A I S E H M A N . O R G

i've spoken out as 'Half Blind' in Rocky's Bru. my position was against the P charge. or, rather, my point was that it's not as simplistic as it seems. i'm OPEN to the conclusion that it's indeed P, but first, we need to focus our attention on this particular angle:

whether the SAME standard should apply to CREATIVE writings.

For academic research, I fully agree that originality is a must and credit must be given for others' scholarly efforts. Scholars guard the fruits of their efforts jealously.

But the ethos/culture seems to be quite different in the literary/creative writing world. Writers CRAVE influence, glad to see their styles adopted and imitated. (I'm not a 'literary' or 'cultured' person, so I stand to be corrected here...) If this impression is true, then their attitude towards 'plagiarism' or 'copying' would be diametrically OPPOSITE.

That piece of writing by BP is NOT a 'journalistic' piece of reporting, it's a commentary. If you steal someone else's NEWS REPORTING without attributing the source, that's wrong. But commentary? Literary style? Just because it was published in a newspapers doesn't mean we should apply the same standard...

All that I'm asking for is a more nuanced, considered attitude when we apply the P word. In both Screenshot's and Rocky's posts about this allegation, they have NOT shown that they have considered this distinction from this angle. Now, Aisehman also echoes their P charge without an indepth look at the matter.

That's what I'm against.

If they show that after considering the P standard applicable to literary, creative writing, BP is still a thief, so be it. I'm not going to weep for BP. I just don't want Malaysian readers to be misled, and these bloggers have a social responsibility to educate the Malaysian public BEFORE they apply that term.

And if my argument (that a different, more relaxed standard is applicable for creative writing) is CORRECT, then these bloggers would have been guilty of making a lot of stupid noise which only shows how ignorant they are, turning themselves - and their parroting commentators - into laughing stock.

I hope they are right, and I'm wrong. Otherwise, a lot of writers in future would be affected - they would have to give a long list of 'credits' to all great literary masters of the past, because we ALL have been influenced. Worse, it would dampen creativity.

For this issue, I've started my own page (when Rocky's Bru initially censored me). My extended arguments are there, if you care to consider:

http://juslo.blogspot.com/2006/11/creative-copying-or-in-defense-of.html)

p.s. just because BP didn't successfully turn the imitation into shakespeare-like quality only means he's BAD, but that's a far cry from calling him a THIEF. we (yes, i also don't like spin-doctors) might not like him, but let's be fair.

Juslo:

I see your point.

I actually think that copying or imitating style is OK.

But lifting the sections I mentioned nearly word for word?

I think Pereira would and should have been on safer ground if he had in one way or another indicated that his piece was inspired by Albom's.

At the very least, even without attribution, if Pereira had not copied the (in my opinion) plagiarised parts so closely, or if he had written them in another way, he would have been safe.

Aisehman,

"But lifting the sections I mentioned nearly word for word?"

There's a concept of 'fair use'. You use bits and pieces (but not all or substantial) of another's work, and mould your own work based on it. That's acceptable, even in american copyright LAW. So, it's acceptable to borrow bits and pieces.

- I don't know about Malaysian LAW;
- I don't know if 'fair use' should be applied in the context of 'borrowing' styles, but my point is exactly that we need to take a more WIDE-RANGING, IN-DEPTH look at the matter. It's not that simple - and it shouldn't be.

Attributing source - agree that it would have been BETTER if he did, but the question now is whether it's WRONG if he didn't. In other words, whether it SHOULD BE/IS a RULE that,

- in CREATIVE WRITINGS (not academic, factual), and
- when borrowing LITERARY STYLES, STRUCTURES and EXPRESSIONS,

attribution MUST (instead of 'should') be made.

I DON'T have an answer to that myself - I think it's not that well-defined, (maybe because people don't bother about literary borrowings/'plagiarism' that much because it's not copyright infringement, people (especially lawyers) can't make much money on it.)

Which means to a large extent, it has to be a POLICY question - what would be the PRACTICAL EFFECT if we make this a rule.

