Plagiarize, Plagiarize, Plagiarize, let no one's work escape your eyes! (a) Or, how to prepare a really great manuscript ?
With the advent of the Internet, we are faced with another of Salvador Dali's endless enigmas.
Having developed an interest in an area, we would like to commit to paper some of our thoughts. Simple enough, until we decide that perhaps we should add the flavor of some other's research to our project and as we peruse the literature (or the web), we find that we are not alone in our thoughts and that there are opposite viewpoints as well. How shall we proceed? If you take an academic viewpoint, we are obligated to cite song and verse from those who may have contributed to our thought process and to be safe, even after the fact, we should acknowledge those that we just now are discovering, even if they contributed not at all. And for all those we find, there are countless others, in fact for each stone turned, there are two or more underneath awaiting our attention. The admonition, leave no stone unturned, is short sighted when we have deadlines, space constraints, and a short attention span to boot. Perhaps the advice given Cervantes when he prepared his text for Don Quixote is worth repeating:
In the preface to Don Quixote as written by Cervantes and translated by Dr. Tobias Smollett, Vol. 1, pp 36, D. Huntington 1814, New York.
"Let us now proceed to the citation of authors, so frequent in other books and so little used in your performance; the remedy is obvious and easy; take the trouble to find a book that quotes the whole tribe alphabetically, as you observed from Alpha to Omega, and transfer them to your book; and though the absurdity should appear never so glaring, as there is no necessity for using such names, it will signify nothing. Nay, perhaps some reader will be weak enough to believe you have actually availed yourself of all those authors, in the simple and sincere history you have composed; and if such a large catalogue of writers should answer no other purpose, it may serve at first sight to give some authority to the production, nor will any person take the trouble to examine whether you have or have not followed those originals, because he can reap no benefit from his labour. But if I am not mistaken, you book needs none of those embellishments in which you say it is defective; for it is one continued satire upon books of chivalry; a subject which Aristotle never investigated, St. Basil never mentioned and Cicero never explained. The punctuality of truth and observations of astrology fall not within the fabulous relation of our adventures; to the description of which, neither the proportions of geometry, nor the confirmation of rhetorical arguments, are of the least importance; hath it any connection with preaching, or mingling divine truths with human imagination; a mixture which no christian's (sic) fancy should conceive."
Doubt this will work in today's frenzy of publish or perish, so let's look at what others have done and how they have accepted the inevitable.
One particular author, Samuel Colvil, has been cited both as one who gave credit where credit was due and others find that he was lacking (remember the poem was written in 1660, or about.) One of the main characters in Hudibras (Ralph or Ralpho) appears in Colvil's poem. Here's what Colvil had to say about plagiarism:
Whoe'er thou art, Muse, who dost make
By force of brandy, ale, and sack,
Some who both words and mater want,
Admired of the ignorant:
In whom sagacious noses snuff:
Nought worth but plagiary stuff.
By which they purchase praise and money,
(When bees have toil'd, drones eat the honey.)
Inspire me with poetic fury,
That I may likewise favor curry..
.
Or more to the point:
And others like thee, not a few doth,
Who bred out of the peccant humours,
Of this our church, like wens and tumors;
Like maggots bred within a sore,
Would that which gve them life, devour.)
Thou'lt say these last for lines were stol'n. -
I answer with that red-shank fullen,
Once challenged for stealing beef,
I sole them from another thief.
Now since thy sophistry's confuted,
I end...
Both selections from The Wigs Supplication or, the Scots Hudibras, Samuel Colvil, St. Andrews, 1796.
Perhaps it was an unusual circumstance but in this case it was flattery when others copied Baum's work and probably enriched his heirs as well, as it created a greater audience for the product of his pen. Today's collectors place high value on books of his contemporaries as well as the originals from Baum's imagination.
The question; Is it plagiarism when you take a character, the creation of another, and write of that persona as if your own?
