Although I think that Stephen Colbert was harsh in his blunt criticism of David Shields' book, I think that he has a point. Where do you draw the line from stealing other people's work to add to your own and becoming a complete fraud yourself? David Shields says that Colbert "draws his persona" from his Fox news counterpart, but everything that Colbert says and does is unique to him; he's not directly copying someone else. David Shields agrees that he is the Vanilla Ice of novels, but is this necessarily a good thing? Didn't Vanilla Ice get sued for using basically the same tune from Queen's "Under Pressure?" I think that collage as an art form is definitely interesting and worth looking at, but a whole novel of collages, especially without citations, might just be too much to handle. Watching this video has made me agree with Colbert's opinion more, but I think if Shields had not been so caught off guard and had prepared a good retaliation he could have argued that he is creating a whole new story from the random quotes and facts he has put together: one that is completely unique to him. However, Shield's argument that he is trying to encourage authors to break from the fetters of 19th century novels is not convincing enough for me to take his side.
I really liked this video and thought the ending was really funny. Like Lizzy said, Stephen Colbert was a bit harsh but he did have a point. David Shields literally took other peoples work and called it his own. I didn't like the way it was put together. I like the idea though. However, too me the facts and quotes were just too random. He didn't even want to give them credit! Does anyone have any idea why Shields would want that? When Shields says that "all art is theft" I think he has a point. Like our Erasure essays, we literally took Tim O'Briens words, erased a lot of them and made our own story. We may like to call it "our story" but really, isn't it O'Briens? It's his words, we just randomly decided to get rid of some of them. Where do we draw the line? Was the erasure essay really our essay? Or was it O'Briens?
I actually completely disagree with the interview. If this was okay everyone in America could become a famous writer. For David Shields to literally copy and paste other author's words should not be allowed. That is why in the first place copy right rules were made. If this was okay then people could become writers without actually even being a good writer, which defeats the purpose of publishing books. I understand what Lizzy and Annie mean when they say at a certain point all art is theft, but copying words out of a book, word for word, is different then two people both drawing a flower. You can make flowers that are not completely the same and very general, but there is no way for you to copy words without it being stealing. A book's words come from a person's mind and drawing flowers just comes from looking at pictures of flowers and drawing them. Stealing from the mind is a lot different then stealing the idea of a flower, that millions of other people draw every day. I think what David Shields did was wrong even though he was forced to have citation pages. In my opinion, since the book was not his at all, he should not even get credit for writing the novel. All the authors who wrote what he put in his book should get the real credit.
Also, consider this comment from a reader responding to the question, "What is the difference between music sampling and literary sampling?"
"The difference between bands like Girl Talk who sample music to create new pieces, and someone copying someone else's words into a paper they're writing, is that Girl Talk doesn't claim to have made the samples. One of the aspects of why plagiarism is seen as wrong is because you're taking credit for someone else's work. When you're sampling music, you're crediting them."
Doesn't David Shields credit the people he samples?
As Stephen Colbert usually does, he takes what someone says and purposely misinterprets or exaggerates what they say in a comical way. Through all Mr. Colbert's witty banter, he actually brings up an interesting point when he talks about stealing someone's personal property: it becomes difficult after a certain point to know where to draw the line between creative license and copyright infringement. Personally I think David Shields is in the gray area of his creative license. Reality Hunger reminds me of another remix The United States of Pop, which takes the top 25 songs from each year and mashes them up into one song; however, DJ Earworm, the remixer, does cite each song and its artist. When we read the exerpt from reality hunger I had no clue that these were other people's writings mixed together, I thought it was his own personal collage of thoughts. If he cited in a normal text size and made it clear from the beginning that it was a remix of other peoples' works, he would then be within his creative license of a writer. I think he brings up interesting points about that writing isn't original, but since I'm a writer, I strongly disagree with his statement because it seems to undermine hours and hours of effort attempting to make something different and original.
To be honest, I thought the interview was really awkward. It seemed that Stephen Colbert was making fun of the book but David Shields didn't seem to appreciate that. If he didn't want to take humorous criticism he probably shouldn't have been on the show. Nonetheless, regarding the topic of plagiarism, I think what David Shields did is ok. Like Ms. Fleming said, Shields didn't use other people's work and call it his own, he just used it to demonstrate a point. Similarly, if we call this plagiarism, we would be forced to call every other time someone references other works plagiarism. We would then have to censor things like TV shows, the news, and even textbooks. Further demonstrating my view, I don't at all think that our erasure essay was anything but our own. We took words from a page and came up with an entirely new concept, and we even acknowledged what we had used. Therefore, I really don't think this book constitutes plagiarism.
