Busytown: A good read
353 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 15 Newer→ Last
-
I'm always surprised when people post something on the internet and then discover they don't have absolute control over it.
So am I. But before you start racing around and flashing your Internet Society membership cards and congratulating each other -- it was a dig. Read Cauchi's words again in the voice of GRUMPY OLD MAN 1.
-
Stephen:
I'm down with Sturgeon's Law: “Ninety percent of everything is crud” Doesn't mean you shouldn't at least try to be in the minority.
As for Ihimaera in particular, well... let's just say his best work is well behind him, IM(not at all)HO, but even the most wretched ink-stained hack should have some pride in his work. Not the literary equivalent of the flatmate from hell who doesn't get that going into your room and "borrowing" you stuff without permission isn't cool.
-
Jolisa:
That's what the good ones who have a horror of inadvertently plagiarising other people's work do, anyway.
I'm having a hard time with this, in the context of modern thought about originality, influence, determinism, nature v. nurture, subjectivity v. objectivity and so on. I can hardly believe that such an almost arbitrary 'standard', a physical act albeit with strong overtones of the figurative, is deemed to make a difference. (You DID mean it literally, didn't you?) It's almost quaint. I do however have utmost respect for and will have to defer to your obvious expertise! Still baffled, though...
-
(You DID mean it literally, didn't you?)
Yep, quaint it may be, but when I sit down to write fiction, no matter how thoroughly researched, I clear the desk(top) and write on a virtual or literal blank page. Other fiction writers of my acquaintance do the same on principle.
I try to write my academic prose the same way, inserting quotations from other sources as needed and compulsively footnoting each one before I move on.
Terribly old-fashioned, I know, but it works for me. Other influences and phrases hover in the ether, of course, but I strive to remove all physical temptation to cut and paste.
Luckily I usually find myself so involved in the work that I quite forget to worry about "modern thought about originality, influence, determinism, nature v. nurture, subjectivity v. objectivity and so on."
That I save for when I'm doing the dishes.
-
Really? Are you actually asking if attribution plays a role in the distinction between plagiarism and quotation?
Yes, I am. Take the case of Sherrie Levine's After Walker Evans for example. She rephotographed Walker Evans photos and presented them unaltered. There is a clear attribution in the title of the work, and yet the Estate of Walker Evans successfully prevented the work being sold because of copyright infringement (ie, passing someone else's work off as your own).
Take also the examples from film that Philip Matthews gave earlier, and that no-one has addressed. No clear attribution there, and yet they are generally considered quotations rather than plagiarism. Why?
Given, as you say, that a Sturtevant flower silkscreen is a different work than an otherwise identical Warhol one, I submit that in an alternate world where she didn't mention Warhol in the title it would still be a perfectly acceptable artwork. Plagiarism is a problematic concept, and attribution is not the magic wand it's being made out to be.
And what about the Botticelli figure? Quotation or plagiarism? Why?
To reiterate, my point is simply that the distinction between quotation, paraphrase, homage, etc, etc, and plagiarism is not as clear cut as is being asserted here. Nor, as Picabia said in the quote above, is the distinction between originality and copying.
Add the very real possibility, especially in writing, of unconsciously repeating something you've come across previously, and things are very murky indeed.
-
Going through the Motions...
as Phillip M mentioned earlier...
- what's the deal with this Found Poetry thang...
is it merely Remembrance of Things Parsed?
(see Guardian Article)...here's an illuminating quote from the Mirror article
Shephard's A War of Nerves contains the line: "War from behind the lines is a dizzying jumble. Revolving chairs, stuffy offices, dry as dust reports... " Motion's An Equal Voice begins: "War from behind the lines is a dizzy jumble. Revolving chairs, stuffy offices, dry as dust reports... " Former Poet Laureate Motion claimed the use of quotations from other works, known as "found poetry", has been used since Shakespeare's time. He said: "He has got the wrong end of the stick. To blow off about it like he has done completely misunderstands what found poetry is."
it's not like he's taking the piss like Duchamp
-
Going through the Motions...
Oh, that is a spectacularly crappy pun!
-
Oh, that is a spectacularly crappy pun!
just being scatty... ;- )
-
To the point, though. If we don't mind "found poetry," is it time for "found novels"??
