Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieTigger
I am not entirely sure I can believe that it is possible to write fiction without building on someone else's work.
|
Basically, it's not. If the history of interpretation has taught us anything, it's pretty much two or three things. Authors are, generally speaking, great readers. Only a small portion of what they've read they knowingly and intentionally integrate into their work. The rest tends to slip in subconsciously. There are many people who champion the idea that you don't
need anything in order to create great cultural artefacts, but there are virtually no practical examples of this notion in literature, or much of art at all. You at least need to know how to read and write. In the case of folk poetry or prose, you need to know how to compose a story, which mostly comes from
listening to elder folk singers around you (I won't go into the specifics or orality and all that, though it would be fascinating). If you've ever taken a look at writings from very young people, or simply people without a wide range of life experience, their writing seems trite and generic, quite unlike what we'd call great art. For every one such person that shows some spark of originality, there are untold millions that do not. Having the bare-bones basic means to produce something, as a rule, does not equate to much, not when building a table, and not when trying to write.
I'd refrain from analogies with the Greeks and Romans, not just because they believed some things to be true, but also because they did not view "originality" or "genius" the way we do post-Romanticism. They also did not value solitary, aloof poets and frequently mocked them. Much of what works we have inherited from them had a viable social function within their political framework. The great tragoedians composed their plays for audiences that already knew the plot, all the characters and the resolution. They were more interested in the author's specific execution and delivery of well known plotlines. If one believes Aristotle, the "art" for them seems to have been in the way the thing was put together - how would the author motivate a character or resolve a conflict that the myth tells us must happen at some point in this story, etc. Comedy would be an infinitely more troublesome discussion, but it's worth noting that tragedy was always considered the higher art-form. In essence (I'm aware this post is chock-full of generalisations, but I believe the principles stand), one could claim that the need to be well-versed in a host culture as a prerequisite for creating in it comes from this ancient outlook.
In other words, it's not that myths cannot be created today, it's more that they serve no relevant function within the rest of our cultural framework. Except, of course, in epic fantasy or marketing, where old and new myth-making techniques come together in fantastic and frightening forms.
I've just noticed that in the past few days I've been writing these posts filled with verbose, dense cra...- I mean commentary, and I don't know when to stop. You guys inspire me! Keep the discussion going!