Malcolm Gladwell Something Sorrowed Analysis

In this world several features are indistinct; such as numerical variables, ethics, and even aspects of day-to-day endeavors. Encased in these undefined aspects is plagiarism, or at least it is per Malcolm Gladwell. Gladwell, in “Something Borrowed”, reveals his views on, what he considers, three significant issues with plagiarism. His first issue is that, when viewed through the lens of academics or literature, copying has become never acceptable. Gladwell’s second concern centers on the question of what does and does not interfere with creativeness. Gladwell's last dispute with plagiarism is that people are urged to consider “that a writer’s words have a virgin birth and eternal life” which is not true. Overall, Gladwell’s key argument is

the question of where is the line between borrowing another’s work tolerable and transformative, and when is borrowing blatantly stealing? By examining Gladwell’s three central issues, it can become evident almost no line exists between borrowing and stealing another’s work as plagiarism is undefined, in a generalistic sense.
Honest to goodness blatantly stealing plagiarism is wrong in any way, shape, or form it is presented in. Yet, why is this extremeness applied to the explanation of all plagiarism, when viewed from an academic or legal point of view, even if a person is drawing inspiration from another’s work? In Gladwell’s “Something Borrowed” this is his first central issue with plagiarism. He states “we have somehow decided that copying is never acceptable.” This is one way to express plagiarism since plagiary is rather undefined. Nevertheless, this interpretation is closed minded and stunts imaginative innovation in the ever-globalizing world.
No matter what, each person in their own way is creative. Creativity might come from inspiration from another’s work or come from brainstorming ideas. Even so, when plagiarism is involved what does and does not interfere with creativity is questionable. Gladwell asserts it can be “dangerous to be overly vigilant in policing creative expression,” which is why this is Gladwell’s second concern with plagiarism. Since what does and does not hinder creativity is subjective, it becomes open to interpretation to decide what is and is not plagiarism. Provided that what prohibits creativity, whether it be in idea or expression, is undefined, Gladwell is factual on his second issue.
 Somewhere in this paper is likely a sentence or line written by another person, so does that mean this paper has plagiarized another’s work?

No, it means a limited number of ways exists, in the English language, to phrase or word a sentence. Recently, per Gladwell, it has become a passion to believe “that a writer’s words have a virgin birth and an eternal life.” The perception of words having complete originality is Gladwell’s third tension with plagiarism since this idea is unfeasible to uphold. The originality approach moreover leads to unintentional plagiarism, and forces writers to double check and triple check their work out of fear of being accused of plagiarism. This notion is yet another way in which plagiarism is undefined, subjective, and unrealistic in an interconnected

world.
 In “Something Borrowed” Gladwell does generate all the above points; however, his overarching central issue is where the distinction is between “borrowing that is transformative and borrowing that is merely derivative. . ..” From the extremeness applied to the definition of plagiarism, to what does and does not hinder creativity, and the concept of a writer’s everlasting original words, the ability to render a distinction between transformative and derivative borrowing becomes nigh impossible to differentiate. Overall, transformative borrowing is borrowing another’s work to derive inspiration from it and to transform it into a new and exceptional composition. “Borrowing that is merely derivative” is deliberately duplicating another’s work to pass it off as one’s own. However, since plagiarism is considerably undefined, it demands such extreme definitions of transformative and derivative borrowing to even draw a line between the two.
Although this paper has attempted to point out where plagiarism is undefined and at fault, but plagiarism does have a handful of aspects that are defined and helpful.

Nearly each person agrees that plagiarism is unethical, and in this facet is defined. By the majority agreeing that plagiarism is erroneous it helps to give credit where credit is due and allow people to receive the proper recognition for their work even if it was work from a long time ago. Even Gladwell admits “we lose track of where they (ideas) came from, and we lose control of where they are going.” However, as long as there is a notion that plagiarism is inappropriate, the people that come up with the ideas Gladwell mentions will be remembered for future generations. Of all the features amiss about the concept of plagiarism this is one of the few factors the concept of plagiarism perceives

correctly.
As is apparent, the concept of plagiarism has its faults. The perception of plagiarism is undefined with glitches in the extremeness applied to the definition of plagiarism, questions about what does and does not hinder creativity, and the concept of a writer’s everlasting original words. Not to mention the drastic measures needed to locate the distinction between “borrowing that is transformative and borrowing that is merely derivative. . ..” In general, the points made in Gladwell’s “Something Borrowed” are spot on, and as a community it is necessary to come together to solve the problem and define plagiarism in an adequate way.