I HAVE MOVED - please come with me!

Smashing the Window and all content to date has moved to a brand new site. Although this one won't be shut down soon it will not be updated and you can no longer add new comments here. But that's ok because you'll find it all there anyway, along with many new features. Please change any links/bookmarks/mental notes and I'll see you on the other side.

"Bloggers battered by viral storm"

Here’s a threat warning of which all us legit bloggers (especially on Blogger) should be aware. No sign of them round my way (yet), but while I don't really understand the technicalities it does sound nasty. So, time to at least turn on all comment moderation and update and run all anti-virus/spyware protection, I think? The BBC story helpfully alerts us to some key danger-phrases to watch out for; none of which, thankfully, are the types of turns-of-phrase you are likely to find here. But forewarned is forearmed.

Plagiarism

This post will only make full sense (I hope!) if read as my response to Trench Fever's recent post on plagiarism. For some strange technical reason which we can't fathom my words refuse to appear there as a comment, hence their presence here. But, as you will see, plagiarism is something I feel very strongly about. All comments on the issue are welcomed both here and there.

------------------

Hmmm….my overall reaction is the opposite of Alan’s. (Which is healthy). I would suggest that you’ve erred on the side of gentleness and ever-so-slightly vague abstraction on what I consider a very simple, concrete issue. I am the first to admit that my teaching experience to date is very limited, but I’ve already given my own version of The Plagiarism ”Lecture” several times – indeed, it is the last thing I repeat to students before they disappear to write assessments – and, thus far, it has worked well. (Although maybe someone can tell me – just how rife, statistically, is plagiarism at Undergraduate level?)

Alan is right to highlight broader problems within the Academy, but I try to make this issue a more personal and direct one. To avoid being overly confrontational, however, I work it in as the last of my ‘ground rules’ (which I always establish very clearly at the outset with any group). By putting this at the end of the ‘I hope you’ll find me supportive and approachable, you can email me at any time, the tone in these seminars will be constructive and encouraging’, etc intro, it has a greater impact. The sub-text is, I suppose, that plagiarism is my bottom line, and will lead to them being ‘despised’ by me – the old ‘you’ll be letting the college down, letting yourself down and letting me down’ chestnut (of which I was recently reminded). But this hint of emotional investment/blackmail has, thus far, only helped to get the message across.

95% of what you’ve written tallies with all of this (and the martyrdom example is great) but, as I will be teaching on this course, I’d suggest clarifying your message just a tad. Specifically:

- “When caught, those who have plagiarised tend to have two excuses. Some claim that they didn’t know what they were doing: since you are taking this course, this is not a route which will be open to you.” I think that final clause should be much less coy – perhaps as blunt as: ‘Some claim that they didn’t know what they were doing: you know now’?

- “Moral compass” jars with me (uber-Blairite/Brownite, I’m not entirely sure what it means, and they may not be either). I’ll admit I like the ‘old school’ right/wrong ‘you are now adults’ line. Checked with lawyer (dad!) and ability to distinguish between them is indeed the first step for a child in proving “legal capacity” (i.e., to give evidence in court); hence, arguably, the very first legal stage towards adulthood. So how about a variant of ‘1) Plagiarism is wrong. You are grown adults. The ability to distinguish between right and wrong is a fundamental part of the legal definition of being an adult.’ Maybe add the good old ‘rights bring with them responsibilities’ equation, in some form – ‘In order for us to treat you as adults, we expect you to/you must behave as adults.’

- To balance all that, I wonder if slipping in, in one of your numbered points (perhaps about Academics), ‘how would you feel if someone stole parts of an essay you’ve worked on long and hard’? Or some such. Bring the issue back to them.

I do usually conclude my speil on plagiarism by saying, with blunt confidence: ‘We Will Catch You. You Will Fail. Do You Understand?’ No one, thus far, has decided to take this as a challenge. But I counteract this by finishing with ‘you can cite whoever you like. Cite them properly and you’re not plagiarising. Don’t cite them properly and you are plagiarising. Simple as that. So not citing them is just stupid, isn’t it?’ Thus far, all have nodded sagely in agreement...

Tony Wilson

Another real loss to the British (and particularly Northern English) cultural landscape. Anthony Wilson, founder of Factory Records and all-round Punk/Post-Punk Renaissance man: dead from cancer at the age of just 57. His programmes and links from Manchester are some of my very earliest pop-on-TV memories. I recall thinking at the time how intelligent, articulate and charming he seemed to be for a man talking as a 'mere' muso/TV/critic-type (they just weren't so ten-a-penny in those days, you see - JQ please take note).

But I'll let others do the talking on Wilson. Pat Kane has written a good tribute on The Play Ethic, and, for the uninitiated, The Beeb's Ian Youngs gives a precis of his main achievements.

And the first USHA goes to....

I have a sense of humour. I watch dodgy "history" clip-shows on very dodgy TV channels and am quite happy to forgive some (indeed many) factual errors if they can be disguised by a witty, pithy one-liner. I like 'pop' history (in all senses of the word) very much. I understand and value its function. I believe pop/rock music history is not only a valid branch of cultural history but a highly informative means of examining the recent past. I often find myself admiring music journalists - even when they irritate me - for their sheer rhetorical chutzpah. I also realise that the newspaper business can make deadline demands which result in short-cuts, non-existent research time or brutal hacking by a sub-editor.

Having said all that, could this be the most pointless, meandering, impenetrable and incomprehensible "article" on "music history" I have ever had the misfortune to read in a national newspaper?

Actually, I didn't quite finish it. I just couldn't. Two-thirds of the way through (having succumbed to the double-whammy of sinking heart and rising blood-pressure) I began to weep at the gratuitous mass-murder of trees required to run it in the very newspaper which used to be graced by the mighty Julie Burchill. (Incidentally, despite her somewhat fearsome reputation, I won't have a word said against Julie. On a personal level I can vouch that she is a lovely woman: about five years ago she sent me an entirely unsolicited signed first edition of her brilliant, long-out-of-print first book Damaged Gods after I had tried every means to source it. In a small way she helped inspire me back on to the route which has led to my current PhD. Love or loathe her opinions, her prose style is phenomenal and her ability to sustain an argument unrivaled. She would never allow tosh like this to run under her name.)

The article in question, by contrast, is vacuous. Ostensibly about The Clash's London Calling, it has no thesis or insights to offer. Its non-content is conveyed through prose both turgid and flaccid. It is not history. It is not sociological analysis. It is not entertaining to read, even to provoke opposition; it is devoid of any meaning worthy of opposing. It is, literally, pointless. I cannot work out what it is trying to convey to me, or about what. It put me in mind of Truman Capote (and not in a good way), who allegedly said: "that's not writing - that's typing". More so, to paraphrase Harrison Ford to George Lucas: "you can type this sh*t - but you can't read it".

If anyone can decipher what the author is, in fact, trying to say (my life is too short for any further attempts at analysis) they may have a prize of their own choosing. If not, I declare that the author has just been awarded the first ever Smashing The Window USHA. Yes, you've guessed it: JQ is the recipient (proud, I hope) of the inaugural Utterly Sh*te History Award.