Where's My Check?

I decided to ghostwrite Kevin Slane for a number of reasons. Not only is he a journalist major here at UW-Madison, but he is also one of my closest friends. Brandt’s “’Who’s the President?’” alluded to the importance of a close relationship between author and ghostwriter, so when Kevin informed me that he had a movie review to write for The Daily Cardinal, I figured that imitating his style would be a piece of cake.

Little did I know that purchasing the movie ticket would be the easiest part of the assignment.

After taking in one of the most bizarre movies I had ever seen, Kevin shared the main ideas he wanted to emphasize in his review. As I jotted his opinions down, he dug up a couple of his writing samples. Upon reading these various works, I quickly realized that Kevin enjoyed employing a witty yet critical style in his writing. I found this to be unsurprising, for Kevin, along with being one of the funniest guys I know, also writes for CollegeHumor.com on a regular basis. I knew that I had a pretty sizable challenge on my hands, but I was excited nevertheless. After all, I rarely get the opportunity to exercise my creative writing skills.

After sitting in front of my computer screen with a blank Word document for a good 10 minutes, I realized that my excitement was rather short-lived. Even though I had the ideas right in front of me, I was unable to relay them in an acceptable style. This was extremely frustrating, for typically the hardest part of any paper is coming up with ideas. Once those thoughts are formed, they tend to naturally flow through the fingertips. Instead, I had to laboriously construct every sentence, being mindful of the language I used. I tried to condense the paper with puns, jokes, and clichés, but the further along I got, the less it seemed to sound like Kevin. It felt like this was neither my writing nor his; by emphasizing a facet of his style, I created a hybrid writing fashion.

In fear of overdoing it, I emailed Kevin with the first half of the review. He said it looked pretty good, so I continued being as “punny” as possible. I sent him my first complete draft, but this time I included his name at the top of the paper. He seemed to take more time with a return email, in which he stated the following:

“Some of the clichés feel forced in my mind. Overall, not bad, although if the question is whether I'd be ‘pleased’ if that was your ghostwriting for me, the answer would be no. Here is some of the touching up you should do to pass for my style...”

This was extremely frustrating and nearly disheartening. He not only started deleting and rewording sentences, but also changing their structure altogether. I was offended to a certain extent because although the review was not written in my style, I still felt that he was degrading my creation. Once I went through with certain corrections, he suddenly became pleased, telling me “I really like your imitation of me, it captures my style pretty well.” This was slightly reassuring, but, I wondered, why didn’t he suggest all of those edits before his name was on the piece?

Besides realizing that creative writing does not come naturally to me, I took away a number of important lessons from my experience. Authorship and ownership, for example, are inseparable concepts. As soon as Kevin saw his name at the top of the review, he realized that the words in front of him fell under his responsibility, which sparked an editing rampage focused on making the writing style more as his own. This supports the notion in Howard’s “Modern Authors” that proprietorship is an essential aspect of authorship. In ghostwriting, along with all writing, “property and original genius are mutually entailed” (79). Ghostwriters must therefore relinquish their ties, and because of their ability to detach from what they produce, I have gained more respect for them. Even though ghostwriters may disagree with what they are writing about or have different viewpoints compared to who writes out their paychecks, it is difficult to allow others to take all of the credit for something they do not labor over.

The Wrath of Plagiarism - Fair?

“The Anxieties of Authorship and Pedagogy” is a very interesting read because it highlights the elusive nature of plagiarism. Howard clearly avoids pinpointing specifics as universal examples of plagiarism. Plagiaristic ideals can vary in degree, are dependent on context (for example, the act of reapplying professors’ ideas on exams is exempt from being stamped with the plagiarism label), and range from one institution to another. With so many fuzzy corners and variables, only one thing is clear; the odds are stacked up against the writer. As students, we suffer because of not only the fear that is instilled in the “Plagiarism Statement” but also the uncertainty of wrongdoing that shadows over every word we type.

