Is It True That “There's Nothing New Under The Sun” and How Does That Affect Writers?
The Concept of Originality Explored - Well, A Little, Anyway.
What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done;
there is nothing new under the sun. (Ecclesiastes 1 v 9)
I once heard a teacher say this when I was at primary (elementary) school. She was talking to another teacher and I wasn't really listening (as well I shouldn't have been) but this unusual phrase leaped out at me. I didn't understand what it meant, so later on I asked another teacher. She told me that it meant there were no entirely new and original ideas any more - that everything has happened before, that history repeats itself and that every idea has its basis in another idea and so can not be considered original. I suppose it was a very accurate description of what the statement meant, but is it actually true? Are there really no more truly original ideas to be had that have not been had before? No more inventions that that aren't merely improvements on someone else's invention, who probably first got the idea from… I'm sure you get my drift. So this article is really two-pronged - firstly, is it true that there is nothing new under the sun and secondly, if so, how does this affect writers? It's a bit of an exploration, a musing if you will, on the concept of originality.
Over the years, I've had cause to use this statement of there being nothing new under the sun, myself - upon hearing of events and incidents that have gone on to have some kind of historical importance, such as the destruction of the Berlin Wall and other incidences of countries moving away from communism or dictatorships towards democracy and freedom, for example, or of hearing of terrible crimes and injustices that have been committed, or of reading stories and watching movies where the storyline and plot seem all too familiar. I remember years ago, having to write a college assignment on “Inspiration”. In the course of my research, I happened to read a book, “Teach Yourself Screenwriting” by Raymond Frensham. In it, he said that there were only eight basic stories upon which all other stories were based. A list of them follows:
- Achilles - the fatal flaw
- Candide - the innocent abroad
- Cinderella - the dream come true
- Circe - the chase or the spider and the fly
- Faust - the debt that must be repaid
- Orpheus - the gift taken away
- Romeo and Juliet - boy meets girl.
- Tristan and Isolde - the love triangle, eternal or otherwise
This struck a chord with me as it resonated strongly with the many thoughts I had had over the years all based on that one simple quote and so I found myself asking again - is it true that there's nothing new under the sun?
I'm not a philosopher; I'm not even a great intellectual although I suppose I'm smart enough in my own way; but I can't help thinking that the answer to that question is no. In my opinion there ARE some things new under the sun, although I think it all depends on how far down the line you want to go with the concept of originality.
You see, I think the Internet is something new under the sun, which has been brought about with the development of new technology, although I'm aware that someone else might argue that communication (which is what the Internet is a method of) is not new and that technology is nothing new, only something improved. How far do you want to go? Are the kinds of businesses that the Internet is responsible for developing new? - MySpace, FaceBook and Google, for example. Many people will have sat at home in front of their PC and said, “I wish I'd thought of that.” Or, when trying to find a new idea for a business, ended up saying, “Nah, it's already been done.” Does that mean that these are original ideas? I don't know if there's an answer to that. I like to think that they are original because it just seems too depressing to think otherwise - that no matter what you do, what you write or what you invent, you may be accused of some form of plagiarism or copyright infringement. It could put people off even trying and then where would we be? Now that I'm a writer (of sorts) I find the concept of originality even more intriguing.
To find out how this concept of the importance of originality could affect writers, let's try and put this idea in some kind of perspective - how does one go about writing an article on, say, the effects of anti-depressants on the nervous system, if one is only a writer and not a scientist? The truly original way to do this would be to develop your own drug using a mixture of chemicals that has never been put together before, or even better, discover previously unknown chemicals, and run your own trials, using your own research to write the article. Otherwise, as a writer, you have to read someone else's research and then incorporate their ideas into your article, under the fair use terms and giving them due credit to avoid charges of plagiarism.
As a writer, this is something I wrestle with when assignment guidelines ask for an original piece of writing on a certain subject. How original can it be, when it is a subject I have no personal knowledge of and have to go away and research it? Does the fact that I have rewritten or rephrased the information in a different way mean that it is now an original piece, even though it still plainly uses someone else's work? Does it become original simply because I incorporate my own point of view of the research I have used? I don't know. I don't even know if these questions are actually important - I'm just asking them because they are the things that I muse on sometimes when I am trying to write something original. Let's face it, the whole thing about research is that someone else has to have already done it or written about it for you to be able to research it, unless of course, as mentioned before, you carry out your own social or scientific or whatever studies and use your own information.
I'm going to stop now because I feel as if I am about to branch out into some kind of metaphysics that might just make my head explode. I didn't write this article because I expected clear answers from other writers, although I would be fascinated to read other views on the nature of originality, I wrote it because I found the “vicious circle” aspect of the concept an interesting one to try to put down on paper. I'm not trying to convince people that I'm right about the Internet being something original. This article isn't an argument, it's just my thoughts and I've enjoyed sorting them out and writing them down. It's been helpful and it's encouraged me to take this line of inquiry further - to read what others think of the concept of originality. If nothing else, I hope this piece has given you something to think about too. Just don't make your head explode!
