Re: Plagiarism, credit, and culture-reply, reply, reply

[Carl Glover <glover@msmary.edu>]

Dear Steve and Neal,
	In the past two or three posts, you have indicated that if I had
read and remembered your earlier posts, I would have seen that you had
already addressed my concerns.  Isn't that ironic?  Aren't you doing the
very thing you deride?  Aren't you citing yourself as a source here?  And
if I had only consulted the list of "works cited" from your previous
posts, my confusion would disappear.
	You mention that in your view it is not important who "thunk it
up."  Why cite Kenneth Burke just for the sake of citing Kenneth Burke,
you ask.  Obviously the motive of the citer here is to impress the reader
that the citer has indeed read and may have even understood Kenneth Burke.
(And my hat is off to anyone who may so boast.  I've gotten a lot more out
of James Lee Burke than I have out of Kenneth Burke, but that is my
problem, not Kenny's.)  Well, Steve, I think in many cases you are
correct, but that is no reason to condemn the process.  
	Let me put it this way.  I think if you get an idea from Kenneth
Burke, even an insignificant one that Burke probably was not the first to
think up, you cite Keneth Burke.  Please understand that I don't buy
everything that Aristotle said in his *On Rhetoric*, but I think his views
on the nature of proof are worthy of note.  To mention Kenneth Burke in a
citation, according to Aristotle, does several things to strenthen an
argument.  First, it represents what Aristotle calls "inartistic proof,"
proof that is external to the case and beyond the rhetor's ability to
create.  Burke is considered an authority, so he becomes a kind of expert
witness.  If an authority "thunk it up," it has more credibility than if
some Joe Schmoe off the street thought of it.  I know that concept rankles
you, but that is the way of the world, and Aristotle recognized it.
	Second, by citing Burke, the rhetor strengthens her argument by
building her own credibility, her "ethos," one of the famous triumverate
of "artistic proofs," (along with ethos and logos).  I know this rankles
you, too, but in the academic world, it is assumed that for your own ideas
to have any credibility, you must first demonstrate that you have done
your homework.
	There is other stuff, too, but this is enough for now.

To WCenter Brothers and Sisters,
	Don't be alamred at my strident tone here.  Newmann works for me.
We tell each other off regularly, and I have fired him at least a dozen
times in the past year.  But I always hire him back.  
	Time to end this post.  Gotta go fire Newmann, again.
					Warm regards,



					Carl W. Glover
					glover@msmary.edu

On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, Stephen Newmann wrote:

> Carl, I think you must have missed some of my earlier posts on this topic.
> Early in this discussion I think I was agreeing with Jeanne Simpson (if I
> might cite a source here) that there was value in citing sources in order
> that others might check my interpretation of an idea gleaned from another
> writer or so that others might further pursue the ideas of another writer
> on my topic or a related topic.  I hold that that view.  I object to the
> notion of ownership of ideas which is, I believe, what prompted this
> discussion.  I object to the practice of citing Kenneth Burke because he
> happened to say something I agree with and he has a name that is well
> known and respected in the field.  I think the idea should stand on its
> own merit--regardless of who has thunk it.  
> 	When I read an academic essay I rarely take the time to look at
> the endnotes.  I often look at the explanatory notes but unless I'm
> reading something that I want to do further research on I don't usually
> allow the citations to interrupt my reading.  I guess that's it.  I see
> citations as interruptions more often than as guide posts.  But as you can
> see, I've been talking here these last couple days from the seat of my
> pants.  :)  If nothing else I am relieved.  --stephen
> 
> On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, Carl Glover wrote:
> 
> > Dear Steve,
> > 	I am confused.  Perhaps you can help me out here.  Are you
> > suggesting that academic writing, whether by expereinced scholars or
> > neophyte students, be essentially citation free?  What sort of writing
> > would this be?  What research is best left undocumented?  What could
> > academics write other than personal essays?  I'm having trouble
> > visualizing this new genre of academic discourse.  Can you suggest a model
> > that would flesh this out a bit?
> > 					Warm regards,
> > 
> > 
> > 					Carl W. Glover
> > 					glover@msmary.edu
> > 
> > On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, Stephen Newmann wrote:
> > 
> > > I hadn't realized I was unclear about that.  sorry, lynne.  like you, "I
> > > don't always consider that good writing or good use of citations".  In
> > > fact I *do* nearly always consider it to be the opposite.  --stephen
> > > 
> > > On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, Lynne Belcher wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Stephen, I just realized you meant the egos of the citers as 
> > > > much as the egos of the citees.  I agreeeeeee with what you 
> > > > say about much of academic writing, but then I don't always 
> > > > consider that good writing or good use of citations.
> > > > 
> > > > Lynne 
> > > > lrbelcher@saumag.edu
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>