"Intertextuality", my arse

[donnaimmaculata]

Have any of you heard of the current plagiarism scandal in Germany? (trobadora has, I assume?) Seeing as a blogger is involved, I thought it is relevant to our interests:

So, there's this edgy bestseller by the latest literary fräuleinwunder, Helene Hegemann, who's 17 and has written a novel about sex, drugs and Berlin's techno clubs. The novel was celebrated by everyone and their mother, until it came to light that the author had copied entire passages as well as very distinctive neologisms ("Vaselintitten", "Technoplastizität") verbatim from a blogger, who's been publishing excerpts from his novel on his blog: http://airen.wordpress.com/

So far, so appalling. The girl is 17, was 16 when she wrote "her" novel, so perhaps - very perhaps - one might accept her apology and trust that she wasn't aware what she was doing. Assuming she were a very thick 17-year-old.

But: Now that all this came to light, not only doesn't she show any remorse but explains it all with "intertextuality" instead - others, too, justify this blatant act of plagiarism by handwaving it as "intertextuality". Because, you see, we should stop being so naive and we should abandon our old-fashioned ideas of authors creating "original" and "unique" material. Everyone, even the greatest in literature, have been using other people's ideas when writing their novels or poems. What is Thomas Mann's "Zauberberg" if not a copy of Goethe's "Faust"? And even before literature had become a widely spread form of art, back in the days when oral tradition was the established mode of distributing stories - everything was in the public domain anyway, and nobody got upset that their name wasn't attached to the story they had created. (Yes, this is an actual argument I've heard in this debate. The mind, it boggles.) So the author should suck it up already.

I feel I should read up more on the debate, because I misremember the definition of "intertextuality" that has been used to justify this plagiarism, but I just don't have the strength of mind necessary to wade though that crap.

Die Süddeutsche Zeitung has a short interview with a blogger who noticed the striking resemblance between the rip-off and the original. Excerpts:

"It's not only individual words, but also slightly re-phrased sentences and passages, as I realised when comparing the two."

"The novel ends with a letter written to the protagonist by his dead mother. Here, Helene Hegemann has obviously used the lyrics of Fuck You by the band Archive, has perhaps changed one or two words before using it, but without indicating the quote."

Comments

[trobadora]

Yep, seen it. Trying not to think about it too much because it breaks my brain how incredibly many people can't seem to grasp the basic difference between intertextuality, remix and just plain plagiarism. *seethes*

This kind of thing drives me insane enough when it happens in fandom. But this? There's not enough headdesk in the world.

(Yes, this is an actual argument I've heard in this debate. The mind, it boggles.)

You don't want to know what my blood pressure did when I ran across that. OMFG HOW STUPID CAN YOU BE.

The publishers of the original novel have it right. Not that anyone seems to be listening to them.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

I know! I know! I wish I could immerse myself more deeply into the debate, because it is interesting (for a certain value of "interesting"), but I can't. I'm too young to die of apoplexy.

This whole debacle made me think of fandom, too, and of how enraged people get at the slightest breach of copyright - and as annoying as that is sometimes (-> wank), it is also an important means of self-governance and it serves as a learning process, too.

I can sort of understand the publisher if they defend their product. That's what they do. And if they didn't pick up on the plagiarism in time, they resort to damage control. But third parties? How can journalists and other "experts" seriously claim there's nothing wrong with what she did?

We should buy out all copies of Strobo and make it an even bigger bestseller than that other book (that shall not be named).

[trobadora]

Oh, yeah, the publisher and the author aren't very shocking in this. They're just resorting to ye olde "every stupid excuse is better than admitting a wrong" strategy. But everyone else? HOW CAN YOU BE SO DAFT OMG.

She did not participate in a shared tradition; she did not create intertextuality (which, after all, depends on establishing a reference between texts, not in deliberately hiding the fact that there are other texts involved). She appropriated someone else's work in order to benefit from it.

I want to know where these so-called experts bought their brains. They should return them; they're clearly defective.

I'm too young to die of apoplexy.

Yes, THIS. *tries not to explode*

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

TBH, I'm not entirely sure whether she realises how wrong it was. She doesn't seem very bright, to put it mildly. (I'm sure she knows it was wrong; the question is to what extent.) And instead of somebody explaining the secret of intertextual competence to her (in simple terms), she receives positive reinforcement. It's unbelievable.

We should watch our blood pressure. A slice of cake and a drink of wine would come in handy at this point.

