Plagiarism In Mrs. Trump's Address
On the very first night of this year’s Republican National Convention, Republican nominee Donald Trump’s wife, Melania Trump, gave a beautiful speech on her Slovakian upbringing, and the values which her family bestowed upon her. She mentioned her sister, Ines, whom she calls “an incredible woman and a friend” (Lowe), her mother Amalia, who “introduced [her] to fashion and beauty” (Lowe) and her father Viktor, who “instilled in [her] a passion for business and travel” (Lowe). The moments of her speech in which she touched upon her family life were likely the truth and raised no questions or controversy. However, for many Americans, copious other aspects of Mrs. Trump’s speech rang awfully familiar. When compared with Michelle Obama's 2008 speech at the Democratic National Convention, the similarities are uncanny. Phrases such as “you work hard for what you want in life” (Lowe) and “your word is your bond” (Lowe), are verbatim from Mrs. Obama’s speech. When played side by side, there is no denying Mrs. Trump and her speech writers took inspiration from Mrs. Obama’s speech, but did they crossed the line into plagiarism?
Plagiarism is a word drilled into students’ heads from the moment they are old enough to grasp the concept. Again and again, students are reminded how nefarious the act …show more content…
of plagiarism is, and the horrendous consequences that can follow. According to plagiarism.org, “[c]opyright laws exist to protect our intellectual property. They make it illegal to reproduce someone else's expression of ideas or information without permission. This can include music, images, written words, video, and a variety of other media” (plagiarism.org). However, as students transition out of the academic world and into a more ‘real life’ setting, the lines of plagiarism seem to blur, particularly when it comes to art. Many artists argue that they simply used their sources as inspiration, and because they added to it, the work has become their own and thus they are not required to give credit to the original creator. This happens in countless areas of life and art, from speeches, to paintings, to music, to plays.
Malcolm Gladwell’s essay Something Borrowed tells the story of Dorothy Lewis, a physchatrist who studied serial killers for over twenty-five years. When playwright Bryony Lavery’s play “Frozen” debuted on Broadway, Lewis received non-stop calls from friends and acquaintances telling her that she “really ought to see it,” (Gladwell) because one of the main characters was also a psychiatrist who studied serial killers. Lewis was reluctant to see the play; having spent so much of her life studying serial killers, she told her friends “I need to see that as much as I need to go to the moon” (Gladwell). Eventually, a woman from the theater where “Frozen” was playing called Lewis and requested she do a talk-back after one of the performances. Lewis, delighted, asked for a copy of the script so she could read it in preparation.
Almost immediately, Lewis began to notice striking similarities between her work and personal life and the play’s psychiatrist, Agnetha Gottmundsdottir. The similarities ranged from attending the same school, to doing the same experiments, to being sniffed “in a grotesque, sexual way” (Gladwell) by a serial killer. Lewis was understandably upset, telling Gladwell she “felt robbed in some peculiar way” as if “someone has stolen [her] essence” (Gladwell). Lewis does not believe she would have been angry if Lavery used the work she has devoted her life too, but instead, Lewis tells Gladwell that she feels Lavery “did more than that” (Gladwell) by taking things from her personal life, leaving her feeling “violated” (Gladwell). Consequently, Lewis did not do the talk-back and instead hired a lawyer. When listing the similarities between Lewis’s work and life and Lavery’s play “Frozen,” there were two major culprits. First, the “thematic similarities” (Gladwell) between the play and Lewis’s book “Guilty by Reason of Insanity” were undeniable. Secondly, there were over six hundred almost verbatim words in “Frozen” and a profile of Lewis from a 1997 issue of The New Yorker called “Damaged,” written by Malcolm Gladwell, the author of “Something Borrowed.”
Gladwell wrote Lavery a letter explaining he would have been delighted to be a “source of inspiration” (Gladwell). However, Gladwell points out, “to lift material, without [his] approval, is theft” (Gladwell), as Gladwell believes that “words belong to the person who wrote them” (Gladwell). Although initially Gladwell believed he should have felt angry, he did not truly feel this way. Lewis and Gladwell clearly feel differently about how their work was plagiarized, but could this be because Lavery took from Gladwell’s work, but Lewis’ life? Upon reflection, Gladwell realized that his work “had become part of some grander cause” (Gladwell). Lewis, on the other hand, was not comfortable with the way Lavery used her personal life to her own advantage for “Frozen.” Her biggest concern was the affair Agnetha has within the play. Lewis believed this to be “slander” as it may lead people to think that she, too, had an affair, as so many were already able to identify Lewis within Agnetha.
So the question then becomes, is it acceptable to plagiarize someone's life to a recognizable extent, but then add an untrue negative aspect?
