Originality is a Relative Term.

They say science is built upon the shoulders of giants, so it makes sense that one can't be a writer without being a reader. I'm not saying that all writers are just restating the things they've read, necessarily, but I don't believe that one can be entirely independent of some sort of outside influence. The greatest pieces of art build upon ideas previously articulated, somehow developing and changing those ideas until they become "original"; although these ideas have existed for years, perhaps even centuries, the contemporary artist is able to take these dated thoughts and, drawing from their substance, create something new. I refuse to believe, for instance, that James Joyce wrote A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man without having read Plato's Republic, or at least without having heard of his theory of forms. I don't believe that any idea can be truly original in the sense that it was crafted out of thin air; rather, any great idea is, in reality, a reworking or an extension of a thought having been articulated previously. Hunter S. Thompson frequently cited Tom Wolfe as a dominating influence; almost every indie band of the 90's refers themselves back to My Bloody Valentine; almost every band from the 70's onward refers themselves back to either Elvis or The Beatles. The point is, if a writer doesn't read, he's limiting himself severely in terms of the clay with which he crafts his art.