Big Words

Of Cheats and Liars: Plagiarism

Posted by yseult on Feb 10, 2010 in Big Words, Issues

In times of the internet and the quick use of any copy/paste function, where the transmission of thoughts and discussions is so immediate, does the term of Plagiarism even still make sense?

This week two topics concerning cheating in writing (also known as: Plagiarism) have hit the major media. They are – at first sight – diametrically opposed, but reveal a lot about how we see the art of creation, the writing business and how web 2.0 and modern means of communication are shaping our intellectual food and why it is that we are starving.

The first case involved star philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy, a French self-made thinker (in every sense of the term applicable)¹ who has construed his career on said media exposition for the last decades. His latest book ‘On War in philosophy’ – which with the according exposure and the current need for answers on this topic – has been longingly awaited by the chic well-meaning, slightly world removed circles of professional brow frowners of the current Zeitgeist circles ². It is only a small ironical value of that BHL (his official trademark) has now been beaten down by the same feuilltons that usually hail him and applaud every undertaking that the great mind publicises ³. Yes, the man has been proven to be unable to do proper research. He can be seen citing a fictitious writer and his slightly less fictitious texts in his latest work. Less fictitious? The author in question is an invention by a French satritical writer Frédèric Pagès from a renowned satire paper called Le Canard Enchaîné (The Chained Duck) and was meant to wear the armour of champion of the 20th century Anti-Katian movement. The character of Jean-Baptiste Botul had so much success upon his invention that the journalist then went on to publish the invented oeuvre.
Apart from BHL missing the very basic sense and curiosity – which should and can be expected from a ’professional thinker’ – to solidify his own thought based on his sources (it would have taken him a simple Google search to unverify this quoted author), the interesting point here, is not the King’s dethronement. At least not for me. It’s as usual the scene around the throne that interests me more.

The moment in the book where this fictitious source ⁴ was used (or so they tell me, because I confess to not having it read yet), is a critical one: it quotes back to a conference the dear BHL had given last year at the Ecole Normale Supérieure ⁵, using it as what science calls an argument of authority for his own thought and he is quoting a real text written by a satirical journalist (who per se has nothing to say on the matter of wars, thought or metaphysics) who himself has invented a well thought out author with a fitting biography. Now Frédèric Pagès didn’t have in mind to gully people into thinking this was true thought by an actual thinker when he published the works of conferences by Jean-Baptiste Botul. However, BHL’s quoting – even if it’s a funny story – validates the thoughts within these conferences supposedly given in Brazil after the end of WWII.

The point to be made here is the following: No matter how a thought, a critique or a stance came into the world, through satire, through joke, it’s validity isn’t given by it’s author alone, their standing or by the measure that modern booklists give them, but by their applicability to the world. Clearly, something must have sounded right in BHL’s ears to have quoted it that way.

The second event has been breaking across the internet and the major media in Germany. About three weeks ago a certain Helene Hegemann (18) has published her first novel: Axolotl Roadkill. The feuilltons and critics hailed the book as the best portrayal of the current young generation, the generation of the zero years (ie. 2000 to 2009), a new ‘Kinder vom Bahnhof Zoo’ for a new generation, even though it’s content merely shows – using a crude and current language which involves barely anything above the belt line – the general loss of orientation of kids today. Helene Hegemann is no Christiane F., she lacks the genuine problems that allowed other artists to be inspired by her fate. (cf. for instance Cristiane F., the album by David Bowie or the movie). In all truth, all these two girls have in common is that they both showed us their state of mind. Where the one from the 70ies was in no area of her life adapting or working things out and spiralling deeper and deeper into drug addiction and the follow up tragedies, the other one at the start of a new decade of a new millennium shows how much she really has adapted herself to the world and how it works.  Not a single so-called intellectual writer has dared to ask the proper questions, the only newspaper that didn’t review the book was the Zürich based Tagesanzeiger, they found the book apparently too bland and polished ⁶.

