This blog is closed
Stegneralia
The very fine western lands writer Philip Fradkin had a piece in the LA Times a couple weeks ago in which he discussed the perennial allegations of plagiarism against Wally Stegner for using Mary Hallock Foote’s life as a basis for his novel Angle of Repose.
Posted by: Chris Clarke
Note: A database glitch in 2008 ate a bunch of archived comments. Don't be offended if yours isn't here, or confused if the conversation seems disjointed. Thanks!
I hadn’t heard of this controversy, such as it is. I have to admit that, as a historian, I don’t quite see the “plagiarism” angle (heh) of it. Is writing a biography of Queen Elizabeth, drawing on her letters, “plagiarism”? Is creating a fictional character based on the life of a real person “plagiarism”?
I don’t, in my professional opinion, believe that either is. Plagiarism in my profession usually refers to the failure of a scholar to acknowledge that ideas, interpretations, or otherwise unknown facts came from some source other than the scholar’s own head and own research. The standards for fiction, even historically inspired fiction, are different.
It seems to me that, in creating a character based on an actual person’s life, using their correspondence and other materials, Stegner was not acting as a scholar, and, even if he was, it seems that he’s sort of damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t, when it comes to “citing” his source. If he had included a note acknowledging that his information came from Foote and Ward was based on Foote, he’s open to the sorts of attacks that the family has made about distorting “her” life. If he were to insist that Ward was a fictional character, and made no reference to the usefulness of mining Foote’s life in making that character believable, then he gets accused of “plagiarism”.
Of course, I may be prejudiced. I adore the book, and would assign it in all of my Western history courses, were it not for the length and the danger of confusing students as to where the real history ends and the fictional story begins.
By: By Rachel Shaw on 2008 02 13
Sorry to depart on this one, Chris, but it’s a controversy generated by vultures like Philip Fradkin, and it is maintained by repetition.
Fradkin’s specialty, in biography, is generating scandal. If he can’t find any, he’ll make some, manufacturing outrage or drama where there is only boring old complicated historic truth made much more titillating by his insinuation of scandalous ‘gray area.’ He is, in fact, the originator of my term ‘vulture’ for biographers - an unfair appellation for some, but not him. He’s a (self) glorified gossip columnist masquerading as an intellectual, feeding off the corpses of better, more talented people than he.
The article could say:
‘Like every writer of fiction, Stegner included truth in his book. The difference here is, he did it honestly, got permission, and offered editorial review to the permission-granter, which was refused. A generation or so later, some of the family objected: perhaps they would have made different choices.’
But then it wouldn’t get printed, would it.
Too bad there are actual, living people affected by this kind of muckraking, by the spinning of real people’s lives for maximal (and politicized) frenzy to gain the vultures attention they cannot get any other way.
By: By Theriomorph on 2008 02 13
I suppose this just limns my own blinders in my reading choices. I’ve not read Fradkin’s biographical work, but only his writing on environmental history and his work at Audubon.
By: By Chris Clarke on 2008 02 13
i think stegner made brilliant use of historic letters that otherwise would never have seen the light of day, and he did so with the permission of the family. the novel itself is clearly fiction, even if it does rely heavily on the letters.
his good faith is shown by offering the family the manuscript, and by the acknowledgment that he “borrowed” from the letters. it seems a more explicit acknowlegement of the source materials was not included because of the family’s privacy concerns.
later, members of the family had feelings—about the fictionalization of the story surrounding the portions of the letters used, and probably more strongly about not seeing profits and kudos from this very successful work. nowadays, perhaps some percentage of profits and an explicit thanks to the author of the letters would be worked into a contract.
had anyone thought of it at the time—thought this would be a wildly loved work, that there would be profits worth mentioning, or that the chance to promote ms. foote’s work and life would be important in the future—my impression is that stegner would have offered such a contract, or agreed to one. he didn’t just steal the letters; he was very grateful to have access to this treasure trove, insights to a unique life.
and he did offer the manuscript before publishing. all i can say is, if someone was using my ancestor’s writings to make a novel, and offered me a chance to read and edit, you could not pull me away.
By: By kathy a on 2008 02 13
This issue was fully examined approximately four or five years ago in the L.A. Times. Persons who have followed the literature on this supposed scandal have long known that Stegner made full acknowledgement of his source material at the time that he published the work. Why in the world the LAT has gone into this again can only be explained by the musical chair aspect of a chaotic newsroom, editors’ lack of awareness of subjects already vetted and exhausted, ad-nauseum. But what the hell do I know? I’m only a landscape architect.
By: By John Crandell on 2008 02 16
Categories:
Writing
