Plagiarism vs. Allusion

[alixtii]

There's a post over at languagelog that touches on the issue of whether use-without-citation always counts as plagiarism. Geoff Pullum's answer is one with which I agree, although different in some respects from the fannish consensus which seems to have been reached. Here's the money quote:

That's the subtle line between plagiarism and literary allusion. It's plagiarism if you copy someone's writing and you don't want it to be noticed that you were copying; it's allusion if you do exactly the same but you do want it to be noticed.

If I had hoped Mr McIntyre would not identify the source of my very funny metaphor and would think me responsible for its brilliantly humorous simile, I would not be a brilliantly humorous writer, I would be a dumb and contemptible plagiarist. And if I had thought he would spot the quotation but I was wrong and he did not, I would be in an awkward spot for two reasons: (i) I would have gratuitously insulted someone I didn't even know, and (ii) I would have used someone else's clever humor without admitting it or citing the source, and would thus have put myself in danger of being fingered later as a plagiarist.

But I had judged him right: I took him to be well acquainted with such familiar features of our culture as the Dilbert strip, and I intended him to see that I was quoting, and he did, and I intended him to see that I intended him to see that I was quoting, and he did, and I intended him to see that I intended him to see that I intended him to see that I was quoting, and he did, and... Perhaps it would be simpler if I just cut this (non-vicious) infinite regress short and say that I intended there to be not just recognition of the quote but also mutual recognition of our mutual knowledge state.

Eliot and Pound used uncited sources all the time in their own work, after all, and I think its perfectly reasonable for me to drop a line from Firefly or Angel without being required to give chapter and verse. Because, like Pullum, I trust you guys to recognize that I'm quoting.

That remains enough even if I'm wrong in my trust. After all, I hardly recognize any of Pound's allusions; that's why I have my trusty A Compendium to The Cantos of Ezra Pound by Carroll F. Terrell. But as I argued here, right after the reel_sga discussions, the most important thing is that a writer act in good faith toward her readers.

Comments

[cathexys.livejournal.com]

yup, that's pretty much the at heart of it for me.

but look how it's all about intent and intended readers again??? i feel like i'm about to give the author mouth to mouth here any second...

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

That's why we need to be able to construct author-functions -- and, as I talk about in the linked post, moral-agent-functions. We make assumptions about what the author intended based on the information we have at hand (unless we choose to construct the function differently, I suppose)....

I thought you had a problem with the way that Eliot and Pound functioned, though, and were much closer to "Everything must be cited."

[cathexys.livejournal.com]

nonono...i'm running late and can't find the relevant posts i've made, but i think context is central! i had a disagreement with an editor a while back, b/c I used repetition with a difference assuming my academic audience would know what i meant.

heck, remember, my background is postmodern pla(y)giarism :)

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

The relevant threads are here and here. I do seem to have misremembered it somewhat--I thought you said you would have obected to the X-Men/Angel fusion if I hadn't cited Whedon, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

[cathexys.livejournal.com]

I think there's a difference between a wholesale homage and a quote. So, yes, in that particular case I might very well have argued that, b/c I'm not sure the audience necessarily knows the text you were using...but then it's always a level of degree, isn't it? I'm constantly amazed when people declare that plagiarism is a simple issue :)

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

I agree, but--and obviously this is an issue of completely academic interest, no investment involved--I think sometimes (often?) the wholesale homage is more obvious and less problematic than the quote.

[amyheartssiroc.livejournal.com]

Absolutely agreed.