After putting aside all the comical aspects of the interview, I think that both sides mark interesting arguments about what should and shouldn't be considered plagiarism. I agree with both arguments to some extent. Like Annie said, there are ways to use other people's words and still make it your own work. The way we made personal poems from pages of The Things They Carried is a perfect example. The words we used may have been taken from O'Brien's story, but I still believe that they are our stories. The message was changed so much that it became focused on a completely different topic. By the end of it, I'm sure almost none of ours had anything to do with war. To some extent, I don't even think O'Brien would want to be considered the author of our stories because he didn't get to pick the word himself, and the message might be something to which he doesn't agree. For example, if you cut out certain parts of his book, you could make it seem like war is just a beautiful thing with no evil, and he would most certainly not want that. Is using his own words to twist what he says until its not the same, or maybe even the complete opposite, of what he's trying to say wrong? That feels unfair to the original author to me, but I don't know for sure. There are a lot of contradicting views about topics, so maybe that'd just be something the author must accept. Also, it seems like now its almost impossible to write a book that isn't in some ways plagiarism in the first place. There are so many works of art that have been written that almost all meaningful themes seem to have been done, in some way or another. It's important that we take these themes and adapt them to keep them alive and meaningful, and I think that through using other peoples works, it could potentially be a good way to keep old work alive yet updated. Of course, there is also a part of me though that can't imagine really using someone else's work as part of my own. I think part of the problem is that for so many years we've been told that it's wrong to in any way copy someone else's work, that its something we can't and don't really want to think about as a possibility because it goes against what we've known to be true.
I have mixed feelings about that interview. I feel as if Stephen Colbert was finding everything negative about his book (which doesn't exactly help to promote "Reality Hunger") but at the same time, I thought that what Colbert was saying throughout the interview was pretty funny. In relation to plagiarism, I feel as if Colbert has a point: at a certain point, I think its necessary to remind yourself how much of your work isn't actually yours to begin with. I feel as if I wrote that book, I would be very cautious with citing because I wouldn't want any trouble over my book. Like Trevin said, when I was reading the book, it seemed like David Shields' thoughts, not someone else's writing. And I agree that David Shields does decide (with pressure from his publishers) to put citations, but I feel as if he could have given the people who actually wrote the original works more credit in the interview.
I believe that this interview with Stephen Colbert really does bring up a good point about the book that I believe is morally wrong. It is the fact that David Shields tried to steal other people’s work without citing them. The only reason why this is not how the book is written is because the publisher was smart and did not allow David to steal other people’s intellectual property and made him put citing for each quote he was going to steal from their speakers. I have strong feelings about this because of an experience that happened to my cousin. He wrote a song and it was an incredibly good song, the best he had ever written and then the guitarist in his band quit and took the sheet music for it. The guitarist then formed a new band and recorded that song and made tons off of my cousin’s intellectual property. This is the exact thing that David Shields is doing, he is stealing from other people and making a profit from their ideas by just putting them in a new order and calling it a book. I think it is amazing that Stephen Colbert calls him out on this because it is good for him to put David Shields on the spot about almost committing plagiarism from many people’s ideas. All in all from this interview, I thing that it is a terrible thing for David Shields to compose this book from so many other peoples ideas and even try to not cite them for their work.
I really liked this video because it was funny and entertaining. Commenting on what Ms. Fleming said, I do think David Shields cites and gives credit to the people's quotes in his book. Towards the end of the video he says in the back of the book there are 10 or so pages of citations of the people's work. So, by doing this, he is giving them credit for their work and not plagiarising. Also, the fact that plagiarism is illegal, wouldn't he not be allowed to publish his book, "Reality Hunger" if he did not cite the other people? Although, to most people it does look like plagiarism because they probably think he did not give them credit and they might recognize some of the quotes from different authors. Anyway, I think it was a very creative way to bring a new style of writing into the twenty-first century; but, maybe he could of just xeroxed it and passed it out on the street instead. (That was from the video.)
During the whole interview, all I could think about was how awkward David must be. However, I have to sort of agree with Stephen. We start learning in elementary school that stealing other people's stuff and calling it your own is very wrong. Despite this, David wanted to use other people's words without citing them. I suppose one could get into the argument that no one "owns" words and that everyone should be allowed to use them, but then we can get into a even more pointless argument about whether people would continue to write if they wouldn't receive credit. Also, there's the whole "existence of imagination" thing. It's so hard nowadays to write or compose something which is 50% original, much less 100%. There's a quote that reads something like "Everything there is to say has already been said." And this fact is what is killing the music industry as well as other art forms. I think what David did was technically wrong, but I don't blame him.
