"There is no such thing as an original text"

“There is no such thing as an original text” 

The concept of an original text is one of great ambiguity and discussion, in the Modern day there are a multitude of laws and regulations defining what categorises as an original text. Yet the argument that nothing can be classed as original text is still one of eligibility as ones actions could be proclaimed to be a manifestation of past occurrences and events. 

Throughout a lifetime humans experience a great amount of media texts and it could be argued that this shapes our future and our outlook on life. Through a wide exposure to media texts and opinions subjective viewpoints are natural, therefore any text produced is more a physical representation of past events rather than an exhibition of creative human behaviour and thought. The idea of impressionability must also be recognised; humans can easily be persuaded or inspired by media texts whether it’s propaganda or a film. Further gravitas is given to this argument when studying theories, the idea that media texts can be classified by genre or even understood in a general or broad matter taints their individuality. The assumption that texts are categorised in wide grouping suggests that there is an interrelationship between them. Impressionability and inspiration technically do not make a text unoriginal, however this adds further weight to the argument that there is no such thing as an original text. As somebody is influenced by someone else’s work this can manufacture the argument that their work is not particularly original, yet the reversal of this is that the final media text produce is more a multiplier or an expansion of previous works. 

Ferdinand De Saussure, the pioneer of semiotics, stated that signs signify certain beliefs and emotions despite their inanimate nature. This can be expanded further to state that objects and signs are metaphors or motifs for particular beliefs and ethos’. Signs wouldn’t be fully understood or utilised on a regular basis if wasn’t for texts that have come before and are only employed on the basis that past experience of the audience does exist. The findings of Saussure support the statement that there is no such thing as an original text, this is because the perception of signs is founded under the preconception that audiences have witnessed previous texts. If it wasn’t so the misinterpretation of signs and their ineffectiveness within the media would be much more common. Saussure worked of the preconception that original texts are non-existent. The theory of Saussure is founded upon the state of continuity between texts, consequently supporting the ideology that no original texts exist. Saussure’s theories are widely accepted and therefore should be recognised greater under the fact that a large amount of society may not believe in original texts subconsciously due to their similarities beliefs with Saussure. 

The concept of intertextuality further reinforces the notion that there is no such thing as an original text. Bulgarian philosopher Julia Kristeva coined the term and stated that there is an interrelationship between media texts and that all works of literature are shaped in relation to one another. This suggests that a media text cannot co-exist in a state of intertextuality and originality. Kristeva further stated that texts can directly relate to one another, mention each other or be inspired by each other. The flow and connectivity between texts cannot be denied, this is evident in all forms of media. There is also a distinct continuity between texts, certain trends and cultures make this evident and devise a perpetual self-interaction between the media. However I would argue that a piece of literature can be original and intertextual. This is due to the fact that personal image and experience of a person is mirrored in whatever they produce. Therefore as humans we all differ as people and that’s where a text does become original. No two texts can be identical in tone, argument and 

nature and due to that they is a differentiation between media creations. The intertextuality and context of a text does influence its content but despite the constant and cooperative flow of media texts the influences of one text is different to another which permeates a sense of individuality. So to an extent the interrelation of texts may be arguable to count them as unoriginal however just as texts are related they can also be different and individual. Although different pieces of literature are in correspondence with each other they are more built of each other and expansions of similar ideas rather than direct copies which constructs originality. 

Despite the theories of Kristeva and Saussure there is also considerable evidence that original media works do exist and on a large scale. The English dictionary states that something original is “new; fresh; inventive; novel:” which suggests that a large amount of media texts are indeed authentic. However the hackneyed idea of an original text can differ to what is described as original within the law. Particular texts could show great innovation and be completely unorthodox, and be defined as an original, yet certain texts can completely mirror other products yet due to surpassing laws they are widely seen as original one another. It could be quarrelled that the law may define the originality of texts to an extent but lack the specific knowledge to be fully effective. Furthermore the governing laws of copyright stop any unoriginal media texts being produced on a mass scale, going of that every media text that we see can be deemed as original in a legal sense. Yet the legislation may stop fraudulent behaviour it doesn’t restrict unoriginal production of a text. This opens up another argument whether a text could be original in the sense of the law but may not be particularly original within society as a whole. I would argue that laws can’t define originality as only the final piece is assessed for whether it’s a direct copy of another text but has very little or no recognition of the inspiration or foundations of the final product. 

In conclusion I would argue that original texts do exist to an extent. A text becomes original when they differ from what has happened before; although texts are heavily influenced by one another and that may tinge their originality all texts are different to one another. I would also argue that there is no binary boundary of originality, a text may be more unique than another but still both are considered to be far from identical, due to an infinity of texts and influences I deem it impossible for a text to be a replicate of another. Moreover, due to the inherent similarities between texts it is understandable and legible to differ in opinion. Yet in accordance, the manipulation of extensive ideologies and stimuli through media texts is too broad for a text to be understood as unoriginal and therefore there is an affinity of original media texts.