While surfing through editorials this morning I came upon one that was very effective at getting me riled up. I had previously heard the story of Kaavya Viswanathan, a Harvard student, "genius," and author of the young adult novel "How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life," and how she allegedly plagiarized passages from the works of another young adult author. I had heard that numerous passages were allegedly lifted from two other novels by the same author, Megan McCafferty, and that Ms. Viswanathan had issued contradictory statements regarding her inspiration from the novel, which began as "nothing" external and changed to McCafferty's works "speaking to her."
What I assumed, upon reading these stories, was that she would fail some classes at Harvard (at least those classes in which she did coursework relevant to her novel, assuming there were any), enter academic disgrace, have her money taken back, etc... but this editorial proposes that this is not at all what will happen. Rather, it suggests, she will keep her money and a movie deal based on the book, and will use the controversial publicity to promote both. The editorial author continues "But this is just another example of how people these days are only concerned about looking good, instead of being good."
Right on. These days, the appearance is the thing, and rarely do people inspect closely enough to determine whether or not appearance is reality. Perhaps one day our only protection against plagiarism will be the honor and good will of others. And that doesn't leave me sitting very comfortably.
Share this post on:
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
No votes yet
The issue raises the question of what plagiarism is . No body seems to have alleged that the theme , plot or story has been stolen by Kaavya. The allegation seems to rest on one thing entirely. Kaavya has used the same words or passages used by another autor,( Megan Mc Cafferty) to describe or expalain certain situations in her novel . It is not the case that Kaavya has stolen the plot or story of the other author. If emplying the words or passages used by somebody earlier with reference to certain situation, to describe or speak about a similar situation by somebody else subsequently , then no author will be free from the blame of plagiarism.Every word and every phrase has been employed by somebody or other in hie /her writing at some time or other and no body can employ the same words or phases to describe any situation later if they come accross it . If some body has said earlier that somebody loved somebody else , then , no one else shall say that some body loved somebody else , subsequently. he or she might employ some new phrases or words to describe somebody loving some body else. lest it becomes plagiarism.That should be funny. Every word in the dictionery has already been used by everybody else. So nobody shall ever use any word already used by anybody else. This is what, it seems that people seem to argue now.
If a theme or plot has been been stolen , it should be plagiarism. It might not be appropriate to call it plagiarism if somebody uses the same passages used by somebody else earlier , to describe similar situations in the later's story.
If any appraisal has been made soley/ mainly on the passages alleged to have been stolen, then Kaavay might not deserve to be called a genius.
Other wise the dust and din seem to have been raised soley on pure prejudice against an young author and deserve to be silenced.
It is not the case that Kaavya has stolen the plot or story of the other author. If emplying the words or passages used by somebody earlier with reference to certain situation, to describe or speak about a similar situation by somebody else subsequently , then no author will be free from the blame of plagiarism.Every word and every phrase has been employed by somebody or other in hie /her writing at some time or other and no body can employ the same words or phases to describe any situation later if they come accross it . If some body has said earlier that somebody loved somebody else , then , no one else shall say that some body loved somebody else , subsequently. he or she might employ some new phrases or words to describe somebody loving some body else. lest it becomes plagiarism.
Is that plagiarism? Oh, when I was writing, I genuinely believed each word was my own.
With money and fame involved, I'd get more curious. If only Kaavya can produce "the same or better" writings... I'll wait and see.
Although I have not read any of the writing in question, the continued use of the word "passages" in news media implies that Kaavya copied far more than just words and phrases which could be considered common sayings or cliches. To me, the word "passage" implies one or more paragraphs.
Regardless, it can not be disputed that writing is an art, and the ability of an author to string together words to form sentences should be unique to the individual. It makes sense that similar people talking about similar subjects might have some syntactical similarities at times, but it does not make sense that it is natural or right for one author to use exactly the same language a previous author used without granting that author credit, because there is very little way that could happen without intentionally copying the text.
Unless, of course, the author claims to have a photographic memory and to have copied the text by accident. I'm not sure I buy that, though. Not saying it's impossible. I'm a musician and I've listened to songs on the radio that I suddenly realize share a brief melodic section with something I've written.
First of all let me reiterate that Kaavya, her agent and publisher are guilty and there seems to be no doubt about it! Here I present what has appeared on "Times of India" in an article written by Nina Martyris:
This is about Megan creature:
"The whole disappointing aspect to this whole dismal affair is that quality of inspiration is so strained. Not one of those lines from McCafferty's books which have got her (Kaavya) into so much trouble are beautiful enough or powerful enough to flash upon the inner eye in vacant and in pensive mood."
My comments: This Megan person is uneducated, stupid and gross. She was given a chance on the basis of her skin colour and that the publishing industry in US is dominated by Scots/Irish and Anglo Saxons. Her books were written for people with IQ's less than that of dogs and cats. Those supporting her are equally unsubstantial, insipid caricatures, low-skilled couch potatoes and living on government dole and are just one step away from a mental asylum or a drug rehab center.
I don't understand your opinion, much less your argument. Could you please rephrase it and specify exactly who you are detracting? I'm curious.
I can't really say that she plagerized the work. First, I never read her book. Maybe she copied the ideas of the other author's work. If she copied the ideas but wrote in her own words, it doesnt mean that she plagerized.
Of course it means she plagiarised if "she copied the ideas but wrote in her own words." Duh - that's called paraphrasing or summarizing, and if it's done incorrectly it's considered plagiarism. People have been kicked out of school and lost jobs because of it. Let me put it this way, it's intellectual property. If I took something of yours, let's say an I Pod, and put a sticker on it, is the Pod mine or yours? It's still yours. The ideas are still the original author's. Viswanathan is a plagiarist. Look at any guide to avoiding plagiarising and see for yourself. And don't tell me the girl got into Harvard without knowing the rules about plagiarism.
Man, back in ancient Greece and Rome, poets would lift story ideas and passages from each other all the time. Hip-hop (and its predecessors, dub and dancehall) started when people began sampling beats from R&B and Funk songs (dancehall more often used ska). Musical composers of old would take little melody licks from other composers and put it into their works. Some of the greatest works of literature and music were products of what society today calls 'plagiarism.'
--Mike
Back in ancient Greece...
and back in the Renaissance.
Everyone talks about the brilliancy of Shakespeare, but if you study Shakespeare in depth, you also study the "sources" of his plays...which are other plays by other authors. He of course also borrows philosophy from philosophers.
But that was then, this is now. Now is the era of the individual and the individual owns everything, down to the last square inch of land or idea in his or her head. The ego likes to own. "That's mine!" it says. That's my idea, my words!!!
Having said that, Ms. Harvard knew better. This is 2006, not 1601.
Angela Eward-Mangione
Back in the 70's (hip-hop). Dub was even earlier than that.
--Mike
home mortgage
home equity line of credit