It is said, in modern literary theory circles, that there is no such thing as original work. "Everything is said before", say the doom-sayers, but this is, while coherent to some degree, incoherent in another.

The way in which it is coherent is in the limitations of plot. There can be only so many devices with so many genres, and even Shakespeare recycled his works from older pieces. However, in William's day, society did not question antiquity in the ways that our society manages. What was old in his time was not necessarily useless, obsolete, or 'a dinosaur'. He understood that it matters little what the plot is to any story-- in other words what you say-- but in the underlying philosophies, critiques of society, and in the general latent content-- in other words, how you say it.

The reason this is the case is simple: while societies in the past can closely mirror our own, they are not our own explicitly. Shakespeare had no concept of technology, and he has little to say about modern health care ethics, such as stem cell research and cloning. While the philosophies and perspective could be relatively coherent and applicable to today's society, the perspective can only stretch as far as the culture similarities.

This is the case, sadly, with religious texts as well. While applicable to structuring discipline and dignity, the texts have little to say on many modern issues. So, while the doom-sayers in poetics make it their business to try and promote what they think of as 'free-play', texts become stagnant and-- worse yet-- writers begin to give up on searching for originality. "Why be original?" they ask, "when everything has been said before. Nothing is left to say anymore."

However, religion, like any other creative work, can be updated. Now, while I realize categorizing religion in 'creative work' will be somewhat controversial, I want to urge the reader that 'creative' has its roots in the same place as 'creation'. Storytelling is what the bible hopes to attain just as any other text, and while categorizing sacred texts in the same area as fiction might be uncomfortable, one must remember that the ancient Greeks (and the modern French) use the same word for "history" as they do for "fiction". The two words were not seen in separate terms.

Creativity is creation. This is how there can never be "no originality", because so long as there exists a mind to think and express, there are words and ideas that, while a product of their times, also need to be said, and in this necessity there is originality. While modern events may look similar to and have similar themes to events in the past, modern events are not the same as past events, by definition. What is new is new, by definition, and it is undeniable-- a tautology even.

So how is it that the postmodernists argue for a lack of possible original material? It is in the themes and philosophies that repeat themselves. Ideology and belief-systems do not change very quickly. In fact, some define the history of philosophy as an ongoing fight between socratics and aristotileans. While this model is obviously over-simplified, it speaks to how one can say that there are no true original works. The human condition will always be the same beast, though the events therein will be different. What it means to exist will always be the same, though what it means to exist in America, for example, changes drastically every decade.

The implications to art are simple: one should never be afraid of saying something that is ideologically or intellectually 'not new', because at each reiteration of a concept, it can be reapplied to new events. This is why society as a whole still reads literature long after the bodies of the writer has rotted and turned into earth and sediment, bones turned to ashes and dust. Art and literature itself, as J. M. Coetzee points out in many of his novels and in much of his literary theory, is an attack against mortality. It is being not only the skull that is crushed under the axe, but the axe that crushes the skull. It cannot be placed, and in this broadened perspective, it exists outside of its creator, and becomes immortal. It is the goal of every artist, whether they realize it or not, to be immortal through the works that are created. Creativity is creation of a new life, and is the ultimate dream of fertility-- fertilizing the soil of the earth with that which can never be killed.

Immortality of Creation

It is also this immortality that creates, interestingly, a conflict of interest in any artist's claim to originality. There exists, in the air, floating in our subconscious, the myriad ideologies of the past. Anyone who doubts this would only have to look at the judicial system and its foundations. Everyone knows about the judge and the jury, the concepts of justice and fairness, equality and the plethora of other abstracts associated with the court. And yet, much of the philosophies inherent in this system are at their core Abrahamic. Though many people are aware that witnesses have to swear on a bible before making any testimony, it would be interesting to see how many people are aware of the reasons why the bible still has a high profile within the seemingly secular system. Yet, the foundations of justice in the judicial system operate under the rubric of Abrahamic judgment and forgiveness (a model that would be criticized by the philosopher Jacques Derrida in his work, On Cosmopolitanism, in which he criticizes conditional forgiveness). While the court and the members therein might not be fully aware of the history of ideas that went into their structure-- perhaps they even feel it to be a completely modern institution-- it is, in ideology, a collection of ideas that are in the air, that still finds emotional and rational support because 'it is right' that it be so. The arguments as to why it is 'right' are not explicit, but the supporters and members of the judicial system are well aware that they exist.

That said, with ideology and philosophy being constantly re-supported and re-established, the postmodernist doomsayers are to some degree correct. But just as Shakespeare recycled plots and theatrical constructs and made it new by placing it within his own context, so can these ideologies be new when presented in a new context. Ethics is not necessarily a completely new and shiny concept, but the ethics of cloning cannot be said to be the same beast as the ethics of forgiveness in the Abrahamic tradition. The two, while they can be completely equal in philosophy and ideology, will be subtly different in the different contexts. In this way, what is different, the key modifier, is the context within which it is placed, and due to the linear nature of time, no two contexts will ever be exactly the same though they may share ideology, plot construct, event-details, or many other possible variables.

Conclusions

With the above in mind, I am hoping that a new theory of originality can be created. Originality is not constricted by any one variable. Something can be completely original by changing context, plot, ideology, philosophy, event-details... it is in changing one of the many variables that the context of art can continually be updated and 'new'. The original work might look very similar to an older version of the ideology, and indeed might be of the same philosophy as something that came before it, but it is not the clothes that make the person, nor the cover that should describe the book, and it is required of readers to be more attentive to the underlying context within which art is propounded. In this way, art can be seen as much more fecund than the doomsayers are making it out to be, and furthermore, in this way art can become less entrapped and enslaved by the sense of lethargy that it is suffering in our modern society. Art should not hang its head in shame for fear of being old, seen in ratty clothes. I urge artists to believe in the immortality and power of their field, raise their heads, and continue to produce creative and original works.