Define the following, as we did in class (5 points each): citationquotationsustainabilityorganic foodWrite a paragraph explaining each of the following as thoroughly as you can (18 points each): Rules for summarizing When you need to use a citation to avoid plagiarismBiased writingWrite a full reference in APA for each of the following (10 points each): the article Why German pilots won’t fly Afghan refugees back to Afghanistan at https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-12-11/why-german-pilots-wont-fly-afghan-refugees-back-afghanistan Sedniev: Magic of Speech Evaluation. You can get the details at https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01JD4E1MG/ref=sspa_dk_detail_5?psc=1Write a sentence to introduce this source in a paper for the first time (6 points): Gladwells Something borrowedi uploaded the file of:Gladwells Something borrowedalso the questions on a file( just to make sure everything you need is there)
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Define the following, as we did in class (5 points each):
Write a paragraph explaining each of the following as thoroughly as you can (18 points each):
5. Rules for summarizing
6. When you need to use a citation to avoid plagiarism
7. Biased writing
Write a full reference in APA for each of the following (10 points each):
8. the article Why German pilots won’t fly Afghan refugees back to Afghanistan at
9. Sedniev: Magic of Speech Evaluation. You can get the details at
Write a sentence to introduce this source in a paper for the first time (6 points):
10. Gladwells Something borrowed
Should a charge of plagiarism ruin your life?
By Malcolm Gladwell [excerpted]
Nov. 22, 2004
Downloaded Nov 24, 2014
One day this spring, a psychiatrist named Dorothy Lewis got a call from her friend Betty, who
works in New York City. Betty had just seen a Broadway play called Frozen, written by the
British playwright Bryony Lavery. She said, Somehow it reminded me of you. You really
ought to see it, Lewis recalled. Lewis asked Betty what the play was about, and Betty said that
one of the characters was a psychiatrist who studied serial killers. And I told her, I need to see
that as much as I need to go to the moon.
Lewis has studied serial killers for the past twenty-five years. With her collaborator, the
neurologist Jonathan Pincus, she has published a great many research papers, showing that serial
killers tend to suffer from predictable patterns of psychological, physical, and neurological
dysfunction: that they were almost all the victims of harrowing physical and sexual abuse as
children, and that almost all of them have suffered some kind of brain injury or mental illness. In
1998, she published a memoir of her life and work entitled Guilty by Reason of Insanity. She
was the last person to visit Ted Bundy before he went to the electric chair. Few people in the
world have spent as much time thinking about serial killers as Dorothy Lewis, so when her friend
Betty told her that she needed to see Frozen it struck her as a busmans holiday.
But the calls kept coming. Frozen was winning raves on Broadway, and it had been nominated
for a Tony. Whenever someone who knew Dorothy Lewis saw it, they would tell her that she
really ought to see it, too. In June, she got a call from a woman at the theatre where Frozen
was playing. She said shed heard that I work in this field, and that I see murderers, and she was
wondering if I would do a talk-back after the show, Lewis said. I had done that once before,
and it was a delight, so I said sure. And I said, would you please send me the script, because I
wanted to read the play.
The script came, and Lewis sat down to read it. Early in the play, something caught her eye, a
phrase: it was one of those days. One of the murderers Lewis had written about in her book
had used that same expression. But she thought it was just a coincidence. Then, theres a scene
of a woman on an airplane, typing away to her friend. Her name is Agnetha Gottmundsdottir. I
read that shes writing to her colleague, a neurologist called David Nabkus. And with that I
realized that more was going on, and I realized as well why all these people had been telling me
to see the play.
Lewis began underlining line after line. She had worked at New York University School of
Medicine. The psychiatrist in Frozen worked at New York School of Medicine. Lewis and
Pincus did a study of brain injuries among fifteen death-row inmates. Gottmundsdottir and
Nabkus did a study of brain injuries among fifteen death-row inmates. Once, while Lewis was
examining the serial killer Joseph Franklin, he sniffed her, in a grotesque, sexual way.