Although I agree with David Shields that a lot of art is editing and drawing off of what other people have done, I think that it was necessary for them to cite the original authors. After all, it was their exact words that he is using, and he is employing their ideas and facts. From this video, my impression is that this book seems like a movie. A movie is essentially using already "created" actors and behind the scenes stage crews who make all the props and manage the technical aspects. Likewise, this book seems to use already written words to create something completely new. At the end of his book, in small print there are all the names of the people he has borrowed from, just like the credits at the end of a movie. I think that it is perfectly fine for him to use this new style of writing, but since he wanted it published, it was good that he conformed to the basic laws of the other authors. It would not be fair to make a movie without giving credit to all the actors who acted out the parts that brought the movie to life and all the behind the scene workers. I think that it was right of his publisher to make Shields cite his sources because as Ryan said, the words are the "intellectual property" of the original writers. Stephen Colbert does call Shields out on it, rightly, and though he makes it comical, it is something that must be addressed. If someone is intending to make money off of someone else's work then they must cite it, by law. Even if he was simply writing this to get his thoughts out into the world, without any material gain, I think it would still be respectful to the original authors to cite his sources as the words aren't his own.
While watching the video, I was drawn to Colbert's side more than David Shields. Colbert might have been a little bit harsh, but he was right. You cannot just take other people's work and say that it is your own. While I understand what David Shields was trying to do, you have to draw a line between making a collage and plagiarism. Shields took quotes from other people, their own words, and put them together in a collage of a book. He didn't even want to cite them! This seems just a little bit of a stretch to me. Although he did not have a strong rebuttal, Shields does have a point when he says "all art is theft". This proves to be true in the erasure essays we wrote. We took other peoples words and edited them to be our own. The question is where to draw the line between making art and plagiarism.
Steven Colbert is very harsh about how he is criticizing David Shields. I realize it was mostly meant as a joke but it was still pretty mean. Anyway, I understand both sides of the argument and I'm not really sure who's side I am on. On one hand, it is true that Shields makes the 'stolen' literature completely different by arranging the quotes in different ways and putting it with other pieces that make the context different. He is totally reforming each piece of literature in his book and making it into a new work of art, therefore I don't really know if i think its that bad. It's exactly the same, in my opinion, as when artists take different songs and put them all together. The only thing I think is bad is that David Shields did not want to give the other writers credit. I understand it but at the same time, even if he is changing the context, he still is using their ideas and their words. Colbert's argument is that he cannot take stolen literature like that. I see his point to but at the same time I don't know if I think it's that bad.
I think that Stephen Colbert really was a funny part of this interview, and not just because he was sarcastic. I think that he really played into the theme of the book. Most of what he says or does comes from somewhere else, and he knows this. He makes jokes that everybody else would make. He acts like a goof and pretends to be clumsy when getting the book. Another thing I noticed is David Shields' face. Throughout the whole interview, you could tell he was getting frustrated with Colbert by making jokes and not taking it seriously, but didn't show it because he kept telling himself that that's the point of this show. I could see this because I would have been the exact same way. Going on a show to talk about a serious work of mine only to have it made fun of would be pretty humiliating. On the other hand, I think it was the right, not only funny thing to do when Colbert cut out the pages at the end, in a way saying "You are right and I think your idea is interesting." By the way, I thought the Fox jokes were pretty good.
I understand what Stephen Colbert is trying to say. I agree with David Shields when he says hes trying to remove the limitations of writing, but Colbert is still right. Whenever someone is using any piece of writing that is not theirs, it is morally right to cite it. Colbert uses the actual book, "Reality Hunger," as David Shield's "house" where he stuffed all of his neighbors' crap inside. That is a perfect way of showing what Shields has done. Why didn't he just put it on a website? They are not his words. So why was it published?
I think an interview with Stephen Colbert is not the best way David Shields could have showed off his book. David Shields had to of known that no matter what he said, Stephen Colbert was going to twist his words around to make it funny, but almost a pathetic funny. I didn't really think that the interview was funny at all, although it is intended to be because it is on Comedy Central. I think that David Shields was trying to use the opportunity of being on live television to advertise his book, but he should of known that Stephen Colbert's job is to take what people say or do and make a big joke out of it. David Shields had some interesting points about breaking the rules of writing and merging the boundaries between fiction and non fiction, but Stephen Colbert just turned every point David Shields had into a complete joke. I didn't think that Stephen Colbert cutting up the book was funny; I actually think its crude humor. I wish David Shields would of had the chance to elaborate on some of his ideas.
