So take 2 of this analysis..Right from the beginning I googled "cryptomnesia" because who knows what that is? Google replied with two words: "inadvertent plagiarism." I like the straightforwardness. Is that a word? Doesn't really matter since this is a blog, but anyways..After re-reading the article I still came to the same conclusion: Lethem feels that the ultimate end to "plagiarism" would be hurtful to the creation of new and innovative art.
"Burroughs was interrogating the universe with scissors and a paste pot, and the least imitative of authors was no plagiarist at all."
---> Lethem uses the example of an author named Burroughs, who wrote "Naked Lunch." Lethem explains his work as "Nothing, in all my experience of literature since, has ever had as strong an effect on my sense of the sheer possibilities of writing." Eventually Lethem learns that Burroughs actually took bits and pieces from other author's work to create his own writing. But Lethem says he doesn't care because why should he decide to dislike this work that was so influential and inspirational, just because the author borrowed from others ideas. I agree. I feel like people should focus more on the outcome of this borrowing (art or a piece of good writing) rather than the copyrights and legal stuff that follows it.
In response to: "But the truth is that with artists pulling on one side and corporations pulling on the other, the loser is the collective public imagination from which we were nourished in the first place, and whose existence as the ultimate repository of our offerings makes the work worth doing in the first place." I think that Lethem is basically saying that we need to get back to the beginning when legal aspects weren't even thought of. We need to remember why we have art in the first place and why it is such a widespread phenomenon. Less accusation, more appreciation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I totally agree with what you're saying... go look at my post haha.. I think it's pretty similar. He pretty much says some of the greatest works created were plagiarized and I think he uses Shakespeare as an example. Just because an artist or writer might borrow from another person's work doesn't mean their writing becomes void because it's plagiarized. It's a brand new piece. When I think of plagiarism I don't think of artists borrowing or writers stealing. I think of plagiarism as a high school student or college student just taking essays offline and using them as their own. That's probably ignorant but I don't really see a problem with Musicians or artists borrowing something to make their work better.
ReplyDelete