Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2003 :: September ::
Wood Controversy
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1736  Thursday, 4 September 2003

[1]     From:   Thomas Larque <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 3 Sep 2003 13:57:14 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1728 Wood Controversy

[2]     From:   Bill Arnold <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 3 Sep 2003 06:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1728 Wood Controversy

[3]     From:   D Bloom <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 3 Sep 2003 09:46:32 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1728 Wood Controversy


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Thomas Larque <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 3 Sep 2003 13:57:14 +0100
Subject: 14.1728 Wood Controversy
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1728 Wood Controversy

Graham Hall posts an almost sensible response to the Wood thread, and it
seems that he is less capable of shrieking hysterical personal insults
at people who dare to disagree with him when he is not wearing his
cod-Shakespearean fool's hat as a disguise.

As it happens, what Wood did would be clearly labelled as plagiarism by
my University (I invite anybody who doubts it to read the student
handbook) and would invite disciplinary action.  If Wood was an
undergraduate there, then I imagine that he would only earn a warning
and lose a few marks for a first and fairly minor offence, but it would
be a bad move on his part.

If Hall - in suggesting that I don't understand the difference between
piracy and plagiarism - is trying to suggest that "piracy" is more
romantic and less dishonest than "plagiarism", which seems to be the
general thrust of his comparisons of Wood's actions with those of
"genius" Shakespeare, of whom we all approve, then this seems to be a
rather odd attempt to salvage Wood's careless but rather shabby and lazy
appropriation of another scholar's work as a heroic act.  Actually, as
Hall seems not to have noticed, "piracy" and "plagiarism" are just two
different ways of saying "theft" (although Wood's is a minor and
inconsequential sort of petty-larceny).  Perhaps Hall needs to remind
himself who pirates actually were, and what they did, rather than
spending all his money on Disney movies.

If Hall were to tell University of Kent, or many other Universities,
that his deliberate wholesale appropriation of a paragraph from a
published scholar without attribution (and - unlike Shakespeare -
without making any attempt to improve the source) was merely "piracy"
and evidence of his Shakespearean "genius" absorbing lesser works, then
I suspect he might lose rather more marks for his essay than I would for
anything that I wrote.  If he persisted with that, then he would get
himself expelled.

Since Wood considers himself a scholar, and is working within the
scholarly milieu (even if in the slightly different world of the popular
scholar, publishing his book under the imprint of a television station),
then the rules that he follows should not be those of the Renaissance
dramatist as floridly imagined by Graham Hall, but the rules of the
modern scholar.  He probably wasn't at all pleased to see himself caught
out by Private Eye - which is the main reason why Private Eye's exposure
of him is amusing, and worth publishing in a humorous satirical
magazine.  Of course, if Graham Hall doesn't understand Private Eye's
sense of humour, then that is a matter for him.  I have to say that
personally I prefer Ian Hislop's sense of humour to Graham Hall's.

As for putting Lord Gnome into a search engine, people could only have
done that if they had any idea that Lord Gnome really existed and was
not just a part of the hysterical hallucinatory nature of Hall's
postings.  Even if they had they would have found precious little
information.  Google produces 16 hits for "Lord Gnome" and "Ian Hislop"
together, which might - if read in detail - explain that Private Eye is
a satirical magazine, but say nothing about what any of this might have
to do with Wood or Schoenbaum, or even why Shakespearean scholars might
be being discussed by a satirical magazine.  I buy Private Eye
regularly, but I had to wait until I got hold of a copy and read the
section on Wood and Schoenbaum before I actually understood what Graham
Hall's self-publicising semi-humorous froth actually meant.

Again, if Hall just wants to talk to himself, then I suggest he buy
himself a little parrot-mirror to talk to, or starts posting his E-Mails
exclusively to his own Inbox.  It seems fairly clear from his postings
that he amuses himself enormously, so he should find an appreciative
audience.

Thomas Larque.

"Shakespeare and His Critics"
http://shakespearean.org.uk

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bill Arnold <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 3 Sep 2003 06:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 14.1728 Wood Controversy
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1728 Wood Controversy

Graham Hall writes, "Mr Larque will get even lower marks in his essays
if he doesn't learn the difference between pirating and plagiarism."

Well, well, well.  Far be it from me, a humble journalist who worked a
decade for American tabloids to educate Shakespearean scholars on the
ins and outs of "pirating and plagiarism."

However, having said that: recently American Fox-TV found out the hard
way that parody and satire in America are free of the charge of
"pirating and plagiarism."  I say in America, advisedly, having worked
for those ten long years with Brits, as editors and staffers from Fleet
Street, London, tabbies uprooted and transplated to Boca Raton,
Florida.  Doesn't anyone in the world recall "MacBird" and the parody of
Macbeth back in the 60's?

http://www.brumm.com/MacBird/

And I suggest to SHAKSPEReans that oceans of ink are wasted yearly on
the question of "pirating and plagiarism" by writers not in-the-know
about the subject.  In the last ten years in America, famous American
professors, journalists, et al., have been taken to task for violating
copyrights of authors without the foggiest notion of what the law is:
and so, let us make this point very clear, once again, the law is
different in America than it is in the land of the Brits!  Do not lump
them together as one law, because they ain't!  And to pirate, or to
plagiarize, can be a crime, in both countries.  Art Buchwald a few years
back won in excess of $ 5 million American dollars from a movie company
for just such a charge.  Caveat Emptor!

Bill Arnold
http://www.cwru.edu/affil/edis/scholars/arnold.htm

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           D Bloom <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 3 Sep 2003 09:46:32 -0500
Subject: 14.1728 Wood Controversy
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1728 Wood Controversy

   Graham Hall, in another of his Keplerian responses, writes

> Mr Larque will get even lower marks in his essays if he doesn't learn
> the difference between pirating and plagiarism.

I think I know the answer to that one, teacher (with an energetic
handwave).  Plagiarists are usually college students of the more
insufferable, not very bright, disgustingly lazy sort, but extremely
good-looking and successful bird-catchers. Pirates usually have
curtle-axes, eye-patches, and parrots.

And also . . .

> The puzzled would (!) have put Lord Gnome in a search engine

I remain puzzled by most things (I confess) but I have wit enough to
imagine what Lord Gnome would look like, and also his search engine (a
cross between a cartoon locomotive of the Thomistic sort and a
bathyscaph).

The image of Lord Gnome driving his search engine through cyberspace
appeals greatly to me. There are times when the Stress-O-Meter nears its
red line that I wish I could buy a ticket. Fortunately, I am too poor to
afford the pharmaceuticals that get you a seat on the Gnome Express.

Cheers,
don

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.