My worry is, it would make creative writings a burdensome task, just like academic writings - where people have to follow a thick 'handbook' to pepper their writings with FOOTNOTES attributing their 'inspirations' and 'influences'.

Again, ALL writers have been influenced by literary masters (and minnows too!!) of the past, so it's almost impossible to come up with totally 'original' writings, and therefore ALL writings would have to be 'attributed'.

That would be suffocating.

True, copying/imitating/less than original is NO GOOD, but we have to be PROPORTIONATE in our disapproval. Many literary critics earn their livings by analysing whether certain literary styles/expressions have been borrowed or applied WELL/CREATIVELY. If not, (like BP's piece,) just condemn it as UNORIGINAL, POOR IMITATION, CHEAP.

But PLAGIARISM?? Heads have to roll?? That's a bit too strong, and scary to me...

Copy means copy la..what hell somemore wanna cover up. He took those literally word for word in a different context. Enough said. That's what all those other so -called spinning the spin of the spin doctors do..they f*** ** everytime when they think someone isn't looking.

You can argue until the cows come home. The fact of the matter is brendan wanted to pass the article as his own (and indeed he would have succeded if someone had not noticed).

Switching players, locations, and bits and pieces here and there doesn't make it yours. The inspiration, the ideas that flowed originally, those carefully chosen words...all these that finally formed the very soul of the article came from the original writer - which must be with considerable effort, flair and creativity.

It is plagiarism plain and simple. We don't need to complicate simple matters just to form an argument.

But the real tragedy is NST didn't have the guts to admit that one of them had committed the writers' sin.

If I may just jam your page with another point?

One interesting question is, what if BP has copied the styles of MANY writers, not just Mitch's? So far, Jeff Ooi & Co. have only managed to dig out that BP has copied MA's style, but that doesn't mean BP didn't copy others'. There might be more.

Now, if BP copied others', then, based on 'The Attribution RULE', BP would have to attribute to those others AS WELL. Now, what if he has copied not 10, but 50? 100?? Would he have to preface his commentary with a note to say his piece is ala these 50/100 authors? Wouldn't that make literary, creative writings a very burdensome task?

And if it becomes a RULE, it would mean that any failure to attribute would be WRONG. Which means, before ANYBODY can publish ANY writing, s/he would have to make sure she has:

1, read ALL WRITINGS EVER written by writers before her, and
2, made the CORRECT attribution with SPECIFIC references to SPECIFIC expressions used by a particular writer before this.

So, while it only took 2 hours to write her piece, she would have to spend at least 2 days/weeks (MONTHS, for new/young writers??!!) in the library to dig out all the books which has ever inspired her before, and to find the exact PAGE, among the 200 page novel, where a particular expression has been used before.

Would she have to also research into whether a particular style used by author X was actually a modification author Y's previous style, or a mixture or cross-fertilisation of author Y's, Z's and ABC's styles??? How about looking into other creative mediums as well, such as screenplays for films, theatres, radio plays, and even paintings??

Why NOT?? (because 'stealing' comes in many forms and sources, right??) and WHERE does it STOP???????

Because when it's a RULE, non-compliance with the RULE makes it a WRONG. So, the author MUST be COMPREHENSIVE.

And then, her writing would read something like this:

----------------------------

"ONCE UPON A TIME, [ala Aesop, Grimm's Brothers and Andersen, page 1 of The Lion and the Fox (123 AD), page 1 of Snow White (1879), page 1 of The Mermaid (1898), respectively; later modified by Stephen King in page 2 of The CLowns (1996), JK Rowling in page 2 of Harry Porter - The Sorceror's Stone (1999)...] WHEN THE STARS WERE ALIGNED [ala Copernicus, page 4, Mystery of the Universe (1456); Gallileo, page 41, ALignment of Stars (1502); Lim Tsu Xiang, page 8, Fei Hua Lien Pien or Useless Speech (678 AD, Tang Dynasty), page 69, Ibn Khaldun, Al-what-awar al-don-no al-justu Mach (1001 AD)], I FELL IN LOVE WITH THIS LADY (OMG!!!!! ala Shakespeare, in Act 1 scene 4 verse 19 of Love's Labour Lost (1600); Act 2 scene 3 verse 9, Romeo and Juliet (1601); Act 2 scene 3 verse 9, Mid-Summer Night's Dream (1601); Act 2 scene 3 verse 9, Romeo and Juliet (1601); Act 1 scene 1 verse 91, Twelfth Night (1602); Jane Austen, page 78, Pride and Prejudice (1789); page 123, Emma (1790), page 145, Sense and Sensibility (1791); Charles Dickens!!!

