Prompt #4

It is difficult to imagine a truly original story-- one without elements found in Shakespeare or scripture as Foster argues. I agree with this notion that there are stories, structures, themes, etc. that transcend time and will forever recur throughout literature. However, this does not prohibit the capacity for original content, ideas, and stories to be formed. Think of the idea in these terms-- as far as we know, there are only one hundred and eighteen chemical elements. Nonetheless, those few rudimentary elements are the basis for the complexity of our grand universe, forming together in different patterns and bonds to produce all the different organisms and matter that we witness. In a very similar way, the few basic elements, stories, and characters that comprise the extent of literary content are constantly bouncing around, forming new combinations and stories that contribute to the vastness of the literary realm. Derived form these few primary sources of literature have come forth millions of novels and stories, and that's amazing. While many may argue that these precedents truly limit the creative extensions of literature, aside from the fact that thousands of novels are published annually, is it not impressive that these root elements are so flexible, so appealing, and so adaptable that we are able to produce everything we have based on them? Isn't it also a rather beautiful idea that every time a story is produced, that it is committed to the "one big story," the conscience of literature, the ecosystem of meta-intertextuality that hosts and produces new works?

 This surely enriches the way we experience literature, because as humans we seek out patterns, order, and like to make sense of things we cannot. Making connections to familiar stories and texts aids in further understanding any story, and makes our reading experience three dimensional. Not only do we understand the story being read but with this knowledge of the "one big story" layers and connections are added to the piece at hand.