Am I first? Or did someone already write that?

Umbrage interuption - Canadians are too boring for the Washington Post? I will miss Doug Strucks articles.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/reportsfromabroad/champblog/

Then again this article kind of shows we are boring and becoming more so.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1165877415645&call_pageid=968332188492

It seems McEwan's work can now be viewed as "original" in the Hollywood sense of the word - i.e., "it's not very MUCH copying."

No doubt McEwan has gotten at the "essential truth" (thank you, James Frey and Oprah!) -- or "truthiness", for Colbert Show fans -- of the story, which Ms. Andrews, as a mere romance novelist, clearly missed.

In all honesty, I think McEwan is a bit over-rated as an author, and by all means should be held accountable for the "borrowing." BUT: he did acknowledge his debt to Ms. Andrews. So it's all a bit of a tempest in a teapot, isn't it?

As for originality, well, there really is nothing new under the sun -- mostly it comes down to how you spin it. :)

Canadians are too boring for the Washington Post? This boodle would be a heck of a lot quieter if the 'nucks took their pucks and went home.

Literature as conversation? Seriously? That sounds really pretentious but then I am just and average joe reader, without a whole lot of in class time on the subject.

Is this a matter of being pushed by publishers that something is not as finished as the writer would like it to be? Maybe too much adherence to a predetermined date? I don't know about anyone else but I find a lot more books with errors from spelling, to grammar, to sections missed, sentences without end. One of the Giller prize nominees was so poorly edited that it almost lost its nomination to bad spelling. The author and publisher admitted it was rushed.

Is it in part an editing problem?

Guilty, Guilty, Guilty.- G.Trudeau

I compared the passages, and it smacks of plagiarism to me. Let me put it this way - if I had written an exam and the professor compared the answer with another examinee's answer, and they were that similar...

It's not literary sloppiness...McEwan would have had to have sat down with Andrews' book in hand and line by line "borrow" from her book and change the words.

"Acknowledging" someone is a little different from providing a footnote saying "these words did not flow from my pen."

*rolling my eyes*
______________________

Me, 'Mudge and LostInThought...

That's five.

Three, sir!!!!

Ok, three.

I'm thinking Wilbrod's six (four!!), but I shouldn't presume...

Who else?

:-)

The very first thing that I thought of when Dion was elected as leader was ah, another notch for the thinking politician. Its about time we stopped worrying about how a guy sounds and looks on tv, and started paying attention to what they say and even more importanly what they do. In the end, these are the things that matter. Its like revenge of the pointy politicos.

Hopefully WaPo will find a way to connect with Canada. We are boring because we are peaceful, and we generally don't make noise, and we don't seem to pose much of a threat. Its not like this is new. What it is is a funny way to treat a major trading partner.

I sometimes think I've made up a joke only to remember I've picked it up somewhere.
Here's one I'm still not sure of:
He couldn't find his a$$ with his hands tied behind his back.
It seems so obvious I think I must have heard it before.

Good morning, friends. Just wanted to pop in and say good morning. Don't feel too well this morning, will try to get in the doctor's office this afternoon.

As to copying other folks work, don't we all do that to some extent? I am not upholding the author in what he did. I've never read anything by him. Don't know him from beans. We say phrases and short sentences perhaps that others have coined? Of course, an author if he or she is going to quote someone should identify that someone as being the creator of those words.

In asking this question, I'm thinking about what we often say here. The word "umbrage"? I love that word, and we use it so often, but I cannot for the life of me tell you who started saying that. Was JA or Mudge?

The funeral is tomorrow, and I am sure my daughter, although heartbroken, will find closure much better than what she has been going through for the pass couple of days.

Have a good day, folks. Try real hard anyway. I know sometimes it can be hard to do, but we must try. And we can do that if we remember that God loves us so much more than we can imagine through Him that died for all, Jesus Christ.

J.Ouellette's--"Nothing new under the sun..."

Examples abound. The musical "West Side Story" based on the play "Romeo and Juliet," (and as per Richard Dawkins) the new myth of Dan Brown's "The DaVinci Code" based on the old myth of the New Testament, and on and on and on...

Joel "invented" umbrage on the Achenblog, when he said the following in the Kit "The Greatest American Idol":

"Someone please slap me if I use the words 'appalled' or 'consternated' or if I take umbrage. I normally don't take umbrage at anything, because I don't LIKE umbrage, and pretty much gave up umbrage after college."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/achenblog/2005/06/the_greatest_american_idol.html

Cassandra, please know that I'm thinking about you these days. *HUGS*

(1) In storytelling, we call this "stealing;" or, if we are feeling ashamed and seek absolution, "influenced in the folk tradition." I find my feelings on the subject are ambiguous. What if he had said "Substantial portions of the material on the experience of nursing were so excellently expressed by Lucilla Andrews that I could not significantly improve upon her writing, yet I needed that material to complete the portrait. I have taken the liberty of using some of her words and experiences to flesh out my own poor work [disingenuous self-effacement, doncha know], and I commend you to read her personal account of the hospitals in 'No Time for Romance,' including her work in its original context." Would that have made it okay, or not?

(2) I notice that the majority of links to Slate, by JA or any other part of the WaPo, seems to be to Jack Shafer. Is Slate practically a vanity publication for him, now? Is he just so darned prolific that he is able to fill a magazine by his lonesome? Is he simply better than the other Slate writers? Or does he write about stuff (particularly, writing about the process of communication through the media) that strikes WaPo writers and editors as particularly worthy of the WaPo linking to an outside (well semi-outside) commentator?

(3) I anticipate that I shall manifest my physical presence within the confines of McCormick and Schmick's this evening, at about 5:45ish. I shall encounter you there, and after that time.

I'm in, Scottynuke. Unfortunately, cannot be part of the early table-nabbing crew.

I'm in, and can arrive early...as early as four...but won't want to be the only boodler...as I may be sloshed by the time the rest arrive...

This post would drive Weingarten batty...

I'm in tonight. I will try to be there early and will try to remember a BPH sign (and a writing pad for conversing with Wilbrod).

PLS... nice to see you here this morning. Can you make it to M&S tonight?

Looking forward to meeting some new Boodlers.

Heard someone ask a street vendor once if something he was selling was a real designer whatever and the vendor answered, "No. It's a replica."

I thought that was a much better word than "knockoff."

And much less troubling than "counterfeit."

Or "bootlegged."

Bollocks. I could forgive the specific references to the treatments, that IS in fact research. But the whole saga about the injured soldier and the same names used--come on.

I've never read Ian McEwan, I believe, so I can't say if this scene was pivotal to the book. Still, I'm not seeing the type of writing that has been described in this interview:
http://www.powells.com/authors/mcewan.html

This is why I prefer to do my research with as many sources as possible, it's much less likely I'll start parroting whole excerpts unconsciously in my work.

And always pick dead, out of copyright authors whenever possible. And practice the excellent art of paraphrasing.

I must admit, my paraphrase of Shakespeare "to Be or not to be" speech so tickled my teacher she insisted on reading it in class.

Here's an example: "The proud man's contumely and the insolence of office.." was translated as:
"The scorn of snobs and egomaniac politicans.." (Which made her laugh).

I think I used perhaps ONE word in the same place as Shakespeare did... and certainly every "key word" was paraphrased.

"To live or to die, that's the problem. Should I endure the up and downs of life..... or just end it all with a knife?..."

See. If I could mar Shakespeare's verse for modern-day vocabulary and clarity at what, a pimply 16 and make it interesting...

McEwan could have done it the right way. He didn't.

Most plagarists aren't punished because they don't normally do the whole thing as plagarism, but I'd say that he owes it to himself to rewrite that scene for future releases.
It may well improve the book too, if he can write half as good as people claim.

Although if I read in the revision about the wounded patient thinking to himself of the scorn of snobs as a reason to die...

I dunno...I'm pretty ambivalent on the plagarism thing. I read Shafer's piece and the offending passage in question, and yes, there's no doubt he did it, and screwed up by not changing it around enough. And the "ringing defense" of "everybody does it, won't pass muster.

