tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post7236859374223708890..comments2024-03-26T01:10:13.720+00:00Comments on Teach Me Tonight: Publish and be damned: Incorrect Use of Source Material in FictionE. M. Selingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00426524354823232002noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-72750724039084998162008-01-16T00:52:00.000+00:002008-01-16T00:52:00.000+00:00The Black-Footed Ferrets at the SBTB site have com...The Black-Footed Ferrets at the SBTB site have compiled a 48-page (and counting) PDF of side-by-side quotations from Edwards's books and the books she took them from. Just looking through a few pages makes it entirely clear that we're not talking about intertextuality, allusion, or <I>hommage</I> here. It's taking descriptive language out of someone else and putting it in your characters' mouths. <BR/><BR/> http://tinyurl.com/3ab3fp<BR/><BR/>Here is an article on the issue by the author of the <B>Defenders</B> article about the black-footed ferret that she took from (as he points out, it makes for REALLY clunky dialogue in a romance novel):<BR/>http://www.newsweek.com/id/94543/page/6talpiannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13978075304795724185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-61031131736736184192008-01-15T12:06:00.000+00:002008-01-15T12:06:00.000+00:00Tal, that article you linked to, about Murray Bail...Tal, that <A HREF="http://www.smh.com.au/news/Books/Taking-a-leaf-from-another-book/2005/02/04/1107476793923.html" REL="nofollow">article you linked to</A>, about Murray Bail's <I>Eucalyptus</I> was very interesting. Two paragraphs stood out for me as particularly relevant to this discussion:<BR/><BR/><I>This kind of conversation between different works is part of the orthodox repertoire in art. To include readers in the joke, modernist writers offer signposts, as Bail did with </I>The Drover's Wife<I>, or use famous phrases, as Bail did in </I>Eucalyptus<I> in playing with Patrick White's "dun-coloured realism". Yet the practice is riskier when the source text is both unknown and unacknowledged. A reader may praise an author's original ability to mimic a type of language without knowing he has in fact copied it.<BR/><BR/>The judges of the Miles Franklin, for instance, responded to Chippendale's writing thinking it was Bail's. "We assumed he had read a lot of natural history textbooks," Rose says of his discussions with other Franklin judges, "but we read [</I>Eucalyptus<I>] as a work of the imagination." He stressed that Bail had committed only "a minor fault", which could have been solved with an acknowledgement. "It's always prudent to acknowledge, to avert confusion or awkwardness afterwards."</I><BR/><BR/>As Immi points out, some readers may well be faster at catching the "joke" than others, and some may never see it at all. I also agree that, as Immi said, "part of the pleasure is not directly referencing the story you're basing it on, so that readers can have that nice moment when they recognise it for themselves." Certainly as a reader, it would feel heavy handed to me if every glass slipper was signposted with an "as first seen in <I>Cinderella</I>."<BR/><BR/>Sarah's rule about not taking things verbatim is a good rule, but there are occasions when it can be broken, if an author thinks a text will be recognised (e.g. in Sela's example in which she wrote about Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs). And in these cases as well as with other types of intertextual allusions/references, although it might be clear to the author what his/her intentions were, "it's awfully difficult to assess intent from the outside" and a reader might still feel distrustful.<BR/><BR/>For what it's worth, I didn't recognise the Calvin and Hobbes reference, and I wouldn't have recognised Bail's deliberate reference to Patrick White either, because I've not even heard of Patrick White. But I'd accept that both those references were valid and non-plagiaristic ones as made in that way, because clearly a lot of people would recognise them. So perhaps that's the (still rather nebulous) test. Could a reasonable number of readers, who have a good knowledge of the genre in which you're writing, be reasonably expected to recognise your deliberate inclusion of allusions or quotations? If yes, then it's OK. In fact, it's more than OK, it's a great part of the fun of reading many works.