Stephen_Watson_and_Antjie_Krog_Plagiarism_Affair

Texts in the Humanities Plagiarism Melissa Baatjies 15822419 Ms. T. Bernard Stephen Watson and Antjie Krog Plagiarism Affair Plagiarism is the act of taking someone else’s work, be it written, visual, etc, and passing it off as your own without crediting the original author. In relation to that, copyright laws are based on legal rights given to the original author of literary, artistic or musical materials. While copyright may not have much do with the Watson/Krog affair, in a similar light of these definitions, a South African author and poet, Antjie Krog, was accused of this dishonesty, by Stephen Watson, a scholar at the University of Cape Town. This, not only caused an obvious response by Krog herself, but allowed other scholars to review his claim, as well as Krog’s works. Though not widely publicised, the newspapers had good coverage on the quarrel. The essay will cover the terms plagiarism and copyright and the effects plagiarism has on the people who are found guilty. Secondly, Stephen Watson’s claim will be discussed and as to why he made these claims. In response, Antjie Krog’s own response will be covered. Thirdly, the reactions of newspapers and scholars who agreed with Watson’s claim will be discussed as well. Following are those who were in favour of Krog and what response some had in light of this response. Finally, the questions of accountability and guilt are answered and if Watson was right to make this accusation. Plagiarism is seen, in the academic world, as one of the worst crimes a student or scholar can commit. Plagiarism is committed when the work of others, be it written, intellectual or artistic, is taken and presented as by an individual as his/her own work (University of Stellenbosch Arts and Social Sciences Faculty 2007: 1). Like many other institutions, particularly those of higher learning, this is the interpretation of plagiarism. To understand, one needs to go back to when the term plagiarism is first discussed, usually in a lecture based primarily on the effects and punishments of this transgression. According to Williams (2008: 351), it is like going to a formal restaurant and being told that your behaviour and etiquette will determine whether you will be thrown out or not. But, when the truth does come out, it has severe consequences. Plagiarism can be placed into three broad categories, dictating levels of punishment. “Blatant instances where…the matter should be in any case should be referred to the Central Discipline Committee (University of Stellenbosch Arts and Social Sciences Faculty 2007: 2). This first level of punishment includes suspension or forfeit of a degree or diploma and the forfeit of credits earned. Copyright laws then strive to keep the intellectual property of the artist, or in this case, the writer, safe. Copyright refers to the legal rights given to the creator of an original piece of work and these rights are fixed for number of years (Compact Oxford English Dictionary 2006: 216). These rights allow others to use the pieces of work but some compensation is required. In this technology-charged world with software to check whether one has plagiarised or if a song has been sampled, it brings out a whole new level of distrust. But no matter how great the need to catch the guilty parties may be, the need to nurture minds about the necessity to properly acknowledge is greater. Keeping in mind what plagiarism constitutes and how severe the consequences can be, an accusation as the one made by Stephen Watson must be dealt with to determine the extent and accuracy. His squabble lies with Antjie Krog, a South African poet and author, about a book she had published, the stars say ‘tsau’. Upon reading the article published by Watson, one is drawn into his psyche. He has obvious prejudice against those, especially South African writers, who have plagiarised. But what Watson wants to bring out is the fact that Krog did not acknowledge him in her work. According to Watson (2006: 49), nowhere in her book was there any acknowledgement towards him and his work. The book in question, the stars say ‘tsau’ is an adaptation of extracts from the Bleek and Lloyd collection of /Xam narrations, a collection from the 19th century scholars that has been in the public domain for quite some time. To begin with his accusations, Watson looks at his own introduction in Return of the Moon: Versions from the /Xam in comparison to Krog’s introduction. In this way, Watson (2006: 48-49) expresses the explicit similarity between his introduction, where he divulges the methods he used and the difficulties he had encountered in writing the book, and the introduction in Krog’s writings. But Watson does more than just accuse Krog of plagiarism in her recent work. He goes on to explore her version of “myth” as present in her work of fiction, Country of My Skull, and how reminiscent it is of an essay, “Myth and Education”, by Ted Hughes, first published in 1976 (Watson 2006: 59). Such “borrowings” should be acknowledged regardless, and not be seen as mere ideas that Krog had used. But Watson tries to put blame on Krog where there is none as Country of My Skull is a fictionalised book, not a work of fact. He continues instead to insult Krog’s work as “an exercise in the lowly art of moving one’s fingers over a computer keyboard (Watson 2006: 57). Furthermore, Watson, not only accuses Krog of