(what?!?! only charles dickens?! there are, like, 150 years more of attributions to go!!! Man, I think I better give up writing love stories then, since it's such a popular genre, so many zillions of authors have written on it...

hang on, but then that's not much difference for the suspense genre either... maybe horror? detective? well, not zillions, but at least a million also... sigh...

i know what i should do already - GIVE UP CREATIVE WRITING and become a full time academic!! at least, you have LESS attributions to make for academic research papers!!!!!

- And that's only for THREE sentences...

------------------------------

If that was a RULE, soon, all creative writings would look like a thick PhD Dissertation (or worse!! because there has been SO MANY authors in recorded history, around the world!!), and 90% of the pages are taken up for 'attributions' and 'footnotes'.

I'm exaggerating, I know. But the point is, sometimes there are good reasons why certain ideas should not become 'rule', and this is a good example.

To me, it's a question of PRATICALITY, ultimately. So, it's enough to just criticise him of not being original enough. If heads have to roll and punishments meted out, IMHO, you can say goodbye to literature/creative writings as we know it...

Just my humble opinion...

This is my personal opinion as an ordinary person.

If I were Mitch Albom, I would NOT allow BP to copycat my style and write something and make people believe that it is his own creation. I would call that stealing my ideas and deceiving the public. If I were Mitch Albom, I would sue NST and BP as a lesson to others.

Creative writing??? It sounds very much like creative accounting. It gives you the impression that it is done to cheat and deceive.

I blame people like BP to reduce creative writing to that of creative accounting.

Now that creative writing has earned a bad name, I told my company not to hire any trainers to train the staff in creative writing.

The interesting question is - would any of the blog sites create such a hoohah if the act was perpetrated by some other writer/journalist and if the paper was The Sun.

Of course having said that, BP is caught blatantly plagiarising - no mistake about that.

Dear Juslo,

First of all, in the mildest of all terms, we can say that Mitch Albom's article was a source of inspiration for Brendan Pereira's.

Unfortunately, there is absolutely no excuse for the obvious lack of creativity and integrity in the NST piece. We can forgo the content as that was never the issue in the first place. Nobody is accusing Brendan Pereira for writing something he didn't (sic). Going by the history of ghost writers in the press, many take it at face value when it comes to authorship credit.

The damning issue is why Brendan Pereira lifted the writing structure of another contemporary journalist and mimicked passages, thinking that he can get away with it? Was it an oversight or was it a set-up? Either way, it seems to be the last nail on the coffin.

Conveniently, this completes the departure of two hired scribes highlighted by Mahathir. Brendan Pereira wasn't disciplined for the obvious lapse in journalistic integrity, and he also did not apologize. Perhaps he already knew what the charade is all about and was offerred a quiet way out to suit a political decision. Compare this with what Albom himself went through in 2005, the difference couldn't be any clearer. Mitch Albom described an event that he presumed will happen but did not when it went into press. Ironically, Kalimullah described an event that he believed to have happened but its veracity was widely disputed.

Both Brendan and Kalimullah are symptoms of a larger disease in our press. They simply don't feel accountable to their readers. Many other journalists in Malaysia are the same. So many are so used to serving the political elite that ideals for truth and justice have no outlets, personal convictions otherwise. Media practitioners without clear conscience and principles are mere hired guns, prostitutes in another name, who believe in whatever they want to believe and help further agendas.