<BR/><BR/>I'd be really sad if we lost those playful intertextual allusions, the subtle uses of fairytales etc. And I do agree that "spoonfeeding readers any information they might have missed, [...] takes away the fun of discovery." It would, of course, also mean that I'd have a lot less work to do, as a literary critic, if every author carefully annotated and analysed their own work for every single possible influence. But for a lot of authors it simply wouldn't be possible, because they've absorbed myths/fairytales etc in a way which means that they do come out subconsciously in the writing and the author may not even be aware of what he/she is doing. Certainly when I've analysed some people's work here at Teach Me Tonight they've said that I've picked up on things that they didn't know were there. Maybe they were just being kind to me and not wanting to say that I was writing drivel, but I tend to think that they were telling the truth, and that critics may be aware of things which the writer doesn't know he/she has put into the work. I think this can happen because of the different processes involved in writing literature and in producing literary criticism. Northrop Frye says that<BR/><BR/><I>The poet may of course have some critical ability of his own, and so be able to talk about his own work. But the Dante who writes a commentary on the first canto of the <I>Paradiso</I> is merely one more of Dante's critics. What he says has a peculiar interest, but not a peculiar authority. It is generally accepted that a critic is a better judge of the </I>value<I> of a poem than its creator, but there is still a lingering notion that it is somehow ridiculous to regard the critic as the final judge of its meaning, even though in practice it is clear that he must be. The reason for this is an inability to distinguish literature from the descriptive or assertive writing which derives from the active will and the conscious mind, and which is primarily concerned to "say" something.</I> (5 - from the "Polemical Introduction" to his <I>Anatomy of Criticism</I>, Princeton UP, 2000 edition).<BR/><BR/>I think, although he maybe sounds a bit arrogant about the abilities of the critics, Frye's right that there's a big difference between writing analytical prose and writing fiction. The mental processes involved are different. Certainly some people are good at doing both but in general it's probably fair to think that someone will probably be better at doing one than the other. I certainly can't write fiction, and one of the reasons is that I'm far too aware of subtexts and intertextual allusions at all times. I could possibly write a parody, but not an original work. Most authors, I think, would write fiction on a much more subconscious level, certainly when writing the first draft, though they may go back later and pick out their metaphors, imagery etc and strengthen them. But even so, they may not pick up on things that will be obvious to the critic, because the literary critic's talents (and perspective on the work) are different.<BR/><BR/>So, no, I don't expect an author to know what every single influence on his/her writing is, nor do I expect an author to carefully label every single allusion. Obviously care does need to be taken not to pass off someone else's words as one's own, and in cases of doubt there's no reason not to add a note of some kind at the end of a book to acknowledge the particularly useful sources or cases where words have been used verbatim (which, in any case, should only be done for a very good reason and not out of laziness or dishonesty). One should also be careful not to take plots from sources which aren't well-known. So <I>West Side Story</I> is an obvious reworking of Shakespeare's <I>Romeo and Juliet</I>, and that's fine, because the source is very well known. However, the similarities in even minor plot details between Linda Howard's 1988 <I>White Lies</I> and Christina Dodd's 2002 <I>Lost in Your Arms</I> (<A HREF="http://www.likesbooks.com/cgi-bin/bookReview.pl?BookReviewId=3436" REL="nofollow">as analysed at AAR</A>) look rather more suspicious. That level of similarity to a not-so-well-known work is really not something you should create deliberately. And if you were doing it deliberately, you would really have to indicate very clearly somewhere in the book what you were doing, preferrably at the front. [I'm not offering an opinion here on what Dodd's intentions were, because I don't know, and I've not read either book, I'm just pointing out that similarities were noticed, and that level of similarity clearly raises questions and is therefore not something an author should do deliberately.]<BR/><BR/>Robin/Janet has just written <A HREF="http://dearauthor.com/wordpress/2008/01/15/the-new-pp-professionalism-and-plagiarism-a-not-so-classic-tale-of-romance/" REL="nofollow">a piece over at Dear Author</A> about plagiarism that<BR/><BR/><I>plagiarism is merely a remote point along a trajectory of intellectual dishonesty. It is a hard word, necessarily so, because it is a strong indictment. We should use it sparingly and thoughtfully. But at the same time, we should not be afraid of talking about the values of intellectual honesty and creative integrity that we all depend on in determining what plagiarism is and isn’t.<BR/><BR/>I think sometimes we all take for granted that everyone knows what is and isn’t honest, acceptable, and appropriate in any given type of writing. But clearly that is not the case.