Le plagiat par anticipation

by Pierre Bayard

On ne cesse d''évoquer l''influence des écrivains et des artistes sur leurs successeurs, sans jamais envisager que l''inverse soit possible et que Sophocle ait plagié Freud, Voltaire Conan Doyle, ou Fra Angelico Jackson Pollock.S''il est imaginable de s''inspirer de créateurs qui ne sont pas encore nés, il convient alors de réécrire l''histoire de la littérature et de l''art, afin de mettre en évidence les véritables filiations et de rendre à chacun son dû.

Genres: Essays

160 pages, Paperback

First published January 15, 2009

About the author

Pierre Bayard (born 1954) is a French author, professor of literature and connoisseur of psychology.

Bayard's recent book Comment parler des livres que l'on n'a pas lus?, or "How to talk about books you haven't read", is a bestseller in France and has received much critical attention in English language press.

A few of his books present revisionist readings of famous fictional mysteries. Not only does he argue that the real murderer is not the one that the author presents to us, but in addition these works suggest that the author subconsciously knew who the real culprit is. His 2008 book L'Affaire du Chien des Baskerville was published in English as Sherlock Holmes was Wrong: Re-opening the Case of the Hound of the Baskervilles. His earlier book Who Killed Roger Ackroyd? re-investigates Agatha Christie's The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. His book on Hamlet which argues that Claudius did not kill Hamlet's father remains untranslated into English.

Reviews

[Ben · Rating 4 out of 5]

The title refers to a new concept of plagiarism -- plagiarising not the works of the past, but those of the future. How can one plagiarise something that doesn't even exist yet? Bayard argues time is not necessarily linear, therefore it is possible to communicate with ideas that exist in what we typically call "future".
He gives several examples: Viktor Tausk and Freud (Freud was rather relieved when Tausk, his former favorite disciple, committed suicide... Guess why), Nietzsche and Freud, Tristan et Yseut, Sophocles (Did Sophocles actually plagiarise Freud and detective fiction?), and the mysterious woman author from the future ("survenant") whose influence can be seen in Kafka's literary universe.

Sounds kooky? Well, Bayard is a competent thinker and his arguments are persuasive and intellectually stimulating if you keep an open mind. In fact you do not need to believe in anything supernatural to appreciate his theory; at least what he sums up in the epilogue can be comprehended in a purely academic manner.

[Sirius Black · Rating 3 out of 5]

Lafı tepetaklak ederek, gargara yaparak yeni bir terim uydurmak kolay. Bayard laf cambazlığı yapıyor. Önceden intihal terimi başlı başına anakronik, fakat yine de bir şans verdim. Önceden intihal dediği şeyi teorik bir çerçeve yerleştirirken bile fazla düşünmemiş. Bazı yerlerde önceden intihal demektense basitçe öykünme ya da etkilenme denebilir. Önceden intihali oulipo akımına dayandırmış ve örnekler vermiş ama verdiği örnekler tartışmalı. İntihalle alakası yok bile diyebilirim. Yine de ilgi çekici durumlar da incelemiş. Freud, Taud ve Nietzsche arasındaki ilişki gibi.

[Hélène · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bayard pointe ce qui un jour nous a tous frappé, la dissonances comme il l'appel, ce sentiment qu'une œuvre est bien trop moderne pour son époque historique. C'est très ironique et on apprend des parallèles étranges entre certains textes mais c'est aussi assez répétitif

[Mari]

Super

[Meurs · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lecture stimulante, sur la possibilité d'un renversement chronologique des influences artistiques. Ce n'est pas seulement l'oeil du lecteur qui lui fait retrouver du Conan Doyle chez Voltaire, du Freud chez Sophocle - créant ainsi un troisième texte nourri de ses lectures - mais l'écrivain lui-même qui communiquerait avec ses suivants et leur emprunterait des concepts à naître. Certains auteurs seraient ainsi décalés dans leur époque et auraient loupé par anticipation leur place dans les courants littéraires, comme Laurence Sterne, faussement situé au 18ème siècle.

[Chani · Rating 3 out of 5]

The concept is daring, if not really new, and there's some brilliant stuff but it's a bit pontificating and stretched at the end of the day.

[TapMyShoulder · Rating 5 out of 5]

SI bon