While I still like the idea of citation, if only in form of a "work's cited" page, or something of the sort, especially because I'm not an expert, a lot of what I've said or claimed in academic papers tends to be predominantly things I've drawn from mostly other peoples' ideas (even when I am being particularly original). This comes from stepping into a discourse community, combining other discourses I've already been a part of and deciding what could be synthesized between them all... this generally means it isn't super "creative" (which has seriously killed my grade in certain classes when I was so far out of medieval and greek/roman literature and what was and is said about it that there was no way my "originality" could have said anything, even if it was original, it was certainly always wrong). In instances where I am more "creative", I'm generally much more credible and feel much more comfortable in the discourse that I am talking in and around, I know the history and some of the other texts.
It is a really complicated (not necessarily complex, though) issue because there are few parts and a shitton of opinions, well-thought-out, on what should be considered original, "taxable", "citable", or what-have-you. And none of the opinions are "wrong" but it does seem really divided. What I write is generally what I consider relatively worthless, monetarily, because I don't trust "my" ideas to be worth citing, while I will trust the words of others' within a thesis or online intellectual journal. I have little credibility as a writer on most topics because I am not an expert.
Anyway, these ideas of textuality, articulation, authorship and intertextuality are extremely fascinating for me. I might delve more into this for my research... ...probably the articulation thing more than anything. Articulation vs. "creativity"? we'll see...
I enjoyed this post--particularly the title, the reference to Lit and originality, and complicated (but not complex). Clever.
ReplyDeleteAs one reader who has read your work in other classes and seen the results of your larger research projects, I can't help but think you sell yourself a little short when it comes to your abilities. I feel like sometimes even experts in their fields are reluctant to admit to it, so I came away from your post with a question I hadn't thought of before (love it when that happens!): What is an expert and how do we know if we've arrived? What creates credibility, both in the eyes of others and our own? I don't know, but now I'm curious! (Thanks!)
Do you ever think of an idea, look for a credible source that says the same thing, and then cite that in your paper so you don't sound like you're plagiarizing? Is that originality, or intertextuality?
ReplyDeleteNot sure if that directly relates to your post, but it's what I thought of.