The Biggest Shopping Day Of The Year--also Buy Nothing Day

[shalanna]

Depends on your belief system. I have friends who are celebrating "Buy Nothing Day," and others who are (along with me) prepping for the 6AM opening of various stores. We need some little odds and ends to stuff into the stockingtoes, OK? *gronk*

Yes, I was thankful yesterday for family/pets, health, friends, LiveJournal readers, a roof over our heads, stable job status, computers, the Macy's parade, and so forth. I just didn't feel like ranting on about it. I ate crackers and managed to keep down a little bit of deli ham and a piece of toast, so that's good. I think I'm gonna be well today, as long as I don't eat anything rich.

Here's some thoughtfood about copying others' intellectual property and incorporating it (or using it as inspiration) into part of your own work, and what vibes surround the concept. First, a somewhat non-negative view of "synthesis" and building on others' work in this discussion of outright plagiarism:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?041122fa_fact

Kinda interesting that the author feels that way, after getting his own words lifted, huh?

And from
Cleolinda's Plagiarism-Fest Rules, a more traditional writerly view. Here's a sample (fair use! fair use! don't hit!):

"Apparently this week is Plagiarfest and nobody told me. [...] For those of you new to this whole interweb thing and perhaps the concept of authorial credit entirely, lemme splain. And remember, this does not apply just to me because I am OMG so speshul; this goes for ANY AUTHOR ONLINE OR OFFLINE, ANYWHERE, EVER:

"Theft is not limited to literal plagiarism, which is "Hey, guys! Look what I wrote! (cough cough)!" Theft includes plagiarism by omission, which is simply posting something without saying who wrote it at all--you or anyone else. If you see any of the following, please alert the actual author:

1. The work posted in its entirety ANYWHERE without permission
2. The work posted in its entirety on a message board without credit
3. The work posted in its entirety in a journal or on a website without credit
4. "I don't know who wrote this, but I got it off a message board and they didn't know who wrote it, either"
5. "Hey guys, this isn't mine, but I thought I'd post it to fanfiction.net anyway!"
6. The work posted on a site/board/journal/whatever with edits and changes ( * )(substituting "s---" or "s***" for "shit" is okay; substituting a wholly different word like "poop" is not, as far as I'm concerned)
7. The work is only excerpted, which is good, but the author's name is completely misspelled and no link to the original online (if there is one) is given
8. The work is quoted without adaptation that could fall under the category of parody and without attribution. ESPECIALLY IN CAPTION CONTESTS.

"You'll notice there's a lot of overlap in that list. You know why? Because PEOPLE DON'T SEEM TO GET IT."

Read more at cleolinda.

* * *
Three (3) is a symbol of the unity of body, mind, and spirit. This number is of universal significance - it is found throughout history and all over the world. The Holy Trinity and other religious symbols, the three crones in the opening of Macbeth, "third time's the charm," and of course the way we're each made up of the physical body, mind (intellect), and soul (spirit). . . you know, all that neat stuff.

Multiplying by 9 reveals a mirror symmetry among numbers. If any number is multiplied by nine, the resulting digits always add to nine. For example, 2 x 9 = 18; 3 x 9 = 27, 4 x 9 = 36; and so on. Nine has been referred to as the symbol of immutable Truth. (I don't make this stuff up, I promise.)

On this note: As a math nerd, I feel it is my duty to inform you that to determine divisibility by three, add the digits and see if the result is divisible by three (as in numerology, you can keep adding until you get the smallest result.) If it's divisible by three and two (even numbers), then it's divisible by six, if I remember correctly.

In a minor key--if six were nine, I don't [sic] mind.

(Yes, that should be "wouldn't," but I'm quoting the lyric unedited. SO there.)

* * *
When the first income tax rate was being debated on the Senate floor, a senator opposed to it shouted, "If we let them get away with 1%, someday they might raise it as high as 5%!"
* * *
I want you to read Cat's Cradle. It is very very easy reading. It has a rich subtext (deep deep meaning), but it is easy reading on the surface.

Also, to see omniscient POV handled well:
The Circus of Doctor Lao by Charles Finney
The Egypt Game by Zilpha Keatley Snyder (the lady we discussed earlier)

And (just for general edification) Saul Bellow's Henderson the Rain King. No, I'm not kidding. If you still want more Bellow or you want a more coming-of-age novel, try The Adventures of Augie March, which has just been reissued in an anniversary edition.

I assume you've read some Heinlein, if you're here. No? Try The Door Into Summer. Still up there among my favorite novels. Also love the song of the same name (you know, the Monkees sang it on their best album.)

I'm pointing out the really quirky, oddball, special little books here because you may never have heard of them. I'm assuming you've read Grapes of Wrath, Catcher in the Rye, A Separate Peace, et al. If not, consider reading them. They're worthy of your time.

As the wag wrote: "I told no lies, and of the truth all I could (bear)."

That's all--for now.

Comments

[ladyjaguar.livejournal.com]

The New Yorker article about "Frozen" and the plagiarism of person is interesting and thought-provoking. I don't entirely agree with the author. The psychologist WAS violated. She was so recognizable to so many in the audience who knew her that the parallels combined with the fictional affair in the play could serve to hold her up to public ridicule. Even though I'm not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV), I do know that that is one of the criteria in determining if harm has been done. There's one telling passage mentioning that the playwright could have massaged the character a bit more so as to make her not recognizable as a living person. She could have avoided a lot of trouble by taking that extra step.

On the other hand, argument could be made that Lewis, the psychologist, is a "public figure" (having published books on the subject of serial killers, lectured on the subject in public) and does not recieve the same protection under the law that a private person does (New York Times v. Sullivan).

My own sense is that if the playwright had taken that extra step to reword the passages she ended up quoting verbatim, made her points in other ways, altered the character a bit more, she could have avoided a lot of the heartache the situation caused her. Or she could have contacted Lewis and the article's author and asked them for permission. She's not as much a victim as she seems to me to have portrayed herself to be in her conversation with the article's author.

I wouldn't consider myself an "intellectual property fundamentalist" -- I do believe in the doctrine of "fair use" -- but "fair use" is vague; there's no set definition of it. I think the playwright went beyond "fair use," though, by a good country mile.