Slaughterhouse--Five

Slaughterhouse-Five
by Kurt Vonnegut

One of the most striking characteristics of this novel is how it opens with the description of the ending of the novel. By saying early on, "It ends like this: Poo-tee-weet?" Vonnegut is quick to establish a sense of inevitability in the novel. This concept of inevitable war, death and massacre makes me question if originality really matters in this novel. If the most horrific events in human history are going to occur regardless of human action, then what value can an original thought really hold?

What is the purpose of innovation and creativity if it will never put a scuff or roadblock on the predestined timeline of the world? If creativity cannot change lives, then what is its purpose? It holds true in my mind, that it must only be there for the less imperative, though equally appreciated, aspects of our persona. We create and chase after these original thoughts because we can. Because there is always a place for joy in life. If one is to believe that the events of their life are out of their control, then what is stopping them from being the most free and creative person they could imagine?

Perhaps this thought process of predestination and inevitability is really just trying to say that life is all set out, the world will be how the world will be, and sadly you have no place to change that. Endure, create and appreciate and perhaps you will be able to avoid pain.

Beloved

Beloved
by Toni Morrison

This novel is unique in the context of my open question because the most influential, active and entirely present character of Beloved doesn't actually exist. Beloved exists, effectively, in the minds of the rest of the characters. This conjures a string of questions about not only the mental stability of Sethe, Denver and Paul D, but mostly about the originality of a mind that creates characters out of itself.

On one hand, the character that is being created is effectively nonexistent, so must be the most original of all thoughts. But that just doesn't seem to really be the case here. Beloved is the girl formed by the painful memories from Sethe's past and the confusion of the Denver's precarious situation. She never has the chance to be a true individual because she never was a true individual. Beloved is a spirit embodying angst in the lives of her living family; Beloved is a spirit in the body of the girl she never got to become.

Simply becuase something is false doesnt mean that it is original. In fact, and this seems to be the case with Beloved, she is more real than anyone else in the novel because she is made of all the unseen secrets of the other lives. She revels what is kept trapped inside. She may be false, she may even be a figment of imagination, but Beloved is not original. Beloved is true.

The Stranger

The Stranger
by Albert Camus

This novel was a shocking look at the simplicity of the human mind, but I was not initially sure as to how it pertained to my big question. How, I mulled over, does a story about only being concerned with the present events in one's life while paying no attention to surroundings or the past or future fit in with the idea of original thoughts? Just as I was beginning to think that only original thoughts we have came from the inherent characteristics of our personalities, Muersault enters the picture with a philosophy on life that seems utterly unconcerned with any thoughts whatsoever.

But maybe that is actually an important image in this question. What can the thoughts of a man who doesn't have any concern for the rest of the world or the thoughts of others say about the natural, organic even, tendencies of the mind? Muersault only acts on the ideas flowing through his mind at any time. He refuses to lie, to acknowledge any other lives, but he also refuses to be crudely against anything he doesn't agree with (etc. the religious themes in the novel). Muersault is, effectively, an organic mind.

Maybe all that is needed to achieve this mental cleanliness is indifference to the ways of your surroundings. Maybe it is possible to be mentally innocent, to have the intellectual corruption of a fetus, simply by withdrawing yourself from the rest of the world.

Crime and Punishment

Crime and Punishment
by Fyodor Dostoevsky

The title of Crime and Punishment instantly brings the mind to fabricate images of concrete situations: a jail cell, a trial, a gun in the hand of a killer. I find that the beauty of the novel lies in the fact that while all of these images are encountered throughout the story, they are defined by abstract and incredibly intimate sensations. I have found through this novel what I believe to be the most significant discovery about original thoughts that I have encountered through this year's quest.

The novel follows Rodya Raskolnikov as he fights through his own guilt and fleeting, though passionate, regret for a highly contemplated murder. While this concept rose a thrilling question about whether our nation has our justice system confused when we see premeditated murder more severely than murder of passion, it also presented the perfect foil. The character Svidrigailov is a man in essentially the same position as Rodya in his life; he is a murderer, a man searching for love, and a man of great fear.

The two men, however, end up in completely different places in their lives.
Svidrigailov lies dead with a bullet hole in his temple. Raskolnikov finds spiritual redemption from within a jail cell.