committing plagiarism in both writings but he does it by adding insult to her skills as a poet and writer. While his argument is all right to make, be it true or not, Watson starts to move off his topic and now focuses on Krog’s literary mistakes as a way of proving her guilt. Krog’s volumes now acts as a primer for poetic mistakes and errors and how not to make them, her work is seen as that of someone who understands nothing of the English language, and particularly in the methods of free verse (Watson 2006: 52-53). There is mention of how many other literature writers have taken ideas of others and blatantly used them as their own, with the exception of T.S Eliot with who he compares Krog with. “The great difference between his poetic practise and straight plagiarism lies… in Eliot’s sensibility (Watson 2006: 58). He callously insults her sensibility and intelligence before ending with how her adaptations of the Bleek and Lloyd records have been turned into poetry that is merely a borrowing of words and nicely arranged. What could be seen as a comedy of errors rather than great examples of plagiarism, there is something underlying it and it can be called a plagiaristic spirit (Watson 2006: 49-50). Watson has a definite grudge against Krog, and whether he is right to accuse or not remains to be seen. But his accusations have an undercurrent of bitterness due to Krog’s lack of acknowledgment for work she had supposedly taken from him. In her response, Antjie Krog quickly finds that underlying implication of Watson’s article and immediately brings it into the light. Funnily enough, it is by Watson’s own words that she finds out the truth. Funnily enough, because of his article, Krog understands his intention and it is not to accuse her of plagiarism. She gives two very good points about what does not make her a plagiarist but somehow, in the eyes of Watson, it does. The first point she makes is that, because she did not give Watson the acknowledgement he believes he deserves, it does not make her a plagiarist. The second point is that while Watson might think of her as a bad poet, it does not make her a plagiarist either (Krog 2006; 73-74). It is easy to see the bitterness and disappointment throughout Krog’s article as she states her own opinions. She does not understand Watson’s reasons, though now explicitly expressed, and why he chose to single her out the way he had. In her defence, she compares herself to Watson in terms of literature knowledge concerning the Bleek and Lloyd records and the works of other writers who have books published based on the /Xam culture and language. Unlike Watson, she knows more than one South African language. Unlike his book, Return of the Moon, her book was not presented as her own work. Unlike him, she was able to understand the Afrikaans terms and questions posed by Bleek and Lloyd when they first encountered the /Xam (Krog 2006: 72-73). In addition, Krog now turns her attention to Watson’s own inaccuracies. A complaint he had made about how a third of the extracts used in Krog’s writings was the same as the ones he had used for his own book was not surprising in her viewpoint (Krog 2006- 73). Had they not been working from the same sources' While he tries to hide the purpose of his article by acting concerned over the original /Xam narrators who could be exploited, Krog brings into play that in Return of the Moon, Watson had not acknowledged other authors and poets who had worked with the /Xam material and from whom he had taken ideas. She then sums up his tirade in one simple sentence, which says that this argument he has with her has nothing to do with scholarly ineptitude on her part (Krog 2006: 74). It is just five pages in which Watson shows his obvious dislike in Krog and her work, using insults to prove how her work is seen as “poetic misdemeanours and howlers (Watson 2006: 52) and nicely hides his true purpose for the article. Throughout this whole affair, the Weekly Mail and Guardian followed the story closely, disclosing any new news as soon as it was released. Various opinions from journalists and columnists were issued as well in light of the accusations. A comment was made by a columnist in which she mentions how she had raised the question about Country of My Skull (Rùdén 2006: 22) and now with the recent accusations, she points out that these accusations must be dealt with, especially if previous claims were not dealt with. Another columnist focused on how Watson’s article just reiterates what many readers have found out about Krog’s work as a writer. Both columnists’ side with Watson and their reasons are based purely on the fact that if Watson writes and produces enough evidence of his claim, he should be answered accordingly (Rùdén 2006: 22). Many had not sided with Watson and his claim; his claim had a lukewarm response, and these accusations fuelled sensational ideas like the fact that Krog’s son shut down his band due to toppling guilt within the Krog household (Haynes 2006: 12). Whatever the case may be, a silence from Krog made writers and journalists believe that the accusations were true. Mann (2006: 22) concluded his opinion with the fact that if Watson could make such a wild and provocative claim, Krog needed to set the record straight. More so, a problem inherent in Krog’s “reassigning cosmologies, identities and culture in Country of My Skull (Harris 2007: 46) forms part of Watson’s argument”. As