Original and Also-rans

The issue of 'original' and intrinsic verses extraneously applied value.

This is an idea that I have heard referenced directly and by implication multiple times in the past months, and I'm sure if you stop to consider it, you will will realize the same is true for you. Have you not heard the lament that, 'Nothing is new in the world', as if 'newness' is a core requirement for anything to be considered worthy of our short attention spans? Or what about the idea that if someone else 'discovered' or 'thought of' something before someone else, the second person's individual path to understanding has no merit because they weren't 'first'? Consider the following quote from Clive Cussler's Treasure.

'If Junius Venator's voyage to the Americas was absolutely proved ... history books needed to be revised and new chapters written.
'Poor Leif Eriksson and Christopher Columbus would be relegated to also-ran footnotes!'(p. 455 italics added for emphasis)

Granted, Cussler explores historical possibilities and modern implications of such fascinating possibilities in his adventures rather than known fact, but I think my stance on the matter shines through clearly. Why, why, why does a thing have to be the first one ever to have full merit? Two people come up with the same eureka moment completely separately from each other but one does it a few years before the other, so the second person's journey doesn't measure up? 

Or consider in the more mundane world as opposed to the cutting-edge of the arts and sciences. (Odd that they can be paired at all, no?) One community faces a difficulty and after much struggle, they come upon a solution that finally gets things back in order. Another community comes to be in the same situation. If so much value and worth is declared in doing something no one else has done before, do they ignore the solution right in front of them because it is devalued as unoriginal? Is the modern world so stubborn that we insist on seeking something different just because we can't respect or even see any value in something classic?

I know that there are places and venues where the drive for the new is something we all understandably appreciate. Most of us would abhor being bound to the original generations of the computers and cell-phones. I'm not saying that thinking should be confined to the list of what has been done before. They did that in the dark ages, and society rather decayed. I am saying that it might be good to consider the 'also-rans' in another light.

According to dictionary.com, 'original' has five top-listed definitions.

o·rig·i·nal

  [uh-rij-uh-nl]

adjective

1.

belonging or pertaining to the origin or beginning of something, or to a thing at its beginning: The book still has its original binding.

2.

new; fresh; inventive; novel: an original way of advertising.

3.

arising or proceeding independently of anything else: an original view of history.

4.

capable of or given to thinking or acting in an independent, creative, or individual manner: an original thinker.

5.

created, undertaken, or presented for the first time: to give the original performance of a string quartet.

The modern world seems to have an obsession with definitions two and five while disregarding one, three, and four. They only want something new, ever looking, never satisfied, simply because as soon as the something 'new' is found, it becomes 'old' and invalidated. Rather, consider the terms 'independent' and 'individual'. If we chose to focus on the value of the person's journey for its value to them rather than whether it entertained our own boredom, we would discover a world overflowing with value. Lots of 'value' there, but then that is the point. I still remember the moment, around age seven, when I made the connection between 'pancake' and 'pan' + 'cake', i.e. a cake made in a pan. I was quite excited when I explained it to another but they just looked at me like 'Yeah, so? Duh. Why even mention it?' Despite being impressionable, I knew that my discovery was my own, even if all the adults already knew it. And truly, a young child making the connection between language patterns and etymology without help is worth respect.

Consider also, that the human race has a similar genesis and similar experience to draw upon. We are born, we live, we learn, we work to survive, we have families, we die. We have the same earth, and the same general resources. Despite local variations of climate and geography, the need for earth and water also tie us together. Ultimately, we are all pulling from the same bag of resources to create our expectations and interactions in life. While the more variables mathematically increases the possible combinations exponentially, there will always be themes of commonality, especially the more people there are to make the combinations. Rather than finding these patterns as distasteful and boring, consider the beauty implied therein.