Both men had the same fate awaiting them, both were guilty and sinful. But something clicked in Rodya's head that wasn't comprehensible for Svidrigailov. Here I am finally beginning to see that a personally original thought, such as an enlightenment that there could be such a thing as redemption and a joyful future for the evil if they follow the proper steps, can come from the soul of a person and not necessarily the mind. Both of these men are "the same man" in the wiring of their brains, but deeper into the soul they are defined by their choices. Sure, Rodya had guidence from Sonia in reaching his redemption, but he made himself open to God on his own. A choice that was never comprehended by Svidrigailov.

Maybe, as has been previously suggested to me,
a truly original thought is embedded in the soul, the heart.
We all have those original characteristics that make us boldfaced, and these are the personal qualities that enable us to be free thinkers in these subjects.

Henry IV, part 1

Henry IV
part 1
by William Shakespeare

How does a play about royalty, family, friendship and war fit in with the concept of original ideas? Quite nicely, actually.

A striking place this concept emerges in the play was Prince Hal's plan to get back onto good terms with his father and the rest of the citizens by acting like a ruffian only to step up at the last minute and impress the family. Faced with this situation, I can't help but wonder what gives Hal the idea to create this plan. Is it the general disapproval of society? Is it the desire to make good out of the hole he has dug himself into? This one seems rather simple to me, since I am quite confident that Hal decides to revamp his image simply because he wants to live up to the expectations his father has for him. I think that expectations are certainly a subliminal way of influencing people's thoughts but I think that there is definitely a distinction to be made between that type of thought and an original thought. It certainly isn't original if it is given to the person from someone else directly. But the King never tells Hal to follow this plan, rather his actions lead Hal to this decision.

Ideas are like a path. A path of ideas. With every judgment that is passed on us, an idea is planted. And then a snide comment is made and an idea grows from the earlier planted one. And soon, from the string of ideas created by many little comments made, a rather organic idea emerges. After all the negative comments made to Hal about his failures, he had built up the plan, piece by piece, in his mind.

A partially organic thought.

Oedupis Rex

Oedipus Rex
by Sophocles

We have just concluded reading Oedipus Rex in class, and I am struck by some disturbing connections to this question of original thoughts. In the play abundant in dramatic irony, the audience finds themselves thinking pages ahead of Oedipus in every scene, however when he rashly decides to gauge his own eyes out with the brooches worn by his wife moments after her suicide, we are shocked.

Here is the character who we had followed the whole story and predicted his every move, but in the face of unimaginable tragedy, we are taken off guard. This makes me wonder if the origination of the rare unique thought is in this type of situation: tragedy. Maybe in moments of emotional irrationality and uncontrollable pain those virgin thoughts emerge, because there is nothing shaping our rational. There are no social norms or active thinking to draw from previous experiences or references. We are alone in the pain, and it is here that shocking and free thoughts are given the space to emerge.

Oedipus laments, blindly, "For I am sick in my own being, sick in my origin," and while we are drawn to the connections to his incestuous relationship with his mother, we now must question whether his being 'sick in his own being' allows for these moments of craziness, and, essentially, his seemingly original thoughts.

Big Question.

Is there such a thing as an original thought?
How does perspective skew our opinions? Or peers? Or community?

Our experiences?

Every hour we are faced with potentially critical decisions or moments where we must use creativity and imagination to be successful. We are forces of thinking and intelligence, but we never take the time to truly analyze the roots of these thoughts. Are we really the masters of our minds? Or is there something else governing our choices?

For many, spirituality defines their existence prompts their every move, but where do those attachments to God originate? The classic character Odysseus from Homer's The Odyssey uses his faith in the ancient Greek gods to help him be quick-witted in near death situations. Seeing these actions as his own gives Odysseus an inflated sense of pride and confidence. This novel depicts the intangible concept of how little control we have over our own minds in a tangible way. The Gods not only instruct Odysseus about what actions to take in every stage of his journey, but they also plant ideas in the minds of him and his peers about their situations.

If we apply 'this Odyssey concept', of external interference in our minds to classic or modern works of literature or film, we suddenly find ourselves deeply immersed in the heaviness of our adulterous sub-conscience. Who really calls the shots in our lives? Do we ever make decisions simply because we want to? The eerie concept infiltrates our lives from all sides-- almost every work of literature, many movies (Inception, anyone?) and love songs are flecked with its traces.

So the question remains,

Who is truly the master of our minds?