[trobadora]

And instead of somebody explaining the secret of intertextual competence to her (in simple terms), she receives positive reinforcement. It's unbelievable.

And unbelievably damaging.

No cake, unfortunately, but I'll get some champagne myself. Cheers!

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

I've just had half a dozen Mini-Windis. It cheered me up considerably.

[trobadora]

ENVY.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

Well, you've got champagne!

[pauraque]

back in the days when oral tradition was the established mode of distributing stories - everything was in the public domain anyway

This is such a silly and disingenuous argument. Judging actions here and now by the standards of the culture of another time makes no sense.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

Especially since he's comparing the oral tradition of stories with copy-and-pasting passages from someone else's book.

[trobadora]

Disingenuous is a bit of a mild word for appropriating someone else's work and then excusing it by resorting to this "shared oral storytelling" argument.

[froda-baggins.livejournal.com]

Oh my god the stupid. It burns.

"intertextuality" =/= "stealing someone's words".

I'm a big fan of the ways in which we can use the internets to exchange ideas, build and create both original and fan-based works, remix stuff, do cooperative projects and all of that, but there is a difference between that and plagiarism. Ugh.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

I burns, it really does.

I think referencing other artist's ideas is one of the great joys of writing, and there are many perfectly legitimate ways to do that: pastiches, parodies, hommages - they all play with existing texts. Copy-and-paste is a function in MS Word!

[hippediva.livejournal.com]

Methinks this whole sorry situation proves two things.

Fangirls of 17 are stupid and dishonest everywhere. Even when threatened with legal action.

Perhaps the interweebz is NOT the place to put one's original drafts of unpublished work, n'est-ce pas?

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure she's been threatened with legal action (yet), because the publisher and third parties (journalists etc.) pretend to think there was nothing wrong with what she did. We'll see how it goes.

Sadly, you're right. Though I'm not quite sure about the timeline in this case: his book was published last summer, it's possible that he's been publishing excerpts when the process was already underway. He was published by a small independent publishing house, she by a large publishing corporation.

I think the situation proves a third thing: it's not the quality of the text that makes a bestseller, but the PR budget of the publishing house.

[hippediva.livejournal.com]

*sigh* Amen. Part of the big problem with the entire publishing industry.

Too many trees die to put crap on airport newstand shelves. And that 'crap' is, more often than not, derivative to the point of plaigarism. The problem has become more and more acute as technology has grown. Remember all the sampling copyright issues in the 90's?

There is only ONE way to protect one's work that I know of and that is to print it out, send it to oneself certified, registered mail and DO NOT OPEN IT. While that will hold a copyright in the US, it would be wise, at that point to go ahead and APPLY for it legally. Right out of the gate. Don't wait for a publisher. Too many writers don't realise that they are perfectly capable of copyrighting their work and it doesn't have to cost a lot or require lawyers. But that's the US. I don't know how it works in other countries.

Personally, I think the only way the little beyotch is gonna comprehend it, is if the courts say, "Oh, well, you copied this and it was ok....so author Y over here, she's copied 4 chapters but that's ok with you, right? She's getting a million in advance btw. " Snerk. I'll bet the brat gets wise pretty quick then. LOL!

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

I've no idea how copyright laws work in Germany, tbh. I imagine the author didn't dream that anyone could copy passages from his book and sell them as theirs. In financial terms, he probably benefits from the publicity, because the masses would not have heard of him if not for the plagiarism scandal.

[hippediva.livejournal.com]

*G* That goes without saying! PT Barnum was SO right! There is no such thing as bad PR! LOL!

[lavvyan.livejournal.com]

There's a very special kind of entitlement underlying that girl's arguments that makes me want to slap some sense into her.

"I read it, so it's mine."

No, child. No, it's not.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

It's a very difficult argument to argue against, because earth logic obviously doesn't work.

[fourth_rose]

Yes, I read about that, and it was one of these things where one can either go *headdesk* or *LOL*, and in this case, I admitted that I lol'd.

Then again, after years of trying (often unsuccessfully) to make students understand that copy-paste is not the way to go, I may have grown a thick skin in that regard...

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

I wish I could lol! But I'm not there yet.

There is something inherently annoying about publishers pushing some 17-year-old into the limelight every few years, claiming that the child's written the BEST BOOK EVER, OMG! They're like stage moms, in a way. And now it turns out that the child's copied someone else's book - and the media try to justify it. That's just sad.

Speaking as a person who writes for a living: I'm not categorically against copy-and-paste. But it's a bit like using a cheat slip at school: you've got to be intelligent enough not to get caught!