On the other hand, it is only a paragraph or two, in a 400-page (or whatever) novel; a zillion readers would have gone past it without batting an eye. It wasn't like this was a major character he "stole," or a major incident (yes, it is pretty riveting for only two grafs), but still. To me it looked like something he copied into a rough draft, and never got around to fully re-writing it enough escape detection. Not changing the names wasn't deliberate so much as just plain dumb. So now everyone is crambling to either defend or prosecute ten minutes worth of sloppy work on an afternoon when he wasn't paying attention. I see it all as a tempest in a teapot.

Loomis raised the question of West Side Story being an adaption of Romeo and Juliet, which it clearly is and has never been remotely disputed; in fact, it is it's selling point. Or that some episode of Gilligan's Island is based on Aeschylus, or some such. I don't think that kind of literary "borrowing" (in some cases it isn't borrowing so much as an "homage") is comparable to plagarism, for a whole host of reasons, starting with intent to deceive, with sloppiness or carelessness, with major plot/characters versus minor, etc. If I write a novel about whaling, and my opening line is "Call me Ishmael," I don't think I'm deceiving anybody about where that came from, or that I simply forgot to change the name of my ship's Captain from Ahab to its anagram, Baha. Sure, I could make the whale Moby Shaquille, but what's the point?

What McEwan did was clearly different, but it was also clearly small potatoes, as Hyman Roth says in Godfather II. (No discussion of high lit'ry matters would be complete without a reference to John Milton's Godfather trilogy. And you thought Mario Puzo wrote it. Ha! Double ha! The fall of Michael Corleone is clearly modeled on Satan, and Sonny is...um...Paul Bunyan. Or John Bunyan. Bertie the Bunyip. One of them.)

McEwan noted her in the author's note with the original text. But he apparently got sloppy with the writing, when he was trying to evoke the reality that Andrews captured but also probably (and here's where the "literary conversation" comes in) pay tribute to her originality. Poets mimic and hint at other lines of poetry all the time. I'll give McEwan the benefit of the doubt -- he's a writer of enormous creativity, do we think he needs to borrow?

As for Shafer, he has a sharp critical mind but at times blows as hard as anyone in Washington. And I mean that. And in Washington, that's saying a lot.

SCC: I apparently apparently got a little sloppy myself.

I do rather think you're right. I nearly had that happen-- some notes in a rough draft was sent off instead of the finished draft. I had quite a time talking to the editor, I was mortified.

This is why the best rule is to paraphrase everything you make notes of from the start. He could have done better if he's all that. I hope he'll rewrite the scene. But he acknowledged the author, which doesn't exactly shout out "oh I forgot that was in there."

And Mudge, there's a difference between an unattributed quote from a famous book by a dead guy, that people are bound to recognize-- (metaliterature) and an unattribute page or two from an relatively obscure romance novel with a living author. If you gotta copy, make it good at least ;).

One of my favorite fanasty novels is a work of metaliterature-- "Silverlock" by John Myers Myers.

It has oblique references to over 400 works of literature, literary characters appear from all times and ages. Of course, the book is set in the Commonwealth of Letters. I mean, even the Golden Calf? The Iliad? The Odyessy? Pilgrim's Progess? Robin Hood? The Alamo? Huckleberry Finn? A Midsummer's Night Dream? About every other line you can find a reference to a literary work.

There's even a passing reference to a white whale as Silverlocks swims to shore after a shipwreck. I had to re-read it before I caught it. I was thinking "everything but Moby Shaquille."

The book starts. "If I had cared to live, I would have died." Which in itself may be a quote to some other work, but I haven't tracked that one down yet.

And the good drinking songs. I like "Bowie Gizzardsbane" and another song that goes (from a character thought to be dead)

"Death was only fooling; fill my cup, I'm both dry and drooling.."

Book review of this book:

http://www.greenmanreview.com/book/book_myers_silverlock.html

For the life of me, I can't remember where I first heard this, but *Tim's post reminded me of it:

"Amateurs borrow, professionals steal."

I think it was a famous comedian (who probably stole the line from someone else).

TBG, I actually may be able to make it! I'll have to see if the husband can pick up the little one tonight. :-)

It's a good line. By "stealing" you make the text your own, rather than something shared by you and another author.

Martooni, I remember George Burns saying it, but like you say, it's not original to him either ;).

I think you just made all my points, Wilbrod.

Whether something is attributed or not is totally ireelevant. I don't need to say "Call me Ishmael" was written by Melville, and in the opening act of West Side Story, Tony doesn't need to tell Pop the drugstore owner he feels like one of Shakespeare's characters felt. Recognition of the source by the reader is immaterial, and reliance upon various and sundry literary sources is also irrelevant. That isn't what the McEwen case is about.

As far as I know, the original quote was T.S. Eliot: "immature poets imitate, mature poets steal."

And that reference to Bertie the Bunyip takes me back to those thrilling days of yesteryear. Thanks, 'mudge.

I wish I could join you for the BPH tonight. Quaff one for me, willya?

McEwan's not my cup of tea, but I did think "Saturday" was a fine novel. I've meen meaning to read "Atonement", but other stuff has been popping up, like Paul Neilan's completely insane, foul and stunningly funny slacker novel, "Apathy and Other Small Victories."

A man's got to have priorities, don't you know.

Perhaps McEwan did slip up and use Andrews' work, intentionally or not. Obviously, the question is how much this matters. Personal opinion: Not much.

Writing is financially lucrative for very few people; if plagiarism were *really* rewarding to writers, God would have a HUGE legal team.

bc

By the way, Craig says somebody should show up at 4:15 to 4:30 to reserve the tables for ourselves.

That's doable, I'll be out there, and recognizable by my companion (color and general face appearance at wilbrodog.blogspot.com )

Now, will somebody phone to confirm happy hour times and prices? ;).

Addendum-- the front tables are in bars. First come, first serve.

Wilbrod;

YAY! *happy dances*

I'll be in the vanguard of reinforcements, hopefully there before 5. I think we're up to 8, possibly 9 if PLS is in. Did bc make it official? Where's Pixel been, anyway?

:-)

Now, I know you want to renew the army-navy feud, but not at a BPH ;).

Relax, Wilbrod: omni, bc and I will all be there at 4:30; scotty might to (scotty?). If we three/four horsemen of the apochryhpal can't told that beachhead, no one can.

I finally encountered McEwan when the New Yorker published an excerpt from "Saturday." Couldn't put it down.

In the department of movie originality, Anthony Lane in the New Yorker this week notes that in Mel Gibson's Apocalypto, the hero is saved by "a happy coincidence lifted straight from a Tintin book called "Prisoners of the Sun."" This is on top of part of the plot being lifted from "Naked Prey," which in turn was based on John Colter's story of being captured, then set loose and hunted. Colter was a veteran of the Lewis and Clark expedition. IMDB says the movie was intended to be about Colter or someone like him, but was moved to South Africa to save production costs.

So how about someone borrowing a McEwan plot for a movie filmable in Romania or New Zealand?

Wilbrod,
The funniest metaliterature I have read recently were from the UK (Welch, most likely) author Jasper Fforde. He has a 4-series involving the literary detective Thursday Next and 2-series in a nursery rhyme world. For example the Big Over Easy is about a murder investigation by Jack Spratt and Mary Mary of the nursery crime division. Humpty Dumpty has been pushed from his favorite wall. Jack Spratt is recovering from a professional set-back; three little pigs he had accused of murdering a wolf were set free by a gullible jury. It's written in a faux "noir" style, very funny.
http://www.jasperfforde.com/

I like Jasper Ffordes, too. His first book I was like WTF the first 2 pages then I really got into it. I like Thursday next.

But, Silverlock and Jasper Ffordes-- no comparsion. Apples and oranges.

I find it a little ironic the novel is named "Atonement".

Retreating backwards to the earlier discussion about thongs, saw this funny article (IMO).

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/12122006/21/scott-feschuk-340-thong-gives-economy-wedgie.html

Well Atonement comes from At + one +ment.

So basically he was seeing his and that romance novelists work as one and the same.
:)

dmd... I love that article! $340 indeed!

My daughter recently purchased a thong for her friend's 13th birthday gift (it was a joke, people!) from the Everything's A Dollar store.

