Pike's Blog Entry-Vote Early Vote Often Edition

I decided to get this week's blog entry early as I plan on rioting in the streets on Wednesday to protest the LATEST Bush coup-Don't worry -I'll still make sure you guys get pizza:

On to Howard's 74-page defense(?) of "patch writing"

Frankly, this is the first time I've heard of this practice called this-so this article was most illuminating:

We are introduced to her definition of this in the introduction: "copying from a source text and then deleting some words, altering grammatical strcutres, or pluggin in one synoym for another." She says the standard reaction to this is to label it plagiarism and she says that when she first encontered it, she gave people an "F" and a chance to revise.

In her first chapter, she talks about the problems of plagiarism in terms of definition, punishment and finding. Although, it's much easirer to find plagiarism with the Internet (since most students apparently think we are idiots who have never seen a computer). In terms of punishment, she talks about the problerms of suspension-for students who will galdly serve it out and then apply to a different school. We are then introduced to her introduction to patchwriting when students liberally substituted in writing about an assignment (pp.4-5). We are then told how she learned to stop worrying and love the patchwriting(I'll credit my source here as being Stanley Kubrick). She says that the revision of other's work is not disrespect, or theft, but, the recognition tha the patchwriter, "recognizes the profoundity of the source and strives to join the conversation in which the source participates(p.7)." In chapter two, we are introduced to a definition of whom pagiarism hurts, which is the writer, from whom the transgressor has stolen (p. 18). But, if the patchwriter is merely joining the conversation, how can there be transgression. In Chapter 3, we learn that the academy does not look at patchwriting as a collaboration, which apparently Howard does as collaboartion apparently reuqires both Autonomy, which is close to the romantic notion of authorship (p.36) and originality (p.47). In the final chapter of his reading ,we are introduced to territory we have trod well in this class: the historical development of authorship from the pre-modern in which certain sources were acknowledged as being authors and the desire to imitate them, such as Dionysius of Helicarnasus who thought that the classical period whcih had passed was intellectually superior to his own (p.63). We go on through the Medieaval era, in which those who wrote were inspired by God and to the beginnings of the modern period and the emergence of the author. We also find out that there are uses for knowing about the 1710 Statute of Anne (p.70). I'm not alone.

I found my introduction to patch writing interesting and wondered aloud why Howard ignores the area in which it is most prevalent: Journalism. Journalists patch write all the time. On hundreds of occasions I have produdced writing that has used a report from a wire service, a news release and a newspaper article and perhaps put it together with some m but not always, original reporting. In fact, I have been paid for writing that I have to admit is largely patch-wriitng. In fact, with the classes kind indulgence, I will bring a recently published article to class that is largely patch-written.

Here's my question: Can the class think of any other professions in which patchwriting is the norm?

See you on the barricades.