Loss of Plagiarism Innocence

Let me just say that I appreciate that the order in which Dr. Schirmer gave us the articles for this week's readings seemed to have a theme, at least for me. I went from confusion over the first article (a work of plagiarism) to sheer awe at the next (the statistics of the scientists' survey), to even further awe at the next (a blog about what true plagiarism looks like) to understanding and answered questions for the last article (a clear outline of what plagiarism really is, and how it should be handled by teachers, students, and administrators). I say this because, when I read "The Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism," I somehow missed the fact that was staring me in the face, that this was the famed plagiarized piece we were told we would be reading. As I read the article, I was getting great ideas about quotes and points of the essay that I would use in my blog, and loved the fact that this was the first piece I read because it seemed so useful...and then I read the "key." Has anyone ever seen the episode of Two and a Half Men where Charlie is teaching Jake to lie, and Jake says in understanding, "Oh!" and then "I think I just lost my innocence." This is exactly how I felt when reading this key. After that, I was appalled that someone could plagiarize so well; I thought that teachers just used the idea of plagiarism to scare us all into writing our own works. Which is why it was even more surprising when I read "What Plagiarism Looks Like." I had no idea that people--highly esteemed people, at that--could actually pull off such a scheme, or would even try to pull off such a scheme.
My confusion and naivete about plagiarism was only enhanced when I read, "Scientists explain why they plagiarize." I guess whenever I think of plagiarism, I have always thought of it in two ways: one, the kind in which the student does not know he or she is plagiarizing and so is forgiven, or two, the kind in which an immature, pressed-for-time, or downright lazy student plagiarized and so was expelled from his or her school. Honestly, this article opened my eyes; plagiarism has some serious repercussions that I never imagined, like changing the data of projects, and therefore changing the way in which medical procedures are performed. The fact that someone would copy or reuse such vital information astounds me by its level of immorality.
Throughout all this, I have to ask myself, have I plagiarized before? The first article, though it is just the works of a bunch of authors strung together to make an outstanding essay, makes a good point, that is, that in nearly all works of art some level of what we know as plagiarism is involved. No, we do not all copy someone else's work and use their exact words without giving them due credit, but we do borrow each other's ideas and repeat themes and ideas over and over again in our own works. Essentially, I must face the fact that we are all plagiarists, whether we like it or not.

Thoughts on "Stranger Than Fiction"

After watching the first half of Stranger Than Fiction, I am not sure I am qualified to make a full assumption about its portrayal of writing and writers just yet, but here are my thoughts on it so far. First of all, I am not sure that the writer/narrator is an actual portrayal of writers. She seems more like the stereotyp that people hold about writers: the drinking, smoking, keep-to-themselves, slightly insane type of writers that America seems to think typical. Aside from a few well-known names in fiction (like Hemingway and Poe), I cannot think of any writers who are actually chronic drinkers and crazy people. Maybe they are, maybe I am just sadly mistaken, but it seems to me that if the majority of writers were all drinking/smoking/crazy people, then it would be a well-known fact.
One part that I did think was accurate about the movie was the portrayal of writer's block, and the agony of not knowing where to go with a story. Though I do not claim to be a writer, I have written stories before for classes and know how hard it is when you simply cannot finish them. I don't know how often writers sit and try to visualize a story playing out, as the writer in the movie does, but then again, I am not writing a novel! Is this typical? I would like to know, because maybe it is something that we, as writers, should try in order to truly get inside the characters' heads (maybe not in order to figure out the way that they will die, but in order to figure out the characters themselves).

I also wonder if writers, whether all or some, are pompous and rude like the one in the movie. I have never met an esteemed author, so I can't really make an assumption about this. Writers, like people, are all different, I am guessing, and therefore, it seems that some could be like the one in the movie (big-headed due to their fame) and some could be like just average people who don't treat their assistants like scum. :) Essentially, I do not know whether or not this movie is an accurate portrayal of writers and writing; I think it is too early to tell. I am hoping the writer has an epiphany and finishes the novel and starts treating people with some respect!

On Saving Books

After reading the article, "How the E-Book Will Change How We Read and Write," I don't know where to begin. I am not sure how to write this blog without sounding like a whiny little girl. Let me begin by explaining a little bit: over the summer, I decided to start a website which I planned to turn into an organization. The website is now up, though it is a work in progress, and here is the address if anyone reading this would like to visit it: www.savingbooks.weebly.com. Last spring semester, I had a teacher who said in my Lit. class one night, "You know, books are becoming less and less important in today's world with everything that is going on online. Pretty soon books as we know them will be obsolete." It really got me thinking, and I thought at the time that a decrease in physical books would lead to a decrease in reading which would in turn lead to a decrease in literacy. After reading this article, though, I think that I made some pretty naive assumptions about this. While I still don't like the idea of getting rid of physical books altogether, after reading everything in class that I have read these last two weeks and participating in the discussions and even blogging for the first time and seeing its usefulness, I have to admit that literacy is probably not in any imminent danger. What is in danger though, is the way we perceive and receive books. At first, I thought the author of this article was against the idea of putting all books online, as I am. But as I read on, I realized that he was focusing on how things will be different; observations, rather than negative assumptions. I like all the different points Johnson makes about the subject (indeed, he seems to address every possible angle of the issue, and I was completely impressed). Also, when he talks about the competition that books will have, and the way he just clicked from one book to another in a split second, later saying that our reading of books will soon be the same as our reading of magazines and newspapers: "a little bit here, a little bit there," I can't help but wonder what will become of books when all of them are online. Yes, they will be more readily available to us, since the internet is more available than books or bookstores anymore. Yes, it will be more convenient to read little bits of books rather than to sit down with the whole novel. But is that what we as writers (and editors) really want? Don't we want our audience's full attention? That's another point that Johnson brings up: the fact that moving books online will remove the private relationship between author and reader. But isn't that what we want? People who read books are looking for alone time, they are looking for time to spend just living out someone or something else's reality for just a bit. When you ar reading someone's personal work, that is the only way to get it. With everything else that is on the internet that will be competing with books, how do we know that books will not just slowly disappear?

