Carl
Jung, a renowned psychologist, believed that all humans share past experiences,
all share an underlying consciousness connecting everyone. Within this soup of
thought reside archetypes, the basis for the different characters in stories.
Jung proposed that all characters and stories came from the same source. There
are no new stories, only new details for those stories. This is the basic
premise of two of the chapters in How
to Read Literature Like a Professor. Noticing that this is the only time Foster does this in his book, it must be important. Foster describes the single story as a “barrel of eels.” Every story
mixes together with the originals and create a galaxy full of different stories.
Archetypes were the Big Bang and stories today are the resulting stars and
planets, all part of one universe. Once this is understood, a reader will be
able to look for the preceding stories. When analyzed, The Lion king becomes
Hamlet, the story of a son avenging the murder of his father at the hands of
his uncle. This can be done with almost any story written today. Besides just
copying stories, the same themes are used over and over again. There is often a
damsel in distress who must be rescued by the dashing knight. This takes place
not only in superhero stories, but also in Arthurian legends. A woman being
objectified as an object has been occurring in literature throughout time. No
matter if an idea feels new and fresh, an older story will almost always have
the same themes or plot points. But is this really a bad thing? Are humans not
all a part of a single story? Our literature perfects reflects humanity, we
came from our ancestors and so did our stories.
Your opinions about this prompt are very similar to mine; we both focus on how details are what make a story seem original. Your post also reminds me of a quote by Joseph Gordon Levitt: “The universe is not made of atoms; it is made of tiny stories.” Stories are what fill up our entire universe, and it makes sense that all of them are different variations of each other. I find it interesting that a psychologist has an extremely similar point of view on this subject; it provides more facts to the point that Foster is trying to make.
ReplyDeleteEven after writing my own post on this point, it still fascinates me, the sheer magnitude of parallels that can be drawn between any stories and movies, between everything from children's books to movies and TV shows. Your analogy of a universe is a very interesting way I had not thought about it before, even with the "barrel of eels" metaphor Foster made. I like the universe metaphor, as everything is part of a single universe, no matter how different the components may seem from each other. And how that you mentioned it, the Lion King is rather disturbingly like Hamlet. Disney has done it again! (Or did it, I suppose, as it is an older story...).
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt blows my mind every time a similarity in plots is pointed out between two stories. When Foster first proposed the idea of all stories being part of one big story, I was a tad hesitant. Yet, the more he explained himself, the more I came around to his point of view. When I began to process all the facts, it all began to become coherent;
ReplyDeleteI agree fully with Foster now.
Sarah put it beautifully when she quoted Joseph Gordon Levitt. We are all are made of little stories. That is why we can relate to each other so well when someone else has had a similar experience--- a bond begins to form. What was once "his story" has become "their story." Humans are extremely relational beings; we love when we can relate to someone. Without the single story, reading would not have the same effect as it does now. The beauty of the single story is that everyone from every walk of life can find at least one thing that affects them in any work of literature. When that is taken away, the ability to relate to one another becomes more difficult.
Initially, I believed and lived in the idea of there only being one story by which every literary piece is derived from. I thought of The Lion King and Hamlet, how could two pieces of art be so much alike? I understand the idea of everything being similar in some shape or form but it bothers me so. Reflecting on my personal adventures through literature and art, I have found that there is not just one story. There are multiple stories, each having their own replicas with different details. New forms of art emulate older pieces because the creators of such works have a preexisting mentality of how a story works. However, I believe that on occasion, someone creates a piece of work that is completely original, unheard of in the past. Would anyone have ever thought of the future as we see the present today?
ReplyDelete