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm glad we're having this conversation here, and at Dear Author, and perhaps elsewhere too, because it seems to me that even if an author is acting with integrity, if the rules aren't clear (and, as we've seen, some are rather more of a "quagmire" than others), then there needs to be discussion about those more squelchy, slippery areas, so that writers don't end up accidentally sinking into the slough of plagiarism.<BR/><BR/>Yes, you can see why I don't write fiction, can't you. I have a weakness for writing extended metaphors, and that one contains an allusion to John Bunyan's <I>Pilgrim's Progress</I> and the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slough_of_Despond" REL="nofollow">Slough of Despond</A>.Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-36808579384522878342008-01-15T10:10:00.000+00:002008-01-15T10:10:00.000+00:00I'm awfully glad to see people talking about the i...I'm awfully glad to see people talking about the intertextuality aspect of this whole situation.<BR/>I love writing (and reading) re-imaginings of fairytales and myths, and part of the pleasure is not directly referencing the story you're basing it on, so that readers can have that nice moment when they recognise it for themselves.<BR/><BR/>Clearly, when I do this my intent is not to plagiarise. And that seems to be the gist of what people are saying here--that if you can reasonably expect your readers to recognise the intertextuality, you're okay. But if you're trying to fool them that you thought of the whole thing yourself, it's not okay.<BR/><BR/>However, I still feel a little worried. Because that all comes down to intent--and it's awfully difficult to assess intent from the outside. Also, in discussions about Edwards' alleged plagiarism, the consensus seems to be that 'ignorance is no excuse'. So whether Edwards thought this type of copying was okay, or whether she possibly meant some parts as a homage to, for instance, Longfellow, seems to make no difference to people's view that what she did was wrong.<BR/>(note: I agree that ignorance is not a sufficient defence. Also, I can't see how she meant the Hiawatha lines as homage--I'm just saying that, even if she did, it doesn't seem to make much difference to how it's viewed)<BR/><BR/>So, then, does my lack of intent to deceive really make any difference? I know I'm clear legally, as Rapunzel and Sleeping Beauty and Persephone are a loooong way out of copyright, but the idea that I could be accused of plagiarising these sources (by someone who, for instance, had no familiarity with Greek myths) is alarming.<BR/><BR/>The thing is that you can't rely on your whole audience, or even the majority of your audience, recognising your intertextuality. I once had someone not recognise my Sleeping Beauty references--and they were pretty explicit (thornbushes, spindle, spinning wheel, enchanted sleep). I don't recognise Sela's Calvin & Hobbes reference, or many of Jennifer Crusie's quotes.<BR/><BR/>But it just seems so tedious to *have* to add an afterword, or a page on your website. If it's interesting trivia (like JC's movie quotes), sure, but I hate the idea of spoonfeeding readers any information they might have missed, because it takes away the fun of discovery.<BR/><BR/>So, yeah, I'm still thinking quagmire.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-3621090545590447022008-01-15T08:48:00.000+00:002008-01-15T08:48:00.000+00:00Someone has now discovered that Cassie Edwards "bo...Someone has now discovered that Cassie Edwards "borrowed" from Longfellow's "Hiawatha." Even Nora Roberts was speechless. Any day now, it will be discovered that she swiped stuff from Janet Dailey. And the world will come to an end. (Or, as the Silver Tigress remarked, "Ouroboros!")<BR/><BR/>I posted a comment over at SBTB to the effect that I now believe she did NOT understand that she was doing wrong--not because of ignorance, but because of a touch of sociopathy.talpiannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13978075304795724185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-82008039161798698362008-01-15T04:03:00.000+00:002008-01-15T04:03:00.000+00:00The very idea that anyone might imagine that it is...<I>The very idea that anyone might imagine that it is somehow 'acceptable' to steal the actual words of a writer of non-fiction makes me incandescent with fury.</I><BR/><BR/>Tigress, Tigress, burning bright<BR/>In the forests of the night...<BR/><BR/>(I made that up, you know.)<BR/><BR/>And then there's the "bowerbird defense": <BR/><BR/>http://tinyurl.com/3259e2talpiannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13978075304795724185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-79789273070188104632008-01-14T21:29:00.000+00:002008-01-14T21:29:00.000+00:00the problem with the McEwan-Andrews case is that h...<I>the problem with the McEwan-Andrews case is that he made extensive use of the woman's autobiography, of all things. When she was still alive.