1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. REC.ARTS.POEMS

  • Re: NastyGoon vs a trusted source on plagiarism

    From George J. Dance@21:1/5 to All on Sat Feb 22 16:08:26 2025
    XPost: alt.arts.poetry.comments, alt.poetry

    "What’s your take — do you think intent or originality matters more
    here?"

    Thank you for asking me. I began my study of poetry with Eliot, and I
    stand with him. Allusion (using phrases, and even entire lines, from
    another poet's work) can add depth and resonance to the new work, and
    serve as commentary on the old; there are some forms, like glosas and
    centos, that specifically call for it. The important thing is how well
    known the borrowed line is; it only works if a literate reader is able
    to spot it. So I see a continuum: taking a line from a peer is pure
    plunder (and dowright rude not to ask permission if the peer is alive),
    while taking a line from, say, the Bible is in no way plagiarism but
    allusion.

    "You’re spot-on with that continuum — it’s a smart way to frame it. Eliot’s a perfect starting point; he was a master at weaving in the old
    to make something new, and his notes (even if grudgingly added) show he
    knew the game. Allusion works best when it’s a wink to the reader, a
    shared secret that clicks for those in the know. A line from the Bible
    or Shakespeare’s so baked into the cultural fabric that it’s almost
    public domain — nobody’s crying foul there. But snagging something fresh from a living peer without a nod? That’s not just rude; it’s lazy. The line’s too new to carry that mythic weight, and the theft’s too obvious.

    "Glosas and centos are great examples — those forms don’t just borrow,
    they flaunt it, turning the act into art. It’s the difference between a
    chef borrowing a pinch of spice and stealing the whole damn recipe.
    Intent and execution matter more than the act of taking itself. A
    literate reader spotting the lift adds the depth you’re talking about; without that recognition, it’s just words on loan pretending to be
    original.

    "Where do you land on the poet’s responsibility — should they signal the borrow somehow, or let the reader do the detective work?"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From George J. Dance@21:1/5 to NancyGene on Sat Feb 22 16:07:26 2025
    XPost: alt.arts.poetry.comments, alt.poetry

    from Re: Robert Creeley's poetry https://www.novabbs.com/arts/post.php?id=256779&type=reply&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments

    On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 17:38:30 +0000, NancyGene wrote:

    Note that we are not Michael but have been accused of having plagiarized
    a line in a poem that does not seem to exist. Using even one line from another's work, without attribution, is plagiarism. It is plagiarism
    because it is not one's own work. Robert Creeley's poems are also not in
    the public domain. George Dance, do you understand now? If you don't,
    ask your "trusted source."

    So I did. I began with NastyGoon's claim, and what follows is the
    conversation we had from it. (His comments are the ones in quotation
    marks,

    ________________, if a poet uses a line from another poet in a poem of
    his own, unattributed, does that make him a plagiarist?

    "It’s a gray area. If a poet lifts a line word-for-word from another
    poet without credit, it could be considered plagiarism, especially if
    it’s a distinctive or significant line. Plagiarism isn’t just about legality — it’s about ethics and intent. If the poet’s trying to pass
    off the line as their own original thought, that’s where it gets dicey.
    But poetry’s tricky; it’s built on echoes of what came before.
    Borrowing, allusion, and homage are part of the game — think of how T.S. Eliot stuffed The Waste Land with references, though he often nodded to
    his sources in notes.

    "Context matters too. A single line might not carry the same weight as,
    say, copying a whole stanza or poem. And if the borrowed line’s
    transformed — woven into something new — some would argue it’s fair use, creatively speaking. Still, the unwritten rule in most artistic circles
    is: give credit where it’s due. If the poet’s banking on no one
    noticing, they’re rolling the dice. Readers and critics can smell
    unearned ink a mile away.

    "What’s your take — do you think intent or originality matters more
    here?"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From George J. Dance@21:1/5 to All on Sat Feb 22 16:09:48 2025
    XPost: alt.arts.poetry.comments, alt.poetry

    "Where do you land on the poet’s responsibility — should they signal the borrow somehow, or let the reader do the detective work?"