In which case it suddenly got way easier to write one. Back in half an hour with my first draft.
-
Jolisa, I think you are poking fun at me, but I was serious. You're clearly vastly more qualified to comment than I am. What I was really getting at was that we are likely talking at odds since FWIW I am pretty sure I don't believe in the possibility of true originality or objectivity and then what you, and Cauchi also sez vis:
a horror of inadvertently plagiarising other people's work
Add the very real possibility, especially in writing, of unconsciously repeating something you've come across previously, and things are very murky indeed.
I ultimately just feel like this idea that writing has about itself, and that its readers has, of AUTHENTICITY is just a pretense.
(Be sure I am talking about 'creative' writing, not academic work).
-
Argh! For not being able to properly participate. So I'll just say the words "Pierre Menard" and let somebody else elaborate if they so desire.
-
Copyright and plagiarism are mainly unrelated things; I can't infringe on Poe's copyright, but I sure as hell could plagiarise him. (And passing off is different from copyright in particular.)
Also, you are (a) imposing particularly naive standards of attribution --- not all attribution consists of footnoted bibliographic reference, and (b) ignoring the idea of paraphrase.
Plagiarism and so-forth are surprisingly robust concepts. Basically, you are hunting out pathological cases* and then assuming you've done much of anything beyond prove that we don't live in a perfectly neat world.
* And even allowing for the fact you are looking for pathological cases, and using purposefully pathological cases, you aren't really doing much damage to the concepts involved. Mainly you've shown that we have to be careful about our definitions of the art object. A quite straightforward application of Danto solves most all the problems here. The only at all difficult issue is the Botticelli, which can be dealt with through repeated applications of paraphrase & attribution.
-
Giovanni, we miss you in this thread! But it will still be here when your hands are free.
-
3410,
I ultimately just feel like this idea that writing has about itself, and that its readers has, of AUTHENTICITY is just a pretense.
And..? In an imperfect world, is not a pretence of authenticity better than no sense of authenticity at all? ;)
-
Deep down, all writers are really shallow.
-
Really really shallow (like every human being) and really really protective about original creative works & copyright - authenticity/originality are things I have been criticised for- but which I maintain I am involved with- and I majorly respect any other writer
who keeps a stringent control on what they do in those respects.I majorly disrespect any writer who doesnt.
Mark Taslov, I think your idea really really silly - who knows where human creativity is going to jump next? (And your example was really really tame. I've been playing with sound/pikkies/vibration stuff lately - will fit in with writing believe you me.)
OK, that's my monthly allocation of reallies all used up.
-
I ultimately just feel like this idea that writing has about itself, and that its readers has, of AUTHENTICITY is just a pretense.
(Be sure I am talking about 'creative' writing, not academic work).
So if the writers and the readers aren't valid judges of authenticity...who is? Do you dowse for it?
-
OK, that's my monthly allocation of reallies all used up.
Really?
-
(arrrgh!)
-
Do you dowse for it?
Oh, very well put.
(Well, geddit?)
-
Divine
-
Actually, what Jolisa said on the radio was that (from memory, hope I'm not being misleading) is that she talked to other historical writers and they said no, what you do is do your reading, and then make sure those texts are off your desk before you start writing, specifically so you don't use the exact same words, but put them in your own.
This is exactly the advice I give to my students. Read the books and article, take notes, even write down quotable bits if you like. But when you're ready to start writing, put everything aside, and try to explain it all in your own words. That demonstrates to me that you, as in you, the person who is writing the essay, not just some vague second person substitute for "one," really really really* understands the ideas. And if they must resort to quoting, then it must be properly referenced, and the surrounding text must still demonstrate to me that they actually understand what they are talking about, that it's their thinking on the page, not just some careful cutting and pasting. The capacity to explain difficult ideas in their own words does separate the good from the not so good students, and it's one of the ways that students can demonstrate their capacity for original thought.
(*That's used up my quota of "really" for the next 3 hours and 26 minutes.)
-
(*That's used up my quota of "really" for the next 3 hours and 26 minutes.)
-
(argeek!)
-
Ngarly
Post your response…
This topic is closed.