Many people believe that failure is bad; however, the reality might not be true. For example, in the articles, “Failure is Not an Option,” included in the book Bad Ideas about Writing, and “Silicon Valley’s Culture of Failure… and the ‘walking dead’ it leaves behind” respectively, Allison D Carr and Rory Carroll assert that failure is not an option is a negative idea because of its possibility to hinder success. As an alternative view, they mention that repeated failure as an option is a better idea. They say it is a better idea because failure creates an opportunity for success.

“Never Stop” by Fab Lentz licensed under Unsplash

Image by Raul Varzar is licensed under Unsplash

To solidify their argument, both authors gave an example of how repeated failure often leads to success. For instance, Carr gives examples of successful writers as her evidence, such as renowned journalist and public intellectual Ta-Nehisi Coates, Pulitzer Prize-winning novelist Junot Díaz, and Nobel prize winner for literature William Faulkner, whom all have testified that they failed many times as a writer to create good writing (Carr 78). This explains that to create good writing there is a process that may be filled with massive failure. Carr uses this evidence to show that success comes from one having the “mindset trained from failure”(Carr 76).

“Tesla Mobile 3D Wallpaper” by Alexander Shatov, licensed by Unsplash

Carroll in agreement with Carr provides additional evidence. In his article, Carroll said, “Failure is not only invoked, but celebrated [in Silicon Valley]. Entrepreneurs give speeches detailing their misfires. Academics laud the virtue of making mistakes. . . While the rest of the world recoils at failure, in other words, technology’s dynamic innovators enshrine it as a rite of passage en route to success” (Carroll). Carroll meant that in places where innovation is rewarded, Silicon Valley sees failure not as a mistake, but rather as a path for an opportunity. It is this culture of failure that makes Silicon Valley a successful place.

In addition, Carr mentions another evidence: “. . .  [We] use and benefit daily from innovations discovered by accident: penicillin, Corn Flakes, Post-it Notes, Corning ware, WD-40, oral contraception, and potato chips. All of these were discovered when the discoverer was working on a different puzzle” (Carr 77). This means that innovation is created by making a lot of attempts. It’s interesting that many of the things which one values today are made accidentally. Instead of valuing and expecting perfection, one should respect the reality that failure can be the way to success.

“A tornado rip” by Mick Haupt is licensed under Unsplash.

“The Tik Tok app” by Nik is licensed under Unsplash.

In support of Carr’s evidence, Carroll asserts the idea that failure is a path to success. He said the success, or the overnight success called by many people, comes from struggling, which is the result of repeated failure. Carroll believes it is this struggle or failure that paves the road to success. For example, He mentions, the company Airbnb, which started with two guys who struggled on their way but now have a billion-dollar company. Carroll provides Airbnb as his evidence to show how their failure (Struggle) opened the door for success while showing that the ones who stopped after one failure still fail. To explain further Carroll writes, “Most startups fail. However, many entrepreneurs still overestimate the chances of success – and the cost of failure” (Carroll). Carroll meant that even if there is a huge failure in Silicon Valley, they still know they will succeed after a repeated failure. Now, most entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley, even with most start-up businesses failing, have a dream to run their own company.

“Wave of glass and steel” by Etienne Boulanger is licensed under Unsplash

In conclusion, authors Allison D. Carr and Rory Carroll gather to inform an idea which is a better idea about failure. They conveyed that repeated failure does not hinder success, but rather provides the foundation of it. From this point, it is clear that writers should understand that creating good writing is not a linear process, but rather a recursive process. As a result, they should see their rough drafts as an opportunity to improve their paper.

                                               Works Cited                                                      

Carr, Allison. “Failure is Not an Option.” Bad Ideas About Writing. Edited by Cheryl E. Ball  & Drew M. Loewe, West Virginia University Libraries, 2017, pp. 76-81.

Carroll, Rory. “Silicon Valley’s culture of failure… and ‘the walking dead’ it leaves behind.” The Guardian. 28 June  2014.www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/28/silicon-valley-startup-failure-culture-success-myth.

The bad idea is that some people are born good writers, the author’s Jill Parrott and David Bartholomae present what they think a better idea is: to become a better writer, one must build skills, adapt, and have the persistence to improve. The author Jill Parrott addresses this bad idea, in the book Bad Ideas About Writing, by explaining that there are numerous ways writers can improve their writing and not be discouraged about it. David Bartholomae also addresses this bad idea in his article “Inventing the University” fixating on how students need to learn the conventions of writing to make their writing clear and understandable for the audience.