</I><BR/><BR/>Looking at this theoretically, though, I don't see why there should be any distinction between doing this to the biography of a dead or a live person, just as ethically, there's no difference between plagiarising from an out of copyright source or one which is still in copyright.<BR/><BR/><I>or to send her nice letter together with a signed copy of his novel, or both.</I><BR/><BR/>Obviously in practice, if there's a live person involved they're more likely to get upset. But if you did send the live person a letter and a copy of the novel, is that enough? What about the author's obligation to the readers who buy the novel and think they're reading the author's words or characters but are in fact reading the words, or a lot of the character traits, taken from another source?Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-71922771087376242582008-01-14T21:13:00.000+00:002008-01-14T21:13:00.000+00:00Laura, imo, the problem with the McEwan-Andrews ca...Laura, imo, the problem with the McEwan-Andrews case is that he made extensive use of the woman's autobiography, of all things. When she was still alive. The decent thing would have been either to make the extent of the borrowing somewhat clearer in the acknowledgments (apparently he just listed the autobiography with the other sources he had used, is that right?), or to send her nice letter together with a signed copy of his novel, or both.Sandra Schwabhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15496019392789508611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-31176035407898878722008-01-14T20:24:00.000+00:002008-01-14T20:24:00.000+00:00I think the obvious character borrowing is bad eno...<I>I think the obvious character borrowing is bad enough, without the use of Andrews' actual words.</I><BR/><BR/>Is it just that he borrowed character traits and this wasn't sufficiently described in his initial acknowledgment of Andrews' work, or is it that you think that "character borrowing" in general is a bad idea?<BR/><BR/>I'd imagine that quite a lot of authors get ideas for characters from real people (fictional and real) that they read about in their sources. So is it the extent of the borrowing of character traits that's the sticking point here?<BR/><BR/>And how do you quantify how much character borrowing is OK without acknowledgment?<BR/><BR/>Presumably the rules on this might be a bit different for (a) historical novels (i.e. the ones which are quite explicitly about real people), and (b) historical fiction in which the historical setting is real, but the characters aren't, but in which an author might take a real person as the basis for creating a fictional character?Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-89866512174776019652008-01-14T19:55:00.000+00:002008-01-14T19:55:00.000+00:00Well, I think it'd be a great example, except his ...Well, I think it'd be a great example, except his *extended* acknowledgments seem to have been accepted as sufficient "citation," if you will. I wonder if it hadn't been McEwan and his book hadn't been so otherwise apparently brilliant if his "oops, my bad, but hey, I listed her in the Acknowledgments!" *would* have been accepted. Personally, I think the obvious character borrowing is bad enough, without the use of Andrews' actual words.Sarah S. G. Frantzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12806353006812086825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-12740721961734168182008-01-14T19:27:00.000+00:002008-01-14T19:27:00.000+00:00I think McEwan crossed the line with Andrews, no d...I think McEwan crossed the line with Andrews, no doubt. What I'm sort of trying to ferret (oh, god, will I ever be able to use that word again without wincing, lol) out here is whether we can use that as an example to make some generalizations. Because clearly that incident angered many Romance readers, and so it might be a good place to start by way of specific discussion on what is and isn't okay in terms of attribution and use of other texts. <BR/><BR/>So I'm not at all arguing with you, in case that wasn't clear.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-72368794548149383452008-01-14T19:21:00.000+00:002008-01-14T19:21:00.000+00:00As a follow-up to the McEwan thing, Robin, my coll...As a follow-up to the McEwan thing, Robin, my colleague, with whom I teach plagiarism and paraphrasing to our fellow colleagues at FSU, says that you cannot paraphrase "helicopter" or "telescope" or "quantum theory." So is your source has specific words like that for which there are no synonyms, you have to use those words. I don't think there's any other way to say "gentian violet" and "ringworm," etc., but there's sure other ways to say "dabs" and "cuts" although maybe not "bruises." And there's language structure, order, and message that are compromised there, too. JMHO, obviously not one held by many other people.Sarah S. G. Frantzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12806353006812086825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-62894295382932158312008-01-14T18:54:00.000+00:002008-01-14T18:54:00.000+00:00And yes, Robin, there's a standard of volume, I gu...And yes, Robin, there's a standard of volume, I guess, but what you're describing is trying to hide theft of an unpublished manuscript. I don't think <I>Bridget Jones</I> or <I>The Eyre Affair</I> are plagiarizing because they're doing such a good job of giving us a NEW world, rather than just adopting and tweaking the old one. And the Austen rewrites/sequels are giving us NEW stories but expect us to know that they're using old characters.