According to Gladwell, “art is not a breach of ethics,” (Gladwell) and by taking Lewis’s experiences and words and turning them into a new idea, Lavery has done nothing except create art. However, by taking Lewis’s personal experiences, did Lavery not violate her life and present her to an audience who may think of her negatively now? Yes, art is not a breach of ethics, but when you take someone's life and misrepresent it, without stating that the unfavorable acts are not true, is this not an act of defamation that goes far beyond
inspiration?
Gladwell continues to examine plagiarism and copywriting in other forms of art, much like Jonathan Lethem does in his essay “The Ecstasy of Influence.” Lethem discusses the different forms of plagiarism and how they can sometimes be a thing of beauty. Lethem has personally experienced his work being used by other artists. His book, “Gun, With Occasional Music” was used to form a pistol by artist Robert The. Instead of being angry, Lethem was touched by “the strange beauty of its second use” (Lethem) and believed it was a “reward for being a published writer” (Lethem), one which he “could never have fathomed in advance” (Lethem). Gladwell and Lethem were both somewhat pleased to have their work used without their permission, however, neither had their reputations smeared like Lewis did in “Frozen.”
Lavery stated that she thought the ideas and words she used from both Lewis and Gladwell were ‘news.’ Lavery credited other sources of inspirations for “Frozen,” helping Gladwell see that “Lavery wasn’t indifferent to other people’s intellectual property, then; she was just indifferent to my intellectual property. That’s because, in her eyes, what she took from me was different” (Gladwell). While it can be understood how Lavery may have thought copying Gladwell’s “boilerplate descriptions of physiological functions” (Gladwell) may have been acceptable, how can taking from someone's life be anywhere near the same? Gladwell states that “Lavery knew that failing to credit. . . the personal story of a woman whose sister was murdered by a serial killer matters because that story has real emotional value to its owner. As Lavery put it, it touches on someone’s shattered life” (Gladwell). There is a contradiction in Lavery’s thought process. On the one hand Lavery acknowledges the need to credit work that impacts a person on an emotional level, yet she can not see the damage she caused in plagiarizing Lewis’ life and including false statements without making her audience aware of her ‘artistic license.’
Although influence is extremely important in all areas of life, a line must be drawn. Nothing in life is completely original- our experiences, our surroundings, our emotions, our environment, will always impact what we create, as author Jonathan Lethem stated: “Finding one's voice isn't just an emptying and purifying oneself of the words of others but an adopting and embracing of filiations, communities, and discourses. Inspiration could be called inhaling the memory of an act never experienced. Invention, it must be humbly admitted, does not consist in creating out of void but out of chaos. Any artist knows these truths, no matter how deeply he or she submerges that knowing” (Lethem). A true artist will always have many sources of inspiration in order to create art, but, an honest artist will always give credit where credit is due.
Plagiarism is a word drilled into students’ heads from the moment they are old enough to grasp the concept. Again and again, students are reminded how nefarious the act …show more content…
of plagiarism is, and the horrendous consequences that can follow. According to plagiarism.org, “[c]opyright laws exist to protect our intellectual property. They make it illegal to reproduce someone else's expression of ideas or information without permission. This can include music, images, written words, video, and a variety of other media” (plagiarism.org). However, as students transition out of the academic world and into a more ‘real life’ setting, the lines of plagiarism seem to blur, particularly when it comes to art. Many artists argue that they simply used their sources as inspiration, and because they added to it, the work has become their own and thus they are not required to give credit to the original creator. This happens in countless areas of life and art, from speeches, to paintings, to music, to plays.
Malcolm Gladwell’s essay Something Borrowed tells the story of Dorothy Lewis, a physchatrist who studied serial killers for over twenty-five years. When playwright Bryony Lavery’s play “Frozen” debuted on Broadway, Lewis received non-stop calls from friends and acquaintances telling her that she “really ought to see it,” (Gladwell) because one of the main characters was also a psychiatrist who studied serial killers. Lewis was reluctant to see the play; having spent so much of her life studying serial killers, she told her friends “I need to see that as much as I need to go to the moon” (Gladwell). Eventually, a woman from the theater where “Frozen” was playing called Lewis and requested she do a talk-back after one of the performances. Lewis, delighted, asked for a copy of the script so she could read it in preparation.
