The aphorism ‘standing on the shoulders of giants’ (and variations thereof) is a metaphor for expanding on the knowledge gained by thinkers who came before. Its first documented expression occurred in written works from the 12th century. The original metaphor was a tribute to the ancient Greek and Roman scholars, and referred to medieval dwarves standing on the shoulders of those scholars; the dwarves could see farther than their hosts due to their elevation, which goal was achieved via the work that preceded them. Later (in 1675), Isaac Newton famously said, “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”

This metaphor still applies today, to our modern scholars and at the artistic level as well. I can’t begin to count the number of times classic tales have been recast and expanded upon in various ways, in literature, music, and film. Look at all the ‘Romeo and Juliet’-type stories in all forms of media, to cite a common example; and in a darker vein (pun intended!) the new remake of the film ‘Nosferatu’ (which is what started me on this line of thought).

The original 1922 silent movie was a thinly veiled and unauthorized low-budget adaptation of Bram Stoker’s ‘Dracula’ made for German audiences. The film’s basic plot was directly lifted from ‘Dracula’, without obtaining permission from the Stoker estate nor paying any royalties to the estate. In the ‘Nosferatu’ version of the story, the vampire is named Count Orlok instead of Count Dracula, he travels from Transylvania to Germany instead of to England, and the names of the other characters are changed as well; but it was obviously pretty much the same story, right on down to the vampire obsessing over the wife of his estate agent.

There were some deviations from Stoker’s novel: Orlok doesn’t create more vampires, he simply kills his victims; Orlok is ugly, not handsome like Dracula; and Orlok can be killed by sunlight, while Dracula is only inconvenienced by it (hence the different endings of the novel and the movie). But Stoker’s widow sued the filmmakers of the 1922 movie and won her lawsuit in 1925. The judgement mandated the destruction of the negative and all prints of the film; however, several prints survived, which is why we can watch restorations of the original film today.

Despite all the legal hoopla surrounding the 1922 film, today it’s regarded by most pundits as an influential, genre-defining horror masterpiece. So, did F.W. Murnau really just plagiarize ‘Dracula’ with the intention of making a quick buck off of German audiences? And did he think they wouldn’t notice back in England, or that he’d be safe from legal consequences because he was operating in a foreign country? Or did he ‘stand on the shoulders of giants’ in order to elaborate on the original tale? Some of the differences between ‘Nosferatu’ and ‘Dracula’ have become iconic over time, most notably the business with the sunlight. Was this then a case of expanding on what came before, or was it merely an attempt to change enough names and modify enough of the plot to avoid paying royalties and being sued? Wherever the truth in fact lay, it didn’t work out for Murnau in court.

I think this example illustrates that there can be a fine line between expanding on what came before and plagiarism. I know of an indie author who admits he recycles the plots of old TV shows for his stories (without permission), and I’ve read works by other authors that either deliberately or inadvertently reuse existing plotlines. I recently read a novel called ‘The Plot’, by Jean Hanff Korelitz, in which a struggling writer teaching a creative writing class meets a student who confides to him his idea for a killer plot that’s guaranteed to be a hit. When the student unexpectedly dies, apparently without publishing anything, the struggling writer decides to use his plot and enjoys commercial success as a result; but then complications ensue. I won’t say any more in case you want to read it; it’s a very good and pleasingly twisty mystery/thriller, and it raises questions similar to the ones I’m raising here.

Speaking of twists, what about the modern one in which plot ideas are solicited from AI chatbots? Those AIs don’t have original thoughts; they just assimilate previously published material (again, usually without permission and with no compensation paid to the creators of the original content), and juggle bits and pieces of it to come up with their ‘ideas’. Is that ‘standing on the shoulders of giants’, or is it really just piracy of the kind that Murnau was accused of?

Personally, I strive to come up with my plot ideas on my own, without consciously recycling existing plots or resorting to AI assistance; but am I missing out on something? Could my moral stance on this issue be a reason for why I’m not a more successful writer? And am I really as innocent as I think I am? We’re constantly exposed these days to all sorts of media input, some of which could be subconsciously retained and, shall we say, ‘reused’. It’s also hard to refrain from riffing on previously existing ideas, as a starting point in an attempt to tell a new story derived from the original idea; but I don’t think that qualifies as plagiarism.

In fact, it may be unavoidable if all original ideas and thoughts have already been presented and thunk, and there really is ‘nothing new under the sun’, as has been repeatedly asserted for many years. Perhaps we have no choice but to ‘stand on the shoulders of giants’ and try not to plagiarize in the process – and thus walk that fine line. If that’s the case, then is this post therefore ‘much ado about nothing’? Maybe only “The Shadow knows!” (oops)