Daniel Peterson wrote:Obviously, when literary works are cited, their authors should be given credit. And where citations involve evidence that a careful reader may want to check for accuracy and context, references should be supplied. You will notice that my essay follows the fifteenth edition of The Chicago Manual of Style and complies with standard academic reference procedures in its sixty-eight footnotes, precisely as do the other articles in the Review.
Aside from the fact that he totally omitted a proper reference for my, Kevin Graham's, and others' criticism, I agree.
The situation is quite different, though, where an author perhaps cites a "man in the street" to illustrate a point. For example, a writer might say something like, "This attitude is quite common among Americans. As one woman recently put it when she learned that I teach baroque tuba, 'Classical music bores me. I really, really hate it.' We might feel that she's wrong, but she's surely not alone in her judgment." It would be pure pedantry to insist on a footnoted reference reading, "Marybeth Lopez-Grudginheimer, statement made while standing on the sidelines of a soccer game between the Walmart. B. Macpherson Middle School Tigers and the Ida Mae Fudge Middle School Brownies, held on the Macpherson Middle School athletic field, 8 April 1999."
I agree with him on this, too. The problem is that the "man in the street" refers to spoken speech. There would be no point in citing "Marybeth Lopez-Grudginheimer" since it would be virtually impossible to verify the context, etc. The whole point of proper citations is to enable others to check your sources.
Writers should not be deprived of credit for their literary works. Scholars should not be cheated of credit for their research. Thinkers should not be stripped of credit for their ideas. Readers should not be prevented from checking up on the evidence cited.
Thus, by implication, he has just labeled all of us from whom he lifted quotes as "unscholarly," "unthinking," unliterary," and etc. Also, by omitting the proper citation, he did indeed prevent his readers from being able to check "up on the evidence cited." That was his big blunder here.
But citation rules should be applied intelligently, not mindlessly. When they serve a real purpose, not robotically.
Which, of course, is why we have style manuals. After all, why use a style manual if you are going to make up your own rules?
If I were citing the message-board complaints of the pseudonymous "Mr. Scratch" as evidence for anything, there might be some reason to give a full academic-style reference. If I were citing a literary work by him or a creative work that he had produced, he would deserve credit for it.
He and his friends at MAD have characterized my remarks as "conspiracy theory," and "pure fantasy." By their own definition, my remarks were "creative."
If he had performed any research, it would be unethical to take it without attribution. If his quotation expressed an original idea of any substance, he would merit credit for it. If he offered any evidence, readers would deserve a chance to check out his claim. But, in my judgment, his quite insubstantial comment on a message board is more on the level of Ms. Lopez-Grudginheimer's negative remark about classical music made about mid-field at a middle school soccer match.
Too bad that he's not the one who gets to determine what "the level" is. His Chicago Manual of Style does, and sadly---embarrassingly---he didn't follow it.
Who cares whether Marybeth Lopez-Grudginheimer, in particular, likes or dislikes classical music? Probably nobody who reads the International Journal of Baroque Tuba Education cares a fig, one way or the other.
Part of the reason for this is that her words were not published, and thus are not accessible to other interested parties and researchers.
She simply serves to illustrate an attitude toward classical music that is easily verifiable in any representative group of Americans.
Another poor analogy, since I highly doubt that my critique of FARMS Review is "easily verifiable in any representative group of Americans."
And who cares that "Mr. Scratch," in particular, holds a low view of the peer review process at FARMS?
Obviously, DCP cares. Otherwise, why bother to use the quote?
It's not as if he has or claims any special insight into that process, or knows anything whatever about it from personal experience. His comment simply illustrates a generic gripe expressed by a number of other similarly ill-situated and ill-informed critics -- in precisely the same way that Ms. Lopez-Grudginheimer stands for a larger number of American classical music non-fans.
Wow, he is really sinking himself pretty deep here. I never claimed anywhere to have "special insight," and in fact I admitted quite frankly that I was speculating. Given DCP's reaction---in print, no less---perhaps I hit pretty close to the truth...
The passage I quote from "Mr. Scratch" merely sets up a topic for discussion. It illustrates a question that isn't unique to "Mr. Scratch." Since he is pseudonymous, I deprive him of no credit.
Yes, you do, Prof. P.
Since nothing he says can be considered evidence and nothing he says is used as evidence for any substantive claim that I advance,
It is used as counterargument against your own, Prof. P.
it doesn't really matter whether or not my quotation of him is accurate (though it is), and it wouldn't really have mattered whether I paraphrased him, made up a quotation and attributed it to a fictional character, or simply raised the quotation in my own voice. He offers no importantly unique idea, supplies no substantively significant evidence, can claim no specific literary distinction. He has not been injured. Readers have not been injured.
Actually, I suspect that some readers may have been injured. Or at least some readers' opinion of the Good Professor's academic and scholarly integrity may have been injured. The problem is that DCP used a verbatim quote, and did not cite it. What sort of punishment would this merit for one of his undergraduate students, I wonder? Really, this was a bushleague mistake on his part. He claims that it "wouldn't really have mattered whether I....made up a quotation." If that's the case, then why didn't he do it? He saved himself the trouble of having to envision an opponent for himself, and stole my remarks instead. There really is no way to spin this mistake, in my opinion.
I suspect, though, that I'm seeing the opening salvo in an attempt to divert attention from the substance of my essay by focusing on a silly and peripheral non-issue. I will be depicted as unethical, unprofessional, dishonest, and etc.
In this instance, he *was* unprofessional. It may have been an honest mistake, but it was a mistake nonetheless. What we have observed here, while relatively smaller in scale, is on a par with juliann's gross distortion of the Bromely apostate research. This is a truly embarrassing scholarly blunder for DCP.
I will continue to wait for an apology, just as I have ever since he unethically smeared me on FAIR.