<BR/><BR/>We're in agreement, I think. When intertextuality is not meant to be recognized is when it's plagiarism.Sarah S. G. Frantzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12806353006812086825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-82585895430540772222008-01-14T18:50:00.000+00:002008-01-14T18:50:00.000+00:00It's both structure and characters, apparently, an...It's both structure and characters, apparently, and language. <A HREF="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=418598&in_page_id=1879" REL="nofollow">This</A> is a great article that describes the structure/character similarities as well a little bit about the language. At the very very bottom, there's a side-by-side: <BR/><BR/>Excerpt from <I>Atonement</I>, by Ian McEwan...<BR/><BR/>"In the way of medical treatments, she had already dabbed gentian violet on ringworm, aquaflavine emulsion on a cut, and painted lead lotion on a bruise. But mostly she was a maid."<BR/><BR/>Excerpt from <I>No Time For Romance </I>by Lucilla Andrews...<BR/><BR/>"Our 'nursing' seldom involved more than dabbing gentian violet on ringworm, aquaflavine emulsion on cuts and scratches, lead lotion on bruises and sprains."Sarah S. G. Frantzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12806353006812086825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-78267101614993534002008-01-14T18:39:00.000+00:002008-01-14T18:39:00.000+00:00Sarah, how much actual prose of Andrews's did McEw...Sarah, how much actual prose of Andrews's did McEwan use, do you know?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-11343748411553676372008-01-14T18:36:00.000+00:002008-01-14T18:36:00.000+00:00I keep coming back to my personal understanding of...<I>I keep coming back to my personal understanding of plagiarism *in fiction* (NOT academic writing). Plagiarism IN FICTION is the theft of creative expression. That's why it's wrong to steal someone else's words, whether fiction or non-fiction, but not wrong to "steal" or use non-fiction facts/ideas as long as you put them into your own words.</I><BR/><BR/>I agree, Sarah, but I also think there's a limit to use of "ideas" and some kind of standard that needs to be set regarding paraphrase. What Sela Carson was talking about, for example, would NEVER occur to me as anything but good, solid intertextual discourse. However, if I found an unpublished manuscript by, say, JR Ward, and I changed the character names and put the exact same story into different words, I don't think my actions would be viewed as intellectually honest, AT ALL (and note that I'm distinguishing from fan fiction here, which I think is okay, precisely because it's from a known source and isn't being offered as original work). Also, I think there are instances where giving attribution is both polite and reasonably honest, say, in the McEwan/Andrews situation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-40305163793273316182008-01-14T18:32:00.000+00:002008-01-14T18:32:00.000+00:00Sela, see, I see intertextuality as less of a quag...Sela, see, I see intertextuality as less of a quagmire than other people do. I still think what McEwan did in <I>Atonement</I> was wrong because he used whole sentences from Andrews, rather than just adapting her research (and HE used the "if I changed it, it might not be accurate defense that bugs the shit out of me--technical term, there!). Sure, he acknowledged her, but there was no indication, AFAIR, that he was actually using her words. And here's my point, because her words are not cultural capital, her words about gentian violet or whatever it was, are not instantly recognizable, so anyone reading it would think they were HIS words. But that's me. I know it's been "resolved" as perfectly acceptable by others.<BR/><BR/>So I guess I've got a more black/white view of this. Can the writer of the second work genuinely expect the reader to recognize a full quote that isn't indicated as a quote? If not, you might want to paraphrase. Anyone our age would recognize the Sugar Bomb thing because we all grew up on Calvin and Hobbes. I don't think McEwan could genuinely expect his readers to know the difference between his words and Andrews, so he should have done more paraphrasing (ooops--slip there, I first wrote "plagiarizing"! LOL!).Sarah S. G. Frantzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12806353006812086825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-28192625564814090222008-01-14T18:25:00.000+00:002008-01-14T18:25:00.000+00:00In my latest release, I mentioned that my hero was...