Plagiarism: Ethics and Morals in Writing

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Plagiarism: Ethics and Morals in Writing

    TO PLAGIARIZE: Ethics and Morals in Writing
    pla·gia·rize
    ˈplājəˌrīz/Submit
    verb
    take (the work or an idea of someone else) and pass it off as one's own.
    synonyms: copy, infringe the copyright of, pirate, steal, poach, appropriate; More
    copy from (someone) and pass it off as one's own.
    Though not illegal, I was always taught that plagiarizing was cheating.

    I read about the plagiarsm allegations against True Detective scribe Nic Pizzolatto in reference to 'borrowing' or 'lifting' ideas, phrases, and exact passages from Thomas Ligotti's The Conspiracy Against The Human Race, and I have to say, it does raise some red flags.

    http://lovecraftzine.com/2014/08/04/...ti-and-others/

    In the Scriptnotes podcast today John (tauting a sexy German accent- at least I think it was German) and Craig discussed the article (interview of John Padgett) was posted on the lovecraftzine.com website offering the argument that Pizzlatto did, in fact, use Ligotti's work and did not attribute appropriate credit.

    I also liked Craig's suggestion that if he'd had Ligotti's book on Cohle's bookshelf that that in itself could have been a solution. And it would make sense, but when I watched the video of Cohle's interview, it definitely comes across as HIS OWN opinion and not one that was read about in a book that he just agrees with. It's presented as his own conclusion about the human race and our place in the universe.

    It's a fine line in some cases, but it does appear that in a few cases, some kind of credit is owed to Ligotti, imo. After watching the video scenes of Cohle, it's almost as if he channels the spirit of Ligotti himself. I'm not saying that the allegations are true or not, only that based on what I've read, it appears something may be amiss.

    A few things I wonder:

    Craig had suggested that a possible solution to the situation might have been to option/acquire (not quoting him directly here) to the work in question.

    I wonder, if these allegations had been posted prior to True Detectives being filmed, would HBO have gone forward without at least securing the rights to use Ligotti's TCATHR? Would they have negotiated a percentage for Ligotti, or would they reject the prospect altogether? I think maybe the latter is as possible as any.

    And I wonder if McConaughey would have accepted the part? He said, ""I read the first two episodes, and I said, 'I'm in.'- The allegation is that these first two episodes have a lot of 'borrowed' Ligotti works.

    Additionally, he's up for an Emmy for outstanding writing, and it appears, to me, that his work is heavily influenced by Ligotti's work, and if so, does Ligotti deserve some credit? I think at some point Pizzolatto even offered credit to another writer with respect to The Yellow King.

    The statement released by Pizzolatto, as Craig commented, does feel written by a lawyer in a (to me) defensive posture.

    The article proposes an interesting argument:
    "If Pizzolatto was blatantly lifting Stephen King's words instead of Thomas Ligotti's, do you think that Pizzolatto's justification for plagiarism would be credibly and objectively accepted in any way... by anyone?-
    Something to consider.

    I don't know if it's true, but the claim that Pizzolatto seems to have neglected to mention that his writing was influenced by Ligotti, when he did mention other author's philosophical ideas, seems a bit off. I understand that there are common ideas in our culture, but Ligotti's style and tone are quite specific, imo. His voice is present, it seems in Cohle's character.

    I guess the big question is not whether he used Ligotti's work, because it's clear his writing is influenced by Ligotti's, but rather did he do it and deliberately try to pass it off as his own? I don't think anyone has the answer to that question. Maybe it's something that can't be known, but this is an interesting situation-

    What do you think about using, borrowing, lifting, or outright stealing another writer's work and not providing appropriate credit?

    What is acceptable? Where and when is the line crossed?

    Looking forward to your comments.

    Best,
    Lisa

    PS. I am in no way accusing Pizzilatto of any wrong doing. I am simply commenting on information in articles alleging plagiarism.
    "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy b/c you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." -- Edward Snowden

  • #2
    Re: Plagiarism: Ethics and Morals in Writing

    Pizzolatto hails from academia, where plagiarism is on everyone's radar. Can't draw any conclusions from that, or from the fact that he's extremely intelligent and well-read, except that it would be nearly inconceivable for him to commit intentional plagiarism.

