Plagiarisim- Friend or Foe?

I found the article "The Ecstasy Of Influence" really amazing. The fact that he could piece together all those different sources into one coherent thought is a feat. I pretty worried about being able to do it myself for our sequence. The content of the article was an opener for me. When you really think about most writing does have some form of "plagiarism", we all get inspired by others ideas and a lot of times use those ideas as a jumping point for our own thoughts. In academia, as my ENG 241 teacher said yesterday, 9 out of 10 pieces are expansions or arguments on others work, not 100% original thought. As the author of the 'Ecstasy' points out, not only does this effect writing but all creative work as a whole- from cartoons through paintings, a lot of highly acclaimed and loved works are based off of someone else idea or inspired by something someone else already did. It makes you wonder if there can be truly innovative and original work anymore. Most every book or short story, while the characters are different, the setting may change and the plot varies slightly, can be group into a category of one particular theme or another. "Romeo and Juliet" and "Twilight" may on the surface have nothing in common but are both stories of star crossed lovers and forbidden love. The movie "Sleepers" and "The Lord of the Rings" seem to share little in common but are both stories of good vs. evil. In both these examples it could be said that the newer version 'stole' the idea of the older version. What I think though is that while there may not be a 'true' authentic piece of writing that anyone can create, these 'reworkings' we produce now can be just as great if not better than the originals. I didn't really enjoy reading "Romeo and Juliet"; the language is difficult at times, and its a little too over the top for me, but I love the "Twilight" series. We can enjoy these "plagiarized" works today and see them for their own merit regardless of their connections and influences with past works.

The article, "Defining and Avoiding Plagiarism" has some very good points. It emphasises the difference between plagiarising and poor citing, which is something that sometimes is misunderstood. Teachers are so virulent about anti-plagiarism that if they see any kind of copying without perfectly clear citing, they jump to the conclusion that its plagiarism without another thought. Many times, with so many types and styles of citing, students get confused as to what and how the instructor wants them to cite, which results in these mishaps. As the article says, poor citing shouldn't be punished as plagiarism, but be something that is shown or re-shown to the student, or marked down in grading, not automatic failure or other harsh consequences as actual plagiarism accounts for. The other point it mentions that I thought was important yet overlooked is that students don't usual mean to plagiarize in a defiant manner. Most of the plagiarism is out of desperation that you can't finish an assignment on time, fear of failing because insecurity in your own work, and lack of guidance by instructors in assignments. Yes plagiarising without any kind of citation is wrong to do, put I think in many cases the punishment should more fit the crime. If you plagiarized because you weren't guided properly by an instructor on an assignment, immediate failure of that course is harsh. While I understand the universities especially want to make examples out of plagiarizers to discourage it from others, jumping to extreme consequences is not helping anyone learn what not to do, but just hanging this somewhat mysterious threat above our heads: plagiarize and you will fail and probable be expelled gets many believing that we can't use anyone else's words at all in our work for fear that if we don't cite it properly or use it poorly we are doomed to an ill fate. This discourages using pieces for inspiration, which can stifle new creative work.