Gottmundsdottir is sniffed by the plays serial killer, Ralph. Once, while Lewis was examining
Ted Bundy, she kissed him on the cheek. Gottmundsdottir, in some productions of Frozen,
kisses Ralph. The whole thing was right there, Lewis went on. I was sitting at home reading
the play, and I realized that it was I. I felt robbed and violated in some peculiar way. It was as if
someone had stolenI dont believe in the soul, but, if there was such a thing, it was as if
someone had stolen my essence.
Lewis never did the talk-back. She hired a lawyer. And she came down from New Haven to see
Frozen. In my book, she said, I talk about where I rush out of the house with my black
carry-on, and I have two black pocketbooks, and the play opens with herAgnethawith one
big black bag and a carry-on, rushing out to do a lecture. Lewis had written about biting her
sister on the stomach as a child. Onstage, Agnetha fantasized out loud about attacking a
stewardess on an airplane and biting out her throat. After the play was over, the cast came
onstage and took questions from the audience. Somebody in the audience said, Where did
Bryony Lavery get the idea for the psychiatrist? Lewis recounted. And one of the cast
members, the male lead, said, Oh, she said that she read it in an English medical magazine.
Lewis is a tiny woman, with enormous, childlike eyes, and they were wide open now with the
memory. I wouldnt have cared if she did a play about a shrink whos interested in the frontal
lobe and the limbic system. Thats out there to do. I see things week after week on television, on
Law & Order or C.S.I., and I see that they are using material that Jonathan and I brought to
light. And its wonderful. That would have been acceptable. But she did more than that. She took
things about my own life, and that is the part that made me feel violated.
At the request of her lawyer, Lewis sat down and made up a chart detailing what she felt were
the questionable parts of Laverys play. The chart was fifteen pages long. The first part was
devoted to thematic similarities between Frozen and Lewiss book Guilty by Reason of
Insanity. The other, more damning section listed twelve instances of almost verbatim
similaritiestotalling perhaps six hundred and seventy-five wordsbetween passages from
Frozen and passages from a 1997 magazine profile of Lewis. The profile was called
Damaged. It appeared in the February 24, 1997, issue of The New Yorker. It was written by
Words belong to the person who wrote them. There are few simpler ethical notions than this one,
particularly as society directs more and more energy and resources toward the creation of
intellectual property. In the past thirty years, copyright laws have been strengthened. Courts have
become more willing to grant intellectual-property protections. Fighting piracy has become an
obsession with Hollywood and the recording industry, and, in the worlds of academia and
publishing, plagiarism has gone from being bad literary manners to something much closer to a
crime. When, two years ago, Doris Kearns Goodwin was found to have lifted passages from
several other historians, she was asked to resign from the board of the Pulitzer Prize committee.
And why not? If she had robbed a bank, she would have been fired the next day.
Id worked on Damaged through the fall of 1996. I would visit Dorothy Lewis in her office at
Bellevue Hospital, and watch the videotapes of her interviews with serial killers. At one point, I
met up with her in Missouri. Lewis was testifying at the trial of Joseph Franklin, who claims
responsibility for shooting, among others, the civil-rights leader Vernon Jordan and the
pornographer Larry Flynt. In the trial, a videotape was shown of an interview that Franklin once
gave to a television station. He was asked whether he felt any remorse. I wrote:
I cant say that I do, he said. He paused again, then added, The only thing Im
sorry about is that its not legal.
Whats not legal?
Franklin answered as if hed been asked the time of day: Killing Jews.
That exchange, almost to the word, was reproduced in Frozen.
Lewis, the article continued, didnt feel that Franklin was fully responsible for his actions. She
viewed him as a victim of neurological dysfunction and childhood physical abuse. The
difference between a crime of evil and a crime of illness, I wrote, is the difference between a
sin and a symptom. That line was in Frozen, toonot once but twice. I faxed Bryony Lavery
I am happy to be the source of inspiration for other writers, and had you asked for
my permission to quoteeven liberallyfrom my piece, I would have been
delighted to oblige. But to lift material, without my approval, is theft.
Almost as soon as Id sent the letter, though, I began to have second thoughts. The truth was that,
although I said Id been robbed, I didnt feel that way. Nor did I feel particularly angry. One of
the first things I had said to a friend after hearing about the echoes of my article in Frozen was
that this was the only way I was ever going to get to Broadwayand I was only half joking. On
some level, I considered Laverys borrowing to be a compliment. A savvier writer would have
changed all those references to Lewis, and rewritten the quotes from me, so that their origin was
no longer recognizable. But how would I have been better off if Lavery had disguised the source
of her inspiration?
