PLAGIARISM & CREATIVITY

 

There seems to be no greater sin than plagiarism. There is much astonished excitement when it is discovered that a piece of the news, for example, has been taken from another, unacknowledged source. In other publications, like novels, the author is also criticised, shamed, and banished, if possible, with the work treated as an outcast. We have seen this just recently with John Hughes’ book, The Dogs. The Guardian has been rigorous in seeking out the matching pieces and exposing these in great detail, while suggesting plagiarism. The following text was prepared as a response to two published news articles that exposed the research and revealed the matching pieces of text:

John Hughes

The Guardian*

lenore.taylor@theguardian.com

anna.verney@theguardian.com

RE: Articles -

Miles Franklin prize removes novel from longlist after author apologises for plagiarism

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/jun/10/miles-franklin-prize-removes-novel-from-longlist-after-author-apologises-for-plagiarism#:~:text=Australia's%20most%20prestigious%20books%20prize,realising%E2%80%9D%20in%20his%20acclaimed%20novel.

and

Parts of John Hughes’ novel The Dogs copied from The Great Gatsby and Anna Karenina

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jun/15/parts-of-john-hughess-novel-the-dogs-copied-from-the-great-gatsby-and-anna-karenina

The Guardian et.al. have cleverly interrogated John Hughes’ novel The Dogs, extracted the similarities with other texts, and identified the matches. The sin of plagiarism is hinted at.

In the first report, Hughes has argued that the circumstance had to do with an inadvertent, remnant memory, a proposition that claimed an intimate, but profound innocence.

In the second report that identifies more matches, Hughes refers to the influence of exemplary an

modern poet, playwright, essayist, publisher, literary critic, and editor who has also used the same technique, to justify his use of others’ words. Hughes references T.S. Eliot’s works to argue for the appropriateness and proprietary of his strategy, quoting Eliot: mature poets steal. He is correct.

In a lecture given in 1939, the writer and poet Richard Aldington savagely critiques Pound and Eliot,# pointing out their cunning technique of stealing texts. His scathing admonition, a true dismemberment – it has been called a literary assassination - never mentions

plagiarism, but makes clear Aldington’s opinion of the serial use of this technique that recklessly stole copious quantities of words, phrases, and even whole pages of text without

acknowledgement, and interspersed these pieces alternatively with everyday

mundanities and gobbledegook to suggestively add stature and latent meaning to the

work. Aldington uses sarcasm to show his displeasure with reviewers who praise the works, and

expresses his general disgust about the whole affair, ending his lecture with: After that the only thing for all of us to do now is to go home and commit suicide as painfully as possible.

Hughes is right to quote T.S. Eliot; he could also reference Ezra Pound. Before we all get too critically overexcited, we have to decide what we really think of this creative act of modernity. The

publicity on The Dogs to date seems to point an accusing finger and wants to claim the shame of

plagiarism to force the banishment of the book, its withdrawal from any award listing, apparently finding the strategy totally unacceptable; the act despicable.

If we want to do this, then we will have to discredit Pound and Eliot too with equal

accusatory vigour, and condemn them and their works to the scrapheap of plagiarists

with a matching disgust and strident self-righteousness, instead of treating them like

modern heroes.

We cannot have it both ways, even if it might appear to be rigorous, revelatory

journalism. We should not place Hughes in this shower of blame if we are not prepared to

dislodge Pound and Eliot from their pedestals that identify them as major poets of the twentieth century.

Spence Jamieson

wsj@pobox.com

# Ezra Pound & T.S. Eliot, A lecture by Richard Aldington published by The Peacocks Press, 1954.

For the full text, see:

https://www.imagists.org/aldington/poundeliot1954.pdf

Ezra Pound

T.S. Eliot

Richard Aldington

The matter needs further debate within the confines of architecture. Historically, architects have thrived on copy books, literally being encouraged to copy the styles of the day; wanting to. Traditionally, the matter of copying was seen to be superior to the idea that everyone cold invent forms and express themselves. There does not seem to be any issue with such an approach. Modernity might have changed things, but post-modernity has thrived on the idea of referencing sources and playing with meanings. Robert Venturi, in Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture, wrote about this referencing with much delight and enthusiasm, and used this connection in his own works. It is possible that architecture learned to reference directly from Pound and Eliot.

Denise Scott brown and Robert Venturi

Children's Museum, Houston

Ezra Pound & T.S. Eliot

There is no problem with this ‘clever’ concept of citing used by Eliot and Pound, which even their greatest critic does not call plagiarism. Rather Aldington sees it as an over-use, an abuse of a strategy, a mechanism that mocks meaning with its self-conscious repetition rather than being something subtle and rich, responsive, intertwined and vibrant. Yet, when the technique is used today by a novelist, there is an outcry of dismay, as if it was simple cheating. John Hughes has suffered the indignity of having his publication withdrawn from the long list of an award because of this assessment.

We need to look carefully at what is happening here. There is a difference between plagiarism and creativity. That a journalist might pilfer a text, or most of it, reproduce it and pretend that this is an original piece, is different to lines being referenced, used in, say, a poem or a novel. One could argue that the lack of any explanatory notation might indeed be a part of the reader’s experience of discovery and delight, because footnotes would turn the document – a poem or novel – into a referenced piece of research. One has to understand this difference.

Aldington’s objection is not to reject the technique; he is upset by its constant use, making it an over-clever strategy to add to or construct meaning out of very little, that remains very little because of this excessive, self-conscious indulgence. As the Delphic oracle said: Know thyself: Nothing in excess. Rather than going berserk over any use of another’s words, we need to be much more managed in our assessments of any re-use of texts.

As for architecture, one might despair that there is currently just too much self-expression, structuring a no-man’s-land of bespoke meaninglessness as our environment. Dare one suggest that we need more ‘plagiarism’ in architecture?

Stealing words is different to using them with a creative intent. It is this intent that needs to be assessed when matches are found. The question that needs to be asked is: has the author, the architect, just flogged an idea because of laziness, as an easy way to get an outcome; or have the words/ideas been taken with a caring awareness and sensitivity of intent that might structure richness into text or place?

There is a fine line between plagiarism and creativity that we need to be aware of before we squeal out in protest to raise the alarm. The use of another’s words can be praise-worthy, a homage, something for the original author to be pleased about rather than complain, with the phrases adding complexity and richness to the new work, in the same way as a palimpsest holds its intriguing layering. The problem appears to be directly connected to the concept of bespoke self-expression: the private ownership of ideas – MINE: “Look at ME!” We need to get above this selfishness and grasp the concept of a community of ideas and ideals, and work collectively to enrich these, perhaps in much the same way as science builds on its ideas - selflessly. Plagiarism is something more brutal, more blatantly seedy and greedy than this; as is the flagrant, unabashed use of any technique.

P.S.

See: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/jun/16/john-hughes-i-am-not-a-plagiarist-and-heres-why

 *

NOTE

17 JUNE 22

As seems to be usual now, The Guardian has just ignored the material sent to it, although the Hughes rebuttal, (above), has been published. It is odd, but there seems to be no issue with publishing anything to do with: penis size; problems with orgasms; issues with threesomes; blind date sagas; and questions like: does my husband still love me? etc. Has The Guardian become the Dorothy Dix of intimacy; a matchmaker? It certainly likes matching texts.