It took a simple blogger. A citizen journalist to find out that Hegemann had copied most parts of her first novel off the internet and a particular blog. A fact that the editor immediately declared a detail which the author however failed to mention anywhere. The journalists that had cherished her before… did not drop her. They were ready for the 360 for her new found prodigy, suggesting in all earnestly (the editor and author later confirmed that idea) that copying and using like that was part of the new generation’s ways of communicating, of appreciating the world and that it was completely acceptable for youngsters today. And that’s where the big division is taking place. Nobody seems to want to believe the feuilltonists at this point, because the internet is exploding with people crying outrage ⁷.

Why is that? Because plagiarism is a crime? Because we have a right to what we create? Because… they should know better?

For me personally plagiarism is the worst possible kind of intellectual cannibalism (there are nuances in my head, yes) and just as with real cannibalism, some people might find it acceptable, others might not even consider the idea, for people that live from what they write and accomplish with words, the ethical dimensions are similar to real cannibalism. In a time where students at university think that research means ‘looking it up on google’ and where plagiarism is becoming the standard (in the Philosophy Dept. with three profs alone here in Geneva, there are at least 3 cases per semester), who honestly can be shocked about a girl copying her novel?

It’s the main paradigm of post-modernism that nothing in the world can be reinvented, that everything has been said and thought and that we are all just quoting, thus rendering true art as an act of creation obsolete. This has been the first step to devalue and invalidate the creative act and it is the first paving stone of the road we are on now.

The main question to ask is obviously how the critics can hold on to their prodigal kid by claiming that copying is actually ‘ok’ as long as it’s a ‘thing that kids just do’?

The answer is pretty simple: because plagiarism only makes sense in a written world. Where the written (and printed) word has meaning and a certain authoritative value.
The internet has a colloquial sense to it, and kids today are much more geared towards conversation and immediateness. It’s no wonder they are so in-to-the-net. It satisfies the basic need of every kid or teenager or tween: I want it now and I want it all ⁸. Add to that that an author in the internet or of a blog is a very abstract entity. The fact that bits and bytes represent the text don’t help. A text in printing ink just is so much more imposing and… real.

Two cases, two countries that seemingly have nothing to do with one another. In my view they do. Whereas in BHL’s case, the scientific research, everything is given to the authority of the text, in Hegemann’s case, a novel, nothing is given to the source and there is no argument of authority other than the one of the critics who elevated her. In both cases the reader is left under-nourrished and disappointed.

We buy books and pay authors for various reasons. But no matter what the context is, be it scientific, intellectual or fiction, we pay them for their creativity. We pay them because they spent time on something that we haven’t thought of or don’t have the time to, they created something. They thought and had a will to do something with it.
The discussion about plagiarism, what it is and what it isn’t, what it should be and what it can’t be is an ongoing one. The latest book on the subject has only just come out ⁹. As readers, we live from the illusion that we are reading something new. Whether it’s true or not, is secondary. When German philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer ¹⁰ stated that when we read a text, we throw ourselves (as the complete being with our social realisation etc.) in front of the progression of the text, that we assume and accept the text as an authority that has to tell us something, he revealed the non-dictum that others fail to see today. Texts are universes. They are very talkative universes. They manipulate, they play with Gadamer’s basic assumption, they shock and they hurt ¹¹. And we all take it. We take it because we believe that the authors have done their work. They have created something. For us.

It’s when we realise that they have cheated and lied that the whole building collapses on itself. Not only does writing become insignificant – limited to the simple machinality of a couple of keystrokes between ctrl+c and ctrl+v -, but ultimately reading is nothing more than listening to the constant jabber of everyday life when it should be elevating us, should inspire us and should make us dream or think.

