The definition of plagiarism is elusive. There is no golden definition. In this essay, I will examine the difficulty of defining plagiarism: this difficulty is rooted in the varied and complex nature of plagiarism. Dichotomies such as intentional and unintentional, academic and non-academic, and "transformative" and "derivative" inhibit the possibilty of an easy definition. Due to these nuanced dichotomies, not all acts of plagiarism should be treated the same: one must recognize that some acts are more heinous than others. Each case should be treated delicately--one should not close her eyes to the good due to the little bit of bad.
Despite the difficulty in defining plagiarism, many institutions attempt to define it to the best of their ability. Duke University Library defines plagiarism as “to give the impression that you wrote or thought something that you in fact borrowed from someone… Not to formally recognize the work and influences of others in your writing is to plagiarize.” (Duke University Library) The Duke University Library definition is a commonplace example of a modern definition. As detailed and as well-worded as this definition is, it still falls short in capturing the complexity of plagiarism.
Malcolm Gladwell, a journalist for The New Yorker, believes that these examples are far too rigid. He points out the apparent limitation of the commonplace definition of plagiarism in his essay, “The Picture Problem.” Gladwell criticizes society's untempered criticism of allegedly plagiarized works. He believes that a plagiarized piece should not automatically sully the entire work: critics are quick to dismiss the entire work without paying proper tribute to the parts of the work that are completely original and wonderful. One example of this is Bryony Lavery's play "Frozen."
In "Frozen," Lavery incorporates a psychiatric interview into the greater narrative. However, Lavery failed to appropriately credit this part of her play. Lavery's work was lambasted and her reputation ruined due to the relentless accusations of plagiarism. Gladwell argues that the media excessively criticized Bryony Lavary for unintentionally using a psychiatrist’s research in her play without citation. I insist that although Lavary is guilty of plagiarizing Lewis’ research on one of her characters, her offence was not severe enough to discredit her entire work and publicly humiliate her as an intellectual thief. Accusation should mount only to the plagiarized parts. Did "Frozen" deserve such a complete assault: was the work entirely uncreative?
Gladwell posits that definitions are difficult because we are dealing with issues of creativity. What is a completely creative and what is completely unoriginal? To Gladwell, creativity is subjective and therefore plagiarism should not be examined in such an objective, blunt manner. In order to approach plagiarism appropriately, one must consider the nuances and variations that exist within plagiarism.
One distinction that Gladwell posits is intentional verus unintentional plagiarism. Although they are still acts of plagiarism, unintentional copying is less of an offence than intentional plagiarism. On the same line of logic, unintentional plagiarism should be penalized less severely than intentional plagiarism. Unintentional plagiarism means the writer planned to develop his or her ideas based on the source, but unintentionally failed to acknowledge the source in the work. It is for this reason that Gladwell defends Lavery.
Another important distinction is the distinction between "transformative" and "derivative" borrowing. Derivative borrowing falls into the category of blatant plagiarism. It merely paraphrases the borrowed materials. "Derivative borrowing" adds nothing new it just simply states the already known: they are "new words in service of old ideas" (Gladwell). Kaavya Viswanathan's patchwriting over twenty passages, word-for-word, from Megan McCafferty's novel is unacceptable--it is "derivative."
Transformative borrowing, in contrast, develops the passage to “become part of a grander cause.” Transformative borrowing is creative; it adds, it contributes. It is "old words in service of new ideas" (Gladwell). Lavery's work, according to Gladwell, falls into this category. Lavery’s work wasn't simply a transcription of Lewis' psychiatric research. Although Lewis's research was a major aspect of the play, Lavery uses it to create a work that--when examined as a whole--is completely creative, new and beautiful.