Although Stephen Colbert seemed to be harsh and ignorant about David Shields work, i think both sides bring up interesting and strong arguments. For Stephen Colbert, he seemed to not give up the fact that David Shields used other peoples writings and quotes. He claimed that it was plagiarism and stolen. Although very harsh, David Shields cannot argue with this accusation because it depicts what he did with a negative connotation. David Shields makes the argument that he simply was breaking the standard of writing and that this was just another technique. This is an interesting argument because Colbert is clearly boxed in by the standard, proving this through his negative reaction. I thought about the two sides and decided that what David Shields did is the same thing as remixing and editing. I think that people do what David Shields has done everyday without thinking about it, however the difference is that we do not make an argument for this remixing or plagiarism. David Shields took found writing and remixed it into his own story, editing and adding. This is not plagiarism because while using the same quotes and stories he is implementing them into a whole new setting.
I think that this was a comical video, mixed with truth and harsh humor. David Shields was trying to explain that he want to make a new type of writing that would escape the precedents of the 19th century. He did set himself up for this when he accepted this interview. Stephen Colbert was making a lot of jokes about "Reality Hunger." He was doing this interview with a lot of comedy and humor to keep attention and make the interview more attractive to viewers. His humor did have a point that made it funny in the way that it criticized David's dream of making new story types by complete and total plagiarism. In addition, what was David's preparation for this interview, he could have done a little more to help his cause.
I think that David Shields should have cited it. I think that it isn't fair to the authors who wrote something to not be creditted for their work. I think that David Shields should not have put the citations on the last few pages in really small print, considering his intention was to have the reader cut out the pages. It isn't fair to those who wrote. Colbert was trying to do what he always does; make a joke out of everything. If i were David Shields and i was just interviewed like that, i would not be happy. This clip was not one of Colbert's better interviews. David Shields should cite the information, and Colbert was very harsh during the interview.
This was a funny video and I like the excitement in the video. Also i lke the way that Mr. Shields is not being the normal writer by writing something just like everybody else but, he has found a new way to write by using others people words which could change the context of that sentence and give it a whole new meaning than the one before it. Furthermore I like how Mr. Shields is such a good sport about how Mr. Colbert comes at him in the start of the report.
To be frank, I thought the interview was very good. It was both funny and informative. Both sides gave their arguments on each side very well. I understand Shields' side of the debate too. Colbert says that Shields is plagiarizing, but I don't think that he's plagiarizing at all. First off, Shields always cites the works of texts that he pastes in his book. Second of all, Shields uses these texts in different contexts and gives off different interpretations. Shields' way of putting texts in different locations (for example, putting it next to a contrasting point; aporia) gives different ways of thinking about the texts, so essentially, the implications of whatever texts pasted there are changed and could be different. However, I also understand Colbert's point of view. Its wouldn't really be good to copy other works and get profit from it by selling his own book of others' words. However, Colbert was very entertaining in his ways of expressing his point. But honestly overall, I really don't think Shields' book is doing anything bad. It's a new form of innovation, which is what his own book advocates is the modern art.
I thought that the video was very funny. I enjoy satire and Stephen Colbert' particular brand of satire. I did not think that he was being harsh on Mr. Shields, as he was merely playing the part and pointing out the pitfalls of the book. I agree with David Shields in that I think that it should be ok to take bits of other people's work and re-arrange it into something new. It happens all the time in other art forms such as dance and music. However, I do agree with Colbert in some respects. I think that he should be required to cite his sources, although I understand why Mr. Shields did not want to so. Although, it might be ok to not cite sources if he did not make a profit from it. This is because its harder to make money as a writer than, say, a musician. By not getting a profit, he is saying that he does not own the words.
I did enjoy watching this video and believe both Colbert and Shields brought in very interesting points. Yet again like Lizzie and Annie said there should be a line between stealing somebody else's work and using some aspects of one others work while giving credit. I share the same views with most of you. Here is and example of where I believe a line should be drawn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxD_7S7bl8k This song, Pon De Floor has a distinct chorus yet isn't really well known among most of us. So if Beyoncé uses the same beat in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBmMU_iwe6U&feature=related, in Run the World yet does not give any credit, is that just? From around 0:59-1:23 she uses the beat and uses it throughout the song. Please give me your opinion.
