Journal Response #4

A composing framework of remix and assemblage results in work that is very different, for better or for worse, than work that is entirely original. As Selber and Eilola mention, the increased accessibility of texts (via archives, digital portfolios, etc) have brought about a new and sometimes cloudy fusion between remixes (samples, citations, etc) and original work. Never before have the two been so closely intertwined. While there is a lot to be gained from this vast pool of usable resources, there is also a sense of authenticity and originality that is being lost. The ability to remix other writers' works allows us the opportunity to incorporate works that the "remixer" deems to be better or more credible than what they themselves feel capable of bringing into fruition. For this reason, I think   remixing other writers' works is a nod of respect, an admission that the work with samples is better than it otherwise could have been. What is said to be lost in the practice of remixing works is a sense of ownership and notoriety, but I don't see it like this. In a world with 7.6 billion people, an original thought or idea is a modern day rarity, so I don't see it fair to claim that a work is unoriginal simply because it features another writer's ideas, which more likely than not had been contemplated by someone else in a previous time.