Influenced as we are by our experiences, a degree of imitation is surely inevitable, and some authors might be flattered to see their work inspiring others. But when does what might have been a fair intervention become suspicious?
Tolkein's The Lord of the Rings series was originally published in the 1950s and became so heavily borrowed-from that elements such as elves and orcs are now conventions (arguably clichés) of the fantasy genre, even beyond literature. Entire genres can be created via the influence of a single text, for better or worse; the world of comics has a history of superhero saturation. I don't think many people would deny that a degree of borrowing is not only acceptable, but even healthy in a creative medium.
But there are always examples that push what is generally considered acceptable. James Cameron's 2009 film Avatar was monumentally successful, but met with a wave of accusations, citing its functional similarities to Pocahontas and Dances with Wolves, among others. However, I would argue that while the elements taken are considerable, their specific selection and arrangement is itself unique. In other words, a string of unoriginal ideas were combined to create an ultimately original product. But is this just an excuse, or a legitimate method for creating new texts?
“The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it, but the way those atoms are put together.”- Carl Sagan
I enjoyed reading this post. You wrote it intelligently and I agreed with your argument. Great quote at the end as well.
ReplyDelete