    All of us borrow ideas produced by others, but Padgett hits the nail on the head when he talks about a writer using "dialogue from the source material." This is the key, to me, and it would surely be the basis for any provable claim which is relatively easy to determine. Any string of words (the exact number of words is up for debate but many agree that it's 5 words in a row) already used by an author in a published/copyrighted work are owned by that author, just like a string of notes in a song is owned by the person who holds the copyright of the song. And some of the instances Padgett provides seem like clear-cut cases of using specific words. I was particularly struck by the example of the word "thresher" used by Ligotti and Cohle to describe this existence into which we are thrown.

    But I disagree with Padgett's assertion that Pizzolatto only admitted to Ligotti's influence when he was pressured to do so. The article (referenced in Padgett's interview) does not present Pizzolatto as a man seeking to underplay Ligotti's influence on TD.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2014/...rue-detective/

    There are lots of authors Pizzolatto refers to in this interview, and he directly acknowledges their influence and use in TD.

    In the very least, it sounds like Craig Mazin makes a good point in suggesting that having Liggoti's work on the bookshelf would have been a good gesture.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Plagiarism: Ethics and Morals in Writing

      Robert Chambers book THE KING IN YELLOW (which I read ages ago) is the source of the Yellow King stuff.

      Bill
      Free Script Tips:
      http://www.scriptsecrets.net

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Plagiarism: Ethics and Morals in Writing

        Ugh. I loved True Detective, I loved the idea that this was a single-authored work, that there was one voice behind it all, one writer and one director. And I'm not one of those people who thinks Hollywood is constantly looking to rip off people's ideas.

        But this sucks. The examples uncovered in the article are just too close for it to be coincidence - I agree absolutely with jcpdoc that the thresher analogy is so specific that it's impossible to believe that this is anything other than stealing.

        When I first started writing (aged about 16/17) I wrote a short story. I included a couple of lines that were in an obscure Neil Gaiman comic. The short story got loads of praise, was probably the thing that convinced me to keep writing. But I felt sick for having stolen those lines. It wasn't the crux of the story, I could have cut them easily enough. But the bottom line was I knew what I'd done, it wasn't osmosis or a coincidence or homage or reference - it was stealing. Another writer had come up with a beautiful, perfectly crafted little phrase to express a huge idea and I stole it because I wasn't good enough to come up with anything comparable. And I've never done anything like that since, because for every compliment I got on that story I felt like a fraud.

        Those lines in True Detective are stolen. That's not to say that without them True Detective would have been rubbish, or that Pizzolatto is a bad writer. Clearly he's a phenomenal writer. But Lance Armstrong is still a phenomenal athlete. He probably would have won many races without taking drugs. But he did take drugs.

        And I find it really disappointing that there is the usual attitude of 'nothing to see here folks' from those within the system. Just because 99% of the plagiarism/theft/whatever accusations thrown at Hollywood are nuisance cases, doesn't mean the 1% that are genuine should be ignored. This is part of the 1%, and instead of writers always looking to defend the colleagues earning $1m a year it'd be nice if they looked to defend those earning $1k a year, however politically awkward that may be.
        My stuff

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Plagiarism: Ethics and Morals in Writing

          Originally posted by finalact4 View Post
          Though not illegal, I was always taught that plagiarizing was cheating.
          I think the line between "plagiarizing" and "copyright infringement" is fuzzy in federal courts, and some states may have their own specific laws. In some cases, charges of fraud can arise.

          Cheating, definitely.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Plagiarism: Ethics and Morals in Writing

            In spirit, it may look like plagiarism (and I would personally levy the charge, in spirit). However, legally, I don't know if the charge would stick. It seems to me Pizzolatto knowingly danced at the edge of what he knew he could get away with. Which, to me, is a bigger sign of dishonesty. Knowing you were too lazy to interpret philosophical concepts in your own words, and lifting words you could claim were "coincidence."

            The concept of "the illusion of having a 'self'" is deeply rooted in Zen Buddhism and had been explored by psychologists staring with Jung and in other science disciplines. Just google, "the illusion of self" and look at the search results.

            One could claim Ligotti lifted this idea in his own non-fiction book. But it wouldn't stick because it's a concept that entered the pool of common knowledge centuries ago.

            I don't think the network would be obligated to buy rights to a book that focuses on ideas that are in no way proprietary.