If Bob Woodward cannot escape being labelled as a poodle to the Bush administration due to his recent proximity, then we all must learn to take everything with a huge pinch of salt.

In this instance, should Brendan Pereira be punished with a dismissal - assuming if that is the straight forward cause-and-effect we are looking at? If we understand the concept of proportionality, he owes NST readers an apology, and the rest is all damage to his creative credibility.

It is just that many Malaysians have no sense of what is an outrage and what makes a genuine offence in the eyes of the law / or moral law.

I wish Brendan Pereira all the best with his future endeavors. In my book, there is more to this episode than it seems, if he can come clean. Him leaving the NST, however, was probably already in the plot before the Albom-Pereira saga.

In conclusion, nobody should celebrate Brendan's departure as a sign for the return of integrity in the Malaysian press.

Poor juslo, he had just brought this debate to a ridiculous level! If I were the blog owner I wouldn't even publish and let such silly arguments tarnish my blog.

But in a way it's good to expose people (or people's thinking) for what they really are...

Of course there are universally accepted phrases: like the one I used earlier "until the cows come home"; "at the end of the day"; once upon a time; "don't take any skin of my nose"; don't make an iota of difference";"in any case...

Go back read brendan's article - are we talking about such phrases??

And why should albom bother to response? It wasn't him who did the stealing.

And it doesn't matter who or which paper commit the crime - a case of WHAT and not WHO is right or wrong - which incidentally is another universally accepted phrase which I don't need to attribute to anyone, vous comprende?

The same goes to "crime doesn't pay"...need I go on?

He has been doing this for years and was so lucky until now. Only stupid fellas get caught for plagiarism so he must be as stupid as Joseph Biden. The " Da Vinci Code " guy won his court case aginst accusation of plagiarism so I hope BP can also try his luck. Taking 8 words from anywhere is definitly plagiarism.

BP was removed not because of plagiarism - he had to go because he was right in the sights of the anti-level 4 camp, led my TDM. He had to go because he had become a liability to AAB. Someone suggested that BP had to go because UMNO needed a Malay to be in charge of an UMNO newspaper. If this is true, then it tells volumes about UMNO's rascist and backward leanings.

just to wrap it up.

looks like nobody is prepared to look at my proposed angle n think thru my argument on CREATIVE writing. oh well.

Godfather - i think u maybe be right.

to my friend adam, at November 4, 2006 01:18 PM:

"Of course there are universally accepted phrases... Go back read brendan's article - are we talking about such phrases??
The same goes to "crime doesn't pay"...need I go on?"

i'm afraid if u want to make attribution a RULE, u WILL HAVE TO GO ON.

u, or some 'Board of Universally Accepted Prahses', would have to be set up n publish a handbook to AUTHORITATIVELY LIST DOWN which is/not "Universally Accepted Prahses", for ALL writers to check.

then, u'll also have the question of WHO is qualified to determine what is/not a "Universally Accepted Prahse"? we'll have a whole profession debating on that.

"vous comprende?"
non, je suis desole, je ne comprends pas. parlez-vous anglais? merci beaucoup.
("no, i'm sorry, i don't understand. can u speak english? thanks a lot.")
http://www.french-at-a-touch.com/Words-Phrases/basic_phrases_links.htm

"Vous avez des origines françaises? Pourquoi pas une descendance française?"
("Do you have any French in you? Would you like some?")
http://yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au/~mongoose/french/romance.html

p.s. i can see that throwing a few french phrases around "had just brought this debate to a higher level! If I were the blog owner I would definitely publish and let such brilliant arguments elevate my blog."

--OOOOPPPSSS!! i nearly forgot to attribute!!!! (don't want my head to b chopped off now, do i??)
the above sentence is ala adam, at November 4, 2006 01:18 PM, http://www.aisehman.org/archives/2006/11/you_cant_miss_i.html
(oh, hang on - is that sentence comprised of 'unversally accepted phrases'?? it's a shame that mr adam's latest 'Handbook of Universally Accepted Prahses' has not been published yet...
;P