Not nice, that native of Tordesillas, who deserved Cervantes wrath. (However, it has been suggested that perhaps Cervantes "created" Avellaneda and used him as a shill to promote his own works. Interesting thought(?)
S. J. Mahtrow has added several chapters to Cervantes works. Since Saavedra was much put out that an interloper would take his creation and modify it to another cause, how would he view these new additions to his character's adventures?. In Miguel de Cervantes' development of Don Quixote and Sancho Panza he was using wry wit to tweak those who had held knight heraldry in such esteem. At the time with monies short and time (he died soon after) as well, Cervantes could ill-afford the appearance of another one's Don Quixote. Not only did he see it as diminishing his goals of ridicule but also quite changed the characters as well. In addition as there was no copyright laws at the time, anyone with a printing press and financial backing could issue copies of his books either in the original Spanish or in translations. He was vulnerable to the market at the time. Such is not the case with the original works of S. J. Mahtrow, who having appreciated Savendra's humor, brings the Don and his man-servant to additional adventures. Judge them as you will, the intent now is to introduce a bit of science (chemistry if you like) into the story so that one can subtly learn a bit while enjoying the story. Would Cervantes approve? Probably not. Is it plagiarism? Maybe not with today's definition of plagiarism.
Continuing along the lines of Johnson and Webster, the Oxford English Dictionary embarked on a notable quest. Why not in one dictionary put "all" the words in the language complete with definition and examples where appropriate. "Done, said the Queen with a stroke!" And done it has been. Now in some twenty volumes, OED. challenges the owner to find shelf space adequate to support the weight. Of course it is available in a version requiring a magnifying glass or on a CD but both lose the appeal of holding one of these marvelous volumes in your hand and reading it as one would a Mickey Spillane novel or some such.
And along comes Microsoft with an idea that they know best what the English speaking world needs. With a minuscule group of lackeys they develop a book that is most appropriately contained on a CD but that is wanting in many ways other than its lack of completeness. Trying to present it as a "world" edition, thus lessening its base in America and England, words appear that are quite right but because of the relative number of "un-American" and "un-English" compared to those in a Webster's College Dictionary, the balance is wrong. Let them take on OED if they want to justify introduction of other words that are acceptable in parts of the world but less likely to be heard in the United States. Noah Webster would be enraged to discover that the simple and easy to remember phonetics that he introduced have been bastardized so that confusion reigns. If that's not enough, where are the contemporary Henry Menckens? With a sharp pen and an even sharper tongue, Microsoft's adventure in diction would quickly find its way into the garbage can where it belongs.
And now, we return our attention to plagiarizing. It must be admitted that there is no way to develop a dictionary without plagiarizing from A to Z.
Some who review the depths of man's inner soul want the source to be in the text, right there with the "lifted" material. Footnotes aren't good enough. Now imagine trying to read most anything of substance if you are constantly reminded that "this ain't me".
The best that can be said to avoid the stigma of plagiarizing is to be up-front in announcing that your work is beholden to various and sundry sources, that nothing in the word that you have put to paper is original and that it is only for the merriment (and perhaps) a good grade or pat on the head (substitute financial rewards, full professorship, grants and chairs if you are academically disadvantaged) by your peers that you are embarking on this task. Perhaps then the reviewer will be so kind as to dismiss your foraging into the literature and bringing back salient thoughts that are not your own. This is the tact taken by peer reviewed journals.
If you dwell in the never-never-land of commercial writing, beware. When Gail Sheehy wrote the book, Passages, way back in the 1970's she was said to have borrowed "ideas" from David Levinson (Yale) and Roger Gould (UCLA). For this transgression she was forced to give up some 10% of here royalties from the book in an out-of-court settlement. I am at a loss to explain how one can not borrow ideas. There is really nothing new in this world, only revisionist theories on the order of occurrence. But pay she did.
So long Tom it's off to drop the bomb! (er, Mom that is. As written and performed by Tom Lehrer.)