Although I think that Stephen Colbert was harsh in his blunt criticism of David Shields' book, I think that he has a point. Where do you draw the line from stealing other people's work to add to your own and becoming a complete fraud yourself? David Shields says that Colbert "draws his persona" from his Fox news counterpart, but everything that Colbert says and does is unique to him; he's not directly copying someone else. David Shields agrees that he is the Vanilla Ice of novels, but is this necessarily a good thing? Didn't Vanilla Ice get sued for using basically the same tune from Queen's "Under Pressure?" I think that collage as an art form is definitely interesting and worth looking at, but a whole novel of collages, especially without citations, might just be too much to handle. Watching this video has made me agree with Colbert's opinion more, but I think if Shields had not been so caught off guard and had prepared a good retaliation he could have argued that he is creating a whole new story from the random quotes and facts he has put together: one that is completely unique to him. However, Shield's argument that he is trying to encourage authors to break from the fetters of 19th century novels is not convincing enough for me to take his side.
ReplyDeleteI really liked this video and thought the ending was really funny. Like Lizzy said, Stephen Colbert was a bit harsh but he did have a point. David Shields literally took other peoples work and called it his own. I didn't like the way it was put together. I like the idea though. However, too me the facts and quotes were just too random. He didn't even want to give them credit! Does anyone have any idea why Shields would want that? When Shields says that "all art is theft" I think he has a point. Like our Erasure essays, we literally took Tim O'Briens words, erased a lot of them and made our own story. We may like to call it "our story" but really, isn't it O'Briens? It's his words, we just randomly decided to get rid of some of them. Where do we draw the line? Was the erasure essay really our essay? Or was it O'Briens?
ReplyDeleteI actually completely disagree with the interview. If this was okay everyone in America could become a famous writer. For David Shields to literally copy and paste other author's words should not be allowed. That is why in the first place copy right rules were made. If this was okay then people could become writers without actually even being a good writer, which defeats the purpose of publishing books. I understand what Lizzy and Annie mean when they say at a certain point all art is theft, but copying words out of a book, word for word, is different then two people both drawing a flower. You can make flowers that are not completely the same and very general, but there is no way for you to copy words without it being stealing. A book's words come from a person's mind and drawing flowers just comes from looking at pictures of flowers and drawing them. Stealing from the mind is a lot different then stealing the idea of a flower, that millions of other people draw every day. I think what David Shields did was wrong even though he was forced to have citation pages. In my opinion, since the book was not his at all, he should not even get credit for writing the novel. All the authors who wrote what he put in his book should get the real credit.
ReplyDeleteYou guys. Let's try to remember that Stephen Colbert is a "satirist."
ReplyDeleteAlso, consider this comment from a reader responding to the question, "What is the difference between music sampling and literary sampling?"
ReplyDelete"The difference between bands like Girl Talk who sample music to create new pieces, and someone copying someone else's words into a paper they're writing, is that Girl Talk doesn't claim to have made the samples. One of the aspects of why plagiarism is seen as wrong is because you're taking credit for someone else's work. When you're sampling music, you're crediting them."
Doesn't David Shields credit the people he samples?
(I'm playing Devil's Advocate)
As Stephen Colbert usually does, he takes what someone says and purposely misinterprets or exaggerates what they say in a comical way. Through all Mr. Colbert's witty banter, he actually brings up an interesting point when he talks about stealing someone's personal property: it becomes difficult after a certain point to know where to draw the line between creative license and copyright infringement. Personally I think David Shields is in the gray area of his creative license. Reality Hunger reminds me of another remix The United States of Pop, which takes the top 25 songs from each year and mashes them up into one song; however, DJ Earworm, the remixer, does cite each song and its artist. When we read the exerpt from reality hunger I had no clue that these were other people's writings mixed together, I thought it was his own personal collage of thoughts. If he cited in a normal text size and made it clear from the beginning that it was a remix of other peoples' works, he would then be within his creative license of a writer. I think he brings up interesting points about that writing isn't original, but since I'm a writer, I strongly disagree with his statement because it seems to undermine hours and hours of effort attempting to make something different and original.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, I thought the interview was really awkward. It seemed that Stephen Colbert was making fun of the book but David Shields didn't seem to appreciate that. If he didn't want to take humorous criticism he probably shouldn't have been on the show. Nonetheless, regarding the topic of plagiarism, I think what David Shields did is ok. Like Ms. Fleming said, Shields didn't use other people's work and call it his own, he just used it to demonstrate a point. Similarly, if we call this plagiarism, we would be forced to call every other time someone references other works plagiarism. We would then have to censor things like TV shows, the news, and even textbooks. Further demonstrating my view, I don't at all think that our erasure essay was anything but our own. We took words from a page and came up with an entirely new concept, and we even acknowledged what we had used. Therefore, I really don't think this book constitutes plagiarism.
