plagiarism :P

To the best of my understanding, the articles seem to point out how it has become almost apathetic of most individuals in academia to accept plagiarism for what it has become, and, with a rather ironic connection, that originality and creativity can be sacrificed, but may actually flourish depending on the circumstances.

Fish initially seemed to question modern morals & ethics in his first article regarding plagiarism, and how its effects are negative in that aspect, as well as from a learning standpoint. His second article was essentially a defense, to say that plagiarism is NOT a moral issue, but an academic one that hinders the full effects of a complete education. & he's right... sort of. Morals don't seem to be lost as a result of plagiarism, but as in the aforementioned paragraph, creativity might. Who knows. Maybe the modern student isn't really looking to be creative.

Plagiarism seems to have a lot of gray areas, and doesn't fully list what it is & is not. It seems that his main focus is that since it is an ambiguous subject, the attempt should be made to judge whether or not its is or is not plagiarism based on common sense, and to bring to light that despite that, there are still a noticeable amount of students. Fish seems to say (though possibly unintentionally) that the modern student isn't morally conscious when it comes to plagiarism, probably because an average viewpoint is "I just need to pass." That in turn, as said earlier, DOES cease the development of originality, which amounts to many people with similar thoughts & nothing groundbreaking.

On the upside, however, Lethem describes how most contemporary and historic culture that is remembered fondly in a modern time, is essentially based on borrowings and reconstructions of previous works. It seems that he views it not as plagiarism, but as a spawning of new ideas but converting old ones. Plagiarism, is this sense, isn't hindering at all; if anything, it marks itself as progressive.