The Guardian’s 2012 interview with Helene Hegemann focuses on surviving the aftermath—specifically the “notoriety”—of the plagiarism controversy that surrounded Hegemann’s debut novel, Axolotl Roadkill. In the interview, more than two years after the controversy began, Hegelmann continues to defend her stance (with an idea/phrase that’s actually “sampled” from Jim Jarmusch in the first place): “But I’ve said it again and it’s still my best defense: there’s no such thing as originality, just authenticity.”
As the Guardian article, as well as this earlier NY Times article notes, this sentiment is lifted from the very Jarmusch quote that she’s accused of plagiarizing: the novel’s page 7 turns the quote into a dialogue between Edmond and Mifti. After Edmond drops another “sampled” line, this one from a blogger by the name of Airen (“Berlin is here to mix everything with everything”), Mifti questions his originality: “Did you make that up?” In reply, Edmond muses, “I steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels my imagination … my work and my theft are authentic…” (7).
But what really is authenticity? Or rather, what does it mean to be authentic in terms of literary production? For Edmond (via Jarmusch), work, and even theft, are authentic “as long as something speaks directly to [his] soul.” What are the implications if we define it as he does? What weight does and should “authenticity” really hold? If we understand and valorize authenticity as Edmond/Hegemann/Jarmusch do, does it mean that we are willing to consciously blur the boundaries of intellectual property rights?
What disposes the judges of this literary contest to shrug off plagiarism charges based on Hegemann’s claims to “authenticity” (“I believe it’s part of the concept of the book,” one jury member says)? What inclines us, and those judges, to understand the literary “sampling” or “mixing” that Hegemann engages in as “authentic” in the first place?
What does it mean to be an “authentic” writer in a transnational context? What does authenticity mean in a postmodern globalized world?
* * *
The NY Times notes that in response to the plagiarism charges, Hegemann “defended herself as the representative of a different generation, one that freely mixes and matches from the whirring flood of information across new and old media, to create something new.”
This idea—particularly the “whirring flood of information across new and old media”– reminded me most immediately of Appadurai’s mediascapes, which “provide large and complex repertoires of images, narratives, and ethnoscapes to viewers throughout the world”(35). Indeed, if, as Appadurai argues, “the imagination in the post-electronic world plays a newly significant role . . . and has now become part of the quotidian mental work of ordinary people in many societies”(5), then it would seem to follow that in the postmodern world, the imagination in itself “samples” from various “narratives, images, and ethnoscapes.” Once it is incorporated into the individual imagination, is it authentic? Is it theirs?
My mind is brought back from both Appadurai’s idealism and grounded in my own English 101 students’ difficulties as they struggle with those admittedly fine lines involved in internet etiquette and fair use. In building their own webpages—which are, from the start, modeled after the NY Times’ Room for Debate pages–they are required to incorporate research from popular sources and encouraged to incorporate images, or even embed YouTube videos. While they are of course required to cite everything and are only allowed to use images licensed for re-use for the project, my experience so far has shown that while all of my students are using Flickr/creative commons & Wikimedia Commons because I told them they have to—most of them don’t quite understand why. “What if we include a hyperlink to the original article where the image is from under the image?” multiple students have asked.
When they know the image is just a click away for their audience—it’s hard to see exactly why they can’t just eliminate that click.
While my students can’t, in the end, eliminate that “click,” it’s easy to see what Hegemann means about being “representative of a different generation.”
* * *
In the end, I also wonder if Hegemann’s idea of “sampling” can be seen as an extension—a sort of update, or an extreme version—of what Jameson has described as “pastiche.” For Jameson, pastiche, in short, is comprised of cannibalized style or styles: after the fragmentation of the subject in the postmodern world and the subsequent dissolution of unique or peculiar style, the postmodern artist must look to the past for style. In other words, since there is no longer a subjective self to express or from which to generate authentic content, artists must resort to “imitation of dead styles, speech through all the masks and voices stored up in the imaginary museum of a new global culture” (Jameson 18).
But Hegemann doesn’t limit herself to “imitation of dead styles.” While Hegemann often does seem look to the past for her samplings—Mifti references her “excessive identification with Patti Smith”(139) and celebrates her playlist comprised of found 60s garage band music, for example—she just as often looks to the present. As she said, she “mixes and matches from the whirring flood of information across new and old media.”
Indeed, names, both past and present, high and low, local and global, (Western) pop culture and world (also, more often than not, Western) literature are dropped all over the place throughout the novel, in seemingly random places and to the point where it does become difficult to tell what comes from where—even when she’s seeming to cite things. In a chapter headed with a quote (about nostalgia for the 70s!) from American actress Leisha Hailey, Mifti goes with her class to the site of a Concentration Camp; it almost seems appropriate that Giorgio Agamben’s Homo Sacer appears in this chapter. Luis Buñuel (perhaps an inspiration for her surreal cinematic style) appears as her stepmother flicks through a documentary, shortly after chapter headings dedicated to Sexy Julia (who, from my quick Google-work, seems to be a German YouTube sensation) and a German broadcasting company’s advertising slogan.
Is this all received naturally (in the West) as part of our “global” imaginary? Does our own postmodern and globalized condition incline us to both intuitively understand and accept Hegemann’s version of artistic authenticity?