ReplyDeleteAfter putting aside all the comical aspects of the interview, I think that both sides mark interesting arguments about what should and shouldn't be considered plagiarism. I agree with both arguments to some extent. Like Annie said, there are ways to use other people's words and still make it your own work. The way we made personal poems from pages of The Things They Carried is a perfect example. The words we used may have been taken from O'Brien's story, but I still believe that they are our stories. The message was changed so much that it became focused on a completely different topic. By the end of it, I'm sure almost none of ours had anything to do with war. To some extent, I don't even think O'Brien would want to be considered the author of our stories because he didn't get to pick the word himself, and the message might be something to which he doesn't agree. For example, if you cut out certain parts of his book, you could make it seem like war is just a beautiful thing with no evil, and he would most certainly not want that. Is using his own words to twist what he says until its not the same, or maybe even the complete opposite, of what he's trying to say wrong? That feels unfair to the original author to me, but I don't know for sure. There are a lot of contradicting views about topics, so maybe that'd just be something the author must accept. Also, it seems like now its almost impossible to write a book that isn't in some ways plagiarism in the first place. There are so many works of art that have been written that almost all meaningful themes seem to have been done, in some way or another. It's important that we take these themes and adapt them to keep them alive and meaningful, and I think that through using other peoples works, it could potentially be a good way to keep old work alive yet updated. Of course, there is also a part of me though that can't imagine really using someone else's work as part of my own. I think part of the problem is that for so many years we've been told that it's wrong to in any way copy someone else's work, that its something we can't and don't really want to think about as a possibility because it goes against what we've known to be true.
ReplyDeleteI have mixed feelings about that interview. I feel as if Stephen Colbert was finding everything negative about his book (which doesn't exactly help to promote "Reality Hunger") but at the same time, I thought that what Colbert was saying throughout the interview was pretty funny. In relation to plagiarism, I feel as if Colbert has a point: at a certain point, I think its necessary to remind yourself how much of your work isn't actually yours to begin with. I feel as if I wrote that book, I would be very cautious with citing because I wouldn't want any trouble over my book. Like Trevin said, when I was reading the book, it seemed like David Shields' thoughts, not someone else's writing. And I agree that David Shields does decide (with pressure from his publishers) to put citations, but I feel as if he could have given the people who actually wrote the original works more credit in the interview.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this interview with Stephen Colbert really does bring up a good point about the book that I believe is morally wrong. It is the fact that David Shields tried to steal other people’s work without citing them. The only reason why this is not how the book is written is because the publisher was smart and did not allow David to steal other people’s intellectual property and made him put citing for each quote he was going to steal from their speakers. I have strong feelings about this because of an experience that happened to my cousin. He wrote a song and it was an incredibly good song, the best he had ever written and then the guitarist in his band quit and took the sheet music for it. The guitarist then formed a new band and recorded that song and made tons off of my cousin’s intellectual property. This is the exact thing that David Shields is doing, he is stealing from other people and making a profit from their ideas by just putting them in a new order and calling it a book. I think it is amazing that Stephen Colbert calls him out on this because it is good for him to put David Shields on the spot about almost committing plagiarism from many people’s ideas. All in all from this interview, I thing that it is a terrible thing for David Shields to compose this book from so many other peoples ideas and even try to not cite them for their work.
ReplyDeleteI really liked this video because it was funny and entertaining. Commenting on what Ms. Fleming said, I do think David Shields cites and gives credit to the people's quotes in his book. Towards the end of the video he says in the back of the book there are 10 or so pages of citations of the people's work. So, by doing this, he is giving them credit for their work and not plagiarising. Also, the fact that plagiarism is illegal, wouldn't he not be allowed to publish his book, "Reality Hunger" if he did not cite the other people? Although, to most people it does look like plagiarism because they probably think he did not give them credit and they might recognize some of the quotes from different authors. Anyway, I think it was a very creative way to bring a new style of writing into the twenty-first century; but, maybe he could of just xeroxed it and passed it out on the street instead. (That was from the video.)