A human does not need to invent something no one else has ever seen to be valid as a human. They are already their own unique person. No one else has experienced my combination of personality, history, thoughts, tests and trials, hopes and dreams, failures and successes. Others have experienced abuse. Others have experienced serious illness and death of a parent. Others are riding the disorienting roller coaster called dysautonomia. There is even a pattern of dysautonomia patients with traumatic childhoods and trigger illnesses. But rather than invalidating my experience, or those of another, having a community of shared experience brings strength, comfort, support, and courage. If it works this way with the hard things in life, why can we not see the creative and productive in the same way?

A sibling has a particular gift but feels threatened when another expresses interest in the same activity? Or the second sibling doesn't dare express their interest for fear of being a 'copycat' or trying to steal the show or crowding the first sibling's scene? If we learn to value each person for who they are rather than seeing everything as a competition for fleeting value, I suspect life would be much more fulfilling for everyone.

I first heard the term 'also-ran' in the lyrics to Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat. His brothers resented the legitimate heir because they feared who he was meant they didn't count. Not having been there, I can't say much to the family dynamics involved, but the jealousy was real and it nearly led to Joseph's murder. The end of the story has Joseph testing his unknowing brothers to see if they still hold the biases that broke the family in the first place.

Sibling rivalry is only one manifestation of the obsession with all things original. The biases evident in the story are indicative of the larger picture, all the same. I have known those who are what I call 'purists' of the classics, such that only the six-hour Pride and Prejudice has any real value, for example. I have always loved adaptations of classic stories for how they allow another perspective on a previously one-dimensional picture. The more perspectives, the richer the possible understanding. In stating this, it occurs that adaptations are a combination of first-time/beginning original and fresh-take/inventive original. Not all adaptations are equally appealing, but to blame any failure on the fact that it was an adaptation, on the fact that it is patterned after something already done, is superbly short-sighted.

Likewise, not all similarities in stories are derivative. My creative writing short story about an underground culture could not have been inspired by The City of Ember for the simple reason that I'd never heard of it before the class workshop critique on my already written short story. I can't say it was the best story written, but to dismiss it because it was like another was to miss what value it had on its own merits. (Dr. P said it was a novel in disguise, so even if I think the point I was trying to express has value, my dislike for writing means it won't get attention for a good long time, if ever...)

I am not arguing this post because of my personal examples, but I am using them to demonstrate my meaning simply by virtue of them being the most ready examples for me to work with. I am somewhat creative by nature in that I don't see a purpose in recreating the wheel when others already do so and far better than I could. I get the inclination to find a new way to do things, to organize things, to present things. The creative urge is a means of introducing originality to our world. I think we just get hung up on thinking that is how things must be judged rather than being an indication of seeking growth. The very notion of the 'shame' of 'also-rans' is evidence of this flawed judgment. If we can encourage and praise growth in every individual, however repetitive it may seem, I think it will naturally lead to a creative world. And if we focus on our own growth instead of comparing and judging, I think we will find ourselves less bored, burned-out, and biased against the patterns natural to life.

Writings from 2011: Passing Judgment

It seems easy for people to pass quick judgment upon things they don't understand. I have just read two books recently which hit upon this concept. The first book described the situation in black and white. The second gave an example of something which I've seen from experience that few understand unless they've been there themselves.

In The Will of the Empress, by Tamora Pierce, a noblewoman finally returns to her mother's native land where she is cousin to the Empress. There, she finds the land has an old tradition where men are allowed to kidnap a woman to force her hand in marriage. You would think a female on the throne would stop this horrible custom but as the Empress had managed to escape two kidnappings, she had no sympathy.

I have read elsewhere that the strong do not understand the weak. In this story, I was pleased to find the author showed the foolishness of the Empress. It showed the same initial story of being kidnapped, but to women of different resources and abilities. While one woman had friends with power to find and rescue her, another one was left without help. That one was hidden away and starved and hurt until she finally gave in to make it end.

The sad part is that the Empress thought she knew what it was like. She was too proud to see that her position meant her captors would ensure comforts and safety to her person that others wouldn't receive. She wouldn't be tied up and stuck in a box. She couldn't see that it was only because her captors had to be careful not to offend their ruler that she was even able to escape.

