced me, either from a straightforward point or a rhetorical point, what is truly mine? Porter says:
"[Clreativeness does not consist in producing new sentences. The newness of a sentence is a quite unimportant and unascertainable property and 'creativity' in language lies in the speaker's ability to create new meanings: to realize the potentiality of language for the indefinite extension of its resources to new contexts of situation." (Porter, 5)
Several things to take into account for the above would be: 1) Genre, 2) Time Period, which falls in with, 3) Style. In the 19th century, Porter says something akin to be published meant to be writing in a style based on Shelley or Tennyson - how does that transfer to our own generation? What authors are we following now, be it in non-fiction or fiction?
This is where I think we struggle with the point that Porter alludes to: is every writer guilty of plagarism? In the broadest sense of the word, I suppose the answer would be yes - nothing that I have ever seen/read/watched, etc, has not influenced what I think or write. Just last weekend on Labor Day, I watched a movie with my father and throughout it, we kept saying, "Oop! They borrowed that from Star Wars and that from Predator and THAT from Star Trek and that from Moon..." and on and on it went. While we enjoyed the movie itself, we knew that it held "traces" of all the other great works of it's genre; it was continually borrowing from its ancestors.
The second half of that second quote says, "...'creativity' in language lies in the speaker's ability to create new
meanings: to realize the potentiality of language for the indefinite
extension of its resources to new contexts of situation." I partially agree with that...but even if you take that and put it in the rhetorical sense, as Porter said, it still doesn't remove the writer to his/her own newly completely created way of looking at things. Two people can - however rarely - look at something and think the exact same thing about it. And there's billions of people on the planet - the odds are pretty good.
Being a contributor to a web is great, but many people want to stand out. So what gives us the ability to do that? What is creativity at its root?
I know I'm focusing only on the Porter piece, but it's something that I literally think about all the time.
Maybe I have this all backwards and are looking at it the wrong way. Thoughts, anyone?
The idea about all writers plagiarizing made me think about a photographer I studied in one of my photo classes. She had taken the work of another photographer, took pictures of the original photographs, and put them in shows. She never pretended that the photos were hers; in her artist statement, she made sure that the viewer knew that she had photographed another's work. However, technically the photograph was hers because she had the idea to photograph another's work. So, the question becomes, is this plagiarism, or is this originality? On one hand, her photographs are identical to the original photographer's. On the other hand, no other photographer had the idea to photograph another's work. Is this art, or is this plagiarism? Let the arguments commence.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think it's kind of clever what the photographer did, and it brings up a lot of questions about art and creativity and originality. What is originality? What is inspiration? Where is the line.
I have done the same thing you have where I've watched a movie and called out all the plot lines they've stolen. But the original plot lines aren't so original. Star Wars follows typical mythos: the journey of the hero. There is nothing original about it. Where the originality comes from is the application of the plot line. There's a common belief that there are only a few possible plot lines in the world, and as storytellers, we must apply these plot lines in the most creative way possible.
So, I think that creativity is even more important in this day and age than it was before. There are so many thoughts and ideas already out there. We must strive to bring about more. It's all about growth and learning and adaptation and change.
Intertextuality was the concept that almost made me switch majors. Last Fall, this theory made me so depressed that I drank booze for a week straight. I hate intertextuality. However, it is nonetheless true. I think that intertextuality is the ultimate constraint to aspiring writers. It is also be our greatest weapon in developing writing. After all Porter is referring to writers using writers. So if a writer can recognize and develop the themes in other writers work then that writer can use it (via intertextuality) with their own stylistic flair.
ReplyDeleteIf we all use intertextuality should we exploit it more? I ask myself this question regularly in the fight for my own identity and originality as a writer. Many great writers would say, “ABSOLUTELY!” They’d give you a cigar, slap you on the back and shout out an atta boy. However, I choose the path that ignorance may just be the kind of bliss we need as writers. Maybe we can give our subconscious the reins on this one and let it steer. I feel so much better about my own writing when I purposefully “forget” about intertextuality. Is it there? Of course! Do I let it get me down? Absolutely not!
I would rather look at from a positive aspect. All the great writers, story tellers and thinkers before me are all a part of my own conscious. I have Hemingway, Wells, Fish, Fisher, Bishop, Frost, Aristotle, Einstein, Lovecraft, Melville and many others concocting the next line, paragraph, chapter, book. I, for one, am glad they are on my side.