ReplyDeleteDuring the whole interview, all I could think about was how awkward David must be. However, I have to sort of agree with Stephen. We start learning in elementary school that stealing other people's stuff and calling it your own is very wrong. Despite this, David wanted to use other people's words without citing them. I suppose one could get into the argument that no one "owns" words and that everyone should be allowed to use them, but then we can get into a even more pointless argument about whether people would continue to write if they wouldn't receive credit. Also, there's the whole "existence of imagination" thing. It's so hard nowadays to write or compose something which is 50% original, much less 100%. There's a quote that reads something like "Everything there is to say has already been said." And this fact is what is killing the music industry as well as other art forms. I think what David did was technically wrong, but I don't blame him.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree with David Shields that a lot of art is editing and drawing off of what other people have done, I think that it was necessary for them to cite the original authors. After all, it was their exact words that he is using, and he is employing their ideas and facts. From this video, my impression is that this book seems like a movie. A movie is essentially using already "created" actors and behind the scenes stage crews who make all the props and manage the technical aspects. Likewise, this book seems to use already written words to create something completely new. At the end of his book, in small print there are all the names of the people he has borrowed from, just like the credits at the end of a movie. I think that it is perfectly fine for him to use this new style of writing, but since he wanted it published, it was good that he conformed to the basic laws of the other authors. It would not be fair to make a movie without giving credit to all the actors who acted out the parts that brought the movie to life and all the behind the scene workers. I think that it was right of his publisher to make Shields cite his sources because as Ryan said, the words are the "intellectual property" of the original writers. Stephen Colbert does call Shields out on it, rightly, and though he makes it comical, it is something that must be addressed. If someone is intending to make money off of someone else's work then they must cite it, by law. Even if he was simply writing this to get his thoughts out into the world, without any material gain, I think it would still be respectful to the original authors to cite his sources as the words aren't his own.
ReplyDeleteWhile watching the video, I was drawn to Colbert's side more than David Shields. Colbert might have been a little bit harsh, but he was right. You cannot just take other people's work and say that it is your own. While I understand what David Shields was trying to do, you have to draw a line between making a collage and plagiarism. Shields took quotes from other people, their own words, and put them together in a collage of a book. He didn't even want to cite them! This seems just a little bit of a stretch to me. Although he did not have a strong rebuttal, Shields does have a point when he says "all art is theft". This proves to be true in the erasure essays we wrote. We took other peoples words and edited them to be our own. The question is where to draw the line between making art and plagiarism.
ReplyDeleteSteven Colbert is very harsh about how he is criticizing David Shields. I realize it was mostly meant as a joke but it was still pretty mean. Anyway, I understand both sides of the argument and I'm not really sure who's side I am on. On one hand, it is true that Shields makes the 'stolen' literature completely different by arranging the quotes in different ways and putting it with other pieces that make the context different. He is totally reforming each piece of literature in his book and making it into a new work of art, therefore I don't really know if i think its that bad. It's exactly the same, in my opinion, as when artists take different songs and put them all together. The only thing I think is bad is that David Shields did not want to give the other writers credit. I understand it but at the same time, even if he is changing the context, he still is using their ideas and their words. Colbert's argument is that he cannot take stolen literature like that. I see his point to but at the same time I don't know if I think it's that bad.
ReplyDeleteI think that Stephen Colbert really was a funny part of this interview, and not just because he was sarcastic. I think that he really played into the theme of the book. Most of what he says or does comes from somewhere else, and he knows this. He makes jokes that everybody else would make. He acts like a goof and pretends to be clumsy when getting the book. Another thing I noticed is David Shields' face. Throughout the whole interview, you could tell he was getting frustrated with Colbert by making jokes and not taking it seriously, but didn't show it because he kept telling himself that that's the point of this show. I could see this because I would have been the exact same way. Going on a show to talk about a serious work of mine only to have it made fun of would be pretty humiliating. On the other hand, I think it was the right, not only funny thing to do when Colbert cut out the pages at the end, in a way saying "You are right and I think your idea is interesting."
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I thought the Fox jokes were pretty good.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI understand what Stephen Colbert is trying to say. I agree with David Shields when he says hes trying to remove the limitations of writing, but Colbert is still right. Whenever someone is using any piece of writing that is not theirs, it is morally right to cite it. Colbert uses the actual book, "Reality Hunger," as David Shield's "house" where he stuffed all of his neighbors' crap inside. That is a perfect way of showing what Shields has done.
ReplyDeleteWhy didn't he just put it on a website? They are not his words. So why was it published?
