Quote:
Originally Posted by TGS
|
*Legally*, what she did was plagiarism.
*Artistically*, if she wanted to claim that it was actually an experiment in intertextuality, she should have said that up front. As in, a big disclaimer in the introduction to the book, or at the very least some serious end-notes (as her publisher hurriedly added). However, it is VERY hard to make intertextuality arguments after the fact without looking like a sore loser who got caught out doing something illegal and is now trying desperately to justify it. She might have gotten away with it (at least in the court of public opinion) had she already been a well-established author with a reputation for doing experimental things. As a first-time writer you don't get that liberty.
Anyway, it's all good for the, uhhh, axolotls....
Edit: Edited to note that I'm disappointed in the reviewer. The obvious question to have asked would be something along the lines of "how can we tell whether you intended this to be an intertextuality experiment from the start, or whether you simply seized on it as a plausible-sounding excuse after you were caught out? What is the responsibility here between the author and the reader?" *That* would have been an interesting conversation - if she had engaged with it - and could have made for a fascinating interview. As it is, it seems to be a standard lazy "where are they now" piece.