"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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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...