I think an interview with Stephen Colbert is not the best way David Shields could have showed off his book. David Shields had to of known that no matter what he said, Stephen Colbert was going to twist his words around to make it funny, but almost a pathetic funny. I didn't really think that the interview was funny at all, although it is intended to be because it is on Comedy Central. I think that David Shields was trying to use the opportunity of being on live television to advertise his book, but he should of known that Stephen Colbert's job is to take what people say or do and make a big joke out of it. David Shields had some interesting points about breaking the rules of writing and merging the boundaries between fiction and non fiction, but Stephen Colbert just turned every point David Shields had into a complete joke. I didn't think that Stephen Colbert cutting up the book was funny; I actually think its crude humor. I wish David Shields would of had the chance to elaborate on some of his ideas.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Stephen Colbert seemed to be harsh and ignorant about David Shields work, i think both sides bring up interesting and strong arguments. For Stephen Colbert, he seemed to not give up the fact that David Shields used other peoples writings and quotes. He claimed that it was plagiarism and stolen. Although very harsh, David Shields cannot argue with this accusation because it depicts what he did with a negative connotation. David Shields makes the argument that he simply was breaking the standard of writing and that this was just another technique. This is an interesting argument because Colbert is clearly boxed in by the standard, proving this through his negative reaction. I thought about the two sides and decided that what David Shields did is the same thing as remixing and editing. I think that people do what David Shields has done everyday without thinking about it, however the difference is that we do not make an argument for this remixing or plagiarism. David Shields took found writing and remixed it into his own story, editing and adding. This is not plagiarism because while using the same quotes and stories he is implementing them into a whole new setting.
ReplyDeleteI think that this was a comical video, mixed with truth and harsh humor. David Shields was trying to explain that he want to make a new type of writing that would escape the precedents of the 19th century. He did set himself up for this when he accepted this interview. Stephen Colbert was making a lot of jokes about "Reality Hunger." He was doing this interview with a lot of comedy and humor to keep attention and make the interview more attractive to viewers. His humor did have a point that made it funny in the way that it criticized David's dream of making new story types by complete and total plagiarism. In addition, what was David's preparation for this interview, he could have done a little more to help his cause.
ReplyDeleteI think that David Shields should have cited it. I think that it isn't fair to the authors who wrote something to not be creditted for their work. I think that David Shields should not have put the citations on the last few pages in really small print, considering his intention was to have the reader cut out the pages. It isn't fair to those who wrote. Colbert was trying to do what he always does; make a joke out of everything. If i were David Shields and i was just interviewed like that, i would not be happy. This clip was not one of Colbert's better interviews. David Shields should cite the information, and Colbert was very harsh during the interview.
ReplyDeleteThis was a funny video and I like the excitement in the video. Also i lke the way that Mr. Shields is not being the normal writer by writing something just like everybody else but, he has found a new way to write by using others people words which could change the context of that sentence and give it a whole new meaning than the one before it. Furthermore I like how Mr. Shields is such a good sport about how Mr. Colbert comes at him in the start of the report.
ReplyDeleteTo be frank, I thought the interview was very good. It was both funny and informative. Both sides gave their arguments on each side very well. I understand Shields' side of the debate too. Colbert says that Shields is plagiarizing, but I don't think that he's plagiarizing at all. First off, Shields always cites the works of texts that he pastes in his book. Second of all, Shields uses these texts in different contexts and gives off different interpretations. Shields' way of putting texts in different locations (for example, putting it next to a contrasting point; aporia) gives different ways of thinking about the texts, so essentially, the implications of whatever texts pasted there are changed and could be different. However, I also understand Colbert's point of view. Its wouldn't really be good to copy other works and get profit from it by selling his own book of others' words. However, Colbert was very entertaining in his ways of expressing his point. But honestly overall, I really don't think Shields' book is doing anything bad. It's a new form of innovation, which is what his own book advocates is the modern art.
ReplyDeleteI thought that the video was very funny. I enjoy satire and Stephen Colbert' particular brand of satire. I did not think that he was being harsh on Mr. Shields, as he was merely playing the part and pointing out the pitfalls of the book. I agree with David Shields in that I think that it should be ok to take bits of other people's work and re-arrange it into something new. It happens all the time in other art forms such as dance and music. However, I do agree with Colbert in some respects. I think that he should be required to cite his sources, although I understand why Mr. Shields did not want to so. Although, it might be ok to not cite sources if he did not make a profit from it. This is because its harder to make money as a writer than, say, a musician. By not getting a profit, he is saying that he does not own the words.
ReplyDeleteI did enjoy watching this video and believe both Colbert and Shields brought in very interesting points. Yet again like Lizzie and Annie said there should be a line between stealing somebody else's work and using some aspects of one others work while giving credit. I share the same views with most of you. Here is and example of where I believe a line should be drawn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxD_7S7bl8k This song, Pon De Floor has a distinct chorus yet isn't really well known among most of us. So if Beyoncé uses the same beat in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBmMU_iwe6U&feature=related, in Run the World yet does not give any credit, is that just? From around 0:59-1:23 she uses the beat and uses it throughout the song. Please give me your opinion.
ReplyDelete