Dorothy Lewis, for her part, was understandably upset. She was considering a lawsuit. And, to
increase her odds of success, she asked me to assign her the copyright to my article. I agreed, but
then I changed my mind. Lewis had told me that she wanted her life back. Yet in order to get
her life back, it appeared, she first had to acquire it from me. That seemed a little strange.
Then I got a copy of the script for Frozen. I found it breathtaking. I realize that this isnt
supposed to be a relevant consideration. And yet it was: instead of feeling that my words had
been taken from me, I felt that they had become part of some grander cause. In late September,
the story broke. The Times, the Observer in England, and the Associated Press all ran stories
about Laverys alleged plagiarism, and the articles were picked up by newspapers around the
world. Bryony Lavery had seen one of my articles, responded to what she read, and used it as she
constructed a work of art. And now her reputation was in tatters. Something about that didnt
So is it true that words belong to the person who wrote them, just as other kinds of property
belong to their owners? Actually, no. As the Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig argues in
his new book Free Culture:
In ordinary language, to call a copyright a property right is a bit misleading, for
the property of copyright is an odd kind of property . I understand what I am
taking when I take the picnic table you put in your backyard. I am taking a thing,
the picnic table, and after I take it, you dont have it. But what am I taking when I
take the good idea you had to put a picnic table in the backyardby, for example,
going to Sears, buying a table, and putting it in my backyard? What is the thing
that I am taking then?
The point is not just about the thingness of picnic tables versus ideas, though that is an
important difference. The point instead is that in the ordinary caseindeed, in practically
every case except for a narrow range of exceptionsideas released to the world are free.
I dont take anything from you when I copy the way you dressthough I might seem
weird if I do it every day . Instead, as Thomas Jefferson said (and this is especially true
when I copy the way someone dresses), He who receives an idea from me, receives
instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives
light without darkening me.
Bryony Lavery came to see me in early October. It was a beautiful Saturday afternoon, and we
met at my apartment. She is in her fifties, with short tousled blond hair and pale-blue eyes, and
was wearing jeans and a loose green shirt and clogs. There was something rugged and raw about
her. In the Times the previous day, the theatre critic Ben Brantley had not been kind to her new
play, Last Easter. This was supposed to be her moment of triumph. Frozen had been
nominated for a Tony. Last Easter had opened Off Broadway. And now? She sat down heavily
at my kitchen table. Ive had the absolute gamut of emotions, she said, playing nervously with
her hands as she spoke, as if she needed a cigarette. I think when ones working, one works
between absolute confidence and absolute doubt, and I got a huge dollop of each. I was terribly
confident that I could write well after Frozen, and then this opened a chasm of doubt. She
looked up at me. Im terribly sorry, she said.
Lavery began to explain: What happens when I write is that I find that Im somehow zoning on
a number of things. I find that Ive cut things out of newspapers because the story or something
in them is interesting to me, and seems to me to have a place onstage. Then it starts coagulating.
Its like the soup starts thickening. And then a story, which is also a structure, starts emerging.
Id been reading thrillers like The Silence of the Lambs, about fiendishly clever serial killers.
Id also seen a documentary of the victims of the Yorkshire killers, Myra Hindley and Ian Brady,
who were called the Moors Murderers. They spirited away several children. It seemed to me that
killing somehow wasnt fiendishly clever. It was the opposite of clever. It was as banal and
stupid and destructive as it could be. There are these interviews with the survivors, and what
struck me was that they appeared to be frozen in time. And one of them said, If that man was
out now, Im a forgiving man but I couldnt forgive him. Id kill him. Thats in Frozen. I was
thinking about that. Then my mother went into hospital for a very simple operation, and the
surgeon punctured her womb, and therefore her intestine, and she got peritonitis and died.