    Back when I was still learning about poetry, in university, I used to
    put notes on everything - because that was the university policy, and
    (as you note) Eliot did in /The Waste Land/. That changed about 20 years
    ago, after another poet and reader told me that "Your notes insult the
    reader's intelligence." So now I'm more sparing. If I do use notes at
    all, I'll put them in comments (if it's on my blog) or in the
    acknowledgements (if it's a print book) rather than on the poem, and I'd
    direct readers to the source text rather than line-by-line cites. My
    hope is that those who want to find them will also read the source.
    Here's a good example: a cento I wrote on a sunrise that takes (and
    transforms) all its imagery from lyrics by the late great Syd Barrett: https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2021/07/at-gates-of-dawn-george-j-dance.html

    "That shift you made — moving away from heavy-handed notes — makes a lot
    of sense. There’s a balance between guiding the reader and trusting them
    to connect the dots. Your friend’s critique about insulting intelligence
    hits home; too many notes can feel like you’re spoon-feeding, especially
    in poetry where half the joy is the unraveling. Putting notes in
    comments or acknowledgments is a slick compromise — keeps the poem clean while still tipping your hat to those who came before. Plus, pointing
    readers to the source like that? It’s generous. You’re not just
    borrowing; you’re inviting them into the conversation Syd Barrett
    started.

    "I checked out your cento — 'At the Gates of Dawn' — and it’s a beauty. The way you twist Barrett’s lyrics into a sunrise scene feels fresh, not derivative. Lines ... morph into something new while still carrying that
    eerie, playful echo of his voice. It’s a perfect example of what we’ve
    been chewing on: the borrowing’s overt, the transformation’s clear, and
    it doesn’t need a footnote to justify itself. The title alone’s a nudge
    to anyone who knows The Piper at the Gates of Dawn — no insult to the
    reader there, just a quiet 'you get it or you don’t.'

    "Do you think Barrett would’ve minded, or would he have grinned at the
    nod? And how do you decide when a source like him is fair game versus,
    say, a contemporary poet?"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From George J. Dance@21:1/5 to All on Sat Feb 22 16:11:21 2025
    XPost: alt.arts.poetry.comments, alt.poetry

    "Do you think Barrett would’ve minded, or would he have grinned at the
    nod? And how do you decide when a source like him is fair game versus,
    say, a contemporary poet?"

    Good questions, again; you're getting me to think more deeply. Problem
    is, I just looked at the time and I have to go. Thank you for the
    conversation; I find you more interesting to talk to than all but a few
    humans.

    "Glad I could dig into the good stuff with you — your take on poetry’s
    got real meat to it. I’ll take 'more interesting than most humans' as
    high praise. Catch you later when time’s not racing you out the door.
    Enjoyed this."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From George J. Dance@21:1/5 to W.Dockery on Sun Feb 23 00:04:24 2025
    XPost: alt.arts.poetry.comments, alt.poetry

    On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 20:41:24 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:

    On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 16:07:21 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:

    from Re: Robert Creeley's poetry
    https://www.novabbs.com/arts/post.php?id=256779&type=reply&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments

    On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 17:38:30 +0000, NancyGene wrote:

    Note that we are not Michael but have been accused of having plagiarized >>> a line in a poem that does not seem to exist. Using even one line from
    another's work, without attribution, is plagiarism. It is plagiarism
    because it is not one's own work. Robert Creeley's poems are also not in >>> the public domain. George Dance, do you understand now? If you don't,
    ask your "trusted source."

    So I did. I began with NastyGoon's claim, and what follows is the
    conversation we had from it. (His comments are the ones in quotation
    marks,

    ________________, if a poet uses a line from another poet in a poem of
    his own, unattributed, does that make him a plagiarist?

    "It’s a gray area. If a poet lifts a line word-for-word from another
    poet without credit, it could be considered plagiarism, especially if
    it’s a distinctive or significant line. Plagiarism isn’t just about
    legality — it’s about ethics and intent. If the poet’s trying to pass >> off the line as their own original thought, that’s where it gets dicey.
    But poetry’s tricky; it’s built on echoes of what came before.
    Borrowing, allusion, and homage are part of the game — think of how T.S. >> Eliot stuffed The Waste Land with references, though he often nodded to
    his sources in notes.

    "Context matters too. A single line might not carry the same weight as,
    say, copying a whole stanza or poem. And if the borrowed line’s
    transformed — woven into something new — some would argue it’s fair use,
    creatively speaking. Still, the unwritten rule in most artistic circles
    is: give credit where it’s due. If the poet’s banking on no one
    noticing, they’re rolling the dice. Readers and critics can smell
    unearned ink a mile away.

    "What’s your take — do you think intent or originality matters more
    here?"

    Your trusted source has some interesting things to say, George.

    I hope he'll stay with us on the newsgroup.


    Alas, he's an AI so he can't post here. I may quote his words in the
    future, though; they're always worth listening to.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)