Plagiarism

Lethem views plagiarism as “simply placing objects in an unexpected context [to] reinvigorate their mysterious qualities” (Lethem 215).

Lethem considers plagiarism to be stealing someone else’s idea and slightly tweaking it. The definition of plagiarism in the Rutgers policy states that plagiarism is taking someone else’s ideas without giving them credit. Lethem argues that ideas are free, anyone can have them, while the policy states that credit must first be given where it is due, then it can become a free for all. It is interesting to see such a distinction between the school and Lethem. Plagiarism, to me, has always seemed to have a concrete definition. It is wrong to plagiarize, yet after reading Lethem’s essay, “The Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism”, I noticed how nothing is actually concrete in definition. Everything can be argued as long as it is placed in the right context. In a general sense, yes stealing someone else’s work is bad. In a broader sense, if you take someone else’s work, and reinvigorate it or create something new from it, taking that idea was not bad. The whole purpose for copyright laws and avoiding stealing the ideas of others was created to keep the integrity of the first inventor, while allowing others to build off of their ideas. Yes, stealing ideas is wrong, but not if you give credit where it is due and do something productive with the ‘plagiarized’ ideas. Lethem still believes it is wrong to appropriate the works of others, but he has a much looser sense of what actually plagiarizing is. By the text definition, using “Romeo and Juliet” to make West Side Story, is plagiarism. By Lethem’s definition, it is simply making use of the ‘public commons’.