Confusion and Partial Acceptance

First of all, I would like to say how impressed I am with all the information/articles/blogs that have been provided on this subject (of Facebook, Twitter, Blogging, etc.). Until now, I somehow thought that all of this was just taken in stride by the world, and that no one really thought about it much, or at least not enough to write full articles and have discussions and debates over it. Anyway, I was really intrigued by the blog post, "We Are All Writers Now." Actually, "intrigued" is not the right word; confused is more how I am feeling. In explanation, I have been so against all of this hype with Facebook and Twitter and so forth. This is probably due to the fact that the majority of posts and status updates that I read are in text talk or at least leave out any kind of punctuation and abandons the need for correct spelling. This not only annoys me because I am an English major, posts can be hard to understand without any kind of grammar or spelling rules in tact.
Back to the article, though, I really thought that Trubek made a good point. She brings up the point that "with more than 200 m people on Facebook and even more with home internet access, we are all writing more than we would have ten years ago." I had not really considered this fact; I was blinded by the details (the terrible lack of grammar and spelling skills). She is absolutely right. When I stop and think about how much I write, aside from everything required of me as an English major, it is quite a bit. If I cut out all the emails, status updates and online posts, the amount of writing I do in a day would be very minimal, indeed. I, too, am a writer now. :)
Trubek also points out that Facebook sometimes provides good exercises for writers, such as the "25 Things About Me" stint that was apparently popular a while ago. Other than, yet again, an English class, I can't think of any other time I have taken part in such an exercise. So while I am not admitting yet that I fully embrace this idea, I have finally begun to see how it could be useful (Mr. Schirmer, you can pat yourself on the back).
However, I still think that if people continue to use text talk to post online or for their status updates or in text messages, we will have some serious problems on our hands. As I mentioned previously, it can be really confusing to read a post that is completely devoid of grammar rules. Just remember, those rules were established for reasons!

A Slight Reformation

I have to say, after reading all of these documents about Twitter and Facebook and such, that I am, if not reformed, at least teetering on my previous beliefs. The one that stood out the most to me was "How the Other Half Writes: In Defense of Twitter." I was initially set against the use of Twitter (it seemed to be a pointless and slightly vain waste of time to me). But after reading Geoff Manaugh's blog, I have started to see it in a new light. Manaugh's comparison of Twitter to a pen really seemed to make sense to me. Not everyone is comfortable sharing their immediate thoughts with others, or may not have anyone to share them with--that's what Twitter does for them. Also, much like online classes, people who are uncomfortable speaking out in class or at work,etc., may speak out (expressing their opinions,etc.) just as much as the more outgoing people on Twitter or Facebook. It provides a kind of confidence, the security to say whatever one wants on cyberspace because it is less scary than saying it out loud. Back to Manaugh, he is also right when he says that it is no one else's business what other people are saying online. If you don't like it, ignore it, don't do it yourself. This is something I have to tell myself after hearing other people's comments in class and reading this blog. My favorite quote from this blog: "Heraclitus would have had a f****** Twitter feed!" Nothing shows how hyped up someone is about a topic more than an outrageous example coupled with a cuss word.

Also, I appreciated the two conflicting blogs, "Blogging Essential for a Good Career," and "Twitter, Flickr, Faceboook Make Blogs Look So 2004." When I read them, I thought they both made valid points and I think two things can be taken away from these two blogs: 1) that technology is ever-changing and the better we keep up with it and adapt to it, the better off we all will be (yes, I know, I am at least slightly reformed after our class discussions), and 2) that no matter what you are saying online, or where you are appearing online, you should always do so with caution. Present yourself online as you want the world to view you. My rule is that if I wouldn't want my mom to read what I am writing online, then I shouldn't be writing it. To some, this method may seem old-fashioned and very restricting, but it's up to you how you want to be viewed to the world online.

In essence, this first week has been a technological learning experience for me. Forcing myself to be open-minded and to try to experience something new and see where it takes me has been tough; I'm one of those cautious people who doesn't like change. However, while I am not promising to "tweet" my life away or to blog daily, I am willing to give social networking a chance.

Hello All

Just wanted to sign in and let everyone know... I made it! I have officially created my blog :0