Can You Beat an Original?

When writing a screenplay, it is important to produce a script that contains the enormous potential to maintain an audiences' attention. The writer of the screenplay has a variety of choices on how to achieve this for an original score, but when dealing with a screenplay taken from an adaptation of a literary text, the screenplay author only has so much to work with. They also have to be concerned with maintaining the integrity of the original work. Obviously, there would not be an adaptation of anything if that original piece of work already was not captivating in some way, presenting a unique piece of art that might be successful as another medium.

A book reads differently than a movie does though. In a book, there can be lengthy paragraphs describing the smallest detail, while in a movie, the director only has seconds to describe that same detail to an audience and make it stick. Now, I am not speaking from experience, but I am led to believe that a situation such as the one just described is where many conflicts originate. A writer worked hard, I assume, to present a certain idea in a certain way to an audience. It would be a shame not to live up to that writer's expectations, but I am pretty sure that it happens more times than not.

A compromise has to be reached for everyone to be happy (by happy I mean get paid). So bits and pieces of the original idea get chipped away, and in-turn, the director loses some control as do the producers. That is why I feel that most literary works that have been used as the basis for movies have not been as successful as the original work. Although. I do acknowledge the fact that there are many movies that I have seen that have been adapted from a book and I did not even know it. I'll even go so far as to say that I enjoyed many of those movies.

Borrowing an Idea

Is there any original thought left in this world? Or are we left only to borrow little bits and pieces of ideas from one another to create a sort of collaborative achievement? It seems as though throughout history, humans continuously build on one another's ideas by either developing them into something stronger, or disproving them and paving the way for truth. Whichever the case, it seems as though someone else's thoughts or ideas are the reason that our own ideas are able to flourish into something great. Take for instance post-modernism or even pop literature. Both were a response constructed by previous ideas built from already existing genre's, only expanded.

The question of ownership does come into play though when dealing with inspiration. As we all know, there have been instances in the past in which copyright infringement has led to legal battles between separate parties concerning the use, or abuse, of a medium (be it music, literature, or physical artwork). But how does inspiration from a conversation differ from inspiration from a song? A song is nothing but a sort of conversation isn't it? So how does someone own the right to a conversation? Do they own the rights because it makes them money? At this point the deciding factor between plagiarism and innocent inspiration is if that 'original idea' has allowed someone before you to profit from it financially.

Since it can be argued then that there are no 'original ideas' in our world, does that mean that truly nothing is free? Not even our own thoughts? Hopefully it doesn't get too expensive to voice our own opinions.

See Right Through the Glass

Well, we finally finished Paul Auster's City of Glass in class. Although I have complained about the book in the past, I can honestly say that I did not hate it. It was an interesting story, but I feel that it was only interesting because I kept expecting something meaningful to happen. I thought that as the story went on, it would all come together and make perfect sense. It was exactly the opposite. The more I read, the less the story made sense. Does that mean that the more we think about life , the less it makes sense to us? I think that Paul Auster would say yes. He would say that there is no level of sense in our lives, and that there is no sense in trying to find it. Maybe that's just what he wants us to think. I am really confused as to what the point is to writing a story that has no point though. Anyway, that is just my observation and I must remind you that it is based off of only one of his works.

Is there a reason behind reason?

What is the point to a story if there is no point? I have been struggling with this very question, hoping to find an answer that would seem reasonable. To me, it seems as though we all attempt to find some sort of truth in our lives. Looking for that something that makes sense, although it seems as though we can not find that feeling of sense in Paul Auster's, City of Glass. Even the idea of languange is not safe. The theory that languange expresses our reality, and that our language has gaps in it, means to me that our reality has gaps our languange can not explain. Just so not to be confusing, this means that our languange can not in anyway explain our true reality. Since our reality can not be explained by anyway that we know, there is no way that we can have a full grasp on our lives. At this point I breathe out a full gasp of air, which has no real point to it. It just expresses my frustration, and yet determination, to find some sense to this story. Since this is all just left to chance, I hope that chance will be favorable and reveal to me that random images are real letters, that may lead to a real word. I hope that that word may reveal a relative sentence that is not just full of babel.

Finding Metafiction in the Funhouse

Sept. 2 2008

"Lost in the Funhouse" by John Barth


It was one of those stories that I could not wait to finish reading. "Lost in the Funhouse" is an incredibly topsy-turvy story that leaves the reader shaking their head. It leaves them wondering about many aspects, at times filling in the blank spots themselves. The story can be related to a person looking into a trick mirror. They see something in it, but they are not sure exactly what it is. There are clues that readers may be able to pick up along the way, but then again they may not be able to, which leaves them staring in confusion at those uncertain "objects in the mirror". If specific points in the story don't trip the reader along the walk through the fun house, the instructions and suggestion on how to write an actual story probably will. These statements are a clear example of metafiction, although they do not add anything to the flow of the story at all. It should be understood though that the story itself is about the growth and maturation of a boy of about thirteen years old. Now, I may be going out on a limb, but the author lends us advice on how to write and develop a story, just as he shows us the growth and development of a young man. There may be some substance behind that, but then again it may just be a symbol hunt. I'll let you decide.