Graham, Scott. (2015). Man writing on paper- Vivid 2015. 2015 Photography by Scott Graham

In Parrott’s article “Some People Are Born Good Writers,” she explains her reasoning behind writers being made and not born in many ways. One of the most significant is that “Persistence emphasizes that experience is more powerful than unchangeable ability, and challenges help move writers forward rather than delaying their progress.” (Parrott 73). Here she is stating that for one to improve their writing, being persistent is the key. By putting in the work, constantly going overwork, and trying to improve will help the writer know what mistakes not to make in the future. The more practice they put in the better outcome they will have in their work. They also must be able to take past mistakes made in their work, whether good or bad, and build on them to keep improving. The more practice the writer puts in, the more improved progress they will see in their future work. When writers continue to be persistent, they start to build habits and a writing process making changes to it depending on if the process is helping them or needs improvement. To stray from the bad idea that “Some People Are Born Good Writers” writers must build a process that helps them best.

p_ponomareva. (2017). Sad and tired pre-teen schoolboy sitting in stress- Vivid 2017. 2017 Photography by p_ponomareva.

          When the author David Bartholomae states that college students need to start “Inventing the University” he suggests that when in an academic setting students need to adapt to speaking and writing a certain way and if they cannot adapt, they should pretend. Meaning if they wish to become a scholar and converse with other scholars that they must copy them until it becomes natural to them. Some students find it hard to develop new ways of speaking and writing in an academic setting. Bartholomae states that “These students have to appropriate (or be appropriated by) a specialized discourse, and they have to do this as though they were easily and comfortably one with their audience…”. (Bartholomae 4). He explains that students write for their professors when in fact students must understand that their professor is part of the audience they are writing for. When students are beginner writers or even after they have been writing for some time being able to learn who the audience is and what background or discourse, they come from is important. This helps them so when they are writing about a subject, they’re able to make connections to the audience and help them understand the topic and where the audience is coming from. Knowing this will help improve a writer’s work and have fewer mistakes.

In conclusion, the bad idea “Some People Are Born Good Writers” shouldn’t stop inexperienced writers from writing or attempting to improve their writing skills. Those who stick to the mindset of some people are just born good writers will only be discouraged from improving their work. Inexperienced writers who want to become better writers, such as new coming college students, should always seek improvements. By adapting, building writing skills, and being persistent to improve their writing will help them in staying away from this mindset. Being persistent is only part of being a good writer but figuring out a process that will help them in writing and knowing where the audience is coming from will help with the struggle of becoming a better writer. Also knowing when to voice their thoughts and feelings to catch the reader’s attention makes them more interested in their essay. Doing these things will help improve a writer’s work and aim to be an even greater writer one day. As stated by Parrott in her essay “Good writers are not born. They are learned” (Parrot 74).

Works Cited

• Ball, E. Cheryl; Loewe, M. Drew. Bad Ideas About Writing. Parrott, Jill. “Some People Are Just Born Good Writers”. Pp. 71-75
• Bartholomae, David. “Inventing The University”. Pp 4-23

As first-year students make their way through college, they become exposed to new writing formats, processes, tips, and criteria. Through learning college writing skills, they begin to formulate their own ideas about what a true writer is. The bad idea that’ll be of particular focus is stated in the title of authors Dustin Edwards and Enrique Paz’s essay: “Only Geniuses Can Be Writers” in the book “Bad Ideas About Writing”. In their essay, Edwards and Paz shed light on the very well-known yet inaccurate idea that all good writers are unsociable and can write original, inspiring masterpieces with ease. They argue that this faulty idea is severely detrimental to neophyte writers and, in truth, never existed. A better idea would be that good writers cooperate to help each other compose new and better writing of their own using old ideas.

“Designer Sketching Wireframes” by Green Chameleon. Unsplash.

To come to this conclusion, the authors take a historical approach to the idea, exploring the meaning of genius authorship throughout history. They discovered that due to the expansion of readers in the 18th century, people started wanting to make a living off of their written work. Because of this demand, certain standards had to be developed to determine what a genius writer was. Namely, their ability to create rather than just write. Edwards and Paz state that “They claimed that true authors are not inspired by the outside world; they are inspired by their [own] unique selves.” (Edwards and Paz 66). To rephrase, “true” authors were required to have completely original work. If any cooperation or assistance had taken place, the quality of the writing decreased substantially. Genius writing had to be wholly by that author; inspired writing was heavily critiqued.

