Ann 1If you've seen it in print. Don't use it.
October 11th 2008 00:20
"If you've seen it in print, dont use it," is one of the best pieces of writing advice I was ever given.
Do you want to be original?
Do you want to be known as someone who never plagiarised another writer's work?
I do.
Many don't. Wealth and fame at any price?
Food for thought? For you to chew upon?
Do you want to be original?
Do you want to be known as someone who never plagiarised another writer's work?
I do.
Many don't. Wealth and fame at any price?
Food for thought? For you to chew upon?
| 73 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Michaelie
Flick Wit
Wealth and fame won't cost me a cent now.
Michaelie
Comment by Ann 1
Wordophilia
Bloganymity
Um, I think you've missed the whole point of the post.
Oh, hang on. Maybe I missed the whole point of your comment?
Boy, text is hard to interpret.
Do you know how to include a bibliography in a post? I only spent one semester at Uni. And never really got a handle on it.
Horses for courses. Neigh or Nay? Whinney or Winny? I used to love The Wonder Years. Winnie was a hottie.
I wish I'd never read the dictionary. I've seen nearly every word in print. I'm stuffed now.
Comment by Daniel Mason
Review Mad
While I understand the basic principle in that advice, I can't get behind such a vague notion. Could you elaborate on where that advice comes from? Give it some context?
I have seen the following sentence used in print countless times:
"Yes," he said.
So does this mean that I should never use such wording in my own writing? Does repeating this mean that I'm plagiarising another writer's work?
Comment by Michaelie
Flick Wit
Comment by Ann 1
Wordophilia
Bloganymity
The main points I'm making are:
1. Many writers tend to appropriate other people's writing to themselves. And pass if off as their own. They take the credit for something as being their own original thought/idea/writing, when it's actually someone else's writing.
2. Many writers use cliches we've heard a thousand times instead of thinking of some other (original) way to say the same thing.
In essence, it's two-fold advice.
1. Avoid plagiarism at all costs. If you use someone else's writing, cite it. As theirs.
2. Work harder as a writer to come up with something original. A new spin on an old saying is not the same as using the old saying out of sheer laziness.
I'll give you some specific examples, without going into the most blatant example of plagiarism of all time, Helen Demidenko / D'Arville's The Hand That Signed The Paper. Passing off an entire book is going a bit far.
1. You hear someone say something, or read something they wrote, and go, I like that. I'm going to use that. But, instead of saying, I heard this really good saying, or read this really good quote the other day by [whomever], you pass it off as your own.
Have you ever been cornered by a compulsive joke teller? Who keeps regurgitating jokes, and wants you to think he/she's really funny?
Do you get FW (forwarded) joke emails from certain people, but never get a real email that is their own work? Personally, I delete them if I see FW.
But, more than anything, 'If you've seen it in print, don't use it,' relates to cliches, and lazy writing.
2. Let's say for example you want to describe a city during peak hour. To use cliches like 'hustle and bustle' and 'rat race' or 'I was caught between a rock and a hard place,' etc, etc, etc, is hardly original.
The advice makes sense to me. If I'm writing something [poem, short story, narrative, screenplay, whatever) and see that I've written something I've seen before. I'll change it.
As for characterisation? You can use all the cliches you like in a character's dialogue, because that might be the type of character you're dealing with. Whether it's exterior or interior dialogue. But your narrative should be free of such things. There's almost an infinite number of ways of saying something. It all depends upon how hard you want to work as a writer, I guess.
As for this?:
"Yes," he said.
"There's a smart arse in every class," I said.
I hope that puts it into some context.
Comment by Ann 1
Wordophilia
Bloganymity
Is the she you're referring to that unknown cat's mother?
Comment by Michaelie
Flick Wit
Comment by Daniel Mason
Review Mad
I'll make it clear that I'm not advocating plagiarism. I simply failed to see the point of your brief opening post, which to me felt generalised, vague and lazy. What you've replied with in regard to my comment would have made for a more substantial argument in the beginning, so thankyou for offering that much when I asked.
You are, however, still quoting a piece of writing advice without actually citing where it comes from.
Comment by Lady Henrietta Muddling
Potter in a Harry
see appendix.
Comment by Ann 1
Wordophilia
Bloganymity
See above.
Comment by Ann 1
Wordophilia
Bloganymity
Don't worry about it.
There wasn't really much point to the post at all. If you knew me better, you'd realise most Orblers don't see any point to any of my posts. Or to my existence.
If anything, it was a reminder to myself. The advice makes sense to me, but then I was given the advice in real life in a classroom situation.
As to insults? There weren't any. I just don't think people actually get my sense of humour. I thought what you wrote was funny. I was retorting.
Comment by Daniel Mason
Review Mad
I've studied writing and never heard that advice. Like I said earlier, I can get behind the principle, but it strikes me as being too vague overall. I'm glad you explained your view of it, because I really couldn't see where you were coming from with that initial post. Sorry again.
Comment by Chris Champion
moneywhither
Vyoos
Zoomies
Bloggercises
NewlyOld
The Blog of Lists
Plagiarism and use of cliches are writing crimes. On the other hand, what we see in print can often prove an inspiration and motivation to write. Honest writers will attribute as appropriate. Good writers will dress the idea up in entirely new clothes, which is fair enough given that there are no new ideas ("There is nothing new under the sun ... ", Ambrose Bierce).
However, there is a line, of course, between a fresh presentation of an idea and a largely copied one, and it can take experience, along with talent and intent, to know where the line is.
This is the point you are making, and it's a point well worth making.
Regards,
Chris
Comment by Ann 1
Wordophilia
Bloganymity
It's all okay. Apology accepted. Not that I think there's much to apologisie for. It was a misunderstanding on both sides. Text often causes those problems.
My creative writing teacher gave me that advice. Along with a lot of other advice I'd never heard before. It was just something that stuck in my mind.
Chris's comment probably sums it up:
And he also introduces something else that has to be taken into consideration regarding the context of the point of 'If you've seen it in print, don't use it.':
At the end of the day, it's really good advice once it is put in context. And if it takes a few misunderstandings to get the point across, I think it's worthwhile, because once the point is grasped, it's an invaulable one.
PS: That will teach me for writing such a lazy post. I could have avoided all this if I'd expanded on the point in the first instance.
Comment by Ann 1
Wordophilia
Bloganymity
Great comment.
It certainly helped in relation to the queries Daniel had with the concept. So thanks for that.
I particularly like these parts, and think they deserve to be repeated::
This might seem a bit left-field, and may not be all that popular considering the anti-God sentiment rampant on the net, but I've always liked the following quote from St John's Apocalypse in relation to writing (regardless of whether it has anything to do with writing or not):
And I agree with this.
Again, your comment is such a great comment.
Comment by Lilla
Enviro Warrior
An Extra Ordinary Life
Dream Herald
Just commenting on how much Chris*s comment here reminded me of my own professors endless grinding on this difference between honest poaching and dishonest (zero tolerence by professional institutions/the industry) on plagerism.
Poaching is okay .. and indeed involves perhaps more thought than being original in that re/thinking, but thinking none/the/less?
I must say I am still not completely convinced with the general concensus on this score where poaching is concerned, deciding perhaps that it is really a matter of degrees?
Lilla ...