When thinking about the written word and meanings in language, I am drawn to the concept that meaning cannot be completely original. T.S. Eliot writes, "No poet, no artist of any art, has his complete meaning alone. His significance, his appreciation is the appreciation of his relation to the dead poets and artists" (406). There seems to be a connection between tradition and individual talent, but one cannot stand alone. Present day writers have been granted roots from the dead poets and artists and are able build upon and refer back to previous works. Because all humans have lived in a world filled with both good and bad events, writing has been a reflection of such events and emotional connections. With similarities in old and new experiences, how can writing ever truly be original? I feel that a writer can bring fresh ideas and a sense of talent, but there is an underlying factor rooted in tradition. I think that present writers should use those that have gone before as a guide and reference as a chance to grow and enrich the world.
<--Both have the structure of a tennis shoe; one is just newer with different characteristics. Can't this be applied in writing? There are same basic principles, yet different elements that can arise from individual talent.