Ah, Harper’s. Definitely one of my favorite magazines and one I haven’t read in a long time. I picked up this month’s issue from the bookstore last night and found an article by Jonathan Lethem, a very prolific author whose first novel, Gun With Occasional Music, was marketed as science fiction, but appropriated elements from other genres. The detective mystery novel with its pulp tones were his most obvious source, though Lethem also plundered genetic dystopias as well. While Gun With Occasional Music was obviously a derivative work, the way Lethem put together his influences was original and quirkily his own. In his essay for Harper’s, he seamlessly cobbles together various sources to form an article on plagiarism and appropriation, putting forth very legitimate arguments for how art and literature constantly take from other works and that some aspects of copyright laws are ludicrous. At the end, he reveals his sources and how they factor into his collage.
“The Ecstasy of Influence” reveals the our cultural hypocrisy in insisting on originality of content, yet plundering abounds. The highest profile culprit Lethem indicts is Disney, who appropriates fairy tales, legends, and literary works, yet strongly asserts its own hold on its icons, such as Mickey Mouse. His example of Dennis Oppenheim being sued for making sculptures of Disney Characters and Disney’s prevention of Holly Crawford from using images for her book on the art of Mickey Mose are baffling. Both point to Disney’s influence on the consciousness of contemporary culture. Also, it seems that Disney has more of chance of benefitting from these works than being injured. Though Disney may not profit directly from these works, they receive an acknowledgement of their impact in the ongoing discussion in culture, which appropriation is.
In academia, plagiarism is anathema, especially in policy. Students are regularly punished for stealing work without crediting another, and scholars stand to lose everything (especially their credibility) if they were caught pilfering another source. Then industries sprout up to protect the integrity of the ivory tower, such as Turnitin. Plagiarism is treated as a crime, but another form of appropriation is not. What about the research paper full of quotes, paraprhases, and a long list of works cited? While more legitimate in academic eyes, this type of document also appropriates other sources and creates a collage of sorts that should, of course, include the author’s insightful analysis. This then brings up the question of what’s the difference between appropriation and cheating? Could borrowing from another source be considered cheating? Perhaps.
Sampling in its various forms was controversial in the 1980′s and 1990′s, though it has gained acceptance in recent years (provided the source is properly compensated). Could sampling be considered a form of musical cheating? Maybe, but taking a melody, a bass line, or a chorus out of its context and rearranging it takes a very good ear and imagination. There are myriads of bad songs that are “original.” Shouldn’t a creative take on a song or its parts be applauded?
Appropriation is sometimes the only way a source becomes known. This is clearly the case with Tom Tom Club’s “Genius of Love,” which only became a cult hit after it was sampled. In literature, TS Eliot’s The Waste Land brings attention to Edmund Spenser’s “Prothalamion,” and W.H. Mallock’s The Human Document would be forever obscure if were not for Tom Phillips taking the text, plundering it, and rendering upon it artistic treatments.
My creative project for my MFA was one of appropriation. Like a lot of young writers, I sought to incorporate the influences in popular culture I was exposed to in my work. My protagonist’s sole obsession was the Gold Lady, an iconic figure whose image was borrowed from an abstract mannequin in a Nordstrom’s window display, and whose attributes were an amalgamation of various famous women. The prose occasionally had lines taken from pop songs (one of which was Tom Tom Club’s “Genius of Love”), and even a line borrowed from Walt Whitman (the same one used by Ray Bradbury in one of his titles). The work itself was not innocent of other influences. Blake was a big influence in presenting image and text, and Adolf Wölfli’s work also served to inform the insanity of my own.
That authors, artists, and musicians are informed by the works of others is Lethem’s point. How many literary titles reference a work of William Shakespeare’s, for example? Brave New World and The Sound and the Fury are some famous examples. These titles serve as epigrams, but then there are are also the quotes authors choose to introduce their works with, the one line quote that says it all. These acknowledged, but appropriated thoughts used to show what influenced this writer. In order for a writer to effectively write, reading is necessary. Writing, like speech, is a language that comes through use. The writer speaks (by writing), but she also hears and listens (by reading). By taking in books, journals, magazines, newspapers, and Internet text, the writer is informing her own work. In essence, no work exists in a vacuum and all works are part of the ongoing discussion in our culture.
