3 ms·
I think the commenter was referring to the literary device of allusion, where one poem could make a reference to another poem or other literary work by quoting
by tbirdz 13y ago
I think the commenter was referring to the literary device of allusion, where one poem could make a reference to another poem or other literary work by quoting it directly or paraphrasing, maybe even subverting the original context to create a different kind of effect. However, citations could become difficult, as the language associated with them could harm the poem's flow and make it more awkward.
One solution I have seen to this though, is various annotated editions of poems which add footnotes to explain various references, things specific to that author's culture or time period etc. However, while these are certainly informative, they can be a bit distracting from the poem itself.
- robmclarty 13y agoVery well put. I believe this sort of expression (of remixing and building upon and expanding or contracting) is good and healthy and artistic and should be considered an acceptable aspect of creative expression. How original is original? The fact that we are using a common language already ties us to a past cultural history upon which we build up the meanings in what we say and write (i.e., unoriginal from the get go). I think there are certainly varying degrees of similarity that can be seen in different bodies of writing; some closer to the exact words of others. But at the end of the day, how much does this really matter? I'm more interested in human expression, however it needs to be done, than quibbling over who did what first and by how much. What little money can be had, yes, might want to be protected so that more art can be produced, and maybe fame can bring a mild sort of immortality to reward the struggling artist. But I don't think what compels us to write (or create) is something we do for fame or fortune. I think it's more to do with adding to the fabric of culture and playing a part in the drama of human history.