And so she judged all other women who had no such protection as weak or secretly happy at the occurrence, as though it were flattering, of marriage by kidnapping.

Oddly, the applicable character in the other story is also royalty. In Brandon Sanderson's Warbreaker, two nations have been on the verge of war since the smaller one first claimed independence. To try to hold it off, one king promises his daughter to the other. When the time comes, however, he cannot part with the oldest so he sends the youngest in her stead.

The older princess, fearful for her sister and resenting her lost importance, follows to the threatening capital. There, she is taken in by those she believes are helping her. Months later she discovers that they had actually been using her, manipulating her, to their own ends and even holding her hostage without her even recognizing it.

Even after she knew the truth, her mind wanted to deny it and return to those she had thought were caring for her interests. She wanted to believe things were as they should have been rather than as they were. The moment she saw the truth and the events that came because of it changed who she was. And that changed what she wanted.

The story ends without expressing what effects her choice to leave her princess life behind would have on her or her small nation. I cannot help but imagine, though, that her father and many of her people would have trouble accepting her choice. They would not understand.

Perhaps she would prove a guide in helping them understand those they had judged so arrogantly. Perhaps she could moderate the disdain felt for those who could only find work in the enemy city. One thing is sure: she can no longer see herself as better than those who live in the slums because she understood, in part, their desperate survival.

Many 'Hello's

It turns out that not all of my ponderings can be concentrated into tweet size. As the topic of blogging has recurred many times of late, I figured it was likely my own dislike for writing that was preventing me from 'getting the clue'. And so I've opened up a new blog and shall endeavor to (relatively) consistently document the more complex of said ponderings. I had actually considered using that for my blog name, but I felt the 'Admonition of Paul' found in Philippians 4:8 rather better fit my intent.

Philippians 4:8  Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

Also, I state up front that I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, better known as 'Mormons'. Yes, we are Christians - just look at the name above... That said, I'm not going to pretend that my background does not influence my thoughts in order to make others who dislike my religion feel more comfortable. Be it known up-front that I also will not be saying whatever I end up writing about with the intent of forcing missionaries down the reader's throat. If a scripture or concept peculiar to Mormons has part in my thought processes they will be unapologetic-ally referenced and even explained. I hope the reader will recognize the difference. However, if there is any reader who would like to learn more, I will also happily refer them to more information.

Furthermore, whilst (that's a fun word, isn't it?) I am a member and I strive to have proper understanding and "Stand at a witness at all times, and in all things, and in all places", I do not actually speak for the church.

I read a blog post just this morning by a woman remarking as a Mormon on the current 'bikinis are immodest' issue claiming that modesty is all subjective and only men are responsible for their responses to higher levels of exposed female flesh. While it is true that women and girls need to learn to be at peace with their bodies, we all have a level of responsibility to help and 'sustain' those around us, leading them to do good. If we have a positive or negative influence on those around us, should we not consider ourselves and how we use it? For I believe we will ultimately be held accountable for even that.

This seems quite a tangent, but the reason I mark it here is in concern for the impression this lady, as a Mormon blogger, clearly had in view of the many comments posted. I do not believe her post, while mostly well-intended, actually represents our religion. If, somehow, I get distracted in some passionate response to something and stray from the mark, please recognize I claim my imperfections for myself and strive to correct them as I recognize them and please do not condemn the church in my place.

These points being made, I want to say many 'hello's to any and all who come across this blog. Some of these initial posts will actually be ponderings I wrote a couple years ago (some 15 or so of them - I stopped for my previously noted dislike of writing...). I do have many thoughts on a variety of subjects, but you will likely notice a preponderance of references to stories triggering thought processes. That just happens to be the main way I learn. Whatever I end up writing about, I hope I can promise you that they will all have some depth to them as I don't have much patience for shallow fluff. Hope you enjoy! :)