Accusations of plagiarism should not override the originality of the author’s work. As Gladwell and Howard agree, the contemporary society’s inflexible persecution of plagiarism discredits the writer’s entire work as “forgery,” even for a minor reproduction of a whole. (Howard) This defeats the entire purpose of plagiarism, which is to defend the originality of both the source and the writer’s work. Lavary was completely discredited from her masterpiece, “Frozen,” with a single plagiarism accusation. Indeed, in American society, plagiarism accusation has become a disciplinary insult and a public humiliation to the accused writer. Therefore, the accusations often develops into a bitter argument between the writer and the accuser on whether “to apologize or not to apologize” for the alleged plagiarism. (Romano, Carlin)
People lose sight of the bigger picture, "the grander cause," when arguing over plagiarism (Gladwell). Stephen Ambrose, a historian and a professor at the University of New Orleans, was accused of plagiarism for failing to put quotation marks around borrowed quotes from Thomas Childer’s work in his bestselling novel, “The Wild Blue.” (2001) (AP) Ambrose, nevertheless, denied his accusation by saying that his book was “entirely his [my] own.” (AP) The argument between Ambrose and the accuser continued for over three months until Ambrose finally admitted his mistake in May, 2002, less than five months before his death. Even while admitting his mistakes, Ambrose defended his work by asserting that his “errors in citations do not mount to plagiarism.” (AP) Ambrose, as well as other writers, understood that admitting plagiarism meant the demise of his literary career. Indeed, as soon as he faced accusation, the Associated Press published articles saying his plagiarism was a “disappointment” (Kia Shant’e Breaux). Surely, relegating Ambrose's work to teh category of "disappointment" fails to acknowledge any brilliant epiphanies that may exist in the rest of the pages of the thick book. The fury of their debates blind the debaters from recognizing the beautiful, the new, the wonderful whole of the accused person's work.
Ultimately, Gladwell's argument is an argument for progress. Philosophers of progress such as Gerog Hegel or Thomas Kuhn would agree that every great idea, whether scientific, artistic, or industrial, carries within it, the kernal of a past idea. To deride the whole would be to kill that seed in infancy, to stunt progress in all fields where plagiarism is argued-over. One could say that plagiarism should be treated like any other case occuring in the criminal courts--with great sensitivty and regard to the entire situation. For example, a murder is not a murder. There are various classifications for murder, ranging from manslaughter to homicide. The ruling on murder takes into account the context and the differences between each case. In the same way, critics should recognize the nuanced nature of plagiarism. This sensitivity will ensure that a good work will not be sullied for minor mistakes in attribution.
Was this paper plagiarized? If you, the reader of this very essay, were to find a quotation unquoted or a reference unreferenced, would you crumple it up and toss it in the garbage can? In fact, I intentionally left out a pair of quotation marks when using Gladwell's words. Does this warrant the complete discarding of my entire essay? Gladwell himself would implore you to rethink this act because hopefully, somewhere in the paragraphs above, there exists a "transformation" a movement towards the grander cause.
Despite the difficulty in defining plagiarism, many institutions attempt to define it to the best of their ability. Duke University Library defines plagiarism as “to give the impression that you wrote or thought something that you in fact borrowed from someone… Not to formally recognize the work and influences of others in your writing is to plagiarize.” (Duke University Library) The Duke University Library definition is a commonplace example of a modern definition. As detailed and as well-worded as this definition is, it still falls short in capturing the complexity of plagiarism.
Malcolm Gladwell, a journalist for The New Yorker, believes that these examples are far too rigid. He points out the apparent limitation of the commonplace definition of plagiarism in his essay, “The Picture Problem.” Gladwell criticizes society's untempered criticism of allegedly plagiarized works. He believes that a plagiarized piece should not automatically sully the entire work: critics are quick to dismiss the entire work without paying proper tribute to the parts of the work that are completely original and wonderful. One example of this is Bryony Lavery's play "Frozen."
In "Frozen," Lavery incorporates a psychiatric interview into the greater narrative. However, Lavery failed to appropriately credit this part of her play. Lavery's work was lambasted and her reputation ruined due to the relentless accusations of plagiarism. Gladwell argues that the media excessively criticized Bryony Lavary for unintentionally using a psychiatrist’s research in her play without citation. I insist that although Lavary is guilty of plagiarizing Lewis’ research on one of her characters, her offence was not severe enough to discredit her entire work and publicly humiliate her as an intellectual thief. Accusation should mount only to the plagiarized parts. Did "Frozen" deserve such a complete assault: was the work entirely uncreative?
Gladwell posits that definitions are difficult because we are dealing with issues of creativity. What is a completely creative and what is completely unoriginal? To Gladwell, creativity is subjective and therefore plagiarism should not be examined in such an objective, blunt manner. In order to approach plagiarism appropriately, one must consider the nuances and variations that exist within plagiarism.