ADDENDUM: Meanwhile, the Book Expo of Leipzig as nominated Axolotl Roadkill for their 2010 book prize (45.000 Euro). Looking at the standing now, it might not win, but who knows. To not completely throw out their chances, the editor has now issued a nervous telegram stating that in the fourth edition of the book, a ‘list of sources’ would be included. I’ve been fortunate enough to take a look at it and it’s seven pages long and presents itself as an evident alibi. The last paragraph of said list states: “Dieser Roman folgt in Passagen dem ästhetischen Prinzip der Intertextualität und kann daher weitere Zitate enthalten.” which translates to this: This novel follows in certain passages the aestetical principle of intertexuality and may thus contain more quotations (than listed here).
Intertextuality, dear friends, is a scientific concept that became popular in the late 60ies and early 70ies (under Kristeva and the rising movement of psychoanalytical thought in literature and critique of structuralism ie. poststructuralism. It’s not an aestetic principle, it’s a variation of what I referred to as the postmodern principle (“nothing can be said without quoting anything”). Intertextuality uses any given text as a marking point. It doesn’t necessarily quote it, it doesn’t necessarily plagiarise it and it certainly doesn’t use it in a cannibalistic sense. Shame on the editor who obviously were looking for a new child prodigy and through people weren’t intelligent enough to notice their foul play and now try to hide behind scientific concepts that they have no idea of. The King is truly naked.

Big words that start with… A

Posted by yseult on Feb 8, 2007 in Big Words, Philosophy

Page statistics have a terrible way of satisfying our voyeuristic needs. But most of the time they also serve a purpose. For instance it has become clear in the last few weeks that most of the new visitors to my site came here while searching for Herbert Grönemeyer. Unfortunately this is not some random music blog and I suppose that there really is no way of tying these readers to my blog in any permanent manner.
And then there was this one Google searcher – let’s call him Lexicographer – that came several times to my blog while looking for “big words that start with s” or “big words that start with c” etc. Unfortunately he didn’t find what he came for, only a post with the title Big words from the wise.
But I wouldn’t be me, if that didn’t give me a brilliant new idea for which I owe my thanks to Lexicographer.

So here starts a new series of random Big Words from philosophy, history, culture and whatnot. (NB: If you have any suggestions or would like to have particular word appear here and be explained, don’t hesitate to drop me a line in the comments or just contact me over Skype.)

Big words that start with… A

Analogy

If you’re trying to say something without saying it directly, but using an example, chances are that a) you’re trying to be polite and b) you’re using an analogy.
Ever heard something like “You talk like an electrical sewing machine…” or “Listening to you is like sticking my head into a microwave oven. It makes me dizzy…” ? Lucky you. It’s the philosopher’s way of insulting anybody that does not share his sense for pertinence.
A basic element of analogies is that they are rarely understood the way they were meant. This is particularly true for such weird ideas like The analogy of being where several philosophers and theologians have asked themselves whether we can say from God or the Angels that they ‘are’ the same way we do it from plants or humans. People that do deal with these questions can be encountered in the wild, but they do fear light and company, so please don’t scare them off.

Absolutes

Someone wise once said: “Only Sith deal in absolutes.” and guess what… he was making an analogy. What he actually meant to say was: “Only Republicans deal in absolutes…”, but that’s another matter.
Absolutes – just like the famous “Never say never…” line – have the bad habit of coming back to bite you somewhere sensible (i.e. where it hurts). And even if black and white are your favourite colours, they’re still absolutes. Try to avoid them. Grey is such a nice colour too.
Right.

Anachronism

Using words like tabernae potoriae minister for Barkeeper or iuvenis voluptarius for Playboy, really are anachronisms in our times. Just as the fact that the Vatican is actually publishing such pieces of anachronisms on their holy page…

Analysis (asked by Juliana)

The basic principle of taking things (hair-dryers, personal computers, texts, poems, arguments, meanings…) apart, giving you the possibility to examine the parts that make up the thing you are willing to take apart. As with all things this procedure requires adequate tools and methods: there are only so many things a drill can do for you and finding logical fallacies for instance is not one of them. So, when analysing anything written or said, apply the folowing basic rules: 1) don’t ask of the text what it is not able to give (Spiderman will not explain the Communist manifest to you. Ever.) 2) Be suspicious of everything. Everybody lies. Everybody. 3) Watch the Code. Not everything that is said is meant and not everything that is meant is spelled out on the page. 4) Do not get intimidated and use a dictionary. Texts are like playground bullies: big words and mostly no muscles, only pure force.
Happy analysing!