<I>In my latest release, I mentioned that my hero was eating a bowl of Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs.</I><BR/><BR/>:) Sweet! <BR/><BR/>Sarah, when I wrote my last comment above, I hadn't yet read your "Words, words, word!" post. Sorry about that. You explain it much better than I do. <BR/><BR/>I've got this theory that whenever I start talking about plagiarism or documentation of sources (and it doesn't matter whether I do it in English or in German), I unwittingly start talking Chinese... *sigh*Sandra Schwabhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15496019392789508611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-47166225109470748532008-01-14T18:23:00.000+00:002008-01-14T18:23:00.000+00:00Sarah, I think we ARE on the same wavelength here....Sarah, I think we ARE on the same wavelength here. And you bring up an important point regarding length. While there's almost no hope of calling "Plagiarism!" at four words, several sentences tip the scale.<BR/><BR/>It would be nice if there was some quantitative measure for plagiarism, but when you bring in the entirely legitimate point of intertextuality and transformative writing, it becomes a genuine quagmire.Sela Carsenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18410188636252030577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-32935563432513976032008-01-14T18:19:00.000+00:002008-01-14T18:19:00.000+00:00Sandra, I'll pose the same question here as I did ...Sandra, I'll pose the same question here as I did on DA: what do you think isn't okay about the Edwards examples? Because I'm still not seeing the species-level differences you're trying to draw here, especially given the point you made on the other thread. So perhaps approaching this from the other direction will yield that clarity for me (i.e. in knowing how you think Edwards has crossed a line). <BR/><BR/>As for Jane using academia as a starting point, it was just that, a starting point. If there was a clear standard set in Romance fiction, obviously we could have started there. But the point some of us were getting filtered through the various opinions is that there *isn't* a clear, articulated standard (I mean, Deborah Smith said what she thought Edwards was doing is okay). So why not *start* where the bar is high and clearly presented, and go from there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-11780595510443420612008-01-14T18:15:00.000+00:002008-01-14T18:15:00.000+00:00I keep coming back to my personal understanding of...I keep coming back to my personal understanding of plagiarism *in fiction* (NOT academic writing). Plagiarism IN FICTION is the theft of creative expression. That's why it's wrong to steal someone else's words, whether fiction or non-fiction, but not wrong to "steal" or use non-fiction facts/ideas as long as you put them into your own words.<BR/><BR/>And everything else I'm writing in explanation is not coming out right....sigh.<BR/><BR/>I don't think your use of CFSB was wrong. You meant it intertextually and it would be taken as such by those who recognized it. You meant it to be recognized, in fact, where CE didn't.<BR/><BR/>I think it comes down to length, TBH. While I can fail a student for an obviously plagiarized passage, I really can't do with anything less than about twenty words (give or take). Four words don't prove anything, because if they're recognizable, then they're meant to be recognized, because you cannot hope to use four recognizable words and pass them off as your own.Sarah S. G. Frantzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12806353006812086825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-60937156541535690852008-01-14T18:06:00.000+00:002008-01-14T18:06:00.000+00:00So let's talk intertextuality with pop-culture ref...So let's talk intertextuality with pop-culture references. And I'll use a real example. Shred at will.<BR/><BR/>In my latest release, I mentioned that my hero was eating a bowl of Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs. Fans of Calvin & Hobbes, the comic strip by Bill Watterson, will know that was Calvin's favorite cereal. I used it as an inside joke. A nod to Watterson's creativity.<BR/><BR/>I didn't mention C&H or Watterson within the text, assuming that if my readers got it, they got it. And if they didn't, it wouldn't interfere with their enjoyment of the story (or not, I'm not here to toot my own horn.) I happen to have mentioned it on my website, but not for legal CYA purposes. Just as a heads up to readers that I think Watterson rawks.<BR/><BR/>So. Legitimate intertextuality/fair use? Or plagiarism? Or somewhere in between? And if it wasn't on my website, would it make a difference?Sela Carsenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18410188636252030577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-42764210135938800532008-01-14T14:41:00.000+00:002008-01-14T14:41:00.000+00:00Because taking a scholar’s exact words or paraphra...