The “Plagiarism Statement” that we examined in class is very gatekeeper-esque. It automatically assigns blame, frankly stating that the student “should know” what qualifies as plagiarism. Why should all of the responsibility be in the student’s hands if the teacher is additionally supposed to work as a facilitator? Leniency is also lacking from the statement, for phrases such as “will not be tolerated” and “will automatically fail” are used. How can such ultimate, criminal sentences be justly applied if the very essence of plagiarism is open-ended and, to a certain extent, undefined?

The elusive nature of plagiarism is highlighted right within the “Academic Misconduct Rules and Procedures” brochure. In the section entitled “Some Special Points About…,” collaboration is treated on a case by case basis, while plagiarism is rigid and closed to individual interpretation. The writers of this manual seem to be ignorant of what Howard discussed throughout her essay. Moreover, this format implies that collaboration is different from plagiarism. However, some would deem both as synonymous acts. In fact, in Howard’s piece, Richard A. Fass finds buying a paper online to be just as bad as seeking a “writing tutor’s assistance in the ‘style and structure of a paper.’” Does this mean I am automatically plagiarizing if I seek help from the Writing Center? I think that’s absurd. Fass and the university need to get with the program and reevaluate their stances on plagiarism by looking through Howard’s eyes.

Ghostwriting - Who's at Fault?

As we begin to tackle the issues of ghostwriting, I wonder whether the act is as bad as it may initially seem. After all, Scot said that ghostwriting is a common occurrence in the real world that extends beyond the store bookshelves. There are probably countless memos and reports that are signed by lower level employees under different names on a daily basis. If these acts do not concern us, then why should we look down upon a celebrity who has his or her employees do the same?

I attended the Barack Obama rally on Tuesday, and his speech raised issues of authorship in my mind. I don’t know whether the speech was ghostwritten, but does that really matter? The central ideas that he expressed were undoubtedly his own and seemingly ones that he will adopt if elected as president. Who cares if they were pieced together by a different individual? After all, if we consider Barthes, that “imposter” would only be exercising his/her sole "power [...] to mix writings," and that individual’s claim on the piece would end as soon as the writing began. Moreover, Obama, through the act of his unique presentation, may be viewed as adopting ownership and thusly, at minimal, partial authorship over the speech.

I think the concern with ghostwriting stems from our inability to allow for text to stand on its own. We always need to tie writing to a certain person’s name, and if we are deceived, we feel our reading experience is in some way affected. Perhaps we need to learn how to interpret and appreciate what we read without reaching beyond the text in front of us. The blame may not lie on those who employ ghostwriters. Instead, we as readers may be the ones at fault.

Welcome to the Future

Check out this advertisement from Cisco, a company striving to establish what they have coined as the “human network.”

I find the potential for the future portrayed in this video to be really exciting. Bias as it may understandably be, the video highlights the positive effects that hopefully will result from the evolution of the type of technology that we discussed in class. One part of the video even shows off a service similar to ImaHima in “Smart Mobs: The Power of the Mobile Many.” Rather than focusing on the dangerous aspects of this technology that Cisco does not address in its ad, I would like to delve deeper into what was focused upon.

“Welcome to a place where books rewrite themselves.” Did I just hear Barthes fall out of his chair? It seems that this blooming technology has fervently resurrected the author from the grave. The Great Unwashed, as Howard would refer to them, can access and edit websites such as Wikipedia, which is also featured in the video, to rewrite articles in pursuit of the ultimate truth. How would Foucault react to this technology? I have a feeling that he would approve, for he states in “What is an Author?” that, “In the future development of science, the founding act may appear as little more than a particular instance of a more general phenomenon which unveils itself in the process.” Foucault realized that at least a specific genre of writing is dynamic, and the new technology that we have at our disposal has made the whole “unveiling” process more convenient.

Is there a downside to exposing the Great Unwashed to a “library [that] travels across the world?” Moreover, if this library is virtual as portrayed in the video and in the form of a database such as Wikipedia, where do responsibility and ownership lie? As members and contributors to the “human network,” do we own the information available to us on the internet? If so, then once again I question the idea of plagiarism. Perhaps these concerns need to be addressed by the network as a whole; after all, “we're more powerful together than we ever could be apart.”