THE L R

The L R-PDF Download

  • Date:12 Aug 2020
  • Views:15
  • Downloads:0
  • Pages:215
  • Size:2.33 MB

Share Pdf : The L R

Download and Preview : The L R


Report CopyRight/DMCA Form For : The L R


Transcription:

THE LEHIGH REVIEW,A Student Journal of the Arts and Sciences. VOLUME 15 SPRING FALL 2007, Each year Lehigh University publishes the Lehigh Review. a student journal of the arts and sciences Each issue contains some of. the best writing by Lehigh students, Any scholarly articles or academic essays may be submitted. The review does not ordinarily accept fiction or poetry. All submissions should reflect the breadth and depth of the. liberal arts We are especially interested in submissions that draw. from the content or methodology of more than one discipline In. each issue prior to this one false claims were made in this statement. Regarding the aforementioned claims the parties responsible were. dismissed from the Review indefinitely due to the fact that the Review. stands for Truth above all else,Cover Design by Matthew. Schaner and Ricky Webster,THE LEHIGH REVIEW,Founded in 1922.
Volume Fifteen 2007,Chairmen Graduate Student Advisor. Wes Atkinson Nate Eastman Kathleen Mish,Editors in Chief Design. Hayley N Bonsteel Matthew Schaner Ricky Webster,Patrick R Murphy Allen Yeung. Editorial Staff Publicity, John Callahan Brooke Eby Dmitry Michael Ballanco Nicholas Cashan Stefie. Gurinksy Barry Perlman Matthew Kan Sanyog Rai Brett Rieders Ben. Pyles Matt Raspanti Lauren Rieders Rosenau Ashley Saunders. Edward Silverman Lee Sussman,Stanislav Tsanev Katherine Wilkes.
Faculty Editors,Gordon Bearn Brian Dunst Jenny,Hyest Ziad Munson Kathy Olson. Brad Rogers Lloyd Steffen Vera,Stegmann Nikki Tannenbaum. Elizabeth Vogtsberger, Copyright 2007 by Lehigh University All Rights Reserved. All text images graphics animation music and other materials are subject to the copyright. and other intellectual property rights of the individual authors and or Lehigh University No. part of this publication can be reproduced stored in a retrieval system distributed modified. reposted or transmitted in any form or any means electronic mechanical photocopying. recording or otherwise without the prior express written consent of the Authors and Lehigh. University, While every precaution has been taken in the preparation of this publication the Publisher. Editors Staff and Administration assume no responsibilities for errors or omissions or for the. damages resulting from the use of information contained herein. The opinions expressed in the media including articles audio video graphics or otherwise. published in this journal do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors Administrators and. Staff of the Lehigh Review or Lehigh University,Editor s Note.
To say that the fifteenth edition of the Lehigh Review is. outstanding would be an outright lie It s not bad We. haven t lost any sleep over it or anything and we hope you. won t either However the fact that you are reading this. indicates your apparent interest in the Review If you do not. have said interest and have picked up a copy accidentally the. following suggestions for alternative uses of the publication. may be of assistance coaster table level toilet paper door. stop Frisbee although we do not guarantee flight and should. not be held responsible for accidents or incurring injuries. paper cut machine compost material or late night snack. Additionally the Review is guaranteed to legitimize any shelf. of romance novels These uses are merely molecules in the. vast ocean of potential uses of the literature you so delicately. hold in your hand,That being said happy reading,Hugs and kisses. Your Quasi enthusiastic Editors,Hayley N Bonsteel,Patrick R Murphy. THE LEHIGH REVIEW,Borrowing and Originality in Modern Authorship. Lauren Rieders 9,Bad Intentions,Why Analyzing Authorial Intentions Fails. Chris Knight 21,Magnetite Fe3O4,Properties Synthesis and Applications.
Lee Blaney 33,What If You Can t Circle M or F,Alexandra Ganim 83. An Intersex Infant and Decisions about Normalization. Chandra De Witt 95,Ghodbane Hessler,Kramer Mickelson. Scheffer Zaretsky,White Teeth Sibling Rivalries and Zeno s Paradox. Jules Goldner 103,From Femme Bot to Dominatrix, The Spectrum of Female Roles within Science Fiction. Cinematography and Literature,Katherine Wegert 111.
www LehighReview org,Sensational Experience,Michael 123. Murawinski,Philosophy,An Undisciplined Discipline,Brian Dunst 135. Defending Liberty Pursuing Justice,Frank Falcone 163. Old Serbia or Kosovo Proper, Examining Natural Liberation in the Balkan Peninsula. Mary Kate 189,Advertising the American Dream,Kristen Merlo 203.
Indicates supplement by local high school student,Colin Gore. Borrowing and Originality in Modern,Authorship,Lauren Rieders. There is a continuing and pervasive societal confusion. on the definition of authorship and originality In April. 2006 Harvard sophomore Kaavya Viswanathan author of. How Opal Mehta Got Kissed Got Wild and Got a Life was found. to have plagiarized her novel Viswanathan wrote a fictional. novel about high school senior Opal Mehta s quest for. admission to Harvard University though she copied parts of. her novel from author Megan McCafferty s novels Sloppy. Firsts and Second Helpings Viswanathan argued that she. inadvertently copied parts of the book because they were. somehow embedded in her mind after reading McCafferty s. novels when she was younger She even went so far as to say. that she has a photographic memory which contributed to her. accidental plagiarism While her initial defense revealed her. vague interpretation of the definition of originality when. her book was pulled the publisher proved that originality does. not mean inserting the work of others and passing it as her. own At the core of this literary scandal is the question of the. threshold of appropriate borrowing Essentially everyone is. influenced by others in some way and borrowing is universal. thus the terms authorship and originality must be,Now more than ever there is a great demand for. authorship because of widespread plagiarism and copyright. The Lehigh Review, infringement Modern legal authorship should allow for the. borrowing of ideas that are built upon by individualized. interpretation The act of reinterpreting building on others. ideas and the process of becoming inspired are compelling. aspects of revolutionary writing The terms authorship and. originality are not obsolete rather the intrigue of. contemporary literature lies in the author s ability to use. influence imagination and reconstruction to create an original. work revealing his or her literary personality,Originality is created through individualized.