My only wish is that someday she's wealthy enough to purchase a $340 pair of underwear. Wealthy enough--but not actually do it.

This Myers Myers fellow is too literary for me, too much references would flew over my head Wilbrod. I started reading English in (young) adulthood, so I suffer from a late start and my slow cruising speed makes picking up the distance difficult. Trying to mix in a book in French once in a while doesn't help either.
I'll raise an Achendrink to you all at about 17:15 tonight. Good BPH !

Scott Feschuk is great - he was about the only reason I ever read the National Post.

OK, here's the deal: I have a take home exam due tomorrow that I haven't really started yet. I need to get it finished before I can come to the BPH, but my husband *is* going to pick up our daughter from daycare. So hopefully I will be really productive this afternoon!

Thanks TBG, I am still trying to get my head around $340 for glorified string, have I mentioned I can be quite cheap?

byoolin this link is for you, also check out Capital outakes, quite amusing. Feschuk now in MacLeans.

http://forums.macleans.ca/advansis/?mod=for&act=dis&eid=13

So I've got the choice:

1) Go home after work, spend time with my wife & kids in the traditional annual event of hauling a pine tree into our living room so we can decorate the stupid thing.

2) Go to the BPH and engage in stimulating conversation which will inevitably play a role in solving some of the world's major problems as well as turning some of my favorite virtual friends to real ones.

The thought of me stumbling through the threshhold just in time to prop the angel on top of the tree...

Should I throw it out there for a vote?

dmd, thanks for the link - your Christmas present is in the mail (it rhymes with "Shmorder of Shmanada").

dmd| $350 for 1 item of underwear! No wonder these people need tax cuts.

Pat, here is my advice think not of the present tense, but of the future ramifications, which will make the next few days better, evening with virtual friends or pleasing wife and family?

Borrowing from a romance novelist is not plagarism, it's flattery (or flatulence, or one of those other 'f' words). Had these words been Nabakovian, would it have changed the novel? Sloppy, maybe stupid, in a world of Iraq, global warming, and nuclear dispersion; another example of how our formerly great civilization is going to hell in a handbasket.*

*quoted from my sister-in-law, who retains all rights.

Regarding your dilemma, Pat, you know as well as I do that we all have to set priorities in our lives, and compared to family, hearth and home, the BPH should come...first.

Did you have any questions about that recommendation, Pat?

OK, then. See you about 4:30 or 5?

true, truer, truest

Boodle Absentee Slip Alert

Won't be able to boodle. Dear friends have serious family emergency so we are hosting some children while grownups respond.

Enjoy, all you imaginary people beaming into focus!

To boodling in 2007:
Prosit
Salud
Cheers

Well, PLS, what is the subject matter of this test? Maybe we could help you out, a little... unless it's an ethics test.

Like I always say, write, revise, rewrite, rewrite! See, Shakespeare was great because he used iambic pentameter. He couldn't have done long passages of plagarism if he had wanted to.

There's an advantage in having an unique style. And don't tell me that everybody back then wrote in the same style and Shakespeare was actually a committee.

Mercifully, McEwan will never be lasting enough that furture McEwan theorists will be debating whether he was actually a pseudonym for Andrews, the romance novelist.

Sorry we won't see you there, CP, but needs must.

Hopefully, we'll see you at the next one.

bc

Shriek... I read Fforde's "The Eyre Affair" way back when it was only available in hard cover and loved it. I've been shying away from the bookstores (almost as bad as me loose in a Home Depot without adult supervision), so wasn't aware he'd turned it into a series.

Hmmm... payday is Friday... do I dare step foot in B&N?

"Under The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, the creators of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works enjoy protection for original work if they can establish "a degree of labour, skill or judgement" in producing it.

That formula is crucial. The courts have denied protection to certain works, including some advertising slogans.

Since there is no copyright in an idea, any claim for breach of copyright must rest on the way that the idea is expressed.

Even so, the key issue may be the amount of a book, both in quantity and quality, which is copied by someone else."1

So, I guess we need to opine on the literary quality of Andrews' prose as well as the quantity copied by McEwen.

This is so silly. If McEwen had just responded, "Good Lord! You're right! How terrible. I shall rewrite that passage immediately," the debate would go away.

Even if it isn't technically plagiarism, I don't believe a writer of McEwen's quality (and I think very highly of him as a writer, though Atonement is not, in my view, his best book by any means) doesn't know when he's not being original.

It should not have happened at all, and as it did, he should own it and fix it.

1 Neutral Citation Number: [2006] EWHC 719 (Ch)

Case No: HC04C03092

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 07/04/2006

Before :
MR JUSTICE PETER SMITH

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

1. Michael Baigent
2. Richard Leigh
Claimants

- and -

The Random House Group Limited
Defendant

Well, it seems someone needs to say this, so I will. Atonement is a brilliant novel. In all reality, it seems to me that McEwan lifted sections of another autobiography describing what it was to be a nurse in World War II. While sloppy, this is not what made Atonement great. The greatness of the book lies in the story of the writer . . . Honestly, I couldn't much care less if he lifted a few sentences (although it's lazy). It does not diminish the novel.

Science Tim: the course is Complex Civil Litigation. And the exam is to draft (based on the hypotheticals provided) 1) a Consolidated Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction Barring Enforcement of the Law, 2) a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal and Opposition to Write of Mandamus, and 3) an Opposition to a Motion to Dismiss or Abstain.

Hey, you asked! Fortunately there's a 5-page limit for each answer.

SCC: WRIT of Mandamus. Sigh.

If this was the extent of "plagarism" then it doesn't even reach the level of the misdemeanor. What is truly a felony is that you haven't denounced today's truly disgusting editorial in praise of Pinochet and Kirkpatrick. If you had the slightest degree of human decency (which I doubt) you would resign from the Post immediately!

Yoki wisely says:

"This is so silly. If McEwen had just responded, 'Good Lord! You're right! How terrible. I shall rewrite that passage immediately,' the debate would go away."

Isn't that the case with most scandals? It's usually the coverup or excuse-making that does a person in.

There is no "l" in kerfuffle. You must now die a mean death. :(

The Fforde books may be available at your local library danghippie/martooni. I have seen some of them at mine even if if is a very modest library. I've yet to read The Fourth Bear. I suspect it is a Jack Spratt investigation of the three bears' home invasion by the infamous Goldilock. I'll try to read it over the Christmas vacation. If I finish The Cell and doesn't start another Aubray/Mathurin before then that is.

But this one was a kerfluffle. Totally different thing.

Wow, Joel, I guess she told you.

Good for McEwan! I hope very much that he knew what he was doing when he took the paragraph. If he didn't, then he was being sloppy. The fact is, artists do this all the time. Hawthorne includes passages of Cotton Mather in "Young Goodman Brown." Melville includes passages of just about anybody who wrote on whales in Moby-Dick. Whitman's poem "Cavalry Crossing a Ford" is a slightly reworked version of a newspaper article written by somebody else. And the list goes on and on. This kind of borrowing and transformation is a fundamental part of the artist's craft.

Right.

Kenneth Starr wasn't assigned to investigate Bill Clinton because he engaged in some inappropriate behavior with that woman.

It was because he lied and covered up. And *he* ended up getting nailed, anyway. As it were.

bc

Dear CK, editing JA is permitted by Tom Fan only. She should come online and do her job later. And a kerfluffle may just be a lighter, fluffier form of kerfuffle, what do I know.

The problem with calling its plagiarism is that it's a description of actual medical practice. We took Instrument X and applied it to Wound Y in Manner Z. That is the technical description. If you define a word just as it is defined in a particular dictionary, you cite the dictionary and use the definition. But you aren't plagiarizing by doing so. McEwan cited her, so it isn't plagiarism.

We will go with kerfuffle since no one grasps that a kerfluffle is a kerfuffle that's gone off the deep end. Kerfluffle is the better word but I guess I'll just "dumb down" my prose.

Dear CK, editing JA is permitted by Tom Fan only. She should come online and do her job later. And a kerfluffle may just be a lighter, fluffier form of kerfuffle, what do I know.