When Lavery started talking about her mother, she stopped, and had to collect herself. She was
seventy-four, and what occurred to me is that I utterly forgave him. I thought it was an honest
mistake. Im very sorry it happened to my mother, but its an honest mistake. Laverys feelings
confused her, though, because she could think of people in her own life whom she had held
grudges against for years, for the most trivial of reasons. In a lot of ways, Frozen was an
attempt to understand the nature of forgiveness, she said.
Lavery settled, in the end, on a play with three characters. The first is a serial killer named Ralph,
who kidnaps and murders a young girl. The second is the murdered girls mother, Nancy. The
third is a psychiatrist from New York, Agnetha, who goes to England to examine Ralph. In the
course of the play, the three lives slowly intersectand the characters gradually change and
become unfrozen as they come to terms with the idea of forgiveness. For the character of
Ralph, Lavery says that she drew on a book about a serial killer titled The Murder of
Childhood, by Ray Wyre and Tim Tate. For the character of Nancy, she drew on an article
written in the Guardian by a woman named Marian Partington, whose sister had been murdered
by the serial killers Frederick and Rosemary West. And, for the character of Agnetha, Lavery
drew on a reprint of my article that she had read in a British publication. I wanted a scientist
who would understand, Lavery saida scientist who could explain how it was possible to
forgive a man who had killed your daughter, who could explain that a serial killing was not a
crime of evil but a crime of illness. I wanted it to be accurate, she added.
So why didnt she credit me and Lewis? How could she have been so meticulous about accuracy
but not about attribution? Lavery didnt have an answer. I thought it was O.K. to use it, she
said with an embarrassed shrug. It never occurred to me to ask you. I thought it was news.
She was aware of how hopelessly inadequate that sounded, and when she went on to say that my
article had been in a big folder of source material that she had used in the writing of the play, and
that the folder had got lost during the plays initial run, in Birmingham, she was aware of how
inadequate that sounded, too.
But then Lavery began to talk about Marian Partington, her other important inspiration, and her
story became more complicated. While she was writing Frozen, Lavery said, she wrote to
Partington to inform her of how much she was relying on Partingtons experiences. And when
Frozen opened in London she and Partington met and talked. In reading through articles on
Lavery in the British press, I found this, from the Guardian two years ago, long before the
accusations of plagiarism surfaced:
Lavery is aware of the debt she owes to Partingtons writing and is eager to
I always mention it, because I am aware of the enormous debt that I owe to the
generosity of Marian Partingtons piece . You have to be hugely careful when
writing something like this, because it touches on peoples shattered lives and you
wouldnt want them to come across it unawares.
Lavery wasnt indifferent to other peoples intellectual property, then; she was just indifferent to
my intellectual property. Thats because, in her eyes, what she took from me was different. It
was, as she put it, news. She copied my description of Dorothy Lewiss collaborator, Jonathan
Pincus, conducting a neurological examination. She copied the description of the disruptive
neurological effects of prolonged periods of high stress. She copied my transcription of the
television interview with Franklin. She reproduced a quote that I had taken from a study of
abused children, and she copied a quotation from Lewis on the nature of evil. She didnt copy
my musings, or conclusions, or structure. She lifted sentences like It is the function of the
cortexand, in particular, those parts of the cortex beneath the forehead, known as the frontal
lobesto modify the impulses that surge up from within the brain, to provide judgment, to
organize behavior and decision-making, to learn and adhere to rules of everyday life. It is
difficult to have pride of authorship in a sentence like that. My guess is that its a reworked
version of something I read in a textbook. Lavery knew that failing to credit Partington would
have been wrong. Borrowing the personal story of a woman whose sister was murdered by a
serial killer matters because that story has real emotional value to its owner. As Lavery put it, it
touches on someones shattered life. Are boilerplate descriptions of physiological functions in
the same league?
It also matters how Lavery chose to use my words. Borrowing crosses the line when it is used for
a derivative work. Its one thing if youre writing a history of the Kennedys, like Doris Kearns
Goodwin, and borrow, without attribution, from another history of the Kennedys. But Lavery
wasnt writing another profile of Dorothy Lewis. She was writing a play about something
entirely newabout what would happen if a mother met the man who killed her daughter. And
she used my descriptions of Lewiss work and the outline of Lewiss life as a building block in
making that …
Purchase answer to see full
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.Read more
Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.Read more
Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.Read more
Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.Read more
By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.Read more