Is your writing original?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kasie

Who was it said, 'I have gathered a posy of other men's flowers - only the thread that binds them is my own'?

---

This is a wonderful expression and I am totally moved by it.
Yes, in point of fact we gather others' flowers or to say it a bit differently flowers already exist and we simply string them into a garland and even the thread is not our own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

Creative, you think you are. I think not in the slightest. It is rubbish, gibberish and littered, fouled a hotchpotch of ideas, dead ones more often than not.
All you have is creaftmanship you connived through repetitions. Truth is simple. As simple as your nose, with no spectacles draped. Truth is as simple as planting and harvesting paddy. But you blanket yourself with coats, veneers of ideas shrouding and clouding truth. Your conceits, idealities, images and fancies earth reality. Your linguistic efficiencies with archaic styles crown you with the glory of being a luminary. At the base you are not the least bit better of if a comparison is stricken between your pedantries and a peasant’s who work on farm in the tropical blistering and sweltering sun.
We bigheaded men of letters or words are simply supercilious beings, and we try to shade truth so that all can not see it as it is.
I do not think anyone is original in writing. All we do is repeat, or parroting we evolve into leading lights, starring in domains of art, literature and music.
All I do is wordplay. Do not seek substance in what I write, for this is a fusion of imported ideas, in effect play on words. Punning shrewdly I try to seduce you into what I have to say, indeed making it funnier than the ordinary.
I feel ashamed, in fact embarrassed to speak truth directly; dwelling on imaginary stuff I fabricate ideas fooling people into ill conceived rashes.
Only nature is original and all those in proximity with nature. We are mimickers only.

---

I believe we can be original. What you speak is truth, and i dont believe can be argued- obviously nature is original, and we cannot be more original than the essence of that which is. Therefore i shall not hold refute for this, but it should be noted that we are also an essence in ourselves apart from nature.

By this claim, i will say that our experiences albeit borrowed from everything we percieve (whether dreams or reality), is in truth, an act of our nature to produce things which become a part our originality. Our originality, to speak (knowing that we can call ourselves that) is our being, and all we do with it. For ex. when Galileo discovered further knowledge of space to the defiance of the church; Or when the game of baseball was invented- these were original, because they had not been done before.

Furthermore, our efficiency to develop new insights into things unknown (a cure for a disease for example) is an act of our original being. Things we do not know, but come to know because of our experiences are things which are original.

Abruptly, i wish to end this, but i will strive my point, that you speak truth- which I dont believe can be argued. But what i intend to do is create the reason that we are original beings, who can do original things- that is until they are already known to us, therefore it is no longer original. So yes, in terms of writing, we lack any further intellect to create something original because it has all been restated, said and done- and that is due to time. But we really are original, and we can still create original things- just not things in literature because it's already there. Only if something new comes along that this life has never known, and someone writes about it, that would be original to us because it has never been done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poetman

I believe we can be original. What you speak is truth, and i dont believe can be argued- obviously nature is original, and we cannot be more original than the essence of that which is. Therefore i shall not hold refute for this, but it should be noted that we are also an essence in ourselves apart from nature.

By this claim, i will say that our experiences albeit borrowed from everything we percieve (whether dreams or reality), is in truth, an act of our nature to produce things which become a part our originality. Our originality, to speak (knowing that we can call ourselves that) is our being, and all we do with it. For ex. when Galileo discovered further knowledge of space to the defiance of the church; Or when the game of baseball was invented- these were original, because they had not been done before.

Furthermore, our efficiency to develop new insights into things unknown (a cure for a disease for example) is an act of our original being. Things we do not know, but come to know because of our experiences are things which are original.

Abruptly, i wish to end this, but i will strive my point, that you speak truth- which I dont believe can be argued. But what i intend to do is create the reason that we are original beings, who can do original things- that is until they are already known to us, therefore it is no longer original. So yes, in terms of writing, we lack any further intellect to create something original because it has all been restated, said and done- and that is due to time. But we really are original, and we can still create original things- just not things in literature because it's already there. Only if something new comes along that this life has never known, and someone writes about it, that would be original to us because it has never been done.

---

I believe in resilience. Ideas perfect when they blend. What I said are not mine alone. Now leading yours matures me into my own domain of thinking. You have stricken some points I can not disagree until and unless I get swayed by preconceived notions

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

It was Montaigne. :)

---

I thought it was, but I wasn't sure and couldn't find the book in which I first saw it. Thanks.

Original? No. Creative? Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NickAdams

Original? No. Creative? Yes.

---

You are right Nick. We create things and we are really staunchly honest if we agree that we are not original but creative.

There are of course elements of truth in your sayings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

You are right Nick. We create things and we are really staunchly honest if we agree that we are not original but creative.

There are of course elements of truth in your sayings.

---

The difficulty increases with each generation. There is a love/hate relationship with the authors I enjoy the most. I admire their discovery of something fresh, but am annoyed that my options have decreased. For me there is a competitive drive. I respond like a scientist: I want to get my discovery published in a journal before the next guy/gal.

I guess my opposition to pop-writers comes from my feelings that they are depleting the well. Their use of the fresh for the trivial seems a waste. Their textual diarrhea pours waste on to the floor.

I have this book on Heidegger titled Echoes, which I haven't read, but while skimming I found an interesting question: can an echo be original?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

You are right Nick. We create things and we are really staunchly honest if we agree that we are not original but creative....

---

I suspect that I'll regret asking this, but what difference does it make whether we're original, or creative?

I dearly hope I don't appear ignorant in saying so, but I see no shame in merely being creative rather than original. I've often thought of originality as false, and so this thread doesn't surprise me in the least. Not only with my own writing, but with much of the writing that I enjoy reading as well, I see no originality - after all, ideas must come from somewhere.

Yet at the same time, originality doesn't concern me in the least. Do not misunderstand me, I'm not talking about my concern for plagiarism in which you steal words or ideas from another person and claim them as your own, as that's blatantly unacceptable. But when you take small bits and pieces of information from many different sources and put it together in your own way, what's so bad about that? Of course there's no such thing as pure originality - but pure creativity is real. And as long as strong creativity is present, I see no problem at all.

Is it wrong of me to think in such a way? :/

If we believe in God He or She is the creator of everything and all originated from God alone.

If we do not, it is nature. Nothing is absolute original. Things are refinement, sophistication or modification or adaptation, variation of things. We assemble ideas and we claim we have created original pieces.

I express ideas that I learned from some other writers and I kind of assemble or mix using aide of words or craftsmanship I claim I have created something beautifully original.

Man made things are only alterations. Man is the finest creation of nature. Science how far it has gone in its advancement can not come up with an idea of creation, the way a living being is created. Till now no scientists have ever created anything as new as a living being.

If I write a piece of poetry I first of all use imagination and this too is outsourced to some other poets, and I drape it with my own words and craftsmanship or blend with ideas that I acquired at some points in my life.

All I claim to be original is not original in the real sense. They are offshoots or derivatives only.

Only when I read it ;)

If everything attach to "being",its alive.