'twas brollig

If I deliberately think about it or catch myself in time, I try not to rely on quotes of other people's words to express something I wish to express, mostly because it seems a bit lazy or could misrepresent the form in which the words were originally used, either by misinterpretation or inadequate comprehension. A remembered quote can appear a bit like a remembered fact and can similarly conceal an absence of understanding of the underlying theory. Things, scenes and the ways of depicting them in a photograph are slightly different, though it's still possibly to accidentally or deliberately duplicate or evoke something previous. Even when attempting to say something original even if the particular combination of words in a sentence is original and unique there may be conscious or unnoticed influences affecting the style of sentence formation, the words used and the essence if not the exact conveyance of the expression. The same goes for photographs; a near-duplicate of an existing image might be produced entirely accidentally by someone who has never seen something similar to what they're trying to produce. Someone aware of a prior instance might deliberately continue, conscious of the influence or could conversely be inhibited, not wanting to be derivative, nor to be seen as derivative. I'm hoping that considering that even the known instances of prior occurrence are extremely unlikely to be the first and that any flavouring-by-association or taint afflicting any subsequent related or relatable instances is a problem of the prior instances which first generated the associated attributes either by themselves or by inference or extrapolation.