            With that said, the quoted character dialog that is a direct lift from the non-fiction book is always phased in ways that could be claimed a "coincidence." And my gut tells me this was intentional.

            "... everybody is nobody." <- Clearly Zen. Not a new concept. A phrase I've heard repeated in conversation.

            "...creatures that should not exist by natural law." <- I've seen this idea in many books, phrased virtually the same, because there are not many different words one can use to make this point.

            "... human consciousness is a tragic misstep in evolution." <-- ditto. It's a well worn philosophical observation. However, the words tragic and misstep were lifted and that was just lazy, imo.

            From here on in the article, the examples shown are, again, lazy paraphrasing of Ligotti's prose with the occasional lift of single words like: gutter, thresher, meat. Lifting these isolated words, imo, is more a ripoff of Ligotti's writing style more than it is plagiarism.

            So, in my opinion, we have a non-fiction book which presents a fusion of philosophical concepts that are hundreds to thousands of years old. No one can claim these as their original ideas.

            And we have a fictional work by a writer who likely held these ideas himself for a length of time, influenced by many different writers, including Ligotti, yet, instead of coming up with fresh dialogue rooted in these ideas, he clearly lifted a few bits of prose that appealed to him ... because he knew he could get away with it.

            That's the saddest part, in my opinion. One writer, swiping what he can legally swipe, from another writer.
            Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. "Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.-

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Plagiarism: Ethics and Morals in Writing

              I have not gotten around to seeing True Detectives, yet, but have definitely wanted to. But I did read these articles, and listened to the Scriptnotes podcast. And I agree, from my armchair view, that some of the usage by Pizzolatto appears to have crossed the line.

              Pizzolatto is nominated for an Emmy for outstanding writing, so I have to believe he's an outstanding writer, regardless of this issue. What confuses me, and makes me wonder what Pizzolatto was thinking, is the fact that he neither quoted Ligotti completely, nor did he take the ideas and just put them completely into his own words, he took a strange middle path, with some of each.

              If Pizzolato had actually taken the philosophy of all of those other well-known authors he mentions later in his defense, and synthesized them all into his own words, or directly quoted them all, we wouldn't be discussing this now. But the problem lies in the fact that he chose an obscure author to borrow some phrasing from, not those well-known authors. And if he had just at least acknowledged that in an interview or something, way before being asked about it, or found a clever way to give a nod to Ligotti somewhere in the script, we wouldn't be discussing it now, either.

              I certainly don't think the usage called for any rights being purchased, but it did seem to call for some small acknowledgement, being that the author is obscure, and some of the usage seemed too close. Ligotti just happened to have a fan club who pointed this out. Other obscure writers may not be so lucky.

              Aside from the issues of legality and ethics, which is up for debate, as a writer, you just don't want those kind of questions ever coming up about your work. And then people scrutinizing all of your work to see if there are any other instances that were missed.

              Apparently Ligotti himself has not commented publicly on this issue? He's probably at home thinking, "Thanks for the free publicity, Mr. Pizzolatto. I'm glad your meat made it through the thresher."
              "The Hollywood film business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." Hunter S Thompson

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Plagiarism: Ethics and Morals in Writing

                Originally posted by sc111 View Post
                In spirit, it may look like plagiarism (and I would personally levy the charge, in spirit). However, legally, I don't know if the charge would stick. It seems to me Pizzolatto knowingly danced at the edge of what he knew he could get away with. Which, to me, is a bigger sign of dishonesty. Knowing you were too lazy to interpret philosophical concepts in your own words, and lifting words you could claim were "coincidence."

                The concept of "the illusion of having a 'self'" is deeply rooted in Zen Buddhism and had been explored by psychologists staring with Jung and in other science disciplines. Just google, "the illusion of self" and look at the search results.

                One could claim Ligotti lifted this idea in his own non-fiction book. But it wouldn't stick because it's a concept that entered the pool of common knowledge centuries ago.

                I don't think the network would be obligated to buy rights to a book that focuses on ideas that are in no way proprietary.

                With that said, the quoted character dialog that is a direct lift from the non-fiction book is always phased in ways that could be claimed a "coincidence." And my gut tells me this was intentional.

                "... everybody is nobody." <- Clearly Zen. Not a new concept. A phrase I've heard repeated in conversation.

                "...creatures that should not exist by natural law." <- I've seen this idea in many books, phrased virtually the same, because there are not many different words one can use to make this point.