The problem with calling its plagiarism is that it's a description of actual medical practice. We took Instrument X and applied it to Wound Y in Manner Z. That is the technical description. If you define a word just as it is defined in a particular dictionary, you cite the dictionary and use the definition. But you aren't plagiarizing by doing so. McEwan cited her, so it isn't plagiarism.

Sorry for the double post. Moveable Type went postal on me. (I got the sea foam screen of death.)

Getting thirsty. And I feel a wee touch of the scurvy coming on. bc, you feeling a little parched? A little peckish, perhaps? Yearning for a frog and a peach?

Needless to say, guess who is posted on the WaPo home page in big letters.

*readying bunker, just in case*

You're not all really going to the BPH and leaving us here, with the A-blog on the home page?!

Some would have you believe that there is nothing new under the sun. (I just made that up right now - in a value-added conversational sort of way.)

Yoki, to paraphrase a certain source (no plagarism intended), you'll just have to stay the course, while we cut-and-runners cut and run.

KevinP, it's pretty clear you didn't read the McEwen graf in question. But nice try.

Serious writing question: Aren't there the equivalent of "fact checkers" for literature? You know, people who try to make sure that there is no accidental plagiarism? Cause I can see how, just as it is easy to regurgitate another tune without really realizing it (seeking the opinion here of the artist formerly known as martooni) it might be easy to accidentally re-write an especially memorable phrase or passage buried deep within one's psyche. Or is the notion of inadvertent plagiarism total bogus?

Certainly publishers of fiction do not fact-check nor are they trolling through every word of each work to try to find plagiarism (and who could you possibly hire, if you were so inclined, who knew every source from which something might be plagiarized? -- well, 'Mudge, maybe). Nor should they. The author is responsible for the author's work, surely?

Right.

Here's my letter (that would be the letter "l" of course) of support for my good friend and terribly talented writer, Joel Achenbach:

"kerfuffle" is a veddy right proper disagreement or mess. Pinkies extended, and vigorous adjustment of bifocals for emphasis.

"kerfluffle" is like two thong-wearing mountain gorillas flinging poo at each other, then engaging in the biggest, baddest, Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) rumble EVAR. Folding chairs used as weapons, Bruno Sammatino's face covered in blood, the whole shmear. The pie fight from "The Great Race". Utter mayhem.

The two are completely different, IMO.

Glad I was around to clear that "l" up.

bc

There is no "l" in kerfuffle?

Hey, has anyone heard the expression, 'He couldn't find his arse with his hands tied behind his back', or not?

Don't worry about CK, Joel. She's just a little flustrated.

Yoki - I guess it does make sense that the final responsibility must rest with the author. Still, I would think that a publisher would have a significant financial interest in preventing fraudulant works from reaching print.

Might be an interesting programming challenge: Compare this text with all existing texts.

Hmm, run-time *could* be a problem.

Thanks for clearing that up bc. The two thong wearing gorillas thing wasn't a thinly veiled allusion to a certain pair of retired naval/marine officers by any chance? How bad of you.

Oh boy oh boy. The blog is in big letter on the home page above the fold with a picture of the accused plagiarist himself. I hope that the McEwan fans are nicer people than the Rove/[censored] we had to deal with previously.

If we're not careful "kerfuffle" vs. "kerfluffle" will turn into a "schmozzle" - appropriated from David Hobbs.

You don't have to respond if you haven't heard it but if you have you'll save me from accusations of plagarism and further embarrassment.

I'd also like to ask Joel if anyone else noticed the timeline of creationism, creation science, and Intelligent Design closely followed NASA's use of exobiolgy, bioastronomy, and astrobiology.

"Still, I would think that a publisher would have a significant financial interest in preventing fraudulant works from reaching print."

Just ask Random House!

Joel, thanks for including the Judith Wagner quote. I think it gets the essense of writing exactly right. Or, as a not very famous person once said, "art is the conversation a society holds with itself."

EF, next thing you know you'll have a fracas (pronounced "fray-kow" by Hobbs, IIRC. EF, that'll be enough of that. No one else in here has any idea of what we're talking about.)

SD, if I'd meant who you suggest I may have meant, I'd have said "silverback gorillas". Which isn't a bad idea, now that I think about it.

Anyway, if McEwen does get into a legal entanglement over being just a bit lazy, God *will* be firing up his team of Divine Solicitors to go after every writer who ever lived.

bc

Boko, the "he couldn't find his..." phrase is, I wager, one of those that is generated spontaneously by more than one person. It's just such an obvious construction, right? Sort of like the macaronic pun on poisson/poison that Wilbrod and I discussed several months ago.

Regarding literature: Nihil sub sole novum -- and that was 2000 years ago! If we go by your rules, Joel, Shakespeare was a thief and a hack.

Let's help Joel out, regular Boodlers, and remove the ls from our posts today. That way no extras will sneak in.

Or

et's hep Joe out, reguar Booders, and remove the s from our posts today. That way no extras wi sneak in.

I'm sure Joe wi be gratefu.

You know, at first I thought she wrote, "there's no I in kerfuffle." The letter EYE, not the letter EL. Like, "there's no I in TEAM."

I wondered what the heck she meant and figured it was just over my head (kind of like "Sea urchins see with their feet.")

I guess the rules are different in literature vs. non-fiction. Does anyone recall the hullabaloo over Doris Kearns Goodwin being accussed of plagarism?

Ever since the very first words were spoken, ever since someone clapped their hands together, ever since a word was written down on paper, everything that follow, one could argue, is plagarism.

So in an age where books seem to constantly loose out to TV, Xbox, etc., let's stop attacking writers and instead value the contributions they make to society.

So, if I go to the BPH, can anybody meet me at... What Metro stop is it?
around 4:30? I've only got about 20 minutes to decide!

Thanks Yoki, you're right. Now I know how Scott felt.
*Shaking fist at sky*
DARN YOU AMUNDSEN

Why do we think the person who caused such a fuffle is a female? Was it the use of the word 'mean?"

Are you guys putting out the BPH sign again or does everyone at M&S know you?

Hi: McEwan has plagiarized; he did not use quotation marks or cite his source. I teach research writing at a military college where plagiarism is an honor violation. The rules for using researched material are clear; all quoted, paraphrased, and summarized passages must be cited in the writer's text and in a Works Cited list. Allusions to a literary work is not plagiarism.

Ms. Karch, does citing Andrews in his Author's note at the end of "Atonement" not count?

bc

I'm commenting from a vacuum, so I apologize if this is redundant. I also see this as similar to "sampling" in music--something which is completely acceptable and even encouraged in modern genres (hip-hop mostly). There is, however, one huge difference between pulling a few phases or passages from a primary source and recycling them through your characters and sampling a few bars of music to run as a loop on your new single. When you sample something like, say, "Under Pressure" EVERYONE recognizes it. Pop music is such that most people can identify a fair number of songs after hear just a few notes (heck, there's even a game show based on that). But literature? If you pull phases out of some semi-obscure biography, most readers are not going to recognize it. McEwan is creative enough that he could have come up with a way to somehow pay tribute to the person whose words he thought were so perfect. Perhaps he could have written a cameo for Lucilla Andrews?

Padouk, Yoki is absolutely right: publishers don't hire fact-checkers (nor should they). By long-standing custom, the writer is responsible for the material.

In the case of fiction, especially, a fact-checker would be preposterous; what would be the point? (And anyway, "fact-checking" is different from plagarism. If I was fact-checking something you wrote, I wouldn't necessary be using the same source you did. I'd just verify that it was right or wrong.) Which isn't to say that a good editor shouldn't be on his/her toes. The problem nowadays with publishers isn't lack of fact-checkers, but just lack of general editors. Maxwell Perkins, may the FSM rest his soul, is long dead, and RIP, Max.

Now non-fiction might appear to be another case altogether, but really isn't. Once again, book publishers don't have "fact-checkers"; how could they? The fact-checker would have to spend more time fact-checking than the writer spent writing; it would take massive amounts of time, and to very, very little purpose.

And that's not even to mention the problem of how do you "fact-check" allegations, assertions, speculation, etc.? It's just about all one can do to cover one's a$$ against libel, and that's about it.

Now, newspapers and magazines (at least the biggies, with actual budgets and stuff) do hire fact-checkers; those at the New Yorker were infamous (and infamously good). But the Podunk, Iowa, Boot and Shoe Recorder? Fageddaboutid. But not everyuthing gets fact-checked, nor should it be. At a certain point, any good editor knows when a piece of work is starting to get into deep doo-doo, and proceeds according.

As for recognizing plagarism, there is now software available that does a lot of it automatically in schools.

And what are you gonna do with an Updike, a McEwen, a Hemingway, a Barbara Cartland, a Joyce Carol Oates, a Michael Connelly or a Carl Hiaasen? Ask 'em to wait in the lobby while you run their manuscript through the plagarism detector? How long would you reasonably expect to be their publisher?

Actually the liability risk to publishers is just about zero. If there are 100,000 books published every year, how many of them get into legal trouble? Three? Four? They do what airlines do: a plane crashes, a hundred people die, ya pay out a million per corpse, and you're still in business and making a profit. It's the cost of doing business.

I think it's unfair to look at a few sentences of McEwan's work and cry "plagarism". Reference to other works is an established method of deepening fiction, and in my opinion, you have to look at the passages in question in light of the larger work. Obviously, McEwan has added some value to Andrew's work by referencing her words to deepen his own story. You want writers to get rid of references to other works? Say goodbye to metafiction and modern literature. You want people to refuse to replicate plots and ideas? Say goodbye to romance, detective, Sci-Fi...pretty much all genre fiction. Writers often write to their literary predecessors as a means of respect and admiration, or anger and argumentation. To take away this ability is to ask for a-historial literature, impossible to produce.

Mudge, so where does the problem arise finding good general editors? Is it a matter of not enough people going into the field, or that the people going into the field are not quite up to the task. Is it publishers who may need to cut corners or a reliance on technology?

I think McEwan can easily be forgiven....

2 Hail Maries and an Our Father

Barring a dramatic turn of events, I shall shortly depart from my cubicle for the BPH. This should be fun!!

:-)

// Obviously, McEwan has added some value to Andrew's work by referencing her words to deepen his own story//

The only added value accrued to McEwan.
I suppose hearing the post modernist, I hate to 'privelege' it by calling it a, perspective, was inevitable.

To JW:

I agree that literary borrowing is like musical sampling. But just as writers sometimes borrow from writers/work that seem obscure to some (witness references to obscure opera and ad copy in Ulysses) people who sample don't always sample from well-known work. (See DJ. Rupture, The Avalanches).

"The only added value accrued to McEwan."

Imitation is the highest form of flattery. Her work was worth borrowing from because her ideas were good. A compliment to her.

Hi, guys *waving*. Long time, no see. Just got a brief moment with my head above water. Got another of those weekly committee meetings tonight, so no BPH for me ;-( That, and friend wife missed a step and broke her foot so I need to stay close to home. She is NOT a happy camper! The whole of the holidays with her foot in a cast. Me, I'd cut McEwen a bit of slack. Yes, he probably should have either paraphrased or credited in the body of the text. But since he did give credit in the book, it's not a major boo-boo. Question: Wonder if anyone has tried going through Barlett's and attempted to compose a work just using the "famous quotations"?

It's publishers, I suspect. Book Editors, from what I see, are also expected to be contract negotiators, select the gold out of the dross, and so on. I would say there is very, very little correcting of ,;. done. Thats the author's responsiblity to proofread or hire somebody else to do it.

You can't turn misspelled monkey typewriting work and expect the editor to be a proofreader. Editors that care will likely suggest revision directions-- what to cut, and so on.

I mean, can anybody read James Joyce and REALLY believe that book editors actually proofread and copyedit authors' works?

Not that I've ever been a book editor-- the thought of actually talking to authors and negotiating book deals and having to live in New York (not the place for a gnome), pretty much makes that unlikely for me.

Hi ebtnut. Yes; I'll try to dig out two or three examples. At least one is very clever and funny.

To ebtnut: Been there, done that. Waiting to be published.

Ebnut-- you mean, without any paraphrasing or misquoting? I doubt that would be done well enough to be an interesting literary work, then.

Misquoting/paraphasing Barlett's-- now that'd be interesting.

Just remember the saying-- a quiet horse kicks strong.

This post is absurd. Who says that "Inspiration is fine, copying isn't" (comma splice, anyone?)? What if copying the expression is the only way to express oneself? What if copying another's expression is the best way to do so? If I cut and paste that infamous picture of all those buses in flooded water during Hurricane Katrina, and then redistribute that picture to the world, have I engaged in expression or plagiarism? Would Achenbauch say my expression is merely inspirationally permissible?

Jed Rubenfeld, "Freedom of Imagination," Yale Law Journal 112 (2001): 1.

MONA mentions an editorial in praise of Pinochet and Jeane Kirkpatrick (hardly in the same category, even though Jeane favored a supposedly "realist" policy of working with the devil). Anyway, WTF? Could MONA possibly be referring to Eugene Robinson's column? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/11/AR2006121101226.html

If so, I suppose you could describe it as praise to call a fellow a tyrant and a despot in the opening sentence, if that were the 'honored' fellow's goal. In the case of Pinochet, I suppose that case could be made.

If you print someone's photo's as your own you're a thief.

"Would Achenbauch say my expression is merely inspirationally permissible?"

No, but he might ask you to spell check his name. I know this is strictly against the heretofore mentioned SCC policy, and I am scum.

Too much reliance on spell checkers can bring much embarrassment. I once was spellchecking a request for a certificate of insurance, and said yes just a leeeeettle too hastily. My request went out for a cervical of insurance. The broker still probably has that request hanging on the lunch room funnies wall.

dr, did you see this article, such a sad story. I was hoping you could clarify something for me, what is a dugout in this context. Large watering hole?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2006/12/12/cattle-ice.html

Copied word for word; a clear case of plagiarism, both in terms of diction and syntax. Who is Ian Elwan, anyway?

Regarding Linda Karch's comments:

Expository writing is not the same as fiction. You don't lard up a work of fiction with quotation marks and footnotes, especially if you were paraphrasing. It is to be read seamlessly. McEwan paraphrased. Perhaps not so thoroughly as he should have, but the words definitely were not in the precise order in which Andrews wrote them, therefore, quotation marks were not appropriate because it would have been a misquote. The case for or against plagiarism (by McEwan, of Andrews) is independent of this particular point.

In the latter part of this comment, she notes that allusions to... sorry, "Allusions to a literary work is [sic] not plagiarism." Well, isn't that what McEwan did? Therefore, he is not guilty of plagiarism. Does the obscurity of the alluded literary work factor into whether it's an allusion vs. plagiarism?

Whatever happened to the refreshing type of comment like 'oh yes, we somehow missed that reference and apologize; we will correct it in the next printing.'
All this lack of taking responsibility to me makes it harder for the others who follow suit and are going to be less likely to own up. I don't care if it's only four sentences out of 500; a short acknowledgement is needed! Oy!

If, as some have suggested, that this was a mistake and he meant to go back and use his own 'voice' to express what had been written , then it's a oops, my bad, move on. Howerver if it was puposeful then he stole someone else's work and has deceived
his readers.

I've just finished reading Joel's description of his encounter with New Age ufologists channeling aliens. These people really press my nerve. I recommend immediately implementing a mental hygiene program based on cattle prods and Desert Eagles.:-b

He referenced the author. It ain't plagarism.

dmd, A dugout is exactly that. A hole dug in the ground. They were popular in the 60's and 70's where farms did not have adequate wells, and had no surface source of water in the form of natural sloughs, ponds or streams to water livestock. The theory was that if you dug a hole, it would eventually fill with water. It was most effective in low spots where water sat anyway, but was not deep enough to provide clean safe water for your herd.

There are places along highways right across the prairies where you see them because highway crews were famous for taking good clay from deep down for road construction.

Cows are like sheep. They follow along behind a leader and get themselves in all kinds of messes. It happens, its just the number of animals affected that makes this one newsworthy.

I have to wonder what he will do next spring. His water will not be safe for animals.

Nope. Not plagarism. The fact that he lifted from a memoir for a work of fiction, and then cited it (albeit vaguely) seems fine to me. It really IS like sampling, especially, if he LIKED the way she had written it, and 'used' it, as opposed to 'improving' it. Actually, if he had changed it more, THEN there may be a problem.

I thought the definitions were as follows:

Kerfuffle: an argument or disagreement.

Kerfluffle: a kerfuffle, but involving light or non-contentious issues

CERNfluffle: a disagreement involving the physical properties of the universe

Curfuffle: a disagreement involving dogs

Kerfluffer: someone's who's job it is to keep a disagreement going(see "lawyer")

I thought the definitions were as follows:

Kerfuffle: an argument or disagreement.

Kerfluffle: a kerfuffle, but involving light or non-contentious issues

CERNfluffle: a disagreement involving the physical properties of the universe

Curfuffle: a disagreement involving dogs

Kerfluffer: someone's who's job it is to keep a disagreement going(see "lawyer")

I don't understand why some say its analagous to sampling. Do samplers use seven or eight bars of a musician's riff and claim them as their own? Anyway hip hop would be one of the last places I'd reference for ethical guidance.

Kerfluffer? Come on.

I think you missed the real story, almost all the major big shot authors do do it. I could name them for hours (Coleridge, Beckett, etc.). My guess is most of the major literary figures you can think of engaged in some form of plagerism.

>I don't understand why some say its analagous to sampling.

Not only that, but unless you name the other artist in the lyrics there's no way to attribute a music sample, whereas in printed form you can mark the passage and include a reference at the bottom of the page.

I believe the legally acceptable max on sampling is something like 6 seconds.

Thanks, Scotty.

We're back. Didn't take as long as I thought it would. Just really dehydrated, and need fluids. Gatorade and ginger ale. I'll take the ginger ale, don't like gatorade.

I believe if an author's words move you, and you think they're pretty good, what's wrong with citing the author?

I do wish I could come to the bph, but, alas, it is not to be. Enjoy yourselves, and I hope we get some pictures. Good night.

What's really embarrassing is when one plagiarizes acidentally, from something one read years before. It's happened to me. Doing it deliberately however, deserves derision, if not a hefty fine.

In other news, the Christmas bonus was recovered, turned in to the boss, and re-given to me Monday afternoon. Talk about developing false memories: I had talked myself into believing I vaguely remembered seeing out of the corner of my eye, but not realizing, the EXACT INSTANT someone stole from me! A totally manufactured memory, as it never happened. Fully aware of the vagueries of my own head, I am glad I said nothing to anyone.

I am going to have something flavored coconut and melon soon.

I'm waiting for someone to mention Ulysses.

I wanted to discuss John Irving's A Prayer For Ownen Meany, which was part homage to Gunter Grass' masterpeice The Tin Drum and visited several gushing sites declaring that OPFOM is the "best novel ever" etc. None I veiwed even mentioned Grass.
I'm so depressed.
Good night and thanks for all the fish.

My favourite movie pointing out the joys of plagarism is the Aristocrats.

I plagiarized the holy crap out of my dissertation. Later, it was published--and, some poor saps have actually bought it.

IF YOU AIN'T CHEATING, YOU AIN'T TRYING! That's what we use to say in the Navy, at least.

Kerfluffy: A cute little bunny rabbit who keeps getting dogs into trouble.

DR, if you're still reading the comments this far down "literature as conversation" is in academic terms called intertextuality (or as a professor of mine said, or rather ranted, "literary allusions!") He was not one for academic posturing.

The idea is that for those well read, or learned souls, these "plagarized" words, lines, ideas connect from author to author, from age to age like a hidden puzzle often missesd by those "lesser minds" who do not know, or do not understand.

This, however, looks like it's gone too far and smacks of laziness. Once the original "allusion" was established, McEwan continues to copy the situation in its entirety, with barely a reword or restructuring.

Sorry, The Aristocrates was about making existing art your own.
*DARN YOU GODFREY*

MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech was substantially appropriated from others work. Really.

I believe the person attacking the wrong person was referring to this editorial not Robinson's column.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/11/AR2006121101166.html

I, for one, read a novel to gain insight into an author's "take" on events. I relish the extent to which an author's imagination can embellish a scene or event. When their own imagination fails and they must "lift" descriptions of the events from another author, they have failed in one of their most important functions.
I find it most disheartening that so many authors have come to the defense of MacEwan's plagarism by claiming that "everyone does it." I have read several of MacEwan's novels and feel that he, in fact, does not warrant all the acclaim that has been bestowed upon him. I do not plan to read another of his books, nor will I read the authors who have jumped so enthusiastically to his defense!

Accusations of plagiarism have risen to the level of political correctness run amok. There is a difference between a fiction writer incorporating material in one select passage of a larger work, "acknowledging" the source but failing formally to "cite" it, and a scholar doing the same in an academic work. The standards, quite simply, are different, and it is absurd to hold literary authors to this level of scrutiny.

Certainly if an author rips off most or all of another work, then accusations of plagiarism may have grounds, although even then this is questionable depending on what the new author has done with the material. In artistic contexts, duplication is not necessarily plagiarism, particularly if the new author adds some value to the material. Simply because an author has "duplicated" language doesn't count as plagiarism, or, if it did, how much duplicated language is enough to warrant the accusation? A phrase? A sentence? A paragraph?

If duplicating language is the problem, then what about when a person lifts the entire conceptual framework of a piece, merely putting it in his or her own words? Particularly from an academic standpoint, this is a much more pernicious form of plagiarism than having a few uncited lines in a longer work. And then when we step into a literary venue, is it really fair to lay blame when someone borrows a plot device, image, or anything from somewhere else?

Is Hemingway guilty of plargiarism for ripping off the phrase "for whom the bell tolls" from John Donne's Meditations? Is Shakespeare guilty for copying whole passages in his history plays almost straight out of Ralph Holinshed's Chronicles? Or what about the Comedy of Errors, which is largely ripped off from someone's translation of Plautus' Menaechmi? Or As You Like It, which is ripped off in no small part from Thomas Lodge's Rosalynde, which in turn was ripped off from the 14th century poem The Tale of Gamelyn? For that matter, Chaucer ripped of his Troilus and Criseyde from Boccaccio's Il Filostrato, and scholars can trace the source materials for virtually all of the Canterbury Tales as well. To step outside of literature a moment, I don't think Andy Warhol originally designed the Cambell's soup label either.

Great literature happens because writers rip off from each other and recombine materials in new ways, adding bits and pieces of their own inspiration to the works. Literary production is very much a conversation that takes place among contemporaries and with the past, and I defy you to find any recent novel that isn't directly indebted to something or another, whether conceptually, linguistically, or otherwise. Literature at its core is pastiche, drawing influences from wherever it can, and nit-picking ambulance chasers need to back off.

Sort of like when a person can't think of an original handle to use on the internet?

All novels should be google tested now...see if you can find passages that match more than a certain statistical percentage... Of course I don't know where we are gonna end up with so much originality and so much attribution.

Plagiarism in this individualistic west has been taken to maniacal levels. It is time they get a reality check. All fiction is socially constructed.

I loved "Atonement" some much. It was like the author got into my head when I was a kid Briony's age. Uncanny. Hey, maybe Ian was stealing from me? :-) Or every other arty, imaginative/slightly melodramatic brat who hungers for attention and love and mild revenge.

I clearly recall he referenced the diary at the end. I am suprised to learn he left a bit of a mess behind, but he clearly meant no harm or he wouldnt have credited the diary in the first place.

As for originality being myth - that's cowardly, imo. The fact is that societies frown (at the least) on originality but brilliant people pop up anyway.

So Yoki, hypothetically speaking, if you're a premier and you're writing a paper on Allende and Pinochet, do you cite several pages of lifted material found on-line as (internet) or [internet]?

Kevin, I thank you. Sadly I boodle all day long. I am a total Achenaddict.

I had to laugh at allusions. Instantly it switched in my head to illusions. Sadly your second paragraph is everything that makes me find the phrase pretentious. I understand what you are saying, but when you say it out loud... It's one of the things that makes readers of popular fiction stay away from some very good books.

Publishers are starting to realize that they need to reach that guy reading the schlock novels. Those are the people spending big money on books.

McEwan, "possibly the best novelist in the world"? In English or any language? For my money, the novel Saturday was not world class; both central character and novelist seem preoccupied with property prices, cheering for Blair's Iraq policy and keeping the lower orders at bay. The running times of the surgeon were way too low for a guy who quickly tires in a squash game and the descriptions of the operations had a breathless, corny feel to them. A mediocre effort at best.

What an ink-blot test this kit has become.

Yeah, LTL, time for a change in subject. This is getting a bit repetitive. At least we're not discussing the relative merits of one European country vis-a-vis a North American country. That got real tedious, as I recall.

C'mudge: //Bertie the Bunyip.//

If we didn't know your birthplace, this would cinch it.

Before drawing any conclusions, I suggest reading his explanation.

Who gives a poop about this? America recycles everything -- wars, politicians, and text. Boo-hoo for the people who actually care about this seriously minor piece of "news". Come on, Joel. You are better than this!

Hope the BPH went well. And thanks, Mudge and Yoki, for the insightful responses. Somehow, I guess I had this image of these amazingly well-read interns who did the plagiarism checking. Not my brightest moment.

Looks like I'm the first one back from the BPH. Had a good time; there were 12 of us by the time I left: me, bc, scotty, Wilbrod, omni, yellojkt, TBG, Raysmom, Lostin Thought, Maggie'O, ScienceTim and mo. We were also expecting Annie any moment. None of us were able to get back to Pat in time to meet him at the metro--hope that wasn't why he didn't make it (and hope he isn't still standing on the platform waiting for one of us to come along). Hilarity ensued, and the official Achenwaitress (we learned for the first time her name is Mara) did her usual excellent job. Yep, bc, omni and I established a beachehead on one table by the front window, and patiently waited out two ladies dining at the next table for nearly an hour, and when they left, we pounced like the Marines at Iwo Jima. Soon we had three tables, room for Wilbrodog, and seats for everybody.

dr, to answer your 4:02, the problem isn't finding good editors. The problem is that book publishers no longer put much stock in hiring and keeping them; they no longer view it as very important. Accordingly, they are no longer interested investing the money, yadda yadda. Most of them have learned a few sorry lessons, such as: (1)crap sells just as well (or better) than good stuff; (2) not quite "nobody cares," but certainly less and less people care, so why spend the money; and (3) not only do less people care, less and less people even notice.

Back in the "good old days" the top houses had crackerjack editors who actually worked with writers, spent hours and hours laboring over their stuff, editing, making suggestions, "forcing" them to go back and rewrite, etc. The legendary archetype, of course, was Scribner's Maxwell Perkins, who edited Fitzgerald, Tom Wolfe (the Look Honeward, Angels Wolfe, not the Bonfire/Vanities Wolfe) and Hemingway. Wolfe's work, in particular, wouldn't even be known today if it weren't for Perkins weeding it out, organizing, it reorganizing it, and basically putting as much work into it as Wolfe himself did.

In addition, these editors not only edited, they performed the roles of counselor, mentor, shrink, guru, moneylender, bail bondsman, drinking companion, 12-Step guide--in short, whatever it took to nurse genius through whatever it took to produce capital A Art. (And the first requirment, it goes without saying, was the ability to recognize genius in the first place. The second requirement is/was the willingness to submerge one's own ego and ambitions in favor of helping the author produce his art and stoking his fame and glory instead of your own; no small job, that. Third is having both real talent as an editor as well as talent being the adult babysitter of a bad-boy genius with the maturity of, say, a 12-year-old neurotic [Hemingway, Fitz, Wolfe, Ruark, O'Hara, the list goes on and on].)

For that job description, ya gotta pay some bucks. Of all the publishing houses, only two are ever really talked about: Scribners, first, and secondarily Knopf. Among the other houses there were (and maybe still are) a few individual people who might qualify, but they tend to come and go, and take their own "lines" and authors with them. And they aren't nearly as famous as the old-time editors.

Also to be fed into the equation: nowadays, author's agents often perform the role of shrink, guru, bail bondsperson, etc., that editors used to play. So the bond that used to exist between author and pub house editor is broken and has been replaced by author-agent bond. And indeed, there are some agents who are said to function in part as editors, reading manuscripts, making suggesting, and generally wet-nursing genius wherever it rears its psychoneurotic head. But I suspect these are as rare as the Max Perkins types were in the good old days. After all, why wet-nurse some brooding, inarticulate starving artist genius in his Soho loft when you can be a roadie for a rock star, do the same kind of work, but get paid ninety times as much, plus get all the sloppy-seconds on women, booze, drugs, fame, etc.?

You make the call: wet-nurse Ian McEwen, Bruce Chatwin, Malcolm Lowery, Joyce Carol Oates or John Le Carre (or, god forbid, Hunter Thompson), or wet-nurse TomKat, Kid Rock or Carrie Underwood?

It seems to me that this guy MacEwan ought to apologize for not making clear where the quote was in the book. Until he actually apologizes, I think that he should be held in ill repute.

A few years ago I took some college courses online. One required course was academic writing, and there was a section on plagiarism. When I got done reading it, I felt like I had been plagiarizing all my life! I can't remember the rules, but paraphrasing, changing just a few words here and there while maintaining the tone was plagiarism - kind of what McEwan did.

I have read Atonement and liked it very much. I agree with Joel that the paragraphs in question are a very small part of the book, and while McEwan creates a wonderfully detailed and authentic picture of that time, the plot is what makes it such a good book, IMO. Jealousy, lies, heroics - with an ending I did not see coming.

Here's something interesting.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/reportsfromabroad/champblog/2006/12/do_we_bore_you.html

No more american news stories on Canada I guess.

Mudge,
I'll take the authors anyday, especially Le Carre - but I take your point (I would just choose different rock stars!).

Sounds like a great BPH - awaiting pictures and stories.

One of your compatriots already posted that. And the story says that western Canada will be covered from Seattle (I always say we're practically in Canada anyway). No, it's another sign of the demise of journalism.

Sorry I missed the "kerfluffle" kerfuffle.
I just figured Joel was taking some creative license with the word.

Good 'boodle today -- a lot of new faces.

I'm not quite sure where I stand on the McEwan kerflewfal. Perhaps he could have clearly footnoted the text in question, rather than using the more vague approach of acknowledging Lucilla Andrews in his Author's Note. In a sense, Andrews was a co-author -- but only of a small, specific section, and in an ideal world, that would have been more competently clarified.

Hey Jumper, glad you got your dough back.

Amazing capacity we humans have to create our own reality.

And this from U2's song The Fly:
It's no secret that a conscience can sometimes be a pest
It's no secret ambition bites the nails of success
Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief
All kill their inspiration and sing about their grief

>Not my brightest moment.

RDP, I don't know, but the bit about run-time in the fact checking was classic.

mostly, I'd take the writers, too--but that's what makes you and me a little different from 98 percent of the human race. Most people would take the glitz, glamour, etc., over the anonymous laboring in the vineyard of Art.

I'm a darn good editor. And a darn good writer. And I'll die poor. That's just the way it is, and it has taken 60 years to accept it, and be comfortable with it. But I've still got books to write. Whether they make any money has long since ceased to be of interest to me (the irony, of course, is that even if they do make money, it's way too late in the game for it to do me any good. The ego needs fame and fortune and beautiful women when one is 30 or 35. At 60 all the ego needs is a cerveza con limon, a channel changer, a small heater for the feet, maybe a sweater, some dried fruit (apricots are good).

Ha ha, Mudge - you've got the right attitude. And a fabulous vacation to look forward to - and a boat - and a fine family and imaginary friends too. So you've done pretty well - hope you have a good vacation (remember, don't light any matches on the plane, no matter what!)

I'm LOL, mostly. I'll hoist a cerveza for you.

Whoops. This is what happens when you don't pay enough attention to whats been said earlier in the day. And is once again proof why I am hereby banned from linking.

Mudge, at least write so you have royalties to eke out your meager pension.

So um, have you tested the talents of book editors in wetnursing you? You were rather detailed in that one.

Mostlylurking made a good point-- tone is crucial in whether something feels like a fresh take on another's work or simple plagarism. I think humor novelists can be one of the more creative and original writers because they continually inject the unexpected in rote formulas-- and I mean humor novelists whose works survive more than a decade or two, of course. Topical humor doesn't wear well, since it depends heavily on allusions to people and places that are forgotten.

Some of the top humor stuff from the 40's and 50's are nearly undecipherable unless you know all about the funnymen and culture back then. And course, the jokes are now OLD. Which makes me think of Mark Twain's "Adam's diary"- about how Adam found the very first joke he thought of was already a chestnut (tired old gag). I do like Eve's diary a bit better of course. Mark Twain's humor lasts because he fortunately used basic allusions to the real world, added in detail so all could understand and visualize and then gave us a ride.

I always find it interesting that he basically wrote in every genre we have today (except comic books, although "Just So Stories" do have illustrations by the author).

Besides, inject some of the humor you have on this boodle in you next book, and we'll see if your luck changes before you need to beat off fawning fans with your peg leg just so you can take out your false teeth and take a nap.

Besides, what would you have done with fame at 35? Would you have had 5 marriages in a row, become bankrupt by alimony and scandals, developed drug problems from all the stress of being a famous novelist, and fried 10 vital organs before age 50?

By the way, Wilbrodog says he's happy to heat your feet at need.

I got a fair share of BPH pictures, will forward them to S'nuke.

Joel, just so. On my honor, the center must hold. Or be held.

kerric,
I was afraid I had chased you away - didn't mean to be so abrupt. But many of the Canadian contingent were rightly concerned about this - just earlier, before you got here. Let's see, they've got western Canada covered from here, they say that the northeastern branch will cover the rest - I say some coverage for Alberta is definitely called for, and for Newfoundland too. I bet you know someone who could do bang-up curling reporting.

LOL, SonofCarl. I think if you are that premier you really have no business taking university courses at all, even if your aides do most of the work for you.

I'm sorry if I offend any righteous Albertans, but the man had the brainpower of a flea and the personality of, well, a fruit fly. I'm sure this is an insult to fleas everywhere. I am so happy to see his back going out the door.

LOL mostlylurking I'm pretty hard to scare. Being stuck at work, working a completely opposite shift from what I've become used to, is causing me to lose my sanity.

My sister, who's an editor at a major university press (does non-fiction), replied: I read the book in question, and would agree that two paragraphs out of 400 pages is, pht, who cares. Sloppiness.

I think that this would be a common place practice,borrowing someone else's idea and views.I guess the problem here is that he didn't really acknowledge how much he used her writing or that proper credit was not given.

I think writing is a grand profession,We all love to read and i think there is probably a writer in all of us,some just take it to the next level.

Or could it be the fact that he is just old and forgot to make the proper credits.I can't even remember what I had for dinner last night let alone what I wrote 6 months ago.

But I guess that is why there are editors.

Editors,They could probably produce some great works of there own.It would be interesting to see their roles reversed.

Speaking of a need for editors, this email subject line caught my son's attention. Looks like the Webb staff needs a little lesson in hyphenating:

Senator-elect Jim Webb's Swearing in Celebration


Which four-letter words do you suppose he's using?

Just catching up with the Kit and Boodle after spending yesterday babysitting and last night making gingerbread cookies. I am unfamiliar with both authors but feel that if the shoe was on the other foot, romance novelist 'lifted' passages from 'serious' novelist, the furious howls of plagerism would be deafening. To me it's a matter of 'principle,' something that the world in general seems to be losing adherence to more and more.

If someone else has already made this point, I apologize, as I only skimmed the comments. Stating this is a matter of principle to me rather than a way of covering my backside.

Looking forward to seeing the photos from the BPH last night.

RDP asked: "Cause I can see how, just as it is easy to regurgitate another tune without really realizing it (seeking the opinion here of the artist formerly known as martooni) it might be easy to accidentally re-write an especially memorable phrase or passage buried deep within one's psyche."

I think "accidental plagiarism" is an oxymoron. To plagiarize is to knowingly try to pass off another's work as your own. Nothing accidental about it (except may forgetting to cite the author of the original). In other words, it's like "accidentally" robbing a bank. Try telling that one to da judge.

As for derivative works (intentional or not), that's more what you're getting at (me thinks). In music, the line between "what's yours" and "what's mine" can blur very easily because music is basically mathematics. 2 + 2 always equals 4 -- no getting around that. A perfect example is Blues -- almost every blues tune (or derivative rock tune) is in a 1-4-5 chord progression. The music for "Hootchie Cootchie Man" is nearly identical to "I Just Want To Make Love To You", and then there's "Bad To The Bone" which lifts both the basic tune and the lyrical content/structure from "Hootchie".

I think this is the musical equivalent to the "seven basic plots" (or whatever the number is) that all fiction boils down to (I think Shakespeare covered them all).

Many of my own tunes resemble others' works in various ways, but I like to think we're all painting/describing/celebrating the same sunrise (so to speak).

That's a good one TBG. It reminds me of a teen beauty pageant many years ago whose literature made the following proud claim:

"there will be no swimsuit competitions"

martooni...

You remind of of when John Fogerty's former record label was suing him because his new songs sounded too much like his Creedence Clearwater Revival songs. The judge decided that all Fogerty's songs sound alike, so the label had no case.

I don't know why it took a judge to come up with that decision. Don't we all know that?

Enjoyed meeting the newbies, Maggie O'D and Raysmom, last night at the BPH--and of course seeing all the "oldtimers."

Be comforted to know that we solved all the world's problems, so it should be smooth sailing from now on. Of course, that's unless something new happens and then we're all on our own again.

Wasn't it Johnny Mathis who sang "Wonderful, Wonderful?" In any case, that song should have been playing at the BPH last night 'cuz it WAS wonderful seeing the usual suspects AND adding a couple more faces to the lineup.

Not to mention the lovely parting gifts!!!

More on that once I have the time to edit and upload the pics, tonight if at all possible!

:-)

Warning : very high canuck/hockey content

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/sports/hockey/13goalies.html

I don't know if we should be proud or worried about the fact that most of best and craziest goalies are Quebecers (or quebecois, as per the latest Parliement resolution). They forgot Rogatien Vachon; in his days in Montreal he was spending the intermission between periods compulsively rewrapping his hockey stick.

I've been lurking of late. Skimmed the boodle...and I always thought kerfluffle was in the lexicon as an officially sanctioned word by the White House Office of Communications. Our daughter's marching band has been selected to represent the State of South Carolina in the 4th of July parade in D.C. this summer. WOOOhOOOO. We may be visiting ...

whoa, talk about false memories: I met Annie for the first time in person last night, and told her we had met before at a previous BPH. This morning I realized that was one of two BPHs I had missed. This false memory brought to you by a mere photo. Like I said: WHOA!!!

And it was nice to meet three new boodlers to the BPH: maggie o'd; :Raysmom; LostInThought.

And of course Mudge missed Annie by like four minutes...

Jack congratulations to your daughter, my town has one of this countries better known marching bands and I know what a big deal it is to be selected for a major event. The band is a great source of pride in town as I am sure your daughters band is to both your family and your community.

Shrieking I am saddened by the article you posted just another long hockey tradition fading away, what's next the end of the post game beer?

Not sure why that line break is where it is in that second paragraph...or where that colon came from...should have previewed that...for sure...time for a walk I guess...SCC.The.Whole.Dang.Thing...

Amazing story about Billy Graham, I hope everyone's read it. Will blog on this later. Off to Smithsonian briefly to check out a new exhibit.

On McEwan, yeah, it's not a big deal. I think that's the general verdict. But given the epidemic of term-paper plagiarism (thanks in part to "paper mills" on the Internet) I think our leading lights ought to be careful when they send out the message that this is the normal way of creating literature and that there's no such thing as originality. At the least run it through the typewriter one more time and make it fully your own story.

Sorry I missed the BPH, the