(a) Too Many Songs by Tom Lehrer, Tom Lehrer
However, to make multiple copies for the benefit of the students in a class should be preceded by a request to the publisher (or writer) to do so. And after the request is granted then it is permissible to distribute the copies. This is seldom done.
Can you imagine the difficulty if this were strictly enforced. The professor would have to read the material, digest it, cast new ideas in his/her own words (this is not paraphrasing as some would have you believe), commit the ideas to paper and then freely make copies for distribution. Even then, there is a thin line between original work and therefore a copyrightable piece and one that is plagiarization clothed in new phrases.
So, we criticize the student, perhaps an author that is too bold in stealing another's work or the researcher that jumps to the head of the class by publishing first even though the idea is another's. And yet, we see examples set by our most senior professors, stealing copyrighted material every day. What to do? The next best thing is to make sure that the source of the material is well documented. That way at least the magazine/journal/newspaper is given credit for their publishing the work.
This particular scientist, a physical chemist, typically had issued in him and his co-workers, more patents than all the rest of the division each year. How could this be? He explained it so simply. Once you have been promoted to such an esteemed position, you have assigned to you, your own patent attorney. Since the attorney's future lies in getting patents in vast numbers, it was to his advantage to glean from our scientist's work all that was of value. Unfortunately, not all that comes from such a noble mind is actually all that great. Nevertheless, as was confided to me by Al Kelly, another attorney with whom I worked; "I can get a patent on anything. It's just understanding how the Patent Office works." Obviously our chief scientist and his PA knew this as well.
But how about the concept of theft and honor? Simply put, our scientist follows the published literature in his field of interest. When he sees a paper which has particular merit, and there are always a number published each month, he simply extends the author's observations by what is called, politely, paper chemistry. Duly recording the concepts; he and his coworkers attempt to verify his minds-work in his notebooks and as all things are on a monthly timetable in industry, passes them on to the patent attorney. Then it's off to another project based on yet another journal article that has just appeared. With time, usually less than two years, a patent emerges with the official certificate from the Department of Commerce.
Certainly the originator of the papers that were in essence plagiarized could have claimed foul. But when you merge interest in "public or perish" in academia with "patent to survive" in industry, something gets lost in the process. The rewards are distributed. The professor of the original paper gets his tenure and our chief scientist gets his monetary rewards for his "beta-research". The companies' management also benefits; as the annual reports make much of the breakthroughs just around the corner based on research, so managers are rewarded for being smart to have chosen so well their scientist.. The stockholder can hardly complain as the companies' stock advances based on the stories in the press. And, last of all the United States Patent Office reaps rewards as they hire more examiners to study the applications and pass those that have the appropriate "i"s dotted and "t"s crossed.
Is this good science? Of course not! Is it plagiarism? Probably. The chief scientist hasn't had a novel idea in years; he preforms the role intended for him; and you can argue that nobody is hurt by the system. Maybe you can call it by some other name(?). I call it in deference to that great unnamed scientist, "It's easier to steal than to invent."
An example is the periodic table which represents the combined works of scientist since the original concept by Dmitri Mendeleev in 1869. As new elements are discovered they're added to the table in an orderly fashion and the table grows. In addition, there have been several suggestions of structuring the table so that it has more utility, provides more information, better shows te relationship between the elements, is more colorful, dramatic, &c. For the most part the government's view has been that the improvements are not considered copyrightable. I doubt that this would hold in court if the issue were challenged. Otherwise, one could never copyright a dictionary, or works of art that portray Jesus Christ.
Probably the best stance is that if you create it, it's yours and unless stated to the contrary by the Commerce Department, it is copyrighted, until challenged. So the bottom line is why waste twenty bucks on a certificate from the Government unless you just want something to hang on your wall.
But how about the warning on the inside of dictionaries and such. They claim that no part can be copied because it would be a violation of their copyright if you do so. It's legalese. Certainly parts of the dictionary are original works but most of the words and definitions have passed into common usage long since Noah Webster and others defined them. So go ahead and use words, even the definitions as you please, that's not plagiarism, and it would be ridiculous to cite Random House, Colliers, Merriam Webster, &c. ever time you write.