Almost immediately, Lewis began to notice striking similarities between her work and personal life and the play’s psychiatrist, Agnetha Gottmundsdottir. The similarities ranged from attending the same school, to doing the same experiments, to being sniffed “in a grotesque, sexual way” (Gladwell) by a serial killer. Lewis was understandably upset, telling Gladwell she “felt robbed in some peculiar way” as if “someone has stolen [her] essence” (Gladwell). Lewis does not believe she would have been angry if Lavery used the work she has devoted her life too, but instead, Lewis tells Gladwell that she feels Lavery “did more than that” (Gladwell) by taking things from her personal life, leaving her feeling “violated” (Gladwell). Consequently, Lewis did not do the talk-back and instead hired a lawyer. When listing the similarities between Lewis’s work and life and Lavery’s play “Frozen,” there were two major culprits. First, the “thematic similarities” (Gladwell) between the play and Lewis’s book “Guilty by Reason of Insanity” were undeniable. Secondly, there were over six hundred almost verbatim words in “Frozen” and a profile of Lewis from a 1997 issue of The New Yorker called “Damaged,” written by Malcolm Gladwell, the author of “Something Borrowed.”
Gladwell wrote Lavery a letter explaining he would have been delighted to be a “source of inspiration” (Gladwell). However, Gladwell points out, “to lift material, without [his] approval, is theft” (Gladwell), as Gladwell believes that “words belong to the person who wrote them” (Gladwell). Although initially Gladwell believed he should have felt angry, he did not truly feel this way. Lewis and Gladwell clearly feel differently about how their work was plagiarized, but could this be because Lavery took from Gladwell’s work, but Lewis’ life? Upon reflection, Gladwell realized that his work “had become part of some grander cause” (Gladwell). Lewis, on the other hand, was not comfortable with the way Lavery used her personal life to her own advantage for “Frozen.” Her biggest concern was the affair Agnetha has within the play. Lewis believed this to be “slander” as it may lead people to think that she, too, had an affair, as so many were already able to identify Lewis within Agnetha.
So the question then becomes, is it acceptable to plagiarize someone's life to a recognizable extent, but then add an untrue negative aspect?
According to Gladwell, “art is not a breach of ethics,” (Gladwell) and by taking Lewis’s experiences and words and turning them into a new idea, Lavery has done nothing except create art. However, by taking Lewis’s personal experiences, did Lavery not violate her life and present her to an audience who may think of her negatively now? Yes, art is not a breach of ethics, but when you take someone's life and misrepresent it, without stating that the unfavorable acts are not true, is this not an act of defamation that goes far beyond
inspiration?
Gladwell continues to examine plagiarism and copywriting in other forms of art, much like Jonathan Lethem does in his essay “The Ecstasy of Influence.” Lethem discusses the different forms of plagiarism and how they can sometimes be a thing of beauty. Lethem has personally experienced his work being used by other artists. His book, “Gun, With Occasional Music” was used to form a pistol by artist Robert The. Instead of being angry, Lethem was touched by “the strange beauty of its second use” (Lethem) and believed it was a “reward for being a published writer” (Lethem), one which he “could never have fathomed in advance” (Lethem). Gladwell and Lethem were both somewhat pleased to have their work used without their permission, however, neither had their reputations smeared like Lewis did in “Frozen.”
Lavery stated that she thought the ideas and words she used from both Lewis and Gladwell were ‘news.’ Lavery credited other sources of inspirations for “Frozen,” helping Gladwell see that “Lavery wasn’t indifferent to other people’s intellectual property, then; she was just indifferent to my intellectual property. That’s because, in her eyes, what she took from me was different” (Gladwell). While it can be understood how Lavery may have thought copying Gladwell’s “boilerplate descriptions of physiological functions” (Gladwell) may have been acceptable, how can taking from someone's life be anywhere near the same? Gladwell states that “Lavery knew that failing to credit. . . the personal story of a woman whose sister was murdered by a serial killer matters because that story has real emotional value to its owner. As Lavery put it, it touches on someone’s shattered life” (Gladwell). There is a contradiction in Lavery’s thought process. On the one hand Lavery acknowledges the need to credit work that impacts a person on an emotional level, yet she can not see the damage she caused in plagiarizing Lewis’ life and including false statements without making her audience aware of her ‘artistic license.’
Although influence is extremely important in all areas of life, a line must be drawn. Nothing in life is completely original- our experiences, our surroundings, our emotions, our environment, will always impact what we create, as author Jonathan Lethem stated: “Finding one's voice isn't just an emptying and purifying oneself of the words of others but an adopting and embracing of filiations, communities, and discourses. Inspiration could be called inhaling the memory of an act never experienced. Invention, it must be humbly admitted, does not consist in creating out of void but out of chaos. Any artist knows these truths, no matter how deeply he or she submerges that knowing” (Lethem). A true artist will always have many sources of inspiration in order to create art, but, an honest artist will always give credit where credit is due.