Post 3

James Porter’s Intertextuality and the Discourse Community was a very interesting look at plagiarism in our culture.  I have previously heard arguments that took a strong and vocal stance against plagiarism of any kind and any definition.  However, according to Porter, the definition of plagiarism isn’t as simple as it’s made out to be.  This idea was also discussed in a previous article we read that cited group work as an example of where the concept of individual idea and plagiarism were blurred.  Porter says that imagining writing as “individual, isolated or heroic” restricts and harms the creative process.  It staunches ideas by forcing them to be the result of eliminating previously used data rather than building on those ideas.  The problems caused by this are far reaching.  For example, one definition of plagiarism would hold that using another person’s ideas for any purpose would be a violation of their intellectual property.  However, if we are not allowed to build on what has been done before us then how can we grow.  Similarly, some ideas are best expressed by the original author.  Why should paraphrasing be banned if the author himself wrote the ideas for the public?  The concept of plagiarism is too far flung to accurately punish.  If all work based on another’s ideas is plagiarism, then by acknowledging our own culture in writing, we would be unable to grow as a community.