                "... human consciousness is a tragic misstep in evolution." <-- ditto. It's a well worn philosophical observation. However, the words tragic and misstep were lifted and that was just lazy, imo.

                From here on in the article, the examples shown are, again, lazy paraphrasing of Ligotti's prose with the occasional lift of single words like: gutter, thresher, meat. Lifting these isolated words, imo, is more a ripoff of Ligotti's writing style more than it is plagiarism.

                So, in my opinion, we have a non-fiction book which presents a fusion of philosophical concepts that are hundreds to thousands of years old. No one can claim these as their original ideas.

                And we have a fictional work by a writer who likely held these ideas himself for a length of time, influenced by many different writers, including Ligotti, yet, instead of coming up with fresh dialogue rooted in these ideas, he clearly lifted a few bits of prose that appealed to him ... because he knew he could get away with it.

                That's the saddest part, in my opinion. One writer, swiping what he can legally swipe, from another writer.

                You make excellent points about how none of the philosophical spoutings are new, and weren't new when Ligotti put his own spin on them. In nihilist literature and philosophy I've come across all the concepts quoted dozens of times, including "man as meat"... though not "thresher" which seems to be a Ligotti spin.

                However, I don't think for a moment that Pizzolatto is guilty of plagiarizing. He's guilty, if anything, of not giving attribution to Ligotti from the get-go when he mentioned all the influences on Cohle.

                But no one should worry about Ligotti -- this whole blow-up has caused his books to sell like hotcakes and a whole new readership to flock to his door.

                The whole point of Cohle is that he CAN'T come up with "fresh dialogue rooted in these ideas" -- he's not an original thinker -- he's a tortured, pretentious soul who talks like he had a couple of years of undergraduate-level philosophy before he dropped out and who is trying to make sense of the destitute landscape (internal and external) by applying what he's read. His character arc is also a philosophical arc where he starts out as the bleakest nihilist and emerges as a existentialist with a remote smidgeon of hope due, in part, to his long-suffering friendship with Marty. The whole final scene where Marty tries to be philosophical about the stars was so lame in terms of content because Marty isn't capable of thinking in Cohle's fashion and so profound in terms of human interaction, that it was agonizing and invigorating to watch.

                I think Pizzolatto knew exactly what he was doing, and he wasn't plagiarizing anyone. He was just giving Cohle a mash-up of ideas from dozens of sources to use as something to weave into a self-flagellation whip. That was the character.

                In my book, Pizzolatto's a genius in that he's able to weave a lot of material that is incomprehensible to the average Joe and make it visceral.

                Other than his use of the word "thresher", his philosophical distillation -- in the mouth of a desperate and grasping character who is not an original thinker -- is nothing short of brilliant.

                Ligotti, bless him, could not have written TRUE DETECTIVE if you left him to his own devices for one hundred years. I've read Pizzolatto's GALVESTON -- he may be channeling Springsteen and James Lee Burke but he's the real deal.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Plagiarism: Ethics and Morals in Writing

                  Another thing that occurred to me-- when you submit work to be read, or work is optioned or purchased, don't agreements and contracts often require you to confim that everything contained within the work is original to the author submitting the work?

                  And if that were the case here, is it possible that HBO would be free of any liability claims and any law suits? Is it possible that they could be directed at the author, any author, who potentially misrepresented his work as original should fraud charges be levied?

                  I'm struggling with the idea that the tone and style is so matched with Ligotti's that it almost seems that he must have had the book open next to him when writing those passages. Maybe he has great recall.

                  I remember this awesome line in Aliens about the LT. freaking out when his entire team was getting brutally murdered by aliens when in the hive: "sucking in air like a grouper." Amazingly perfect description of his face. Every time I have a moment where a character has that expression I think of this line, but i would never use it, because it's not mine.

                  I can't remember all the great lines, just that one.

