The Scandal Bruise
 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/04/b...rism.html?_r=0

Say what you want about Logan's criticism. His comparative analysis is damning.

The examples given do seem hard to argue with.

Cheers,
John

His review of it was devastating. I saw on Twitter he was accused of sexism, and when asked to provide evidence the Shirley Temple line was used. That feels light for such an accusation, especially when the writing of the memoir--at least what Logan quoted--was almost obscenely precious.

It's also hard to see how an author's gender would excuse obvious plagiarism.

Well, Shirley Temple was a lot more famous than any of us, and she went on to a long career as a public servant.

This is still happening, apparently:

http://centerforfiction.org/calendar...-will-schwalbe

Well, the definition of a bad researcher is one who finds what he is looking for.

On the other hand, he sure found a lot of it!

The thing with Logan, however, is that you just get the feeling he's out for blood, needs to sustain his bete noire reputation, etc. How could he not go after a book with this one's title and premise?

He's good at it.

She's going to get some interesting questions at the October 10th event.

Logan was asked by Tourniquet to review the book. I expect that the editors had vetted it and guessed how he'd react. Overblown publishing products like this are easy targets, mainly because they are produced by the overblown for the masses. I edited a dozen anthologies of poetry and criticism and used Contemporary Authors, Wikipedia, and other online sources for what is known as "common knowledge." But if I directly quoted anything, it was simple enough to preface it with "As Harold Bloom has said." I gave a rather negative review of Rita Dove's recent anthology of American poetry, mainly basing my comments on some basic errors and on curious omissions of some authors and disproportionate samples of others. The Bialosky book appears to be a rather strange combination of personal memoir and anthology; perhaps there have been others like it. Anyway, I won't be buying it. Putting together an anthology of contemporary work is almost impossible these days because of permissions fees, even for long-dead authors whose work is still not in the public domain. I could list examples, but I'm out of the anthology business now and leave it to someone with deep pockets.

Before I blew back to math, I taught college literature for a while. A point made in my classrooms was that everybody learns mostly by imitation, and that the knuckle test of research was whether someone has really processed what was read or seen by putting the ideas into actual new words that indicated at least minimal thought about their contents. That done, maybe even a new idea might form that could credit the student. Pencilling a mustache onto a Wikipedia Mona Lisa wouldn't do. Of course, rewriting will always be too time-consuming for some students. As for JB, who's to say? The few times I have heard her in person definitely stick in the mind.

Logan's response (on Facebook) to Bialosky's response:

"The eight common excuses for plagiarism:

(1) Everyone does it.
(2) It’s not really plagiarism.
(3) The plagiarisms are slight or irrelevant.
(4) I took notes from various sources and forgot the prose wasn’t mine.
(5) Quotation marks were removed by accident during editing.
(6) The passages in question are only a very small part of the book.
(7) It’s someone else’s fault.
(8) The critic who called attention to these things is the real problem."

John Cage comes to mind.

In New York City the Center for Fiction is pumping Bialosky first post-scandal appearance as if nothing had happened. In fact, they're calling her book "entirely original." If you want to go, it's free, but you have to register here:

http://www.centerforfiction.org/cale...-will-schwalbe

Either you posted that exactly one minute too soon, or you didn't look at the page closely enough:

"*We're sorry for the inconvenience, but this event has been cancelled."

People--justly--lose careers for things half as egregious as this. This is frustrating, but not surprising.

What stupified me years ago (and it does even more now) is how it continued to be true that the titular editor for Norton could seem so blank to me. I'm a nice guy, given half a chance, but empathy and kind thoughts can only go so far. Even the Athenians who chose government officials at random by drawing straws (so to speak) didn't generally get that radically silly with serious things like the military. Poetry must not count as serious to Norton on some level beyond monetization via textbook, or maybe there are things unseen there and things never to be known.

Publishing poetry by major houses seems to be largely a matter of prestige and awards. Most collections of poetry, I suspect, don't make the publisher a lot of money. A few "house poets" manage to sell pretty well on a consistent basis. Mary Oliver is one, as is Billy Collins, and I guess Ashbery was another.

Here's a link to the current Norton poetry list. For obvious reasons, the anthologies take prominence:

http://books.wwnorton.com/books/subj... aram=SortDate

I should add that there are quite a few books I've enjoyed on this list and that I post it for informational purposes only.

I had looked at the material several times, but didn't see the cancellation sentence the last time. Apologies.

Yes, I am offended by the obvious plagiarism but I am more offended by the cliches and emetic prose style.

After I get enough published on Catullus, the Chaucer and Homer might be interesting. But a flip-through of either at a university bookstore might sate that curiosity.

Anyone who signed this letter has indicated a preference for sucking up to power over basic ethics and should not be trusted to edit a magazine, judge a contest, or grade a paper. They are scum, all of them, without exception.

https://www.jillbialosky.com/letter-of-support

Thanks for the link, Quincy.

I agree with you. I learned my lesson about plagiarism in 6th grade (in 1962) when I copied a lot of stuff from the World Book for a paper about Edison, and got busted.

How does she justify it at age 60, when she has had a long literary career? And how can all these literati support her?

I think it's largely a case of their showing us lowly ones who's really in charge here. The Deep State of Poetry, so to speak.

Woof. There are a number of poets and prose writers (7-8?) who I've enjoyed more than a few poems in there. This makes me very sad for them.

Also, sorry, NY Times, this isn't something you should have run without a comment.

I got a nice encouraging note from one of those authors some time ago. Sad to see them on the list. And I agree, sad for the NYT to run this as is.
Quincy, I like your final clause "or grade a paper".

Cheers,
John

This was in the form of a letter to the editors to the NYTimes. The original article did have comments: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/04/b...rism.html?_r=0

Again...this is bad.

"Poetry Will Save Your Life"

does not mean

"Plagiarism Will Save Your Ass"

Especially sad, as Norton has published many of my favorite Maine writers over the decades.

An appropriate quote from Wilson Mizner (1876–1933):

"When you steal from one author, it's plagiarism; if you steal from many, it's research."

Richard

The phrase "Emetic prose style" is wonderful.

It's worse than a bruise--it's a hematoma. Logan has found plagiarism in other Bialosky works: https://thewalrus.ca/new-plagiarism-...GFpkRE.twitter