Mimesis y Cultura en la Ficcion: Teoria de la Novela Book

I've skimmed over this book before, and my first impression, which also relied upon other scholars' uses of Howard's work, was that I didn't like it. Some scholars talk about Howard's work as if she claims that plagiarism is AOK and composition courses should all be like Kenneth Goldsmith's Uncreative writing course at UPenn where students retype pages of the New York Times.

However, I gave it another chance and was pleasantly surprised. It's a very thorough, well-researched exploration of plagiarism--its history, the critical theories of intellectual property and original authorship, modern instances, and problems in the academy surrounding the punishment of plagiarism. Though Howard is an "apologist" for patchwriting (a form of plagiarism where the author manipulates and alters the text though not to the extent of summary or paraphrase) she still sees it as a formative stage in the writing process--not an end point. Since it's a stage of development, Howard advocates for a pedagogical rather than punitive approach to dealing with student patchwriting. Howard even includes a few very doable lesson plans at the end of the book to illustrate how patchwriting can be viewed as a stage in the reading and writing process, rather than an academic honesty issue. If there is one thing that this book lacks, it is concrete examples of patchwriting to differentiate it from more heavy cut-and-paste. Howard's definition of patchwriting seems to assume some level of manipulation of the text, but how much makes it qualify as patchwriting? A paragraph? A few paragraphs? This, to me, is a major oversight, because I can see what she means in regards to a few sentences patched together and manipulated here and there as a stage in understanding a text, but perhaps not the several paragraphs plopped into a term paper from Sparknotes after having to asked a student to expand their draft. The answer according to Howard, of course, is that it depends on the student/reader/context/text, but I would've appreciated the specificity of seeing an example to ballpark differentiate learning-type patchwriting from plagiarism with a recognition of gray areas in that determination.

I still do not agree with some very key points Howard makes, particularly in the ultimate aims of a writing program, the usefulness of technological tools in plagiarism detection and prevention, and patchwriting as 'typically' innocent. However, because of Howard's work I have much more respect for these arguments, and she's even won me over on a few issues, such as the importance of intention in determining plagiarism, the problem of unequivocally equating patchwriting with plagiarism in academic policies, and the confusing contradictions that students are faced with when they are asked to produce original work using a specialized vocabulary they have not yet become comfortable with deploying. I draw some different conclusions, but these issues are worth addressing with the clarity of thought and strength of research she brings to them.