Analytical

In 20th and 21st century Philosophy often used as an insult or a nobility claim respectively, depending on where it is uttered (on the continent it’s an insult, in the US of A it’s a noble title). It’s a movement that started out by analysing texts and phrases that are used to describe the world. This analysis was in fact supposed to help get rid of 99% of the problems we have with the world. Unfortunately – like it can happen with any analysis – some of the leaders were sidetracked from the righteous path and somehow fell into Narcissus’ well. This in turn led to Analytical philosophers boldly claiming the supremacy of the argument over the commentary. Thus was born the infamous quarrel between continental and analytical philosophy. You have studied continental Philosophers? Sorry, then all you ever did was produce was commentary. Only analytical philosophers can argue and offer arguments, since explaining Aristotle’s Ethics does not need any argument, only a Cambridge Companion. There you have it.

Anathema (asked by Juliana)

Ever been excluded? Ever been banished from an Internet forum? Then an anathema has been called upon you. Historically speaking the anathema was first neutral or positive even: everything that was set apart and thus special, sacred. It came to a much harsher meaning during Church History and especially Catholic Church History where it names the most extreme act of casting somebody out. Beyond. any. redemption.
But not to worry, anathemata (aha, yes, this is a greek plural) have become quite unpopular and anachronistic. See there.

Arduous

If you feel overworked, overwhelmed or simply overrun by life itself, then arduous is the right adjective to describe whatever you’re battling with. How pale does “It’s hard…” or “It’s heavy work…” sound, compared to “This task is arduous work…”?
Even if you’re dragged down by everything that doesn’t necessarily mean that you cannot have at least a literate description for it, does it?

UPDATE

Aberration (asked by Arsedendi)

According to Murphy’s Law everything that can go wrong, will go wrong. While aberration in general signifies an unintended change of course or a deviation from a generally established plan, the word has also taken a literary – metaphorical – meaning of something being astray, wrong or perverted (in it’s original meaning). A closer look seems to impose itself here: let’s say we have an occurrence of some sort, say the lunar eclipse. We know it’s course, the exact timing when it will start, at which angle the earth will pass between the moon and the sun etc. An aberration would be for instance that instead of taking a regular vector passage, the shadow cast on the moon would all of a sudden stand still, or pass in a line or simply would not happen: a deviation from a normal, calculated way. To go back to Murphy’s Laws, whoever it was that first formulated this law simply elevated the aberration to a general, again foreseeable, course that things take. A contradiction in terms, no? Either we can calculate how things will go when they go right, or we can calculate how they will go when they go wrong, but since things do need to go one way or the other, not both calculations or plans can be right. A brilliant reality paradox, isn’t it? And to complicate things even further, there is a theory called occasionalism which states that every occurrence in the world (physical or metaphysical) is the work of God. I want to raise my arm? Then according to occasionalism, my will is just a mere occasion for God to act and actually make me lift my arm. The theory itself is again based on the principle that in fact God sustains this world, it’s physical laws and all that happens in it at any given moment. God himself created all the laws and he is the one sustaining them, so if he decides in one moment to overthrow the laws of nature, he can. (This principle was thought up to counter the critics of a omnipotent God that could somehow not break his own laws without ending the world in a major contradiction of powers…)
But since all things that can go wrong, will eventually go wrong, who knows if genetic aberrations (mutations) are simply due to God having a small hiccup… now that’s something for the new militant atheist movement to be afraid about, isn’t it?

…To be continued…