Consequently, upcoming authors in the 18th century struggled to succeed because of such unrealistic standards. To counter the originality-preaching argument, Edwards and Paz reason that “An even deeper [look into] history reveals a more esteemed regard for imitation”(Edwards and Paz 67). The authors assert that educational collaboration was widely practiced in ancient cultures. People would learn skills from one another, recycling old ideas to come up with even better ones. This kind of writing is what Edwards and Paz argue should be restored.

“Teamwork Makes the Dream Work” by Dylan Gillis. Unsplash.

One of the most pivotal sources that the authors include in their essay is Martha Woodmansee’s article “The Genius and the Copyright: Economic and Legal Conditions of the Emergence of the ‘Author’”. In her writing, Woodmansee aims to dismantle the historical notion that an author’s work must be entirely original. Her main argument is that the value of writing shouldn’t be solely based on its innovativeness. Instead, it should be based on the value of the entire new perspectives that they’ve accumulated from another writer’s idea(s). Throughout her article, Woodmansee mainly focuses on how the definition of an author evolved through the Renaissance period. One example she gives illustrates that the author was known to only receive his inspiration from within himself. Woodmansee claims that “Inspiration came to be explicated in terms of [the] original genius…”(Woodmansee 427). During the Renaissance, the attribute that seemingly defined an author was how ingenious he was, and “genius” in that era was defined as originality. Although this rule complicated things for writers, it made the lives of publishers and editors far easier. Woodmansee introduces both conflicting viewpoints about this idea. The economically logical argument: originality and creation, versus the author’s argument: growth and collaboration. However, people ultimately prioritized the freshness and originality of a piece of writing, and the opposing side received little attention. After reading Woodmansee’s article and Edwards and Paz’s essay, one begins to notice how their subject matters begin to align. Because all three authors took more of a historical approach to support their similar arguments, their ideas integrated smoothly.

               Taken by Louis Hansel. Unsplash.

 In conclusion, Dustin Edwards, Enrique Paz, and Martha Woodmansee collaborated to present a better idea and potentially eradicate a bad idea; to deliver a potential solution to an existing problem. Together, the authors introduce a better idea about writers: they collaborate to help each other create their own ideas from someone else’s. Discovering the “better idea” using different authors demonstrates the power of combined efforts, and the potential answers it could reveal. One couldn’t help but wonder, how many other unresolved questions can be cleared up with a collaboration? How impactful can academic teamwork be?

Works Cited

Edwards, Dustin and Paz, Enrique. “Only Geniuses Can Be Writers,” in Bad Ideas About Writing. Edited by Cheryl E. Ball and Drew M. Loewe, 64-70. Web

Woodmansee, Martha. “The Genius and the Copyright: Economical and Legal Conditions of the Emergence of the ‘Author’.” Eighteenth-Century Studies, vol. 17, no. 4, 1984, pp. 425-448. JSTOR    

  Research Project

                  The topic I have chosen to do my research on is “ First-Year Composition Should Be Skipped” by Paul G. Cook. The author in this essay is basically trying to explain the pros and cons on why first year composition is important or not important for students to take and what parents think regarding if their child should take the class or not. First Year Composition is the first college English class for students to take. It basically goes over everything you were taught in high school for students to refresh their writing skills and be prepared for other college classes.

                  Cook briefly explains in his essay about First year composition and is the class worth taking it and putting your time and effort in it. He also talks about the questions he has got from parents regarding if the class is worth spending their money on and their kids’ time. Cook also tells us about “Most institutions offer incoming students a way to skip or test out of FYC if they perform well enough on a placement exam.” Meaning that if they do well on the placement test they don’t have to take the class and waste their own money or their parents on it. First year composition classes are not cheap to pay for so this is a great advantage for students who can’t afford to pay that much for the class. Cook also explains that “Students in FYC also receive one-on-one coaching that they are not likely to get in other classes.” Which means the professor is putting more focus on the student to help them do better, which won’t be the case in other college classes. FYC also helps students get familiar with college classes and what to expect for future classes that they are going to have to take.

                       In conclusion, this class worth taking will depend on the students if They think they are not ready for college and just want to get familiar with them then this is an amazing option. If they can’t afford to spend money, a placement test would be the best way for them. Overall Cook gives good details on how the class can be important for students to take and what ways it could help the student.

