But where is the line? When does something stop being allusion or fun, in-jokey reference—and become plagiarism?
I think it lies somewhere in the numbers. A few references in a story is by no means plagiarism. For me, allusions and references help identify similar themes and tones that the story and the referenced material have in common and also illuminate a lot about the author. But when the references become a significant basis of character interaction then the problem of plagarism starts to arise.
References should be like spices in a stew, not the potatoes or the meat. The majority of a story should be the author's own work, they should create the meat and the potatoes and the veggies. Otherwise, they can't rightly call it their stew.
But then there's the even harder distinction between influence and reference. There's that saying just about every English teacher I've had has told me, "You can't write in a vacuum."
We could note at the end of each of our stories the books we were in the middle of reading, the music we had on when we thought of the plot, the story we heard from Aunt Betsy about that thing with the neighbor's cat, but I doubt people would care much. They all influenced the outcome of the story and could arguably be references, but that's the kind of thing to be shared if people ask.
Where Cassie Clare went wrong was in not correcting people or acknowledging that those references were references and trying to take credit for them, not in using referenes themselves.
reel_sga is an entirely different thing. The entire purpose of the challenge was to adapt an existing film. Adaptations are different beasts subject to different rules regarding plagarism and references.
To continue with my food metaphors, an adaptation is like taking a big hunk of meat that tastes delicious all on it's own, but then cooking it in a different style, seasoning it in a fresh way. It allows for a spectrum of results, some close to the original piece of meat and others wildly different, but still made out of that same meat.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-08 09:34 pm (UTC)I think it lies somewhere in the numbers. A few references in a story is by no means plagiarism. For me, allusions and references help identify similar themes and tones that the story and the referenced material have in common and also illuminate a lot about the author. But when the references become a significant basis of character interaction then the problem of plagarism starts to arise.
References should be like spices in a stew, not the potatoes or the meat. The majority of a story should be the author's own work, they should create the meat and the potatoes and the veggies. Otherwise, they can't rightly call it their stew.
But then there's the even harder distinction between influence and reference. There's that saying just about every English teacher I've had has told me, "You can't write in a vacuum."
We could note at the end of each of our stories the books we were in the middle of reading, the music we had on when we thought of the plot, the story we heard from Aunt Betsy about that thing with the neighbor's cat, but I doubt people would care much. They all influenced the outcome of the story and could arguably be references, but that's the kind of thing to be shared if people ask.
Where Cassie Clare went wrong was in not correcting people or acknowledging that those references were references and trying to take credit for them, not in using referenes themselves.
To continue with my food metaphors, an adaptation is like taking a big hunk of meat that tastes delicious all on it's own, but then cooking it in a different style, seasoning it in a fresh way. It allows for a spectrum of results, some close to the original piece of meat and others wildly different, but still made out of that same meat.