Interesting post. I think that the problem with comparing fiction online with Eliot and Pound (oh I really don't want to be burned at the stake here..) is that their audiences have different references. For example, Eliot references a line from Hamlet. Readers acknowledge line and it helps add another level to the poem in its allusion. Fic-writer references a line of dialogue/text from famous fandom: readers acknowledge line as belonging to something else and a nod to it. Not as familiar with Pound's work, I'd say of Eliot that the fact that his work has so many allusions makes it a multi-lateral read where the text can be read knowing (or not knowing) the allusions - almost as if we are not meant to catch all of them but be pleased with noticing the ones we do. That's why compendiums and guides are so important: so we can see whether the line we so loved should be attributed to Eliot were we to quote him. Another side to this is just how far the references go. My view of plagiarism is that it sticks to few (or one) key sources from which to steal/borrow.
I equate plagiarism with the nicking of passages (ie, more than a sentence) or plots from other books. I think the first is more of a problem, as if you believe some critics there is only a finite amount of plots anyway. The latter is far harder to discern whether to scorn or not though. It's also harder to detect, given the wide breadth of language [writer] could be hijacking.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-07 06:10 am (UTC)Interesting post. I think that the problem with comparing fiction online with Eliot and Pound (oh I really don't want to be burned at the stake here..) is that their audiences have different references. For example, Eliot references a line from Hamlet. Readers acknowledge line and it helps add another level to the poem in its allusion. Fic-writer references a line of dialogue/text from famous fandom: readers acknowledge line as belonging to something else and a nod to it. Not as familiar with Pound's work, I'd say of Eliot that the fact that his work has so many allusions makes it a multi-lateral read where the text can be read knowing (or not knowing) the allusions - almost as if we are not meant to catch all of them but be pleased with noticing the ones we do. That's why compendiums and guides are so important: so we can see whether the line we so loved should be attributed to Eliot were we to quote him. Another side to this is just how far the references go. My view of plagiarism is that it sticks to few (or one) key sources from which to steal/borrow.
I equate plagiarism with the nicking of passages (ie, more than a sentence) or plots from other books. I think the first is more of a problem, as if you believe some critics there is only a finite amount of plots anyway. The latter is far harder to discern whether to scorn or not though. It's also harder to detect, given the wide breadth of language [writer] could be hijacking.