From generation to generation, educators have been blaming technology for ruining students’ grammar. In “Texting Ruins Students’ Grammar Skills,” Scott Warnock argues that theirs is no actual proof that digital writing ruins students’ grammar and that people who voiced their opinions all have different meanings of grammar. While in “Why Johnny Can’t Write,” Merrill Sheils argues that television and classroom creativity is the reason students don’t have any writing skills. Even though both writings take place in different time frames, they do have common solutions which are to help rediscover what grammar is. Educators need to reconsider what grammar means and how to pass it on to students because each person has their own perception of how to write, this may mean going back to the basics.

Grammar between teachers and students can be classified as different things. In “Texting Ruins Students’ Grammar Skills,” Warnock quotes Robin Zeff, which says his students only see writing as something they do for class, and anything else are modes for talking (Warnock, 306). Educators can start with coming to common grounds with what grammar is and how to properly teach it. With everyone’s different ideas of what grammar is, it can be hard to teach without hindering a student’s learning process. English professors Kenneth Lindblom and Patricia from Warnock’s essay and Linguist Suzette Elgin from Sheils article all agree that teaching “right from wrong” in English can leave traces of bad habits in students’ English, especially when there is no agreement upon what is “right.” It will be damaging in the long run to have all these misconstrued ideas about what English is.

In his essay, Warnock doesn’t really give the effects of not getting taught English properly, but Sheils does. From the very beginning of her article, she tells her readers that whatever grade a child is in, they will go to the next grade less likely to write ordinary, including college graduates. Back in 1975 writing skills were needed for a job just as much as they are needed now. Michigan State University considered that they would need a test for undergraduates to make sure they had literacy skills because these students would soon become teachers and such. Researchers had discovered that more than 50 percent of secondary English school teachers did not specialize in English during their college years (Sheils, 3). It was imperative then, and now, that English teachers—or others that fall into the subject—make sure their students leave their classrooms with a full grasp of what they have learned. Although today it doesn’t seem like students don’t have a hard time transitioning from digital writing and formal writing in school.

It would be like code-switching for students today when they go from texting to writing. As much as certain people who think texting interferes with students’ grammar, there has been no proof whatsoever. Warnock uses writing researcher Michaela Cullington’s research on the matter to prove this point, “texting is not interfering with students’ use of standard written English,” (Warnock, 305). The same people who think it’s texting that is ruining students’ grammar are just unfamiliar with how they text, so they immediately go into a mode where they think it’s a problem. Warnock suggests that in reality this new generation of “screenagers,” may be the most literate and that instead of trying to patronize this generation for their shortcut texting, criticizing people should embrace how humans adapt to a new reality.

As much as old generations want to accuse technology of tarnishing the new generation of students’ grammar it will always be false. The problem starts with blaming the forms of technology, and it is damaging to students when taught as such. A lot has improved since the 1975 Newsweek article “Why Johnny Can’t Write,” because of teachers making better curriculums since then. Current educators should have no worry about how good students’ grammar is, but rather get on the same page about what grammar is and teach it in unison.

Works Cited

Warnock, Scott “Texting Ruins Students’ Grammar Skills” Bad Ideas About Writing. Edited by Cheryl E. Ball and Drew M. Loewe, West Virginia University Libraries, 2017, pgs. 301-307 https://textbooks.lib.wvu.edu/badideas/badideasaboutwriting-book.pdf 

 Sheils, Merrill. “Why Johnny Can’t Write.” Newsweek, 8 Dec. 1975, https://www.leetorda.com/uploads/2/3/2/5/23256940/why_johnny_cant_write__newsweek_1975___1_.pdf

“Writer” by Hannah Ollinger. Unsplash

While writers seem to have a good perception of what’s good or bad writing for them, it was not always like that. One might think that writers know how to write good in the first place, however they too struggled to get to the point to where they are now. It does not matter if someone is a writer or not, at some point in their life people will write essays, research papers, poems, and other writings that they have to know for who and what they are writing for to reach a certain point.

There are many ideas about writing that in the book, Bad Ideas about Writing author Elizabeth Wardle mentions one misconception about how no one can learn to write in general. The title of her essay, in which she opposes the idea is “You Can Learn to Write in General.” 

“Audience” by Alexandre Pellaes. Unsplash

In other words, Elizabeth is trying to prove that writing is not general by explaining that writing is very broad meaning that there are various types of writing that one can write. However, each writing has a different purpose to reach a certain audience. In letting the idea go that writing is easy, Wardle tells the use of writing is to improve. In order to grow as a writer, Wardle suggests that the better idea is to give time and effort to engage in several types of writing so we can learn. 

