"Plagiarism is a form of fraud." -Hamilton College.
I invite people to read the examples listed below, from the Feshbach book and from Harper's, and tell me if they just really happened to come, by coincidence, purely from a common source. Quite a lot of coincidences! (For anyone who really believes that, I have some beachfront property on Detroit's Zug Island I'd like to sell you.) Why obfuscate? Why the rationalizations and sophistry? Why are the examples so similar? Did they come from a common source? What was that source, then? (Maybe Feshbach plagiarized also!) Did they just happen to hear the same jokes? (Must've stood on the same Moscow streetcorner.) Yep, Bissell heard jokes-- which happen to be just the same ones given in the Feshbach book. Nothing unusual about this at all!
Can't we look at the examples, and their similarities (which would be considered plagiarism by almost every American university) and accept the simple truth that Bissell had the Feshbach book in front of him as he was writing his essay? Why is this so hard to acknowledge for some people?
(Look carefully at the first example also, and decide what we do about that.)
Two points:
1.) We're talking about the original Harper's article, in which Bissell did not cite the Feshbach source. (I'll check to see if he did for the hardcover edition. I believe not. That he DID for the paperback version, after this matter was introduced a year ago, seems to indicate that Bissell knows he goofed.)
Harper's is at question here, from an apparent pattern of literary misdeeds, which I've been discussing on this blog. An a pattern of failing to correct or acknowledge them. To add to this, we now have the question of another example of plagiarism (alleged) from the David DeKok book, Unseen Danger: A Tragedy of People, Government, and the Centralia Mine Fire. Mr. DeKok tells me that one passage was lifted in its entirety, a dozen or so others lightly rewritten, for the Feb 2004 Harper's article by Jeff Tietz. The ULA will be looking into this matter. (Someone has to! I really don't think Maud will.)
2.) Yes, Tom Bissell wrote an essay about the Underground Literary Alliance for The Believer magazine-- and did a very sloppy job, as we pointed out on our site. Alarm bells went up then for us about the guy. Bissell did no interviews and hardly any research, other than a cursory look at our fansite, and e-mailing a list of superficial questions by e-mail to one of our members-- the answers which he scantly referred to. No follow-up questions; no clarifications asked for. No facts checked. As a result, he got very much wrong. Yet this is the guy every one is referring to as "a fine journalist" (Mark Sarvas). Tom Bissell is anything but, and we've well documented that fact.
Finally, do I think Maud Newton is an apologist for the status quo lit-world? Absolutely. To come to that conclusion, all one has to do is read her site.
More later.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
For those who are interested, my remarks about Bissell's Believer article are still up at the www.literaryrevolution.com fan site, on the Essays page. I hope that all apologists for Mr. Bissell and his handlers will check it out.
p.s. Does the ULA have an agenda? Of course. And we don't hide from acknowledging it, on this blog and all over our fan site. Our opponents, on the other hand, have trouble acknowledging THEIR agendas. (They could put a little note next to their blogs, "The First Place to Find the Latest Apologies for the Literary Establishment." I look forward to that kind of truth-in-advertising.)
Face it: These people represent the corrupt past-- why the state of literature has so declined in the culture; why it reaches a dwindling (but increasingly precious) number of people.
We want to clean out the house and start anew.
Anyone who doesn't think the mob of "demi-puppets" doesn't have the power to get members of that sheepherd to conform, should look at Galley Cat's before-and-after remarks about this matter. First she gives her honest, direct opinion that what Bissell did-- in all the examples-- is wrong. The next day, suddenly she's been "corrected" into the proper attitude to have. What gives? Her original remarks are crossed out! (Who's behaving like the Soviets now?)
I invite Galley Cat to read my remarks about Bissell's essay, on the ULA site, since today she said I should have addressed this issue. I did, Galley Cat; I did!
Re: Soviet behavior. It should be pointed out that the ULA is a group of writers and others who are completely without power in this society. Most of us are flat broke. ALL WE HAVE is our voices-- and yes, sometimes we have to raise them to be heard-- or, after having this matter ignored for a long time, point out those who had their heads in the sand about it, all because Mr. Bissell is such a wonderful person (albeit a disaster as a journalist).
Who are the real apparatchiks, and who the rebels? Who are part of the current bureaucratized system? Isn't it Bissell and his friends Eggers, Moody, Birkerts, Liam Rector, and Company? It's certainly not us!
Democracy-- yes, that's what we're about. Those who inhabit the current system, or want to, don't seem to know the meaning of that word.
p.s. You can get to Galley Cat's before-and-after remarks at Maud's www.maudnewton.com site, if you scroll down far enough. By tomorrow they may have been crossed out or rewritten yet again, depending upon the changing lit-blog political climate.
TMFTML speaks for many:
“Finally, do I think Maud Newton is an apologist for the status quo lit-world? Absolutely. To come to that conclusion, all one has to do is read her site.”
