On Thu, 23 Dec 2004, snit snat wrote:
> At 08:48 AM 12/23/2004, andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>> No man ids an island. You're helping feed him, do the
>> housework, making it possible for him to write.
>
> :)
>
> a great person to read on this is dorothy smith who talks about all the labor
> involved in the act of writing the book you're reading: the person who built
> the building, the janitor who cleaned the floors and emptied waste baskets of
> crumpled up paper, the person who fills the vending machines, etc. etc.
>
> not to mention the language he uses to write, the form of the play (created
> and sustained over generations and taught through schools and other nonformal
> educational institutions), the abbreviations, symbols, customs, etc. used by
> playwrites -- these were created by others. and, even if you wish to buck the
> system and completely create something new, in resisting the traditional form
> for writing the play, you need tradition against which to rebel.
This is really the most egregious flaw in the "I made it so it's my property" argument: everything that people produce in our society, even if they are writing a play in their own home, is through and through a social product. As Kel notes, there's a social fabric here that enables any kind of artistic expression (language, politics, religion, tradition, etc.). In short, as a lone individual, you can't create anything that is socially interesting and/or useful.
The fact that this obvious point is ignored or overlooked is a sad testament to the ideology of hyperindividualism in a capitalist society.
Miles