A Question of Plagiarism

By Dixon Kinqade

Plagiarist Extraordinaire

"Good artists copy. Great artists steal." - Picasso

"Good writers borrow. Great writers steal." - T.S. Eliot

Ok, those quotes are frequently devoid of context. They don't mean what they seem on the surface and should not be interpreted as such on face value. However, if Hollywood can "remake", "reboot", or "re-imagine" a film, why shouldn't authors do likewise with stories? 

It is my firm belief that every so-called "creative" work of fiction produced since Pax Romana is plagiarism. Following the Greco-Roman plays, not a single original work of fiction has been created. Ok, so perhaps I exaggerate, but only a little.

It is now the year 2009. Do you honestly believe there is some story that has not already been told? If you do, then perhaps you're the victim of a poor education. The sad fact remains. It's all been done before. Regardless of how creative you may perceive yourself to be, I contend that it's rare for anyone to have a single original thought.

Seriously, after nearly 4000 years of recorded history and the billions upon billions of people who have lived, or are living, what human experience, thought, or emotion has not already been had or expressed? Nearly all that you know, you have learned from someone or something outside yourself. Both life and experience are finite. A disturbing thought, isn't?

So, if it's all been done, what's left for us to do? If it's not possible to create something new, then improve what's already been done. Hell, Hollywood has been doing exactly that since the invention of moving pictures.

Writers have been doing it since Shakespeare. Take someone else's work and fix whatever's wrong with it, put a spin on it, present it from another viewpoint, combine two sources of material into a unified whole, slap your name on it, and cash in. In terms of story writing and fiction, that is the so-called creative process. 

The truth is, all fiction writers draw from the things to which they have been exposed. Movies they've seen, books they've read, facts they've learned, stories they've heard, and all these things are other people's work. Even what is considered to be "personal experience" is an illusion created by ego. What experience could you possibly have that no one in history has ever had before?

Every story of fiction is nothing more than a compilation of source materials. The English language, though comparably expressive and versatile, is finite. English vocabulary is finite. Correct grammatical structure is even more finite. There are only so many words and so many ways to express any given thing. Conventional writing standards are more limiting still and publishing standards are supremely restrictive.

In response, I say cut the crap, drop the pretense, and be honest. Openly and honestly accept the facts. You are a plagiarist. I am a plagiarist. Everyone is a plagiarist. The only difference is that some people are better at disguising it. But why bother? It's silly.

Understand, I am not advocating abuse of copyright. That's a different matter entirely. I simply suggest dropping any pseudo-intellectual pretense. 

I say flip the bird to the liter-Nazi, I mean literati.  Occasionally, whatever you wish to say has already been said, and most likely, far more eloquently and poetically than you or I possibly can. That being the case, where's the harm in borrowing the prose of another? 

It's illogical to use inferior prose when superior prose is available. If you can't see that, there is no use in trying to reason with you. We must simply agree to disagree.

What's more, my works are not in economic competition with any material I have borrowed. Any reference material I've used is not an economically viable product that is competing in the open market with my books. Most materials are not even available for purchase in printed form. Such materials are defunct and/or in the public domain.

Therefore, I am free to legally and legitimately create derivative works from such materials. My silly little stories harm no one. My books and stories do not hinder the creators of the original materials from generating profit or income from those original works! They deprive no one of financial gain, and let's face it, that's what it all boils down to. It's always about money.

Having said my piece on the matter, let me proudly state I am a plagiarist, in fact, the greatest since Shakespeare. All my works are shining examples of plagiarism. I'm not so much an author as simply the one who compiles the works of others. Nonetheless, it is my name, or at least my nom de plume, that is accredited.

The question now becomes, does a pre-emptive admission of guilt excuse the act? Having declared my work as unoriginal, technically, I have not claimed it as my own. So it's not really plagiarism. Is it?