it is mentioned, his claim of plagiarism has been raised before, particularly about her work in Country of My Skull and previous accusations are used as reason enough to prove her guilt. Furthermore, when these accusations were raised, more than a few eyebrows were raised as well. Most of the newspapers sensationalised the story and could not find enough reasons to back Watson’s claim. Krog’s own response presented her argument as Watson just wanting acknowledgement. “He proclaimed her a bad poet…culling a few lines from her poems…then saying…“Look how bad it is!”” (Blatchford 2006: 11). According to many writers such as Gray; Mason-Jones and Johnson (as cited by Wessels 2007: 25), Watson failed to observe basic rules of academic engagement. They too attacked his allegations because of the motives they suspected were behind the allegations (Wessels 2007: 25) as it is repeating criticism he had received from his own work on /Xam narratives. Watson uses his article as revenge against those who criticised his work and directed his anger at Krog. However good his arguments are, they neatly conceal his motives which lie between lines suggesting that Krog is no amateur at plagiarism, as it is with many South African writers, Meanwhile, the publishers of Krog’s books, Kwela and Random House, consider taking legal action against Watson. His accusations have been examined and rejected, based on the fact that the /Xam material have been in the public domain for quite some time and have been attributed to the San authors (Breytenbach 2006: 3). The questions now raised are obvious. Was Watson right to accuse Krog of committing plagiarism' Was it a justified argument, based on solid evidence' Or was this just an angry man trying to get his acknowledgement' The latter is more plausible. His own work on the /Xam narratives were criticised in Return of the Moon and Krog’s work, in his opinion “…is worthless. Not all the ministrations of her publisher’s editors can disguise the fact that, when it comes to English, and the especially difficult art of English free verse, Krog has a tin ear (Watson 2006: 52). This is entirely based on his dislike for Krog and her work. It has nothing to do with neither the case of plagiarism her puts across nor the apparent exploitation of the /Xam narrators. But was Krog guilty regardless' The answer is no. She did not commit any form of plagiarism in the stars say “tsau”. There will be that small part that lingers on, though, that wonders if she really did. Previous claims were squashed as well. But with the backing of her own work, through her acknowledgments, and the publishers who nearly made a case, the accusations were laid to rest. In conclusion, the plagiarism accusation is yet another reason why it is unwise to plagiarise, not only on a higher level but also at university. As mentioned, Watson’s argument was aimed at the lack of acknowledgement towards him and his work on Krog’s part. When such accusations are raised, it is only natural that other scholars and academics would react. The newspapers covered it as well, many agreeing with Krog while the few who backed Watson made very good points. But in the academic world, in the literature world, plagiarism is one of the worst crimes to commit and it is always in the best interest to ensure good and proper referencing. Bibliography Blatchford, M. 2006. The Antjie Krog affair is bad for South Africa. Daily Dispatch. 18 March: p11. http://search.sabinet.co.za.ez.sun.ac.za/WebZ/AdvancedQuery'sessionid=01-41967-1592603373. Accessed: 16 March 2010. Breytenbach, K. 2006. Publishers consider legal action in Krog plagiarism row. Cape Times. 20 February: p3. http://search.sabinet.co.za.ez.sun.ac.za/WebZ/AdvancedQuery'sessionid=01-41967-1592603373. Accessed: 16 March 2010. Compact Oxford English Dictionary for Students. 2005. Oxford: University of Oxford. Harris, A. 2006. Accountability, acknowledgment and the ethics of “quilting” in Antjie Krog’s “Country of My Skull”. Journal of Literary Studies, 22(1/2): pp27-53. http://search.sabinet.co.za.ez.sun.ac.za/WebZ/AdvancedQuery'sessionid=01-41967-1592603373. Accessed: 26 March 2010. Haynes, G. 2006. A guilty silence in the house of Krog' Cape Argus. 16 March: p12. http://search.sabinet.co.za.ez.sun.ac.za/WebZ/AdvancedQuery'sessionid=01-41967-1592603373. Accessed: 16 March 2010. Krog, A. 2006. Stephen Watson in the Annals of Plagiarism. New Contrast, 34(5): pp72-77. Mann, C. 2006. Watson deserves an answer. Weekly Mail and Guardian. 16 March: p22. http://search.sabinet.co.za.ez.sun.ac.za/WebZ/AdvancedQuery'sessionid=01-41967-1592603373. Accessed: 16 March 2010. Rùdén, S. 2006. Watson deserves an answer. Weekly Mail and Guardian. 16 March; p22. http://search.sabinet.co.za.ez.sun.ac.za/WebZ/AdvancedQuery'sessionid=01-41967-1592603373. Accessed: 16 March 2010. Implementation of the interim policy on plagiarism in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. Policy presented to the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Stellenbosch, RSA. Watson, S. 2006. Annals of Plagiarism: Antjie Krog and the Bleek and Lloyd Collection. New Contrast, 33(2): pp48-61. Wessels, M. 2007. Antjie Krog, Stephen Watson and the Metaphysics of Presence. Current Writing, 19(2): pp24-49. Williams, B.T. 2007/8. Trust, betrayal, and authorship: Plagiarism and how we perceive students. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 51(4): pp350-353.