Usually when we write, we mostly think about how one should write or structure the paper. A scenario Elizabeth Wardle uses is imagining writing with nothing in mind, which she claims that we cannot do it as writing has a certain purpose (Wardle 30). In order to write one must know what includes in writing, in which Elizabeth implies, “This is because context, audience, purpose, medium, history, and values of the community all impact what writing is and needs to be in each situation” (Wardle 30). If we put all these requirements into our paper, then we have a clear idea what our paper is supposed to be but no. The situation is what type of writing are we supposed to use to in order to reach a goal, claim or purpose in that writing. In figuring out what specific writing we will be writing, then we can apply those other skills or elements we will be using to support and define what the writer is trying to say.  

“Learning” by NeONBRAND. Unsplash.

Despite knowing the different types of writing we should use, do not expect writing will be easy just because we know what each writing is for. Elizabeth Wardle states, “A better notion of how writing works is one that recognizes that after learning scribal skills (letters, basic grammatical constructions), everything a writer does is impacted by the situation in which she is writing” (Wardle 31). Even though we are applying many concepts into writing, it does not mean each writing will involve all the same elements. There are many types of writing that not all elements will be included in the writing, which makes it difficult for people to have their own writing style. In thinking that every writing is just the same is wrong as Elizabeth argues that writing is all about learning and finding new experiences so one can explore many types of writing.  

In knowing that each writing is not the same, Elizabeth provides the idea of improving one’s writing based on the article Elon Statement on Writing Transfer. In the article, Elon University researchers correlate transfer and writing by stating “Writers consistently draw on prior knowledge in order to navigate within and among various contexts for writing and learning” (Elon University). By practicing and taking advantage of what one knew before and applying old and new skills into writing can help establish a good paper. Not only that, as the skills are set to prepare people to build up their own knowledge and communication in their writing using metacognition (Elon University). In setting forth the idea of experiencing new things will help the mind learn more about writing.  

“Skills” by UX Indonesia. Unsplash.

Overall, in order to improve one’s writing, one must know that writing is not in general. Elizabeth Wardle repeatedly says each writing has a unique way of setting for their purpose. In talking about transfer, Wardle, and Elon University sets that there are many skills in order to focus and consider trying to use it in our writing. This is what makes a good writer; we must experience and learn what writing is supposed to be and how it is written in various kinds of writing. 

Works Cited 

Wardle, Elizabeth “You Can Learn to Write in General” Bad Ideas About Writing. Edited by Cheryl E. Ball and Drew M. Loewe, West Virginia University Libraries, 2017, pgs. 30-33 

“Elon Statement on Writing Transfer.” Center for Engaged Learning, May 22, 2014. https://www.centerforengagedlearning.org/elon-statement-on-writing-transfer/ 

                In Bad Ideas about Writing, an essay called “African American Language is not good English,” by Jennifer M. Cunningham, disputes the false perception of the African American language seen as English. The term “African American Language” has had multiple terms such as Ebonics, African American English, Black English, and many more. The bad idea is the African American language is not good English, but the better idea Cunningham and Mike Vuolo who has an article called “Is Black English A Dialect or A Language?” present it as its own language. To begin we must analyze the facts of how it is its own language.

                Cunningham explains that “African American language combines English vocabulary (the words used) with an African grammar (the way the words are ordered and conjugated) and phonology (the way the words are pronounced)” (Cunningham, 88). The article “Is Black English A Dialect or A Language?” by Mike Vuolo also presents a similar statement that the African American language has a unique and different pattern from standard English. Both authors agree on the fact that the African American language cannot be considered bad English because it is not linguistically speaking English. An example Cunningham shows of the differences between the two are some of the linguistic principles of the language changes a pronounced th sound with a /d/ producing dis, dat, dese, and dose creating the words in standard English, this, that, these, and those (Cunningham, 90). Cunningham followed up her example by stating that the reasoning behind this was that the th sound is difficult to pronounce for those where English is not their first language. 

