Here are a couple of articles from the U.K.’s Telegraph on the fracas (here & here).
But if you don’t want to read in detail just yet, here’s the low-down: McEwan is accused by the agent of a dead writer of taking segments from the deceased writer’s memoir about her experience as a nurse in WWII and using them in his novel “Atonement.” Now the article doesn’t do a good job of describing what is alleged to have been lifted, and I’ve never read Atonement, or the offended writer’s memoir, so I can’t say anything quantitative concerning what was allegedly lifted. Since these allegations have been made, a number of writers, including the reclusive, paper-bag wearing Thomas Pynchon, have come forward to defend McEwan. And their points, impassioned all of them, are valid . . . mostly.
I’ve looked through McEwan’s book, particularly at the acknowledgements page. The memoir is mentioned there, along with a few other books as being of great help in writing his own. However, I must say, the cursory mention it is given gives no inclination regarding how much, if any, of Lucilla Andrews’ specific writing was borrowed. Now, a lot of the writers who have come to the defense of McEwan suggest that all that was borrowed was easily available historical fact, like the names of three nurse’s mannequins, which could have been gotten from any number of historical resources. However, that hardly seems like something that would be the cause of such an uproar from the late Ms Andrews’ agent.
Usually when someone makes such a claim, (Holy Blood, Holy Grail guys excluded), they are able to provide comparisons. There is a small one provided in this essay.
Now, if all of the ‘borrowing’ is of this nature, then, well, I think McEwan, perfectly within the acceptable realm of “borrowing,” should have made a better effort to acknowledge the depth of Ms Andrews’ helpfulness, like mentioning page numbers, or commenting specifically on what information was borrowed; i.e. “the descriptions of the hospital and the nurse’s routines were taken from [blah blah blah]. . .”
These hyperbolic claims that writers like John Updike, Zadie Smith, Colm Toibin, Margaret Atwood, and Kazuo Ishiguro are making that this is somehow a threat to the ability of a writer to write “historical fiction” are silly.
If writers are going to borrow heavily from other writers for their fiction, a certain amount of cited material should show up. For instance: In John Berger’s novel “G.” before the reader even reaches the title page of the first section, there is the acknowledgements page that contains a list of material Berger “borrowed” along with page numbers. Here’s a quote: “Page 253 and following pages: in the account of the battle of Auvers Ridge, I have drawn heavily on the research done by Alan Clark and published in his book called The Donkeys. I have also quoted sentences by him.”
Turn to the back of Michael Ondaatje’s The English Patient and there are two pages of Acknowledgements detailing what texts he borrowed from, how those borrowed items were used, and how to identify them - some borrowed stuff is in italics, some set off by quotation marks. One of the two pages looks like a typical works cited page from a research paper.
Frankly, to make all this buzz over McEwan’s “plagiarism” go away, he should insert a more extensive acknowledgements page. It’s that simple because, as a comp teacher, I have to admit, just because a student gets the book on the works cited page, doesn’t mean the student hasn’t plagiarized. A misplaced comma, a forgotten quotation mark, a borrowed phrase, or image, is still plagiarism if it's not clear who the originator of the material is. It’s not intentional plagiarism. It’s not the kind of plagiarism that would get a kid kicked out of class, but it is the kind of plagiarism I have to talk to them about, make sure they are aware of it and fix it.
Yes, McEwan didn’t intend to “steal” anything from Lucilla Andrews. All these writers acting like his honor has been impugned need to sit down and calm down. McEwan’s “plagiarism” is the mild kind, the accidental kind, the kind that can be fixed by a set of quotation marks. He’s told us he used Ms Andrews’ book as a source, he just hasn’t told us where to find what he’s used, which leaves us to guess.
And that looks lazy.
