Danielle Boyington November 17, 201 Prof.

Collins Ludlow First Year Composition Gladwell on Plagiarism In 2006, New Yorker writer and well known author, Malcom Gladwell, published the article Viswanathan-Gate on the validity and defining components behind true, versus upin-the-air, unjudged plagiarism. To put it plainly and shortly, Kaavya Viswanathan was accused of plagiarizing and using several passages from Megan McCaffertys teeny-bopper novels. The entire ordeal blew up in Viswanathans face and erupted with threatened action within legality and several accounts of angry and insulted writers of all sorts. Evidently, within the article, we find that Gladwell is not one of the bloggers dismayed by Viswanathans clear cut plagiarism, but instead, decides that it is in fact a necessity in writing fiction for young adults. I highly disagree. Ideas and words are meant to be recycled and played with (similarly to your recycling visual artist who makes use of your everyday trash) and not copy and pasted. After displaying the reasoning behind his writing the article, the Viswanathan/McCafferty situation at hand, Gladwell goes directly into his intent with the question, Can someone tell me why [Viswanathan gets pummeled by a hundred angry columnists, pundits and bloggers.]? And although the answer may seem simple (she plagiarized another author!), he believes the contrary. He states in his essay that in the genre of realistic fiction, are novels based on novels based on novels, which stands to be true. Ideas and plots are generally recycled- within many forms of writing, not just realistic fiction. But what he does not address is the fact that McCaffertys ideas arent recycled. They are picked up, tweaked the slightest bit, and display them in her novel. A decent author can take someones ideas or plots and tweak them in ways so that they are untraceable to the average reader- a great author has no idea where the idea originated from, just that it dwelled in the crevices of their mind waiting to be used.

From there I stand: if she were truly an author of credibility, why would she back down against legal action and apologize for wrong doing especially if she was guilty of no crime as Gladwell states. In his article, McCafferty was only threatening legal action which is to assume she has something to threaten Viswanathan with in the first place. It should be assumed that because Viswanathan was a sophomore at Harvard at the time, that she was in fact a smart cookie. One wouldnt find it hard to believe that she would make sure that legal action could actually be pursued. In order to take plagiarism to court, plagiarism must be defined by Stanford University as: "use, without giving reasonable and appropriate credit to or acknowledging the author or source, of another person's original work, whether such work is made up of code, formulas, ideas, language, research, strategies, writing or other form." Having read both passages and having the understanding that Viswanathan did not city McCafferty for her work, it only suffices to say that she did, in fact, plagiarize McCaffertys work. If Viswanathan did not plagiarize, one would believe she would have stood firm with her writing, rather than backed down to a threat for legality. Its clearly obvious that Viswanathan copied passages straight from McCaffertys novels and adjusted them a bit so as to make it her own story. She simply did not do enough. To even begin to believe that there is something justifiable in translating texts to sound as though they are your own is something that is only applicable in the world of Law. In the world of art, which I believe is a place in which authors have rightfully earned their place- this simply would not do. In fact, Viswanathans actions show no more sustenance to me than a simple man with a simple mind trying to make simple money. Regardless, as I will show you, she plagiarized McCaffertys work and was mindful in apologizing for it. Here is Viswanathans more recently written passage, followed by McCaffertys: Priscilla was my age and lived two blocks away. For the first fifteen years of my life, those were the only qualifications I needed in a best friend. We had first bonded over our mutual fascination with the abacus in a playgroup for gifted kids. But that was before freshman year, when Priscillas glasses came off, and the first in a long string of boyfriends got on.

Bridget is my age and lives across the street. For the first twelve years of my life, these qualifications were all I needed in a best friend. But that was before Bridgets braces came off and her boyfriend Burke got on, before Hope and I met in our seventh-grade honors classes. Gladwell says that pointing out this case of plagiarism is the equivalent of crying "copy" in a crowded Kinkos. If that is not put clear enough, his intent is to say that most authors in the genre of fiction are copying off eachother. I dont know what books he has read lately, but plots it seems are still very creative and thoughtful. In the moment I am incapable of thinking of two plots similar to eachother enough to cry for non-originality. I think his statement is very generalized and that it belongs to a man of poor taste and ignorance towards the vastness of the fiction drama. Viswanathan clearly and very messily plagiarized McCaffertys work. Although no one can be exactly sure as to whether or not it was for money, or she is really shortsighted. Eitherway, I find it outrageous that an author of some sorts would even begin to accept plagiarism as a given, especially in this case where it is clear cut. Gladwell is plain wrong in his argument, and if he truly feels that plagiarism should be not only accepted, but expected, he should be cast out from the community of literature, the community of artists.