                A question then arises how does this correlate to African Americans born in the country, and English is their first language? Why is the African American language so commonly and widely used? Mike Vuolo states from Walter Wolfram that “the number one attribute of “acting white” was “speaking white,” talking white” (Vuolo,1). “Talking white” in this context is using standard English, which causes an identify factor to play a role. The correlation that Wolfram makes is that when African Americans are learning standard English, it becomes a social decision because standard English is associated with “talking white”, and one naturally wouldn’t want to disenfranchise themselves to their community. An example in “African American Language is not good English,”  shows two phrases with the same meaning but different sentence structures. “I aint got no time” (African American Language) is equivalent to “I don’t have any time” in standard English. Leading back to Cunningham’s statements on the th sound being difficult to pronounce for those whose English is not their first language could be a social decision for African Americans not because they can’t pronounce the sound, but they choose to pronounce otherwise for social acceptance.  

                In the article “Is Black English A Dialect or A Language?” Vuolo states that the school board acknowledged that African American kids came to school speaking a language other than standard English. Vuolo agreed with the school board’s proposal which was to use those kids’ language in the classroom to “transition” them to standard English. Cunningham had a similar solution because she stated in her essay “When we focus on the ways that African American Language and Standard American English are different, communicators are able to better understand, acquire, and switch between both, and society is more capable of recognizing the validity of the language and its users” (Cunningham, 91).  Both solutions are connected with the better idea that the African American language is not English because then it would be verifying or acknowledging the language as its own and its users.

                Having the school board have to make a proposal is related to a term Vuolo used called Principle of Linguistic Subordination which means “If a people are socially subordinated then their language will almost always be as well” (Vuolo,1). There were those who disapproved of the school board proposal such as Mario Cuomo and Joseph Liberman. Both agreed that “it is a lowering of the bar” as Cuomo says and It wouldn’t properly educate a person which shows that they too practice this principle because even the political parties felt that the language was a lesser form of English.

                Cunningham and Vuolo both come to the same conclusion the language has its own sets of rules and principles to be considered a separate language to English. By recognizing African American language as its own language, even if it is a social decision, it could be incorporated in the education system as a reference educators can use to transition students who use the African American language into standard English. As Cunningham thoroughly explains “In the writing classroom, teachers can help students navigate Standard American English expectations while not suggesting a linguistic hierarchy. By speaking about language choices in terms of difference rather than deficiency and in relation to academic and non-academic conventions, we can value both (or any) languages” (Cunningham, 91).

Works Cited

Cunningham, M, Jennifer. “AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE IS NOT GOOD ENGLISH” In Bad Ideas About Writing. Edited by Edited by Cheryl E. Ball and Drew M. Loewe,88-92. Web. https://textbooks.lib.wvu.edu/badideas/badideasaboutwriting-book.pdf

Vulo, Mike. “Is Black English a Dialect or a Language?” 27 February 2012. http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2012/02/lexicon_valley_is_black_english_a_dialect_or_a_language_.html

In competitive environments there will always be those who attempt to rise to the top through deception, some will do so successfully, some will stumble and fall. The academic sphere is no different, plagiarism as well as other forms of cheating are commonly viewed by most of society as a large issue in college education. Many academic institutions have very little tolerance for plagiarism and are quick to discipline students for perceived academic misconduct. This opens a deep multifaceted issue regarding plagiarism and begs the questions: “What should constitute plagiarism?”, “When should and shouldn’t plagiarism be punished?”, and “What measures should be taken to prevent plagiarism?”. 

In the Bad Ideas About Writing book, Jennifer A. Mott-Smith discusses in her essay “Plagiarism Deserves to be Punished” a bad idea about writing, which is that plagiarism should always be punished. The Council of Writing Program Administrators (WPA), a national association of college and university faculty, and Malcolm Gladwell, a journalist personally impacted by plagiarism, echo Mott-Smith’s idea that plagiarism shouldn’t always be punished. A better idea about writing is that unless plagiarism is directly copying information word for word from a source without attempting to cite the source it should be examined on a case by case basis and determined if there was malicious intent on the student’s behalf. It is important to consider various factors when examining plagiarism such as cultural factors, misunderstanding on the student’s part of what constitutes plagiarism, lack of knowledge on how to cite sources, or clumsy integration of ideas. In some cases there might not be malicious intent on the student’s part, as opposed to punishment for plagiarism, more education about writing and citation conventions would be beneficial.

 “Copy stock photo” by PashaIgnatov. iStock.

