[keiferski]

No, it can't, and I think you still don't understand my comments. I don't know if I'm being unclear, but I've repeated the same point multiple times now.

Like if I write a description of what it's like being a soldier in a war zone, despite never having been a soldier and never having been in a war zone. Perhaps I can write something plausible if I've read enough and use my imagination.

This is not an answer of what it feels like to be a soldier in a war zone. It is your guess. You do not know, you are imagining. It may be "plausible" for a novel, but that is not what we are talking about.

snakeboy (whose commend started this subthread) seems to claim that having real experiences (not just having learned of others' experiences through reading) is a prerequisite to creating something 'truly original'.

It would seem to imply that if you are creating something merely by reading others' work and synthesizing it, and then rearranging it into something else, all without actually using your own novel experience – then yes, it is not truly original. It is like writing a book about living in New York City by reading books about living in New York City. Your work is second-hand by definition.

[rahimnathwani]

Would you consider 'Memoirs of a Geisha' (by Arthur Golden, who was never a geisha) to be 'truly original'?