Scribbling woman put the Eliot quote I found last week into context – to wit, she’s actually read the whole essay, and knows her stuff. Reading her comments, I find myself wondering (again? like others? un-originally) whether we’re moving back into a culture that doesn’t adhere to the cult of originality and individual genius. These things appeared (largely) with Romanticism, although practical concerns of originality and copyright came earlier, with the printing press and publishing. Before that, did anyone really care? Shakespeare’s plays were hardly original – he just retold those old stories so damn well.

If we’re on our way to no longer valuing or caring about or even believing in originality, then the increases in plagiarism and the unbridled downloading of music and the remixes we see everywhere are symptoms of this cultural shift, or better, they’re what we’re moving towards.

How long, then, can the rules we’ve set in place based on the Romantic cult of the individual genius last? Copyright law is now one of the biggest industries in the world, somebody said (this is hearsay, I know, but an interesting idea) and universities still outlaws students who plagiarise, if they’re caught.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

10 thoughts on “away from the cult of the individual genius

  1. Martin

    I agree, and find this (I call it a democratisation of expression) to be a generally good thing, but I suppose one could move too far in the other direction as this quite extraordinarily bad article indicates.

    But I still think there’s a distinction between quoting, remixing and intertextualising and plagiarism or vandalising. I just think the line is getting quite indistinct these days.

  2. Jill

    Good grief. What a, well, as you say, extraordinarily bad article. And there is a discinction, but it’s getting harder to explain it, I think.

  3. diane

    Isn’t there also a difference between self-conscious appropriation and re-use,
    and efforts (e.g. plagiarism) to pass off other people’s material as the product of one’s own “individual genius”?
    The latter actually reinforces the “cult of the individual genius” and shouldn’t be mistaken for something
    interesting.

    PS. Your parenthetical about “hearsay” — very funny in this context! 😉

  4. Jill

    Oh yes, I like that explanation, Diane: plagiarism reinforces the idea that you’re SUPPOSED to be an individual genius. That is, if it’s done on purpose and not, as some students claim, as a sort of just that’s the way we work collage of dozens of websites with no references.

    Is there a term for web-based hearsay?

  5. diane

    How about VossIP?

  6. Jill

    Heh 🙂

  7. Charley

    The Romantics have been a little bit unfairly saddled with the “original genius” stigma, as later theories of impersonality (such as the one presented by T. S. Eliot in “Tradition and the Individual Talent”) actually build on Romantic sources such as Keatsí theory of negative capability. And the debate about plagiarism, and the difficulty of clearly distinguishing between creativity and various forms of borrowing, also concerns the Romantics – what with Chatterton, Macphersonís Ossian and Coleridgeís “Biographia Literaria.” This allegedly postmodern cluster of issues may have been more frequently discussed the last three or four decades, but it does go way back.

  8. Jill

    Charley, thanks! My knowledge of romanticism is unfortunately rather, um, well, I guess I haven’t really brushed up on it in recent years. It’d be really interesting to read more about these issues. Do you know of anyone who’s written about these things in connection with our contemporary isses?

  9. Charley

    Youíve put me on the spot, Jill – if your knowledge of romanticism is rusty, my knowledge of contemporary issues like this cannot even pretend to be in a state of dereliction or neglect! Nevertheless, a quick search on Amazon unearthed a book that seemed relevant: in 1999, State University of New York Press published a collection of essays (edited by Alice M. Roy and Lise Buranen) titled “Perspectives on Plagiarism and Intellectual Property in a Postmodern World.” For an informative review of the book, see this link:
    http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlpubs/crljournal/backissues2000b/november2/buranenbookreview.htm

  10. scribblingwoman

    Riffing/mashing/stealing: a manifesto…

    Several days ago Jill Walker posted a passage from T.S. Eliot’s essay on Philip Massinger (1922): Immature poets imitate; mature……

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.