Firstly, it is important to define what plagiarism is before analyzing what the appropriate responses to plagiarism are. The Council of Writing Program Administrators defines plagiarism as “when a writer deliberately uses someone else’s language, ideas, or other original (not common-knowledge) material without acknowledging its source.” (“Defining and Avoiding Plagiarism: The WPA Statement on Best Practices.”, 1). It is important to point out that the WPA distinguishes the difference between plagiarism and the misuse of sources. If a student makes a good faith effort to cite a source but inadequately cites the source, that is not plagiarism. However, according to the WPA, a student who is “fully aware that their actions constitute plagiarism” and claims someone else’s ideas as their own original ideas and/or copies someone else’s writing is guilty of academic misconduct. This stance is similar to Jennifer A. Mott-Smith’s stance in her essay “Plagiarism Deserves to be Punished”. Mott-Smith states “unless plagiarism is out-and-out cheating, like cutting and pasting an entire paper from the Internet or paying someone to write it, we should be cautious about reacting to plagiarism with the intent to punish.” (251) The consensus across both sources is that if an idea, section of text, or other intellectual material was taken from a source and no attempt was made to cite the source, and/or permission was not granted by the owner of the intellectual material, then plagiarism has taken place. 

Now that it has been established what exactly constitutes plagiarism, it is important to investigate in which circumstances instances of plagiarism should be punished. Mott-Smith and the WPA both agree that unintentional plagiarism or inadequate source use should not be punished, the proper response in this scenario would be providing further education for the student to teach them to cite sources properly. To prevent unintentional plagiarism the WPA recommends for faculty to “design contexts and assignments for learning that encourage students not simply to recycle information but to investigate and analyze its sources” (“Defining and Avoiding Plagiarism: The WPA Statement on Best Practices.”, 1) and “to include in [the] syllabus a policy for using sources … that clearly explains the consequences of both plagiarism .. and the misuse …  of sources.” (“Defining and Avoiding Plagiarism: The WPA Statement on Best Practices.”, 1) Mott-Smith corroborates the WPA’s stance by stating that “for much plagiarism, a better response is to just relax and let writers continue to practice the sophisticated skill of using sources.” (Mott-Smith, 251) The WPA also recommends the creation of an honor board to hear plagiarism cases and to teach all students proper citation conventions and expectations. 

 “Person Stealing Purse From Handbag” by Andrey Popov. iStock

What about in cases of intentional plagiarism? This is a morally ambiguous question. In the article “Something Borrowed” by Malcolm Gladwell, he discusses how plagiarism personally impacted his life and the life of a friend of his, Dorothy Lewis. A British playwright, Bryony Lavery, had written a play called “Frozen” about a psychiatrist who specializes in the study of murderers. In the play, Lavery had included many scenes that were very similar to case studies in Lewis’s book, “Guilty by Reason of Insanity.” Lavery had also verbatim quoted from a magazine profile of Lewis that Gladwell had written while Lavery was creating the character for the psychiatrist in her play without Lewis’s or Gladwell’s permission. Lavery in her meeting with Gladwell stated that she didn’t have malicious intent in plagiarizing their work, she stated that she didn’t know it was necessary to ask permission and cite them as sources. 

This is undeniably plagiarism, although without ill intent, but is this a breach of ethics for which Lavery should be punished? Lewis felt that Lavery should be punished, her viewpoint can be summarized as “I was sitting at home reading the play, and I realized that it was I. I felt robbed and violated in some peculiar way. It was as if someone had stolen—I don’t believe in the soul, but, if there was such a thing, it was as if someone had stolen my essence.” (Gladwell, 1) However, Gladwell felt differently. Gladwell felt that Lavery had copied descriptions of Lewis’s work and the outline of Lewis’s life to create a new and original play, Lavery hadn’t copied musings, or conclusions, or structure. Gladwell states that “old words in the service of a new idea aren’t the problem. What inhibits creativity is new words in the service of an old idea,” (Gladwell, 1) Gladwell’s mindset is that plagiarism, although distasteful, shouldn’t be punished if it was used to create something new and original, as that would inhibit creativity. According to the WPA’s guidelines, this would be considered plagiarism since Lavery did not make any attempt to give credit to her sources of inspiration and claimed it as her work, so Lavery is liable for repercussions. But, the WPA and Mott-Smith also state that in cases where a person doesn’t have ill intentions it is more effective to educate them on proper source use than to discipline them. So, it would be most effective to educate Lavery on conventions as opposed to a lawsuit.

In conclusion, Malcolm Gladwell, the WPA, and Jennifer Mott-Smith all agree that although plagiarism is a serious issue, improper citation of sources and unintentional plagiarism should not be punished if the student made an good-faith effort to attribute credit and did not have malicious intent. Gladwell takes it further by proposing that intentional plagiarism shouldn’t be punished if it is without malicious intent, isn’t excessive, and is used to make something new and creative. Mott-Smith points out that “citation standards vary widely and are often in the eye of the beholder.” (Mott-Smith, 251) The WPA and Mott-Smith both agree that it is better to educate students on expected citation and writing conventions as opposed to punishing them unless the plagiarism is blatant and ill intended.

