Stitch Bitching: Again

I’m actually posting twice because after class I realized I had more to say on the matter. And I can’t wait until Monday, because by then I will have forgotten.

On the issue of plagiarism, Jackson seems to think there has never been an original thought, therefore it’s perfectly okay, in fact, encouraged on her part to steal, lift, plagiarize from anyone you feel like. After realizing what she was saying I couldn’t manage to gather my thoughts coherently for a while (stuttering vitriol is a problem with me apparently), but mostly what I want to get across is this: If there has never been an original thought, then where did thought originate? Thought hasn’t existed forever, since science loves to tell us humans haven’t been around forever. Someone, somewhere down the line had to be the first to think. It would be absurd to think this person thought all the thoughts that could ever exist, just in his or her lifetime. It also seems to me that if that one person had the ability to think an original thought, then someone else should have that same ability. If two people can think original thoughts, then probably three. Where does Jackson draw the line? Where in history was it that we reached the pinnacle of original thought? The progress of humanity in and of itself is a testament to the fact that thought continues to evolve and grow and change and be original. Thought is not a finite commodity. If thought were a finite commodity and all thought was plagiarized somehow, as Jackson seems to believe, then there would be no point in thought at all, because we would never create something new. Yet we continue to do so – I’m thinking right now. I should phrase this sentence with a more accurate adjective. It’s strange that this article is evoking such a strong reaction in me. Shelley Jackson sure is a pain in the ass. I doubt I’m the first to think these thoughts, but I certainly didn’t steal them from someone else. I came to those conclusions all on my own; they are original.

Furthermore, I am choosing how to convey them. The connection between my brain and my hand is mine alone. Jackson seems to argue, too, that if all thought is plagiarized, then so is all writing. Just because we share the same language doesn’t mean that all instances of the construction of that language have already been created. How else would we come up with new novels? “The dog ran” may exist in thousands of books, but the context wherein the dog runs may be different in every single one. To say they are all plagiarizing each other because they use the same sentence construction, the same language, or the same notion is ridiculous. If every writer thought that way, we’d never see a new book, for what would be the purpose in rewriting what has already been written?

Jackson believes her style is superior. I disagree. But I don’t believe her style is inferior. It’s just different. I wouldn’t presume to declare that disorientation trumps focus, that havoc trumps resolution, that chaos trumps order. I think these things serve as a balance for each other. To disregard one is to degrade the other. Chaos is indefinable without order. Jackson wouldn’t be able to write in her inane style without the logicality of the language she uses to write in.

The very fact that she wrote a book on her ideas using her own sentence structure makes her whole publication seem ironic. It would seem she is accusing herself of plagiarism. Generally speaking, when I find a work has been plagiarized, the author loses credibility.