First, let’s pretend all the numbers I have in parentheses are footnotes, including the one in the title, because my blog does not allow for actual footnotes.

With that said, I would like to talk about plagiarism (2). As Tanya M.  likes to say, plagiarism is not only rampant, but inexcusable (3). However, I would like to argue that it is not so since sometimes in plagiarism the original work can actually, through careful editing, become improved (4). Think about it – with a few punctuation marks, rhyme, and line break changes, you can turn Marlowe into Shakespeare (5). Then again, no one plagiarized like Shakespeare, if you are going to really get picky about it (6).

To simply say something was plagiarized, is to reduce it to its most basic form, and in my opinion an insult to both the plagiarizer, and plagiarized. Those most notorious offenders never had reason for it to begin with, as they were excellent writers on their own (7). In fact, not terribly long ago imitation was the sincerest form of flattery, and plagiarism, in this regard is the highest form of imitation, and therefore, by some implicit, perhaps even logical connection, also flattery (8). No?

Returning to the idea that those who plagiarize most have the least need to do so (and here I refer solely to those with great ideas, building upon previous genius, and not to petty plagiarism that is sloppy and reckless in form), it can also be argued that plagiarism on their part is inadvertent. If I am to argue that these writers do not need to because their own ability is enough to produce that which they plagiarize, then I must also state that this ability is not born of nothing (9). If plagiarism is theft, then it most closely resembles kleptomania. After reading and rereading others, the ideas become fused into the mind, and reiterated. It cannot be helped (10).

While there may be a psychology of plagiarism (11), il est plus aise de connoitre l’homme en general que de connoitre un homme en particulier (12), which makes it impossible to fully understand motive. Was the plagiarism inadvertent? Produced as a source of flattery? By some means malicious or insidious? Plagiarism cannot be generalized thus to account for every instance, as intention differs between men. Even if plagiarism becomes defined, packaged in some neat, coherent explanation, it escapes its own confines by virtue of motive, human nature (13), and even laws governing ownership (14). The last point refers to who owns the original words, as in, after they are plagiarized, do they not still belong to the original author (15)? Published words are not like physical items, permanently removed from the owner and in the possession of someone else (16). They float around, and in my opinion (although no one has thus far asked), they serve to point towards the original, drawing further attention to it, as opposed to detracting or obfuscating the primary author. Once you write something, and it is made public, I don’t think anyone can ever take that away from you (17). Of course I am mostly thinking of creative sources, and not more academic ones. I could totally see why someone would raise Hell for having their research or journal article plagiarized. But as for the creative territories, like stories, or drama, then there is where I see it as referencing rather than plagiarism. And I am pretty sure others view it the same. Otherwise we wouldn’t have many of our current sources of entertainment (18).

So what is plagiarism? Although definitions abound (19), it seems to center around recycling of various natures (20), and only recently became a horrifying practice (21). As for me? I personally have mixed feelings on the whole business, and shall leave it at that (see footnote number 15 below for a full definition of what this means).

Footnotes: