[The earlier version of this came out rather scrambled.]
John Ryskamp wrote:
> That sounds like a flippant remark, but it points to something important
It was both flippant _and_ quite serious. In fact it reflects the way in
which I always handled the "problem" of plagiarism. If a student put
his/her name to a text, it was hers. And he had to defend it as
his/hers. I rather suspect that that will be the general tendency of
literate/cyber culture in the future -- that is there will be
increasingly less emphasis on "originality" and increasingly greater
emphasis on how well what one wants to say in a given context is said.
If someone has made the point one wants to make (in a given context) as
well as it can be made, the most sensible thing is simply to repeat it.
(And give a citation only if citing an earlier user of the phrase adds
to its clarity. For example, we now use individual words all the time
without citation, but I would not use the words "holism" or "holistic"
without citing an earlier use.) Such a practice is of course impossible
now, but probably it describes the process that led up to the Iliad &
Try sometime the experiment of starting simply to type out onscreen some
text, but molding it as you go along to fit an immediate purpose and
your own views. Compare and contrast the result with the same text with
all the proper quotation marks and citations put it. Compare and
contrast it then both with the original from which you "copied," and
your own attempt to work out your point. This of course would have been
impossible with handwriting or typewriter, but with computer type it is
almost as easy as with oral text.