In one of my classes, I offered the students ten additional points to be added to their total points for test and other materials, for each article they brought to class that was used in the lectures. I thought this would be an incentive for these students to read carefully; the newspapers, journals and other sources of printed words that were available to them. Wrong! I was deluged by printed documents from the Web. They didn't even bother to read and certainly not understand the information they turned in for credit. Relevant to our class work? Yes. Of benefit to the student turning in the work? Hardly. So the golden goose was fried (Southern style).
spoiler, depredator, pillager, marauder; harpy, shark, land-shark, falcon, moos-trooper, bushranger, Bedouin, brigand, freebooter, bandit, thug, dacoit, pirate, corsair, viking, Paul Jones; buccaneer, buccanier; piqueerer, pickeerer, rover, ranger, privateer, filibuster, rapparee, wrecker, picaroon, smuggler, poacher, plunderer, racketeer.
highwayman, Dick Turbin, Claude Durval, Macheath, knight of the road, footpad sturdy beggar; abductor, kidnapper.
cut purse, pick purse, pick pocket, light-fingered gentry; sharper, card sharper, skittle sharper, crook, thimble rigger, rook, Greek, blackleg, leg welsher, defaulter; Autolycus, Cacus, Barabbas, Jeremy Diddler, Robert Macaire, artful dodger, trickster; swell mob, chevalier d insustrie, shop lifter.
swindler, peculator, forger, coiner, counterfeiter, shoful, fence, receiver of stolen goods, duffer, smasher.
burglar, housebreaker, craksman, magsman, Bill Sikes, Jack Sheppard, Jonathan Wild, Raffles, cat burglar."
Roget's Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases, Grosset & Dunlap, 1941.
An updating of Roget would certainly add many other terms. If you plagiarize, you'll have lots of company. On the other hand if you ignore the literature you risk the more serious problem of our chemist friend.
One University defined plagiarism as: "To use someone's words or ideas without letting your readers know where they came from is a form of theft." Another goes further to say; "To copy sentences, or even phrases, without full acknowledgment, from someone else's work and to thereby convey the impression that they are one's own is plagiarism. So is paraphrasing - restating in one's own words - of someone else's ideas without full acknowledgment." Sounds simple doesn't it.
What's distressing is that by citation, stating that some or perhaps lots of the writing is taken; the author goes right along and presents the concepts, &c., as his or her own. The reader is left with the impression that much of what is written is the product of sweat from the author's brow and perhaps later is surprised to discover that many of the terms used by Roget, apply to that individual when the thief is revealed..
That's an unwritten cost of plagiarism.
And, finally an admonition from the preface of Don Quixote by Miguel De Cervantes Saavendra; "... your business is, with plain, significant, well chosen and elegant words to render your periods sonorous, and your style entertaining; to give spirit and expression to all your descriptions, and communicate your ideas without obscurity and confusion. You must endeavor to write in such a manner as to convert melancholy into mirth, increase good humour, entertain the ignorant, excite the admiration of the learned, escape the contempt of gravity, and attract applause from persons of ingenuity and taste. Finally, let your aim be leveled against that ill-founded bulwark of idle books .... " Of course this was directed to the tearing down of the illusion that chivalry and knights of old were Gods created to save mankind from itself, but it is appropriate to consider this advise in regards to theories that are taught as fact in many facets of our current educational system. Don Quixote, vol 1, pp 37 Huntington, New York, New York, 1814.
In "the little book" William Strunk had nothing to say about plagiarism. Now that's in keeping with Strunk who only directed his attention toward that which could be improved upon.
But before we end on the sad lot of plagiarist, we need to consider the opposite - ignorance of what has passed before.
"It's easier to steal than invent" may be the credo, but invention without knowledge sure will get you in a peck of trouble in industry when you try to market your invention of "sliced bread."
****
Joe Wortham's Home Page , About Joe Wortham , Directory
Questions? Comments? [email protected]