                  And i guess that really boils down how I feel about this, it feels deliberate-- intentional. Of course, I have no way of knowing. FWIW, I loved True Detective, but it was mainly because of the Cohle character-- more than anything.
                  FA4

                  PS Has anyone seen a response from Ligotti himself? I haven't.
                  "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy b/c you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." -- Edward Snowden

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Plagiarism: Ethics and Morals in Writing

                    As someone who has read a lot of books and watched a lot of TV/Film things are "borrowed" every day, consciously or not. Exact quotes are a little harder to defend, but if they are out there in other forms then I'm not ready to say guilty. It's tough. I've seen scripts similar to my own and think "how dare they" and then realize they've been around longer than my own. I also think if this was a Disney TV Show no one would be so anxious to study each phrase and find plagiarism. As for Ligotti and his increase in book sales...awesome for him.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Plagiarism: Ethics and Morals in Writing

                      Originally posted by Cooper View Post
                      In my book, Pizzolatto's a genius in that he's able to weave a lot of material that is incomprehensible to the average Joe and make it visceral.

                      Ligotti, bless him, could not have written TRUE DETECTIVE if you left him to his own devices for one hundred years. I've read Pizzolatto's GALVESTON -- he may be channeling Springsteen and James Lee Burke but he's the real deal.
                      See my Lance Armstrong analogy above. There are plenty of cyclists who'd never achieve the feats Armstrong achieved. Doesn't take away from the fact the b@stard was a cheat.
                      My stuff

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Plagiarism: Ethics and Morals in Writing

                        Originally posted by Cooper View Post
                        You make excellent points about how none of the philosophical spoutings are new, and weren't new when Ligotti put his own spin on them. In nihilist literature and philosophy I've come across all the concepts quoted dozens of times, including "man as meat"... though not "thresher" which seems to be a Ligotti spin.

                        However, I don't think for a moment that Pizzolatto is guilty of plagiarizing. He's guilty, if anything, of not giving attribution to Ligotti from the get-go when he mentioned all the influences on Cohle.

                        But no one should worry about Ligotti -- this whole blow-up has caused his books to sell like hotcakes and a whole new readership to flock to his door.

                        The whole point of Cohle is that he CAN'T come up with "fresh dialogue rooted in these ideas" -- he's not an original thinker -- he's a tortured, pretentious soul who talks like he had a couple of years of undergraduate-level philosophy before he dropped out and who is trying to make sense of the destitute landscape (internal and external) by applying what he's read. His character arc is also a philosophical arc where he starts out as the bleakest nihilist and emerges as a existentialist with a remote smidgeon of hope due, in part, to his long-suffering friendship with Marty. The whole final scene where Marty tries to be philosophical about the stars was so lame in terms of content because Marty isn't capable of thinking in Cohle's fashion and so profound in terms of human interaction, that it was agonizing and invigorating to watch.

                        I think Pizzolatto knew exactly what he was doing, and he wasn't plagiarizing anyone. He was just giving Cohle a mash-up of ideas from dozens of sources to use as something to weave into a self-flagellation whip. That was the character.

                        In my book, Pizzolatto's a genius in that he's able to weave a lot of material that is incomprehensible to the average Joe and make it visceral.

                        Other than his use of the word "thresher", his philosophical distillation -- in the mouth of a desperate and grasping character who is not an original thinker -- is nothing short of brilliant.

                        Ligotti, bless him, could not have written TRUE DETECTIVE if you left him to his own devices for one hundred years. I've read Pizzolatto's GALVESTON -- he may be channeling Springsteen and James Lee Burke but he's the real deal.
                        Thanks for this analysis, Cooper. Having not seen TD yet, this explanation makes a lot more sense to me, and makes it more understandable as to what Pizzolatto's intent was. I'm surprised no one else tried to explain it like this, in this context, or maybe I missed it. You should be the spokesman for his legal team.

                        If he had just tweaked the Ligotti a bit more, or thrown some more well-known author's quotes in the mix with it, this never would have come up.

                        Ligotti's name is getting some free press. Case closed. Maybe.
                        "The Hollywood film business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." Hunter S Thompson

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Plagiarism: Ethics and Morals in Writing

                          Originally posted by Cooper View Post
                          You make excellent points about how none of the philosophical spoutings are new, and weren't new when Ligotti put his own spin on them. In nihilist literature and philosophy I've come across all the concepts quoted dozens of times, including "man as meat"... though not "thresher" which seems to be a Ligotti spin.

                          However, I don't think for a moment that Pizzolatto is guilty of plagiarizing. He's guilty, if anything, of not giving attribution to Ligotti from the get-go when he mentioned all the influences on Cohle.

                          But no one should worry about Ligotti -- this whole blow-up has caused his books to sell like hotcakes and a whole new readership to flock to his door.