Works Cited:

“Defining and Avoiding Plagiarism: The WPA Statement on Best Practices.” Council of Writing Program Administrators, 30 Dec. 2019, wpacouncil.org/aws/CWPA/pt/sd/news_article/272555/_PARENT/layout_details/false.

Gladwell, Malcolm. “Something Borrowed.” The New Yorker, 15 Nov. 2004, www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/11/22/something-borrowed.

Mott-Smith, Jennifer, editor. “Plagiarism Deserves to Be Punished.” Bad Ideas About Writing, Morgantown, WV, Digital Publishing Institute, 2017, pp. 247–52.

In her essay “Strunk and White Set the Standard,” Laura Lisabeth discusses the limitations of The Elements of Style by William Strunk, Jr. and E. B. White. The Elements of Style is a popular reference book on Standard English that can trace its roots back to 1918. However, Strunk and White’s style of English “marginalizes the identities, knowledge, and being of many people who come from other literacy practices” (Lisabeth 118). An alternative to Strunk and White’s style of English is the idea of “understanding Standard Academic English as a historically formed, culturally specific language among many other languages (Lisabeth 119). Only by first understanding there is a problem, can we begin to address it.

“Everyday English Book” by Ivan Shilov. Unsplash.

While The Elements of Style has remained popular for decades, it is not without its detractors. Even in 1959 “… The Elements of Style was greeted with criticism by the field of college composition for being vague and misleading about the complex act of learning to compose academic writing” (Lisabeth 117). Professor Lisabeth herself excoriates “the kind of writing Strunk and White put forth as good writing” as a discourse that limits and excludes (Lisabeth 118). Feagin discusses Shirley Heath’s Ways with Words epilogue where changes in the schools which have eliminated the possibility of creative teaching have discouraged teachers to the point that many are leaving the field (Feagin 491). These criticisms suggest there is room for improvement and flexibility in Standard Academic English.

In understanding Standard Academic English as one culturally specific language among many other languages, then its criticisms, what is a better system? “Sociolinguists point to the ways English is already operating as a flexible medium, repurposed by American users to include, for example, Black and Latinx variations and the language and punctuation of social media, all of which expand the expressiveness of English and make it relevant to more users” (Lisabeth 118-119). A better system encourages flexibility and creativity to fully bring out the identities and knowledge of the people using the language. This system would not be limited to a personal capacity; “access to such uses of language can help many emerging academic writers to develop more competence and to perform better in school as they capitalize on existing meaningful ways of expressing knowledge” (Lisabeth 119). Therefore, students can also benefit professionally. Feagin, through Heath, discusses the value of this better system in helping teachers “deal with non-mainstream children from Roadville- and Trackton-like communities who were having trouble in school and gives examples of projects which worked in that particular population” (Feagin 491). The better system did not marginalize or trivialize the identities and cultures of the non-mainstream children, but rather included them and was enhanced by their uniqueness.

“White Printer Paper” by Toa Heftiba. Unsplash.

In conclusion, while The Elements of Style by Strunk and White has been widely taught for many decades, it is not the only possible style of Standard Academic English nor the best. By recognizing English as a constantly evolving language rather than something rigid and exclusive, we can understand there are better systems. Feagin corroborates this by saying “we need such an extended work [A Way with Words] to show us how ignorant we are of the people around us” (Feagin 491). Then, comes the important steps of bringing that awareness and teaching those better, inclusive systems to the next generation of students. After all, they will be the ones to inherit the English language and enhance it in ways we could never imagine. As Professor Lisabeth states “these networked ways of writing, along with social-media inspired ways of thinking about punctuation, continue to explode definitions for what constitutes meaningful language and educated English” (Lisabeth 119).

Works Cited

1.) Lisabeth, Laura. “Strunk and White Set the Standard.” Digital Publishing Institute, 2017. Bad Ideas About Writing E-book, https://textbooks.lib.wvu.edu/badideas/badideasaboutwriting-book.pdf#page=128.

2.) Feagin, Crawford. Language, vol. 61, no. 2, Linguistic Society of America, 1985, pp. 489–93, https://doi.org/10.2307/414163.