interpretation and creative thought When an author is. inspired by another author s work it is safe for the author to. borrow from these ideas and build upon them as long as his or. her personality is reflected in the interpretive work Literary. critic S Griswold Morley believed all literature reflects the. personality of its author that is all literature possesses part. of its author and therefore is original Morley s The. Detection of Personality in Literature 1 is perhaps the most. poignant methodology of authorship Morley believes the. debate on authorship is a physiological debate He says. Most literary productions are definably accepted as. the work of certain men whose personality is,associated with and in a measure fixed by their. writings Cases are not uncommon however in,which the originality of a book is dubious or its. authorship is uncertain and students of literature. are then called upon to decide whether a work or a. passage in a work is the product of one man s,brain or of another s In other words they must. determine the personality back of the written, Morley S Griswold The Detection of Personality in Literature PMLA. Morley believes that no two individual authors are capable of. producing a creative work in exactly the same way He says. A coincidence in idea alone would be unusual enough and. identical terms in addition hardly short of miraculous. Morley 305 Morley furthers his argument by saying it s not. uncommon for two authors to use the same wording in a. particular phrase or come up with the same plot He says it is. inconceivable that they should frame a page of thought in. identical language The idea that it s virtually impossible for. two people with distinct minds to produce identical work. should prove that the term originality does exist in some. capacity Morley says that using identical phraseology is not. sufficient proof of copying Since many authors write on the. same subjects it is often difficult to come up with new words. to represent those facts Morley 305 Critics biases are. responsible for judging whether an author s personality is. reflected in his work Since there is no definitive answer to the. question of what constitutes a healthy amount of borrowing. we have to keep the concept of influence in mind when. evaluating an author s work Morley is pro author in his. defense of the nature of originality He supports the idea that. originality can exist even if a work is dependent on borrowing. Morley s essay proclaims that an author s work, possesses an independent personality even if aspects are.
borrowed while literary critic Roland Barthes criticizes this. extreme formulation Barthes essay The Death of the. Author 2 is a critique of originality and the idea of the author. He questions the need to transcendentalize the author in a. piece of work In his approach to analyzing literature he. suggests the role of the author in literature has diminished. unlike Morley he believes the personality of the author does. Barthes Roland The Death of the Author Image Music Text Ed New. York Hill and Wang 1977,The Lehigh Review, not exist in his or her work He questions the nature of. individuality in an author s work by discussing the role of I. in language Barthes says Linguistically the author is never. more than the instance in writing just as I is nothing other. than the instance saying I language knows a subject not a. person and this subject empty outside of the very, enunciation with defines it sufficed to make language hold. together suffices that is to say to exhaust it 145 Barthes. does not think the author s personality is present in his ideas. and therefore he thinks the author is merely an insignificant. tool in writing He says The writer can only imitate a. gesture that is always anterior never original His only power. is to mix writings to counter the ones with the others in such. a way as never to rest on any one of them In diminishing. focus on the creator of a work Barthes also condemns the. author for limiting the meaning of a text and forging. originality While I am sympathetic toward Barthes view that. it is not necessary for the author s personality to infiltrate his. work to deem it original I disagree with his extreme. formulation that the author is never original, The two extreme arguments posed by literary critics. Morley and Barthes merit the need for a modern revision of. originality and authorship Morley is precise in his belief. that an author s work is original because it possesses the. author s sense of individuality beneath it Barthes on the. other hand finds it unnecessary to focus on the author as a. basis of originality Authorship should be redefined in a way. that allows borrowing to be compatible with originality. Creative writers such as Vladimir Nabokov Michael, Cunningham and Colm T ib n have proved that there is in. fact something quite profound about authors inspiring one. another Their work engages readers in the pursuit of their. borrowing of ideas to form an utterly artistic book These. authors are acutely aware that all art seeks to imitate or. borrow from real life though out of an inability to replicate. comes originality,In Vladimir Nabokov s autobiography Speak Memory.
the author writes about the idea that all art is a representation. of the real world that every type of art is an imitation of. reality As a writer Nabokov is aware that all art seeks to. imitate something else but the idea that imitation is. impossible shows that there is originality in creative work. Nabokov s work contends his fascination with mimicry. though his metaphor about butterflies He says,The mysteries of mimicry had a special attraction. for me Its phenomena showed an artistic,perfection usually associated with man wrought. things When a butterfly has to look like a leaf not. only are all the details of a leaf beautifully rendered. but markings mimicking grub bored holes are,generously thrown in Natural selection in the. Darwinian sense could not explain the miraculous,coincidence of imitative aspect and imitative. behavior nor could one appeal to the theory of the. struggle for life when a protective device was,carried to a point of mimetic subtlety exuberance.
and luxury far in excess of a predator s power of,appreciation I discovered in nature the. nonutilitarian delights that I sought in art Both, were a form of magic both were a game of intricate. enchantment and deception,Nabokov 125, The magic in the nature of mimicry for Nabokov is the. deception that prevents exact imitation Nabokov s, biography too is a work of deception He explains his in. that she has a photographic memory which contributed to her accidental plagiarism While her initial defense revealed her vague interpretation of the definition of originality when her book was pulled the publisher proved that originality does not mean inserting the work of others and passing it as her own At the core of this literary scandal is the question of the threshold of

Related Books