By saying that there is only "one story," he means that no story is entirely original. That all stories that are written relate to other stories in some way. No author can write anything that has never been written or correlated with anything else. I definetly agree. Just think of any good guy/bad guy story, when writing this authors can't help but think of stories like Superman or anything other story where good vs. evil. There is no way you could ever write anything that would relate to these stories. I know when I write things I think of a theme, then once I start writing I realize that my story starts to look familiar. It's not like I tried to copy something else, I do it subconsciencously, and so do other writers.
He means that no story is ever original unless of course you are one of the very first writers of time. But then again, how would you know if you were or not. It is quite complex. And, he is saying that if by some chance a writer wrote sometihng that was entirely original, never been done before, the reader wouldn't even know what to do with the work because it lacks familiarity. I agree because I do not even like to read books that do not have some theme I know a little something about. It would be like trying to read a book about brain surgery. You would feel left out and clueless.
I do believe that there really is just one story. Nothing is completely original. Every story has parts or ideas from other stories. Otherwise, how would the writers be inspired? I believe that this is true, because in every story you can pick out archetypes and symbolisms. Even Shakespeare had to have inspirations.
I agree with the author in that there is really only one story. There are no completely original stories. All stories borrow elements from each other and use some of the same themes. If you really think about it, a lot of the books you have read are similar to other books you've read. It is nearly impossible to write a completely original story because every topic imaginable has been used in some way.
hmmm, this feels oddly familiar, kinda reminds me of chapter 5. But i believe it means that their have been millions and millions of stories and it would be impossible to make a totally original story because someone somewhere has covered it by now.
I believe that there really is only one story. Every author had to have someone who inspired them, whether it be another author or someone in their lives. All stories have references or allusions to other stories. It is almost impossible to write a completely original book or story. THe concept would have had to have been used in the past.
This seems to me like it goes back to a previous chapter i read before but to me it seems like there is no story that is one hundred percent truly original. I do agree with this statement that there really is only one story. All stories in some way shape for or fashion make a reference to another story in some way or another weather we realize it or not.
By this statement I think he means that there is not one story absolutely original. All stories have a little bit of every other story and even though they can be totally oppposite ideas they are still basicly refer to something in other stories. I agree with this because authors had to start somewhere and they had to look at other author's ideas in order to start their own.
Wait... haven't we had this question before in a previous chapter?.. yes chapter 5..here it is...The author describes in this chapter that there is "only one story". I had never really considered this but now that i think about it, every story borrows at least some elements from another one. There are just too many works of literature to not have some elements from one story, not used in another one. I do believe that no story is completely original this is because either consciously or subconsciously an author always borrows from a previously read, or heard of, piece of literature. There ya go
In a previous chapter he explains how there is no original story. Authors use references to other authors' stories all the time. The author says, "Everywhere you look, the ground is already camped on. So you sigh and pitch your tent where you can, knowing someone else has been there before." Yes I do agree with this, there's no way you can write an original story about something because it's guaranteed another author has written about it before.
By the author saying there is one story means that no story is completely original and used bits and pieces of other stories non intentionally. There was also a previous chapter that talked about how no one story can be completely original.
he is saying that there is only one story that is life. every story has aspects from life and from other stories. this is why there is only one story, a story containing all stories, and that is life. there is no way to write a story that doesn't contain an aspect of pain, love, love lost, sadness, and/or the triumph of the comeback.
I think perhaps that the idea behind 'there is only one story' is something along the lines that life is nothing but one long continuous story, people are born, they live, then they die, but life in the world keeps on going. The story keeps going; authors, poets, story writers, and playwrights add to the story of life, with great adventure, great tragedy, terrible treachery, passionate love, and deep friendship. They makes us laugh, cry, smile, and frown and it is all apart of the one story of all, the story of life.
