I always found some brilliant beautiful (and explicitly sourced) arcane literary references on Theresa’s blog which, along with its beauty and diversity kept me coming back. If she plagiarized some things, shame on her, it doesn’t take away the pleasure she brought by bringing to light those explicitly referenced writers, should it?IF SHE PLAGIARIZED some things? IF? There seems to some doubt in Ron's mind as to whether she plagiarized. But IF she did, then so what? he seems to be saying. She brought to light "explicitly referenced writers." So that settles it. If she plagiarized, it's no big deal.Her blog was a fascinating collage of text, images, genres; her voice, her persona, unique. Are writers supposed to write about the least interesting artists they know?
Interesting, he included no links to The Wit site. We'd love to know what Ron's favorite posts are.
I wish he'd also explained how it's possible that a writer could be a plagiarist and at the same time have a unique voice.
6 comments:
Voila: Mitigation. Plagiarism excused on the grounds of bringing "explicitly referenced" and obscure writers to light. Also excused on grounds of having a good eye for visuals and for being visually appealing herself.
Interesting that Ron wouldn't bother to check out any instances of plagiarism himself. Just the first month of that blog's existence mined multiple instances. Isn't he a journalist?
"Are writers supposed to write about the least interesting artists they know?"
Old Ron's question, as it stands, is completely incongruent. How did he follow his dismissal of plagiarism with that question? The two aren't connected, and yet Ron, the author, the journalist, attempts to make them work.
And they do not. It seems that in his weak attempt to gloss over the plagiarism issue, he invented this other, fallacious argument and hopes he can run with it.
His tone is a bit petulant also, like a big child in an artsy diaper.
Yes, it's a total nonsequitur. I'm not sure what he's talking about, actually. He's all over the place.
However, kudos to him for realizing the role he's played in fanning the flames of conspiracy.
Agree with you on that. One in particular is a house on fire. And, yes, Ron came right out there with his own gas can, at first.
Don't think there's any hope of helping him out with his lack of reasoning skills, however.
I was just curious what the point of this blog is? Is it to trash the deceased or those who maintain conspiracy theories, or those who admired the deceased? I'm a bit confused by the tone of the comments.
At any rate, let them rest in peace. Haven't they been through enough?
Jessie, the blog is pretty self explanatory. It covers the coverage. If it seems to you to be "trashing" anything then that's because, unfortunately, there's trash around all over the place in this story, some of it carefully placed by Duncan herself.
As for her being a "deceased" personage and your implication that that should make anyone beyond examination or discussion...well, I guess you don't read much in the way of biography, do you? Duncan was a fascinating person, and she remains a fascinating subject. if she hadn't killed herself(and apparently motivated Blake to do likewise) she and her odd story would be less so in some crucial respects, but she did, so...
And btw, I'd worry a lot more about the extreme trashing a whole lot of living people had at Duncan and Blake's hands. Those poor ex-friends and strangers suffered for nothing. This blog and some others try to suss out what the holy hell that was all about. Theresa and Jeremy are past caring or suffering now, which was the point, one imagines, of their respective acts.
And...why are YOU here?
Post a Comment