<I>Because taking a scholar’s exact words or paraphrasing those words or taking their ideas without attribution *and passing them off as your own* is plagiarism, regardless of venue. </I><BR/><BR/>I replied to this on Dear Author, though it might be lost in the archives by now. Here's the bit that concerns taking somebody's ideas attribution. (I've assumed you also meant to include research and somebody else's findings as such, since many studies in folklore, sociology and anthropology are not necessarly about original ideas, but about original findings.)<BR/><BR/><I>Apples and oranges because what would be considered plagiarism in academia is not necessarily considered plagiarism in fiction. Again, I’m taking historical romance as an example simply because that’s what I write and because I know how I incorporate research into my novels. Most of the times, what I use for research are books on aspects of everyday life, ranging from Mark Girouard’s LIFE IN THE ENGLISH COUNTRY HOUSE to C. Willett Cunnington’s ENGLISH WOMEN’S CLOTHING IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY, and to a lesser extent primary texts such as Captain Gronow’s or Harriet Wilson’s memoirs. And in most cases, I use these research books to fill in bits and pieces: in Steven Parissien’s REGENCY STYLE you can find lists with wallpaper designs and colors that were popular in the Regency era, e.g. “‘Picture Gallery Reds’ (red being by far the most popular background for pictures)” (139). Hence, one of the country houses in my next novel will have a picture gallery done in shades of red — no attribution necessary. However, if I were to write an academic article about wallpaper designs and colors in the early nineteenth century, and would use the aforementioned bit of information from Parissien’s book, I’d need to properly document my source, of course. <BR/><BR/>Similarly, in an academic article on food, I can’t just write, “In the early nineteenth century, people greatly enjoyed chicken baskets, and considered black butter as a special treat,” but would need to give my source (either primary or secondary; in this case the info is taken from Maggie Black and Deirdre Le Faye’s THE JANE AUSTEN COOKBOOK), whereas if I use this for a novel and have my characters eat black butter for breakfast, I don’t need to give any sort of attribution.</I>Sandra Schwabhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15496019392789508611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-37033895040086449152008-01-14T14:26:00.000+00:002008-01-14T14:26:00.000+00:00I take strong issue with the sense that I or anyon...<I>I take strong issue with the sense that I or anyone else associated directly with SB or DA has "fooled" anyone into thinking that academic citations are expected in fiction.</I><BR/><BR/>Robin, when I referred to "the discussion" on both blogs, I was including the comments as well -- after all, they are part of it. And in the comments, there was more than one suggestion that authors should attribute their sources, should include footnotes and / or bibliographies.<BR/><BR/>In addition, in the post on plagiarism as a community issue, Jane used plagiarism in academia and the standards of academia as a jumping board to talk about plagiarism in fiction. Which, imo, was problematic.Sandra Schwabhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15496019392789508611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-45593015254544621282008-01-14T11:55:00.000+00:002008-01-14T11:55:00.000+00:00The question that somebody ought to ask Ms. Edward...The question that somebody ought to ask Ms. Edwards, of course, is how she would feel if another author incorporated descriptive paragraphs from her novels (ones she had written herself, rather than nicked from elsewhere) into their work. Would she say, 'by all means - help yourself! Here, have a plot as well!'<BR/><BR/>I wonder.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-68688200087977138042008-01-14T11:51:00.000+00:002008-01-14T11:51:00.000+00:00The point has come up somewhat glancingly several ...The point has come up somewhat glancingly several times, but I just want to emphasise it: writing non-fiction is every bit as personal and creative an act as writing fiction. <BR/><BR/>The author's words are the words that he or she has chosen and often agonised over, editing and polishing to ensure that they convey the intended meaning as clearly and succinctly as possible. The very idea that anyone might imagine that it is somehow 'acceptable' to steal the actual words of a writer of non-fiction makes me incandescent with fury. Do they imagine that scholarly books and papers write themselves? There is an individual brain and personality behind all original written communication.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com