Don't Believe the Hype

Is plagiarism that bad?

Yes, and no. I've been trying to figure out my stance (or really, any stance) only plagiarism for awhile now. We're reminding every semester, in every class syllabus that taking the work of others and presenting it as our own is w-r-o-n-g, wrong. But in some of those same classes, I have learned about the great English poet and playwright, Mr. Bill Shakespeare, who lifted many of his plots from other writers--and we hold his works in highest esteem.

What brought this subject to my mind this past week was the example we were given in class to ponder (example 3). Although the question was "does it really matter who is speaking," that was not the question that lay on my heart. As we have been discussing the role of the author and the author's connection to their works, I find myself wondering what some of the critics we are reading would say if their work was plagiarized by another writer. Would they be angry? Would they see it as a violation of their craft or would they see it as nothing at all? If they view their work as something that loses all connection to them (the author) after it is written, then would they say that it really does not affect them if it is stolen? As usual I do not have answers to these questions, but I do wonder.

As a consumer of film and television, I was struck by the plight of the writer earlier this year when we were in a media drought due to the WGA (Writer's Guild of America) strike. While many people were annoyed that their favorite shows were temporarily off the air, I found myself worrying about, praying about, fretting about thousands of writers that I didn't know, that I had never and would never meet. I was outraged on their behalf, and I while I couldn't wait for my favorite shows to return (The Office), I didn't want to see them come back until the writers that made them possible were given fair compensation for their talents.

Although money matters are always a touchy subject, especially when they're Hollywood money matters, the strike made me consider the plight of the author in the internet age. When anything can be placed on line and read/viewed for free, where does that leave the person who has poured their life into creating the work of art, piece of literature, segment of film that we so gleefully watch online (for free) rather than viewing in it's tangible (not free) form? Although the act of writing, for many authors, is not done for the money, it is how they chose to make their living, so what does that mean when we take the fruit of their labor and do not pay them for it?

This may all sound like ramblings, but it has been on my mind since we so briefly touched on the topic of plagiarism. What does it mean for a writer when someone else takes credit for their work? Or does it matter? So long as the words reach people, spark discussion and thought, does it really matter who says it? Or is it the context? Is it wrong to fake a term paper but okay to take a preexisting plot and turn it into Hamlet and pass it off as your own? Is it okay to fictionalize world history but wrong to lie in an autobiography or memoir?

I find it so fascinating that people cannot decide where they stand on the issue of plagiarism and "lying" to the reader. We love Shakespeare and hate Cassandra Claire (shout out to all the purveyors of fanfiction :D), we accept that history is a fabrication but we lambaste an author for embellishing a memoir and passing it off as truth. But...as I am one of those people, I really don't have room to talk.