The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-03-05
What Is Plagiarism?

Charges of plagiarism against we'll
known living writer's naturally multi
ply as more people acquire the reading
habit Nowadays they come very thick
and fast. A great many lynx-eyed and
not wholly endearing persons seem to
do nothing but lie in wait for authors.
patiently biding their chance to spatter
them with mud. The latest writer
to be SO besprinlsled Is Mr.. Jack Lon
Independent and eagerly exposes him.
Mr.. London remains quite unimpas-
stoned under the attack, and calmly
asks for a definition of what plagiar-
ism is.
1t seems that several years ago a
entitled my Dogs in the Northland."
The year after this book was pub
lished appeared Mr.. London's '"rhe Call
of the Wild" Mr. London's dogs, II
is pointed out have traits In common
with Rev. Mr.. Young's. Some Of the
incidents in their respective canine ca
reers are also much alike. as the Lady
indicates on the deadly parallel" basis
Mr.. London readily admits that he drew
freely on MIR. Young's book for his ma
! terlal, but denies plagiarism" Mr.
Toung's book was a narrative of fact
and fiction writer's, he says. have al
ways considered actual experiences Of
life to be a lawful field for cxploita-
ton. He cites this in instances:
!. "1n the course OF writing my Sea.
! Wolf wanted to exploit tumo,
and its ravages on the brain of a man
asked my family physician for data
It happened that he was the author
I OF n brochure upon tumors on the
brain. He turned this brochure ovei
to me. In 1t was everything all writ
ten out. used the material. Was &
! plagiarism? His brochure was not fc
ton. 1t was compilation OF fact!
and real happenings In q non-flctior
| form"
Mr.. London has been accused O.
| plagiarism before, and we are not, 1,
any case general apologists for char
acter. But his point here Is unques
tionably we'll taken. Plagiarism, q
we see 1t, is the theft Of another
mans ideas. and facts are no mans
ideas. They belong equally to all per
sons who ascertain them. Proprie'
torsrip OF them is out Of the ques
ton; 1t is only possible for a man t
possess a certain use or arrangement
OF them
If Mr.. London thus had taken hi
Doctors brochure and used the mate
4 rial as basis for a brochure Of nj
own, he would have been guilty Q
plagiarism. Those facts in that forr
belonged to another man. To use tn
facts, however, as a guide In the de
lineation OF an Imaginary characte
of fiction was hardly more plagiarism
than 1t would have been to use tn
facts of the Revolutionary War as tn
basis for a historical novel. just 81
though less decisively, with the dog
So long as he did not trespass upo
Mr. Young's differences and imaginn
tive comment, which were the latter
own mind and SO belonged to hin
it seems that the novelist had pei
feet right to seek information or tr
, others actual experiences and recor
, of real happenings.
Some would be disposed to carr
the argument even further, extendir
4 &c also to the realm of the imaginable
4 1T was Voltatre, we believe, who ga
, that he took his own where he four
4 it, The great satir!st had in mn
i something more than the making OF
! phrase. Why should beautiful 1d
!, be forever lost to poetry. for exar
y pie, merely because some forgotte
t singer of a century ago happened
> stumble on and mar 1T?
=.