1

Josh Huizar, Dalliana Banuelos

Dr. Maura M. Tarnoff

LEAD CTW1

21 September 2018

Influence or Plain Plagiarism?

Plagiarism has conventionally been seen as something writers should stay away from or

their career will be ruined. However, plagiarism has appeared throughout history in many art

forms and has even helped in the work of others. Author Jonathan Lethem portrays this in his

critical essay “The Ecstasy of Influence”, which talks about the different aspects of plagiarism

such as ownership and to what extent influence is allowed in the writing community without the

loss of one’s voice.

Often times influence can seem like plagiarism when it actually pays respect to the

original work and artist rather than copying it. Lethem gives multiple examples of this by

examining the work of famous music artist, Bob Dylan, who regularly used lines from movies

and written works for his song titles and lyrics. As he states, “Appropriation has always played a

key role in Dylan’s music” (59) and “Dylan’s originality and his appropriations are as one” (60),

setting into stone that most situations of influence are appreciations. Lethem articulates that

Dylan has paid homage to the works he takes lines from by creating something original out of it

and drawing more attention to those works, and states that this is the reason why influence

garners more creativity. He fully knows how those influences help him, which is why he “has

never refused a request for a sample” (65). Alike to Lethem, Dylan wants other artists to be as

creative and inspired with his music as he has with the works of others, even if might seem like
 2

plagiarism by some people. On the other side of the spectrum is Disney, who has often

appropriated sources to create some of their most popular characters and refuses to let anyone

use their reinventions for creative license. For example, they have threatened legal action against

an artist for using Disney characters in a sculpture and refusing to let a scholar use Disney

related images in her monograph. Their hypocrisy goes so far that Lethem names Disnial after

them, which is when “cultural debts flow in, but they don’t flow out. We might call this tendency

‘source hypocrisy’” (65). Many artists have been influenced by Disney, but have had their

artworks removed and creativity stifled.

As Lethem himself put it in his critical essay, the art of writing is produced by

unintentionally borrowing and being inspired by others. Lethem’s entire piece is based on having

a conversation with critics who oppose borrowing ideas as it crosses the thin line with

plagiarism. His view on borrowing is that it is essential for creativity. Not only are copyright

protections and trademarks frightening to writers for the legal fees but also for the backlash of

non-originality by the community who think borrowing ideas is considered plagiarism. Authors

often get cornered by fans, critics, and other writers if their work resembles that of another

writer’s, which can also lead to permanent damage to their career. The true key to a writer’s

originality in their work is not new ideas but getting ahold of familiar concepts and transforming

them into unrecognizable art that stuns the audience to make the familiar strange (63). Lethem

persists in the idea that common culture can be shared with the momentum of being transformed.

The main goal of common thought is being able to enrich and be shared with everyone, not

primarily for economic gain.

 3

Economically speaking, plagiarism is considered unacceptable since it decreases the

monetary value of a piece of work. To further emphasize this, Lethem brings into question the

typical market economy and a gift economy. The typical market economy has no meaning in life

interactions. Lethem provides an example of going to a hardware store to buy a hacksaw, and not

wanting more than a few simple words exchanged with the clerk. This type of interaction is not

very meaningful and we often forget about it shortly afterward. In contrast, with a gift economy,

receiving and/or giving a gift can make a big difference in how we remember an interaction. No

matter how small the gift, it tends to stay with us much longer because someone went out of their

way to provide us with the gift. When applied to artworks, such as writing, it works similarly.

Once the purpose of art is to make money, it loses its status as a gift. So when writing is

copyrighted and completely protected to avoid plagiarism and copying, it becomes a commodity

that does not have the same effect as one that has inspired other artworks. Lethem responds to

that with the idea that in a gift economy concepts do not need to be, “bought, sold, or owned”

(66), tying into how concepts and works of art should be usable by everyone. The only tradeoff

would be intentionally citing where your reinvention of the idea came from. Citing your sources

can be a way to show the source’s ownership and allow the writing community to be managed in

a similar fashion to a gift economy.

Citing sources in works of art is meant to allow the reader to understand the author’s

viewpoint and have a reference for further research. Lethem did not formally cite his references

in the traditional way, going against critics and readers who have a strict bias towards plagiarism.

Instead, Lethem revised what he needed from others to seamlessly incorporate it into his work.

His thought process also included altering ideas simply because he felt it portrayed his point
 4

more accurately. Lethem conducted this with intention, in response to the ongoing conversation

concerning plagiarism. An issue Lethem brings up is how citing sources is a huge issue in

writing because you never know whose idea it was. The writer you are reading from has been

influenced by a different writer. A main question pondered by Lethem is, who do you cite? The

writer you read yourself or the writer before them? It would be extremely redundant to cite

everyone who once thought of that same idea or concept. What is to happen if the idea was not

from a direct text but from an experience?

Lethem reminds us that literature has well-known themes that are persistently modified in

order to appeal to the audience of the time and have an application that we can relate to (59).

This is why trademarks and copyrights are not efficient in future innovation and the public

commons serve a better purpose. Artists with copyrighted works essentially turn against their

followers by trademarking their work. Instead of readers being able to create their own spin of

their work, they are forced to only understand the author’s interpretation. The reader is not

allowed to express their thoughts to the masses due to copyright complications. Public commons

proves that “invention … does not consist in creating out of void but out of chaos” (61). This is

serving the purpose of how an invention is the integration of the chaos of other’s ideas rather

than the blank mind itself. Public common develops more creativity in artistic value and

variation.

Lethem himself composed his work with direct inspiration of other authors. His piece as

a whole was a setup for critics to understand that works can still be created while being inspired

by other authors and events. At the end of the essay, he confesses to how he used others’ ideas in

his own work without in-text citations. Lethem used his own critical essay to illustrate that
 5

authors do not need full ownership and are at their most creative when they blend ideas. Having

influences from others in your writing is not inferior because when used correctly it can create

something new that has its own value without exploiting the original.

From the beginning, Lethem named his critical essay in disapproval of Harold Bloom’s

“anxiety of influence” as influence in art should never be looked down upon. The mainstream

media and many in academics condemn borrowing ideas. There is a lot of fear behind having a

dominant influence that they need to overcome so their voice becomes their own. Lethem

relentlessly tries to convince the readers that writers can have their independent voice with the

influence of others, whether intentionally welcoming the ideas of others or trying to separate the

writer’s and reader’s thoughts.

 6

Works Cited

Lethem, Jonathan. "The Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism." ​Harper's Magazine,​ Feb. 2007,

https://harpers.org/archive/2007/02/the-ecstasy-of-influence/​.