Pages

13 Dec 2018

On Poetry and Plagiarism (with Reference to the Case of Ailey O'Toole)

America's most wanted: Ailey O'Toole
poet and convicted plagiarist 


The poem-as-text is a "multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, 
blend and clash [...] a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centres of culture."  - RB 


Ho hum, another week, another plagiarism scandal in the ridiculously small and self-absorbed world of poetry ... The young offender being hauled over the coals this time by moralists who police the above and zealously enforce intellectual property rights, is prize-nominated American poet Ailey O'Toole.

There's no question that Ms O'Toole paraphrased lines in her poem 'Gun Metal' from a work by Rachel McKibbens - she even contacted the latter to admit as much. But whether we describe this as theft or borrowing, inspiration or intertextuality, isn't quite so straightforward.

In my view - and I'm saying this as a writer - O'Toole has nothing to apologise for or feel ashamed about. Indeed, if I were her, I would tell those sanctimonious bores who sit in judgement and threaten to derail her career - her publishers have already cancelled her first collection and spoken of their pain and anger - to go fuck themselves.  

For the fact is, very few poets invent neologisms; and even fewer have original thoughts or feelings. They essentially rearrange the words of a shared language and play with the ideas and emotions of the culture to which they belong. It's an art - and it can produce amazing results - but poetry is never a personal or private matter, no matter how idiosyncratic one's writing style.*

As Roland Barthes would argue, the poem-as-text is neither representative of a non-linguistic reality, nor expressive of an author's unique being. It's explainable only through other words that are also drawn from a pre-given, internalised dictionary. Every poem is, in a sense, already a copy of a copy of a copy whose origin is forever lost and meaning infinitely deferred.     

After Ms McKibbens went public with her accusation, several other poets came forward and claimed that they too were victims of a terrible literary crime committed by O'Toole. Some even spoke of being violated, or having their identities stolen and experiences belittled.

In part, this hysterical overreaction is due to the p-word itself, which, etymologically, means kidnapping - thereby encouraging writers to regard words as their precious offspring.** This, however, is a laughable turning of the truth on its head; for it isn't authors who give birth to language; it's language that gives birth to them.  

Ultimately, whatever we might think of her and what she did, O'Toole's plagiarism demonstrated a good deal of art; her selection of lines was clever and she skillfully wove them into her own text, tweaking them as she saw fit.

Surely then, we can, in the words of the Irish novelist, poet and playwright Oliver Goldsmith - commenting here on Sterne's cheerful habit of plagiarism - "pardon the want of originality, in consideration of the exquisite talent with which the borrowed materials are wrought up into the new form".  


Notes

*I'm aware, having read several interviews with Ms O'Toole, that she would find the view expressed here anathema. For she subscribes to a conception of poetry as something highly personal and highly political; a therapeutic art form that helps individuals deal with their mental health issues and other traumatic experiences (child abuse, rape, domestic violence, homophobia, sexism, racism, etc.).    

**We have the first century Roman poet Martial, known for his epigrams, to thank for this; he first used the Latin term plagiarius to denote someone guilty of stealing someone else's verses. The word appeared in its modern form in English c.1620 and the Romantics, who valued ideals of originality, sincerity, and authentic feeling etc., regarded plagiarism as the greatest of all literary sins. 

Roland Barthes, 'The Death of the Author', Image Music Text, trans. Stephen Heath (Fontana Press, 1977), pp. 142-48. I discuss this essay at some length in a post on postmodern approaches to literature that can be read by clicking here

Oliver Goldsmith, The Vicar of Wakefield, (1766), Vol. V, p. xviii.

Readers interested in knowing more about this case, might like to read Kat Rosenfield's piece published on the arts and culture website Vulture (4 Dec 2018): click here


3 comments:

  1. As the old saying goes "Talent borrows and genius steals." I personally think that "fessing up" to the direct or inspiration is very classy. But everything ever written is part of one massive call and response !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Should read "direct source" bloody laptop!

      Delete
  2. For me, as a poet and writer, it's not 'either-or' - things rarely are - but paradoxically 'both-and'. We are both created by language and we create it; both sponges and originators. Considering the blogger says the matter isn't straightforward, and it certainly isn't, he seems to have a very straight, indeed vituperative, response to same, puzzlingly.

    The writers that are protesting O'Toole's rather shoddy and second-hand approach to her art are hardly 'moralists' but surely, if anything, authentic aestheticians who don't agree that artists are merely parasites.

    Words gives birth to us, but we give birth, new life, to them, which is why children's first words are so prized, both as indicative of their initation into the house of language, as Heidegger might put it, and renovation of our primordial home. Sylvia Plath's mother spoke of how, as a young child, Plath pointed to the moon and declared 'the moon was a fat woman once' - a dizzying line that, it's fairly safe to say, has not been uttered by any child before or since. That's talent, giftedness, uncanny novelty. To say it's OK to take it and recycle it as one's own for the sake of one's own montetised artistic career is really a form of cynicism and contempt.

    ReplyDelete