While I understand the claim that “every reader’s experience is unique in some way to that individual; no one has the exact same experience,” I know that it is not entirely untrue. We see in classrooms and literary criticism that texts, while available for any interpretation, are defined by some similar traits and similarities in thinking. We find that discussions of literature follow a trend that leave us with an overarching idea of literature. What the point I think is being made here by sfoley2 is that the composition of the random text and literature had already intrinsic meanings and then their collaboration brings about a new meaning.
The cut and paste method is an interesting method of bringing about a new meaning. Although random in composition, I can’t help but feel the author makes some decision in order, amount of words, types of sentences, and many other choices. There are so many options and choices an author can make and even the sources from which they come can frame and influence the author’s decisions. I can’t help but critique the method; while it helps diversify the language and bring multiple random literature together, I feel that it takes out a large part of the writing process. Finding the right words to say help make the piece an author’s original work. Unlike sampling, which would modify the words, the cut and paste is many different voices collaborated as one. No editing or modification. It just doesn’t seem genuine as an original work.
What makes this interesting is that even though the concept is not too young, it still brings a different type of literature to table. There’s a lot of new digital literature that we’re studying and being introduced to that messes with our perceptions and tastes as both English majors and literature enthusiasts. Then we see the cut and paste literature that changes how we view original literature even more. I find it refreshing to see a new appreciation for paper but also find the copy and pasting not genuine as a craft of original authorship.