                          The whole point of Cohle is that he CAN'T come up with "fresh dialogue rooted in these ideas" -- he's not an original thinker -- he's a tortured, pretentious soul who talks like he had a couple of years of undergraduate-level philosophy before he dropped out and who is trying to make sense of the destitute landscape (internal and external) by applying what he's read. His character arc is also a philosophical arc where he starts out as the bleakest nihilist and emerges as a existentialist with a remote smidgeon of hope due, in part, to his long-suffering friendship with Marty. The whole final scene where Marty tries to be philosophical about the stars was so lame in terms of content because Marty isn't capable of thinking in Cohle's fashion and so profound in terms of human interaction, that it was agonizing and invigorating to watch.

                          I think Pizzolatto knew exactly what he was doing, and he wasn't plagiarizing anyone. He was just giving Cohle a mash-up of ideas from dozens of sources to use as something to weave into a self-flagellation whip. That was the character.

                          In my book, Pizzolatto's a genius in that he's able to weave a lot of material that is incomprehensible to the average Joe and make it visceral.

                          Other than his use of the word "thresher", his philosophical distillation -- in the mouth of a desperate and grasping character who is not an original thinker -- is nothing short of brilliant.

                          Ligotti, bless him, could not have written TRUE DETECTIVE if you left him to his own devices for one hundred years. I've read Pizzolatto's GALVESTON -- he may be channeling Springsteen and James Lee Burke but he's the real deal.
                          Great points. I personally think Pizzolatto mimicked Ligotti's "voice" when creating the character. But, he didn't actually have to use the same words to do so.

                          For example, back when I was focused only on prose fiction, I got into a debate with a guy writer who claimed he could always tell if something was written by a woman. To settle the debate, he suggested we both write a Norman Mailer "pastiche" piece mimicking his voice, then let others decide which sample was written by the woman.

                          So I started freshening up on my Mailer and read his work. In a non-fiction piece, Mailer referred to politician Bella Abzug as having: ''a voice that could boil the fat off a taxicab driver's neck.''

                          What a great metaphor and sample of Mailer's voice! I twisted myself into knots trying to emulate it. It was difficult. And it wasn't near as good as the original. The only way to be as good would require lifting words and paraphrasing.

                          And that's what I think happened here. Pizzolatto wanted to emulate Ligotti's voice but couldn't do better than the original word choice. So, he swiped it by using words like thresher, gutter, etc. and paraphrasing other sentences. Swiping a voice style for dialogue is not plagiarism. But I still think it was not cool.

                          I also agree that the story, the drama, the conflict between characters is ALL original to Pizzolatto and is the result of his own unique skills in crafting story.
                          Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. "Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.-

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Plagiarism: Ethics and Morals in Writing

                            Originally posted by Jon Jay View Post
                            See my Lance Armstrong analogy above. There are plenty of cyclists who'd never achieve the feats Armstrong achieved. Doesn't take away from the fact the b@stard was a cheat.
                            Right up there with Marion Jones and the 2000 Olympics-- how she could even smile or step onto the podium, knowing she was a fake and a cheat is beyond me.
                            FA4
                            "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy b/c you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." -- Edward Snowden

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Plagiarism: Ethics and Morals in Writing

                              So Ligotti's original book was non-fiction. And some of the prose in that non-fiction book was put into the dialogue of a fictional character on a TV show.

                              Now let's change that a little. Let's say Ligotti had written the very same prose, but as dialogue for his own fictional character in a novel. And then, let's say that very same prose was then put into the dialogue of a different writer's fictional character on a TV show.

                              Would that make a difference?

                              IOW, does it matter if you're stealing prose from a non-fiction book or an essay or some guy's blog, versus stealing from one fictional character's dialogue to use as another fictional character's dialogue?

                              My sense is that it should not make a difference. After all, there are a lot of "works of fiction" out there that are a writer's real ideas and opinions about the real world, but that the writer has wrapped into a fictional story as a platform to disseminate his/her ideas and opinions. Ligotti simply didn't do it that way, but what if he had?

                              And so I wonder if the is it or isn't it question here would be easier to answer if Ligotti's original work had been written as fiction? If his words had been presented as a specific fictional character's words?

                              .
                              Last edited by Manchester; 08-13-2014, 03:10 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X