Thread: Considered Plagiarism?

Would following the structure/plot to the letter be considered plagiarism if you completely change or write the opposite? For example if the novel says that "They lived in space, it was dark and cold so, they preferred to stay indoors" you change it by writing" The humanoid creatures lived underground, where it was hot with the smell of sulfur" and so on continuing with the whole novel.

I have searched for quite sometime for what this would be (other than being a lazy) but, I have had no luck.

Why would you want to do it?

I don't know if rewriting the exact same story someone else wrote would be thought of as plagiarism if one completely altered the background details. For instance, instead of saying "the human-like beings live underwater, so they had to live in bubbles", one altered it by writing "They lived in the magical ether where magic magicked everyone to death" and did likewise throughout the whole book.
I have searched for a very short amount of time for the term by which this would be called, (besides "sloth"), but I have had much misfortune.

How about this:

Don't call me Ishmael.

So, is it? I do not see what the issue is. I did not say I plan to do this I was just wondering. If you want to say it is not but, it is pathetic do so. I thought the question was pretty straight forward.

Tweaking the writing of others and then trying to pass it off as your own won't do anything for your writing. You'll just be a cheap hack.

The good writers will laugh at you while they keep improving and find success with their own creative works, while you'll just be a bottom-feeder slurping up their prose and trying to vomit out something of equal measure, though it'll always be inferior.

Originally Posted by maverick88

If you want to say it is not but, it is pathetic do so.

Wait -- are you giving me permission to say it’s pathetic?

get this technique down well enough, and you could surely become the next white house press secretary.

I think he was just asking a general question? Not that he wanted to do the deed. Though if I am wrong, then yes it is silly. Although writers such as Hunter Thompson wrote the works of other authers over to get down style and thought patterns. Though he did this to add to his writing and not copy others.

So my answer is if you plan on trying to publish the work then don't bother, but if it's just for fun and or practice why not?

Originally Posted by Skodt

I think he was just asking a general question? Not that he wanted to do the deed. Though if I am wrong, then yes it is silly. Although writers such as Hunter Thompson wrote the works of other authers over to get down style and thought patterns. Though he did this to add to his writing and not copy others.

So my answer is if you plan on trying to publish the work then don't bother, but if it's just for fun and or practice why not?

Yeah, I agree.

Though in regards to him simply asking the question, I believe sometimes a person needs to hear something, and often it's not the answer they were hoping for.

Personally I think this approach, of copying and tweaking, is a terrible idea. It's crutch that will debilitate a writer's progress, not enhance it, in my opinion.

In physical therapy, if you have a person limping and the goal is to get them walking normally, you don't put them in a wheelchair for extra assistance! That's the opposite direction of where you want things to go.

You force them to walk on their own two feet, to develop the muscle strength and the coordination required to succeed on their own.

I don't see how a writer could improve by copying sentences and changing the words. If anything, they'll simply get better at copying sentences and changing words, is all.

So yeah, is it plagiarism? I suppose it isn't, no. But it's not something I recommend doing.

In online chess, there are individuals called "proggers" who cheat against human opponents by using chess programs to show the best moves to make.

They get good at copying computer moves, but if you take away their program, they get stomped by the human players. You would think that all the time spent seeing the correct moves would make the proggers better, but what they are doing is seeing the effect without understanding the cause.

They are, essentially, not understanding the thought-process that went into finding the moves.

Similarly, a person who tweaks the prose of other authors will be re-working the finished product, but I doubt they'll glean any insights into how the writing was created in the first place.

That insight, that skill, is something I believe is best achieved through writing on your own.

Just my two cents. And I'm not putting you down, maverick88. It's more like I'm saying, "No! Don't do it! Please!"

Cheers!

Originally Posted by KyleColorado

Yeah, I agree.

Though in regards to him simply asking the question, I believe sometimes a person needs to hear something, and often it's not the answer they were hoping for.

Personally I think this approach, of copying and tweaking, is a terrible idea. It's crutch that will debilitate a writer's progress, not enhance it, in my opinion.

In physical therapy, if you have a person limping and the goal is to get them walking normally, you don't put them in a wheelchair for extra assistance! That's the opposite direction of where you want things to go.

You force them to walk on their own two feet, to develop the muscle strength and the coordination required to succeed on their own.

I don't see how a writer could improve by copying sentences and changing the words. If anything, they'll simply get better at copying sentences and changing words, is all.

So yeah, is it plagiarism? I suppose it isn't, no. But it's not something I recommend doing.

In online chess, there are individuals called "proggers" who cheat against human opponents by using chess programs to show the best moves to make.

They get good at copying computer moves, but if you take away their program, they get stomped by the human players. You would think that all the time spent seeing the correct moves would make the proggers better, but what they are doing is seeing the effect without understanding the cause.

They are, essentially, not understanding the thought-process that went into finding the moves.

Similarly, a person who tweaks the prose of other authors will be re-working the finished product, but I doubt they'll glean any insights into how the writing was created in the first place.

That insight, that skill, is something I believe is best achieved through writing on your own.

Just my two cents. And I'm not putting you down, maverick88. It's more like I'm saying, "No! Don't do it! Please!"

Cheers!

Thanks for the answer. Again, I am not planning on doing this I was just wondering. I have read of different types of plagiarism i.e. word for word, paraphrasing, potluck but, never the type I described.

Readers will see through it anyway.

With the kind of changes you're suggesting it almost certainly would not be the sort of plagiarism against which legal action could be successfully brought. With the kind of changes you're suggesting, it seems the story would quickly get out of hand anyway and it would be increasingly difficult to match the existing plot details to the new situation. For those of us who are plot challenged, I think there can be considerable value in rethinking an existing story line, seeing where that leads, and checking back against the original for overlooked development opportunities. And if the original is obsolete historical nonfiction about secret societies of holy knights, you might get rich.

Within Restoration drama, I believe it was not only quite common to copy, or 'influence' your work from that of a contemporary's, but downright plagiarise it; word-for-word in the case of Webster.

That may not go down too well today, of course.

Originally Posted by ppsage

With the kind of changes you're suggesting, it seems the story would quickly get out of hand anyway and it would be increasingly difficult to match the existing plot details to the new situation.

I agree!

Originally Posted by ppsage

For those of us who are plot challenged, I think there can be considerable value in rethinking an existing story line, seeing where that leads, and checking back against the original for overlooked development opportunities.

Using a plot as a template is acceptable. I know some authors do this, to some degree. But using prose as a template, and going line by line, changing a word here and there, is a totally different monster.