One distinction that Gladwell posits is intentional verus unintentional plagiarism. Although they are still acts of plagiarism, unintentional copying is less of an offence than intentional plagiarism. On the same line of logic, unintentional plagiarism should be penalized less severely than intentional plagiarism. Unintentional plagiarism means the writer planned to develop his or her ideas based on the source, but unintentionally failed to acknowledge the source in the work. It is for this reason that Gladwell defends Lavery.
Another important distinction is the distinction between "transformative" and "derivative" borrowing. Derivative borrowing falls into the category of blatant plagiarism. It merely paraphrases the borrowed materials. "Derivative borrowing" adds nothing new it just simply states the already known: they are "new words in service of old ideas" (Gladwell). Kaavya Viswanathan's patchwriting over twenty passages, word-for-word, from Megan McCafferty's novel is unacceptable--it is "derivative."
Transformative borrowing, in contrast, develops the passage to “become part of a grander cause.” Transformative borrowing is creative; it adds, it contributes. It is "old words in service of new ideas" (Gladwell). Lavery's work, according to Gladwell, falls into this category. Lavery’s work wasn't simply a transcription of Lewis' psychiatric research. Although Lewis's research was a major aspect of the play, Lavery uses it to create a work that--when examined as a whole--is completely creative, new and beautiful.
Accusations of plagiarism should not override the originality of the author’s work. As Gladwell and Howard agree, the contemporary society’s inflexible persecution of plagiarism discredits the writer’s entire work as “forgery,” even for a minor reproduction of a whole. (Howard) This defeats the entire purpose of plagiarism, which is to defend the originality of both the source and the writer’s work. Lavary was completely discredited from her masterpiece, “Frozen,” with a single plagiarism accusation. Indeed, in American society, plagiarism accusation has become a disciplinary insult and a public humiliation to the accused writer. Therefore, the accusations often develops into a bitter argument between the writer and the accuser on whether “to apologize or not to apologize” for the alleged plagiarism. (Romano, Carlin)
People lose sight of the bigger picture, "the grander cause," when arguing over plagiarism (Gladwell). Stephen Ambrose, a historian and a professor at the University of New Orleans, was accused of plagiarism for failing to put quotation marks around borrowed quotes from Thomas Childer’s work in his bestselling novel, “The Wild Blue.” (2001) (AP) Ambrose, nevertheless, denied his accusation by saying that his book was “entirely his [my] own.” (AP) The argument between Ambrose and the accuser continued for over three months until Ambrose finally admitted his mistake in May, 2002, less than five months before his death. Even while admitting his mistakes, Ambrose defended his work by asserting that his “errors in citations do not mount to plagiarism.” (AP) Ambrose, as well as other writers, understood that admitting plagiarism meant the demise of his literary career. Indeed, as soon as he faced accusation, the Associated Press published articles saying his plagiarism was a “disappointment” (Kia Shant’e Breaux). Surely, relegating Ambrose's work to teh category of "disappointment" fails to acknowledge any brilliant epiphanies that may exist in the rest of the pages of the thick book. The fury of their debates blind the debaters from recognizing the beautiful, the new, the wonderful whole of the accused person's work.
Ultimately, Gladwell's argument is an argument for progress. Philosophers of progress such as Gerog Hegel or Thomas Kuhn would agree that every great idea, whether scientific, artistic, or industrial, carries within it, the kernal of a past idea. To deride the whole would be to kill that seed in infancy, to stunt progress in all fields where plagiarism is argued-over. One could say that plagiarism should be treated like any other case occuring in the criminal courts--with great sensitivty and regard to the entire situation. For example, a murder is not a murder. There are various classifications for murder, ranging from manslaughter to homicide. The ruling on murder takes into account the context and the differences between each case. In the same way, critics should recognize the nuanced nature of plagiarism. This sensitivity will ensure that a good work will not be sullied for minor mistakes in attribution.
Was this paper plagiarized? If you, the reader of this very essay, were to find a quotation unquoted or a reference unreferenced, would you crumple it up and toss it in the garbage can? In fact, I intentionally left out a pair of quotation marks when using Gladwell's words. Does this warrant the complete discarding of my entire essay? Gladwell himself would implore you to rethink this act because hopefully, somewhere in the paragraphs above, there exists a "transformation" a movement towards the grander cause.
posted by grant | 8:06 AM
|
0 comments