By saying that there is only "one story," he means that no story is entirely original. That all stories that are written relate to other stories in some way. No author can write anything that has never been written or correlated with anything else. I definetly agree. Just think of any good guy/bad guy story, when writing this authors can't help but think of stories like Superman or anything other story where good vs. evil. There is no way you could ever write anything that would relate to these stories. I know when I write things I think of a theme, then once I start writing I realize that my story starts to look familiar. It's not like I tried to copy something else, I do it subconsciencously, and so do other writers.
ReplyDeleteHe means that no story is ever original unless of course you are one of the very first writers of time. But then again, how would you know if you were or not. It is quite complex. And, he is saying that if by some chance a writer wrote sometihng that was entirely original, never been done before, the reader wouldn't even know what to do with the work because it lacks familiarity. I agree because I do not even like to read books that do not have some theme I know a little something about. It would be like trying to read a book about brain surgery. You would feel left out and clueless.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that there really is just one story. Nothing is completely original. Every story has parts or ideas from other stories. Otherwise, how would the writers be inspired? I believe that this is true, because in every story you can pick out archetypes and symbolisms. Even Shakespeare had to have inspirations.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the author in that there is really only one story. There are no completely original stories. All stories borrow elements from each other and use some of the same themes. If you really think about it, a lot of the books you have read are similar to other books you've read. It is nearly impossible to write a completely original story because every topic imaginable has been used in some way.
ReplyDeletehmmm, this feels oddly familiar, kinda reminds me of chapter 5. But i believe it means that their have been millions and millions of stories and it would be impossible to make a totally original story because someone somewhere has covered it by now.
ReplyDeleteI believe that there really is only one story. Every author had to have someone who inspired them, whether it be another author or someone in their lives. All stories have references or allusions to other stories. It is almost impossible to write a completely original book or story. THe concept would have had to have been used in the past.
ReplyDeleteThis seems to me like it goes back to a previous chapter i read before but to me it seems like there is no story that is one hundred percent truly original. I do agree with this statement that there really is only one story. All stories in some way shape for or fashion make a reference to another story in some way or another weather we realize it or not.
ReplyDeleteBy this statement I think he means that there is not one story absolutely original. All stories have a little bit of every other story and even though they can be totally oppposite ideas they are still basicly refer to something in other stories. I agree with this because authors had to start somewhere and they had to look at other author's ideas in order to start their own.
ReplyDeleteWait... haven't we had this question before in a previous chapter?.. yes chapter 5..here it is...The author describes in this chapter that there is "only one story". I had never really considered this but now that i think about it, every story borrows at least some elements from another one. There are just too many works of literature to not have some elements from one story, not used in another one. I do believe that no story is completely original this is because either consciously or subconsciously an author always borrows from a previously read, or heard of, piece of literature. There ya go
ReplyDeleteIn a previous chapter he explains how there is no original story. Authors use references to other authors' stories all the time. The author says, "Everywhere you look, the ground is already camped on. So you sigh and pitch your tent where you can, knowing someone else has been there before." Yes I do agree with this, there's no way you can write an original story about something because it's guaranteed another author has written about it before.
ReplyDeleteBy the author saying there is one story means that no story is completely original and used bits and pieces of other stories non intentionally. There was also a previous chapter that talked about how no one story can be completely original.
ReplyDeletehe is saying that there is only one story that is life. every story has aspects from life and from other stories. this is why there is only one story, a story containing all stories, and that is life. there is no way to write a story that doesn't contain an aspect of pain, love, love lost, sadness, and/or the triumph of the comeback.
ReplyDeleteI think perhaps that the idea behind 'there is only one story' is something along the lines that life is nothing but one long continuous story, people are born, they live, then they die, but life in the world keeps on going. The story keeps going; authors, poets, story writers, and playwrights add to the story of life, with great adventure, great tragedy, terrible treachery, passionate love, and deep friendship. They makes us laugh, cry, smile, and frown and it is all apart of the one story of all, the story of life.
ReplyDelete