We've been tempted to ignore the recent insane ramblings of King Wenclas concerning what he refers to as "Bissellgate" (and the rest of the world refers to as “Huh?”) for the same reason that when we see a lunatic screaming on the sidewalk and waving his arms in a threatening manner, we cross the street. Unfortunately, even a paranoid schizophrenic is occasionally correct, and with the above-quoted statement, he has hit that particular nail on it's tiny Miamian head. But there's more, and in the interests of fairness, we feel obliged to point it out here:
• In addition to being an apologist for the status quo lit-world, Maud Newton is an apologist for the Holocaust, Slobodan Milosevic, and the 1998 Robin Williams vehicle Patch Adams.
• Although she is not herself Jewish, Maud Newton enjoys drinking the blood of Christian babies.
• Maud Newton indirectly funds terrorists through the massive amount of cocaine she consumes to stay awake until 3 A.M. blogging. She also funds terrorists directly, donating 10% of her annual salary to Al-Qaeda and holding bake sales for the I.R.A. The cookies she sells at these bake sales actually come from the store.
• On more than one occasion, authors asking Maud to mention their readings on her site have been forced to “Polish The Newton” for linkage.
• Maud Newton is actually 6'4”. She pretends to be short “because it's more evil.”
• Maud Newton once shot a man in Reno just to watch him die, then shot another one because she didn't think the first one “gave a compelling performance.”
• In 1982, Maud Newton overhauled the Alternative Minimum Tax, calculating the new AMT at a 20-percent rate less an exemption based on the taxpayer's filing status. Similar to current law, AMT was due only to the extent that it exceeded an individual's regular tax. Maud ensured that the AMT was not indexed to inflation, thus setting into motion her plan to tax every man, woman, and child into penury.
• When a friend displeases her, Maud forces that friend to sit through her karaoke rendition of Wham's “Everything She Wants.”
• Maud Newton created the Hardee's Monster Thickburger™. She frequently roams the streets with a bag full of them, which she uses to taunt diabetics and the homeless.
• Maud Newton claims that the Fox News Channel “really is fair and balanced.”
• Maud Newton caused the recent tsunami in Southeast Asia.
• Maud Newton hates babies, puppies, and The Pope.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. We'd tell you more, but we've got to go attend a karaoke performance. Pray for us.
(http://www.popfactor.com/tmftml/)
'Finally, do I think Maud Newton is an apologist for the status quo lit-world? Absolutely.'
Oh and you're not maintaining the status quo. Another bunch of revolutionary minded, white males, fighting for truth, justice, and *yawn*. I hope you grow up someday.
Just so you know, King, it looks kind of nutty when you post three comments to your own post before anyone else weighs in. There's this whole edit/update/new post thing you might want to look into.
Just so no one gets the wrong idea.
As a publishing fat cat I’d like to weigh in. You’re right, Wenclas. Here in the dark furnaces of establishment literature we spend our days working out the best possible way to keep you lawn-mowing class-warriors in your place. We do this for the simple reason that if your words were to reach the masses they might ignite a fire in every Barnes and Noble across the land. Each day I thank the creator that there’s no better way to distribute ideas across the ether then the vast iron railways of distribution we publishers have held on to since the dawn of capitalism. If the technology existed to put the brilliant work of the ULA where all could find them - - a vast library staffed by telegraph operators? An electo-magnetic stone that projected words onto paper? -- the whole edifice of our DEMI-CLASS Literature culture would come tumbling down. We meet thrice weekly and pore over the news from the continent to make sure such a Universal Publishing Machine is never invented. And also to smoke Macanudos and show off our wine opening technique. Occasionally Maud Newton stops by and we kill few puppies. Nothing serious.
I’ll retreat now back to my office. There’s a coal miner’s neck needs stepping on.
To Mitch Miller the publishing fatcat:
If you and your writers can't reach us, how will you ever reach the American public?
We ARE that public!
To the popfactor guy:
Very amusing. I wondered when the Scarlet Pimpernel, defender of the aristocrats, would be heard from. There he is, foppishly waving his silk handkerchief around. Take that! And that!
Ouch! Next he'll attack us with his powderpuff!
So witty! So entertaining at salons and soirees!
"He's here. He's there. He's everywhere. The Scarlet Pimpernel!"
(Maud can play Merle Oberon to the Puff's Leslie Howard.)
King. You’re absolutely right. We know very well that the public is out there, faces pressed to the glass like zombies, longing for the great Lawn Mowing Novel. We've run the numbers, King. We know that were we to actually publish the literature you espouse the public would tear themselves away from their lohan nip-slips and ham-burgers, and crowd the streets calling for our heads. This is exactly why we continue to publish Rick Moody and why we let those kids at the Believer play at their progressive politics. The dull torpor our literature creates keeps the people docile and bovine. Oh sure, every now and then a young child sticks his head up briefly and asks, “where’s the literature that speaks to my experience, why must I spend my days playing grand theft auto and masturbating when I could have my face buried in a rich, earthy tome of working man’s fiction?” But then they visit the bookshop and are confronted with Franzen. Of course they never return. Franzen is our two-by-four nailed to the door, Wenclas. Don't you get it? We worked it out to do that.
Fat Cat
" Another bunch of revolutionary minded, white males, fighting for truth, justice, and *yawn*. I hope you grow up someday."
Thank you for sharing, you racist misandrist asshole.
Tim Hall
Post a Comment