I remember during my time in public schooling how much we were told to "cite all of our sources" in the proper annotated format approved by the teachers and administration. None of the students really questioned this idea as it was assumed it was for the sake of preventing plagiarism. The intention, like many other things was good, but to me it seemed rather inauthentic like a pleading to authority, in a word—spurious.
Now, there's nothing necessarily wrong with giving credit to authors or anything else your inspiration branched out of. I just think it's worthwhile to observe how ideas come about to see why annotating authors and have sophisticated bibliography is mostly a posture.
Reading the works of an author who uses an exhaustive list of annotations gives off, at least to me, the impression that the writer is lacking commitment to his own thoughts and instead has to rely on authorities for verification. This is not even mentioning how as readers we are suppose to take it as truth independent of further questioning, and like lawyers, anyone can present their case with counter arguments. Which genuine person really finds the noted citations crucial and impressive besides the already supporters?
When I write about freedom, individualism, political organization, education, literature, among other topics, I am borrowing from countless numbers of ideas from hundreds of authors I have read through the years; and these authors have borrowed ideas from preceding authors, after a while it's hard to tell where an idea was first conceived. There's no doubt I am in intellectual debt toward many thinkers, artists, and other great minds who have pushed my curiosity to engage in the world of ideas.
What separates one writer from the other is style. Sure, having something to say and saying it as well as one possibly can is a given, what is unique to each is how one stands out in contrast to their cohorts by crafting and arranging words to however the writer thinks will be most effective toward his ends.
Besides the presentation of the words I use, I don't claim to be original about my information in any way. In fact, I would go so far to say that originality is merely a front or an attitude we have taken with our creative spirits. You may notice whether something is more "original" than the next thing, perhaps important nevertheless, it's still an aesthetic judgment.
Getting labeled as original should then be taken with a grain of salt; because although in a very vague sense some creations can be new and fresh, they're made up of disparate pieces stringed together in a long and forgot chain of events.
"Nil Posse Creari De Nilo", said Lucretius, and for the few who understand this knows how it absolutely also applies in the realm of ideas.
