Wednesday, May 03, 2006
My two cents on Viswanathan
A friend and member of my critique group expressed worry that she would unconsciously spew out her favorite passages from books she's read and written down over the years. My response to her:
"From all I've read about the Viswanathan case, I don't think you need to worry. I read this passage online this morning (at http://www.bergen.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkzMTMmZmdiZWw3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTY5MjkwNTgmeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXky):
'McCafferty's publisher, the Crown Publishing Group, alleged it found at least 40 similarities between its best-selling author's works and "Opal Mehta." Viswanathan admitted to plagiarizing the work, saying she had read and admired McCafferty and probably internalized and unconsciously repeated portions of those books.'
What's wrong with this statement?
'unconsciously repeated'
Give me a break. Anyone who reads and admires something as much as it would take to repeat like she did knows exactly what they're doing and writing. I quote--in straight quote and paraphrase--Dune all the time. I know where what I'm saying comes from exactly because I have read and admired it so much. And I thus attibute it to Frank Herbert.
'40 similarities'
Again, give me a break. The sheer number shows intent. If it was from one author that she read four times a year and wasn't nearly so much word for word, concept for concept, I could see this number being somewhat valid, but as it is, it's not. It reminds me of a college student doing research. It certainly seems she approached writing her--sorry, a novel the same way. Did anyone tell her a novel is different from a paper, something professional writers know because they know from where a book comes, inside? And it doesn't apply to historical, factual research (the DaVinci Code trial ruling settled that). That's a different scenario. When I start a new book, I research others to make sure my book stands out, that it's different, so as not to waste my time.
'admitted to plagiarizing'
If she admits to this, this, "probably internalized and unconsciously repeated portions" cannot be true. Plagiarism is not uncounscious, not probably. It's definite and internal.
If the girl is as smart and talented as the buzz said, as her advance suggested, she knows what she read, when she read it, the style and content of admired authors, and would not be able to mix those up, "unconsciously repeat" it.
Deborah, you are smart and saavy enough to know exactly what you're writing. You're not going to do this because it's not your intent. You won't freeze up because what you write comes from inside you, not from books like yours.
Unconsciously weaving the concepts from favorite works is not the same thing. An example (although this is a unique enough concept, I would always attribute it, either within the work or in acknowledgements): In Dune, the Bene Gesserit believe that the old adage, 'Power corrupts' is not accurate. They observe that 'Power attracts the corruptible.'
Now, I have definitely internalized that concept enough that I could write reams on all kinds of subjects and all kinds of fiction informed by it. (It certainly informs how I view politics.) But knowing this, I would always attribute.
You are the same way. You don't spew. And you won't freeze. So don't worry! And I don't have to tell you to write, you productive maniac. :-)
So, that's my two cents. Take it or leave it."
"From all I've read about the Viswanathan case, I don't think you need to worry. I read this passage online this morning (at http://www.bergen.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkzMTMmZmdiZWw3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTY5MjkwNTgmeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXky):
'McCafferty's publisher, the Crown Publishing Group, alleged it found at least 40 similarities between its best-selling author's works and "Opal Mehta." Viswanathan admitted to plagiarizing the work, saying she had read and admired McCafferty and probably internalized and unconsciously repeated portions of those books.'
What's wrong with this statement?
'unconsciously repeated'
Give me a break. Anyone who reads and admires something as much as it would take to repeat like she did knows exactly what they're doing and writing. I quote--in straight quote and paraphrase--Dune all the time. I know where what I'm saying comes from exactly because I have read and admired it so much. And I thus attibute it to Frank Herbert.
'40 similarities'
Again, give me a break. The sheer number shows intent. If it was from one author that she read four times a year and wasn't nearly so much word for word, concept for concept, I could see this number being somewhat valid, but as it is, it's not. It reminds me of a college student doing research. It certainly seems she approached writing her--sorry, a novel the same way. Did anyone tell her a novel is different from a paper, something professional writers know because they know from where a book comes, inside? And it doesn't apply to historical, factual research (the DaVinci Code trial ruling settled that). That's a different scenario. When I start a new book, I research others to make sure my book stands out, that it's different, so as not to waste my time.
'admitted to plagiarizing'
If she admits to this, this, "probably internalized and unconsciously repeated portions" cannot be true. Plagiarism is not uncounscious, not probably. It's definite and internal.
If the girl is as smart and talented as the buzz said, as her advance suggested, she knows what she read, when she read it, the style and content of admired authors, and would not be able to mix those up, "unconsciously repeat" it.
Deborah, you are smart and saavy enough to know exactly what you're writing. You're not going to do this because it's not your intent. You won't freeze up because what you write comes from inside you, not from books like yours.
Unconsciously weaving the concepts from favorite works is not the same thing. An example (although this is a unique enough concept, I would always attribute it, either within the work or in acknowledgements): In Dune, the Bene Gesserit believe that the old adage, 'Power corrupts' is not accurate. They observe that 'Power attracts the corruptible.'
Now, I have definitely internalized that concept enough that I could write reams on all kinds of subjects and all kinds of fiction informed by it. (It certainly informs how I view politics.) But knowing this, I would always attribute.
You are the same way. You don't spew. And you won't freeze. So don't worry! And I don't have to tell you to write, you productive maniac. :-)
So, that's my two cents. Take it or leave it."
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]