But if you don’t want to read in detail just yet, here’s the low-down: McEwan is accused by the agent of a dead writer of taking segments from the deceased writer’s memoir about her experience as a nurse in WWII and using them in his novel “Atonement.” Now the article doesn’t do a good job of describing what is alleged to have been lifted, and I’ve never read Atonement, or the offended writer’s memoir, so I can’t say anything quantitative concerning what was allegedly lifted. Since these allegations have been made, a number of writers, including the reclusive, paper-bag wearing Thomas Pynchon, have come forward to defend McEwan. And their points, impassioned all of them, are valid . . . mostly.
I’ve looked through McEwan’s book, particularly at the acknowledgements page. The memoir is mentioned there, along with a few other books as being of great help in writing his own. However, I must say, the cursory mention it is given gives no inclination regarding how much, if any, of Lucilla Andrews’ specific writing was borrowed. Now, a lot of the writers who have come to the defense of McEwan suggest that all that was borrowed was easily available historical fact, like the names of three nurse’s mannequins, which could have been gotten from any number of historical resources. However, that hardly seems like something that would be the cause of such an uproar from the late Ms Andrews’ agent.
Usually when someone makes such a claim, (Holy Blood, Holy Grail guys excluded), they are able to provide comparisons. There is a small one provided in this essay.
Now, if all of the ‘borrowing’ is of this nature, then, well, I think McEwan, perfectly within the acceptable realm of “borrowing,” should have made a better effort to acknowledge the depth of Ms Andrews’ helpfulness, like mentioning page numbers, or commenting specifically on what information was borrowed; i.e. “the descriptions of the hospital and the nurse’s routines were taken from [blah blah blah]. . .”
These hyperbolic claims that writers like John Updike, Zadie Smith, Colm Toibin, Margaret Atwood, and Kazuo Ishiguro are making that this is somehow a threat to the ability of a writer to write “historical fiction” are silly.
If writers are going to borrow heavily from other writers for their fiction, a certain amount of cited material should show up. For instance: In John Berger’s novel “G.” before the reader even reaches the title page of the first section, there is the acknowledgements page that contains a list of material Berger “borrowed” along with page numbers. Here’s a quote: “Page 253 and following pages: in the account of the battle of Auvers Ridge, I have drawn heavily on the research done by Alan Clark and published in his book called The Donkeys. I have also quoted sentences by him.”
Turn to the back of Michael Ondaatje’s The English Patient and there are two pages of Acknowledgements detailing what texts he borrowed from, how those borrowed items were used, and how to identify them - some borrowed stuff is in italics, some set off by quotation marks. One of the two pages looks like a typical works cited page from a research paper.
Frankly, to make all this buzz over McEwan’s “plagiarism” go away, he should insert a more extensive acknowledgements page. It’s that simple because, as a comp teacher, I have to admit, just because a student gets the book on the works cited page, doesn’t mean the student hasn’t plagiarized. A misplaced comma, a forgotten quotation mark, a borrowed phrase, or image, is still plagiarism if it's not clear who the originator of the material is. It’s not intentional plagiarism. It’s not the kind of plagiarism that would get a kid kicked out of class, but it is the kind of plagiarism I have to talk to them about, make sure they are aware of it and fix it.
Yes, McEwan didn’t intend to “steal” anything from Lucilla Andrews. All these writers acting like his honor has been impugned need to sit down and calm down. McEwan’s “plagiarism” is the mild kind, the accidental kind, the kind that can be fixed by a set of quotation marks. He’s told us he used Ms Andrews’ book as a source, he just hasn’t told us where to find what he’s used, which leaves us to guess.
And that looks lazy.
Posts
2 Notes to the Editor:
See, I love McEwan. AMSTERDAM is one of my literary happy places. I don't think he needs to steal.
But I would agree that if certain aspects were "borrowed," there should be more detailed acknowledgments, rather than a cursory mention.
I've been meaning to read ATONEMENT for some time. I may have to move it further up on the list now.
So far do we take this business of acknowledgment? Perhaps novels should resemble the credits list at the end of a film, name mongering every single titbit and factoid that contributed to the overall creation of a work. And, really, who gives a shit anyway? If McEwan weren't a big name, no one would care. It's all about a minor novelist trying to hitch her legacy upon a brighter star.
Post a Comment