What is and isn't plagiarism?

This is primarily in response to the Kaavya Viswanathan hornet's nest stirred up recently. I remember the day the news appeared, almost unobtrusively, on the last page of the Hindu. The matter wasn't yet making waves then. So I passed it over, since the tone of the headline wasn't accusing, judgemental or defensive yet. The next day, her photo was on the first page, on the quickies strip, titled "A cloud over Kaavya" or something.


Initially, all the publicity the story was drawing appeared disproportionate to me. After all, we all have our influences, though, admittedly, Kaavya's, here, wasn't exactly Tolstoy or Conrad. In fact, as an aside, I wondered, after gathering the facts, whether it would have made any difference to me, personally(never mind the world: it is a literary wasteland), if the offensive passages had been purloined from a 'classic', or a truly significant work. True, the claim would never have seen the light of day, probably, for what do our influences mean to us anyway? Do we imbibe their true import, make their experiences our own, interpret them in a manner befitting our own perceptions and instincts? Hardly.

Anyway, what if Kaavya had channelised the spirit and beliefs of a true social messiah, with a pen for a voice? Would the crime(as it is) be any less flagrant? Again, it is not very easy to determine what constitutes originality, but I must confess the instances highlighted in magazines and newspapers covering the scandal were very telling. It was obvious Kaavya had been either very neglectful, or very naive, which amount to pretty much the same thing in the arena of the media circus.

There have been accusations in the New York Times as well, as detailed in the wikipedia article, that Kaavya borrowed liberally and indiscriminately from books ranging from Rushdie's Haroun and the Sea of Stories, The Princess Diaries, and other recent books. Now this is a very grave spot she finds herself in, since the passages have entire sentences repeated, without any tactful revisions, even adapting them to the situation(what that may be is not my concern, not having read any of the books under question).




Especially obvious are the McCafferty borrowings, which read like unapologetic clones. Kaavya has tried to make amends by stating that McCafferty's books had had a major impact on her. That I shall not comment on, since it is her own belief, though how titles like "Sloppy Firsts" and "Second Helpings" could serve as the basis for personal inspiration is quite beyond me. But the tone of the limited passages pinpointed by the press strikes me as frivolous and 'sloppy'(excuse me), so she has a lot of explaining to do.

Apparently, there has been movie interest in the book, and that should not flag, what with all the buzz, which is box-office gold. But the grapevine says the movie will be canned. Pity. But McCafferty herself has been remarkably forgiving, which is something, given the initial response to Kaavya's book.

Of course, all the feverish gossip has to lead to an all-out exposé, beginning with how the prodigy Kaavya edited V.S.Naipaul's first book, actually wrote Chapters 1 through 4 of 'God of Small Things'(yep, Roy is the next under the axe...her trial begins in August), her childhood vision of the imminent cataclysm that shall consume the world in the fall of 2006....

Just joking. No such drama here. But the over-anxious relatives chip in with confirmations of her brilliance as a student, writer and all that jazz. After the dispensable flashbacks, it is made clear that Kaavya's books have been recalled, her contract is off, and her tenure at Harvard looks threatened. Hmmm.....a rather grim picture. I can imagine how comprehensively demoralized she must be.

So to return to the topic: is she guilty of plagiarism? Is it all right to quote one's primary influences, say, and develop those themes as one sees fit, and term the effort original? Highly debatable, of course. But especially in these times, when even the most piddly of wannabe writers arms himself with publishers, lawyers, copyrights and what not, it would be artistic suicide to flaunt one's inspirations. Kaavya, unfortunately, fell prey to this temptation(I absolve her of any laziness or ignoble motives). Sounding the death knell for 'promising' writing originating in the subcontinent, in the process.

Poof! Bleak....