Plagerism Okay?

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Billjr13

Plagiarism is wrong. This was plagiarism. for mor info goto plagiarism.org

The distinction between plagiarism and intertextuality simply cannot be clearly drawn, as even a cursory look at Google Scholar searched for the two terms with the operator AND will attest. An interesting (but long), PhD thesis that attempts to go beyond "It's wrong because it's obviously wrong" versus "It's not wrong, you just don't understand it", can be found at this link

[kennyc]

intertextuality???

[kennyc]

Plagiarism is clearly defined by the law, the details if it is questioned are determined in the courts.

See here for example:

http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/plagiarism/

[jmaloney]

Originally Posted by TGS

Yes, I've seen them, but what everyone seems to be saying is something like "It's wrong because I don't think she should have done it. And I don't think she should have done it because it's wrong", which is glaringly circular. Everyone seems to be treating the novel as a sequence of words not as a literary work of art - which is like treating Duchamp's Fountain like a urinal. What no-one seems to be addressing is that it is possible, theoretically at least, to create something of artistic, in this case, literary value by creating a new context for already written words, thereby giving those words new meaning.

The proper thing to do in that case is to clear it with the original authors, and include notes within the book noting that such permission was given.

All literary works are created in a particular socio-cultural-aesthetic context and, as such, rely on other works for their meaning. In this sense all literary work is a rearranging of familiar elements. A totally new work would be incomprehensible to most of us, cf. Joyce's Ulysses.

It's not so a much a rearranging of familiar elements as it is a entire lifting of text. Kinda like how Hootie & the Blowfish got in trouble for lifting significant portions of a Bob Dylan song.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Plagiarism is clearly defined by the law, the details if it is questioned are determined in the courts.

See here for example:

http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/plagiarism/

The problem is, kennyc, that you are talking about the law and I am talking about literature. It's analogous the well known (in the UK) Lady Chatterley case where the law said the book was indecent and should be banned, and the literary case held that literary value trumps the law on decency. Lady Chatterley's Lover clearly was indecent according to the law as it stood - but that judgment was irrelevant then and now looks plain stupid. To keep banging on about what the law says is equally irrelevant in this case if one is looking at the book from the perspective of literature.

We will never agree because we are not talking about the same thing - so perhaps we should just leave it at that. I think I said before, disagreeing is fine. Discussion is fine too, but the discussants have to be discussing the same thing for it to get anywhere.

BTW "intertextuality" is a perfectly well-known and often used (probably overused) concept in literary theory. If you are really interested in the question of what it is, rather than simply making a rhetorical point with your earlier post, the link I provided earlier explains the concept very well.

[pshrynk]

This is much like the "sampling" that some rap artists use to make their songs. Back when it was unknown, they would get permission to use the snips fairly cheaply. After it became a hit, the price of sampling went way up.

"Sampling" in a textual work should require payment to the original copyright holders. If it is in public domain, then sampling here is entering into a grey zone. If the author states that the work is structred with sampling or mixing as concept writing, then it's creating a new work. If the author presents the work as new and original, then it's plagiaristic.

My opinion is that the author was sort of naive, hence the difficulty in understanding why the brouhaha.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

My opinion is that the author was sort of naive...

I would guess you are right on that - and I don't think people should be pilloried for naivety.

[pshrynk]

Yeah. Too bad for that, too, because had it been done right, she might have been cited as the leading artist in a new "genre" of "sampled literature." Instead, she runs the risk of being known as the Milli Vanilli of literature.

Has anyone read what she wrote to see if it is good or not?

[ASparrow]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

Yeah. Too bad for that, too, because had it been done right, she might have been cited as the leading artist in a new "genre" of "sampled literature." Instead, she runs the risk of being known as the Milli Vanilli of literature.

Has anyone read what she wrote to see if it is good or not?

It's in German, I think, though I've seen some translated passages. I actually preferred the original blogger's descriptions to her paraphrasing. He was actually describing a real act that he experienced. Her passage was much less potent.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

Instead, she runs the risk of being known as the Milli Vanilli of literature.

Has anyone read what she wrote to see if it is good or not?

I suspect no-one commenting on here has.

A possible difference between this author and Milli Vanilli is that she might turn out to be worth reading - if it' s ever translated.

[Krystian Galaj]

So, will there be more such collage novels soon? If the only problem is not adding bibliography, it doesn't seem a big obstacle.

[pshrynk]

I said "runs the risk". She could also be the leading edge of something new. She could have positioned herself better by being less naive, I feel.

[Billjr13]

Plagiarism is unethical. It is taking someone elses words and ideas and claiming them as your own. In a classroom you would get a failing grade. Somehow in print literature a person is supposed to be rewarded and praised? No. Lacking ethics is not on honorable trait. Intellectual integrity should be of the utmost importance in publishing!
Taking someone elses words and ideas that have been published on the web and publishing them in a book as your ideas is not ethical. If I found someones writing on the internet and said to myself hey thats good I think I will chnage a couple of words here and there and send it in to a publisher and be a published author; would anybody be definding my integrity? There are a lot of good stories published right here on MR and if anyone were to take those and get them published as their own work, is that defendable as creating thier own work? "But it was on the web and I liked what it said and I didn't think I could say it any better and I agreed with what they were saying so I just put it in my book." No, that is Plagiarism. It is not intelletually honest or ethical.
I find that a lot people on web are willing to ignore or try to justify unexceptible behavior disheartning. "I dont like that rule I can ignore it." It can be equated to a lot of things that people do on the internet.

[Krystian Galaj]

It's about as unethical as collage, I'd say...

[kennyc]

Except that collage by definition is clearly expected to be composed of other works and should be credited as such. Completely different thing than publishing a book with your name as the author and no acknowledgment that it is not your words.