By Mursi Saad El-Din There are certain literary issues that seem to be perennial. In some cases, the arguments sound like a verbatim replay. One of these issues is plagiarism -- the definition of which seems never to be settled once and for all. The problem this time centers on a Booker Prize- nominated novel by no less than Ian McEwan, Atonement. Indeed McEwan won the Booker for another novel of his, Amsterdam. The charge of plagiarism was made by a Sunday paper which claimed that certain sections in the novel were copied from the memoirs of a wartime nurse Lucilla Andrews, who was the author of romantic novels. The story was immediately taken up by the media the world over. When the Daily Mail went as far as blatantly accusing McEwan of plagiarism, fellow writers immediately rushed to his defence. Out of the writers' defence came some interesting facts and confessions. Many famous writers have stated that they "had borrowed" passages from other works. In a strong show of support a group of the best known authors, including John Updike, Martin Amis, Zadie Smith and Margaret Atwood, suggested "it was impossible to write a historical novel without borrowing some details, colour and reminiscences from memoirs or diaries contemporary to the period they are writing about", as cited in the Daily Telegraph of 6 December. John Updike said, "Given that he [McEwan] was too young to experience any of World War Two, I assumed that the fascinating information in Atonement was derived from interviews or books. The passages alleged to be plagiarism are few and legitimate borrowing, as I read them, and in no way a discredit to the brilliant author." Martin Amis argues that "Historical fiction -- as opposed to historical fantasy -- cannot be written without help from historical sources. The novelist acknowledges that help, with gratitude, and the world moves on." Margaret Atwood, meanwhile, gives her definition of plagiarism as lifting "someone else's chunk of text or unique idea without acknowledgement. It is silly", she goes on, "not to mention injurious and incorrect, to claim that Ian McEwan did this. All novelists research, we do it to avoid anachronism and false information. I try to check all facts. If facts are generally available, their use is not plagiarism." Zadie Smith, for her part, goes into more detail, quoting TS Eliot's essay "Tradition and the Individual Talent". In that essay, Eliot "famously insisted that writers need not only rely on the past but must actually cannibalise it." "The Waste Land", continues Smith, "is a perfect example of the radical combination of other people's words. Now everyone is welcome to have an argument about the worth or otherwise of that kind of 'stealing'. But the thing with Ian has nothing to do with that, or plagiarism or anything. It's just simple factual research, medical details, historical accuracy, the source of which was acknowledged." And on and on go the other writers in what might be called "writers of the world, unite". Publishers have also come out in defence of McEwan. One of Britain's famous literary publishers said that the accusations were "absurd. They effectively mean that it could become impossible to write historical fiction -- set in any recent time -- unless you, the author, were actually there." Thomas Pynchon, himself the author of huge and complex historical novels, supports McEwan. According to him, "unless we were actually there we must turn to people who were, or to letters, contemporary reporting, the encyclopaedia, the internet until, with luck, at some point we can begin to make a few things of our own." But I expect that very similar points will be made the next time a controversy about plagiarism erupts.
