What makes a found poem?

[Quixilated]

I think you have not changed enough from the original text to be considered your own work. I know that a "found poem" uses the original words of the text, but for it to be a found poem and not just copying/stealing, the choices you make in presentation have to put some kind of unique twist on it that makes it different from reading the original. 

This poem reads almost exactly like the original. The effect is the same. Most of the sentences are exactly the same, most of the changes are very slight synonym switches. There is only one sentence of original content.  If you were taking something like a dry newspaper article and framing it in a way that suddenly makes it seem poetic, that is one thing. But everything Rowens writes already sounds like poetry. A found poem has to come from a source that is not already a poem. With Rowens' writing, that is a very fuzzy line. It's not a found poem to take a poet's poetic sounding comment and change a few words and give it line breaks.  

I think for this to be considered your own work, you would need to write the whole thing in your own words, keeping no more than maybe one line from the original. Otherwise, it's just Rowens' poem but now he's sharing the credit. 

I feel like this will spark a whole debate about what is and is not found poetry. I will also post this comment in the poetry discussions forum where those comments can spill out.  I'm curious to know whether or not I am wrong and, if so, why. 

I am willing to listen to logic and explanations. But as my current understanding stands, I would, personally, consider this plagiarism. The only reason I'm not treating it as plagiarism is because you did credit the original and I know you were attempting to do a found poem, the rules of which do allow for direct copying (apparently?). However, IMO, it doesn't pass. 

"Avoid "patchwriting" (mosaic plagiarism): Swapping out a few synonyms while keeping the original sentence order or phrasing still counts as plagiarism."

"Insufficient transformation: Merely copying large blocks, entire passages, or keeping long sequences of another writer's text intact—rather than refashioning and re-contextualizing the material—is considered unoriginal duplication."

"Impose new meaning: Re-order, isolate, and juxtapose words or phrases so that the final product functions as a distinct, independent artistic creation."

"Verbatim Copying: Using even a short sequence of consecutive words (often more than 3 to 5 words) from a source without quotation marks and an in-text citation according to guidelines from the APA Style."

Found poem rules:
Use an Existing Source: You must start with an external text that was not originally written as a poem."

"Found poetry takes words from existing texts to create new, unique poems with fresh meanings."

"writers of found poetry risk plagiarism if they merely copy, summarize, or paraphrase their sources. Successful found poems offer unique word arrangements and new meanings. The borrowed words may be unrecognizable in the context of the found poem."

So, in my opinion, this poem does not land as an original nor found poem 1. because it has not put a new twist or an original spin or new meaning into the words. It is literally just the same thing Rowens said and in the same way he said it but with some line breaks. And 2. it was basically already a prose poem, hence why it seemed like a natural idea to turn it into one. 

Words in red are identical. Words in blue are the same meaning. Words in black are original. 

1791312602[/url]']
Who knows when Death might come?
after Rowens

I was at a Bob Dylan concert, this was in the 90s when
we all didn't have phones. He wouldn't come out 
on stage (palm tree, lightning). I asked the woman
mixing drinks if I could get drinks with cash. She said
No you have to put your money through the machine 
and get a card. I said what if I have no ID, I didn't want 
to go through all the trouble having her mix a drink 
(I just say put in all the hard stuff) only to be carded.
She said she couldn't serve me. By now I was feeling 
honestly a bit depressed, the booze was no big deal 
but does there always have to be another goddamn 
hill? I asked her if I hadn't said the thing about not 
having ID, would she have asked for it. She said she 
couldn't tell me that.

Original: 

1791306672[/url]']

When I was at a Bob Dylan concert, he wouldn't come out on stage as it was lightning.
I asked the woman mixing drinks if I could get drinks with cash. She said no I had to concert my money through a machine to a card.
I asked what if I had no ID, I didn't want to go through all the trouble and have her mix me a drink (I just say mix all the hard stuff together, really) and then get IDed.
She said that she can't serve me. I said, if I hadn't said that I have no ID, would have she asked for it. She said she couldn't tell me that.
She was visually upset, at least she was seeing things that way.

[busker]

As you have pointed out, it’s not plagiarism since it’s got the acknowledgment right after the title.

The palm tree, lightning is an allusion, though not a good one IMO. It changes the way in which you’d view the line.

Long story short, this is either a found poem or just a regular poem. It’s random nonsense weaved into the form of a poem. I don’t think random nonsense and everyday speech needs acknowledgement. That’s how you get patents for some idiot who invents a blue tipped pencil holder instead of a green tipped one. The whole concept of copyright and IP in the west is BS, but that’s another story.

[CRNDLSM]

Ive made a few in the sonnets for Dale forum as a sort of (figure out who it is) game, do i need to label them?

[brynmawr1]

I would consider this mostly an edit if one considers the original text a poem.  I don't, but as Quix pointed out, much of Rowan's writing comes across as poetic.  It could be argued that it is just lyrical prose but the original does not follow standard formatting for prose in that the line breaks aren't determined by standard page formatting.

The content of the text or its relative worth is irrelevant to this particular discussion.  The issue is whether the text was sufficiently reimagined.  As I mentioned, I think it is mostly an edit of the original, however the title and the original text do lend some additional context/meaning though subtle.  So, I stand by my original conclusion that this really represents a rewrite or edit rather that an original work but in the end is no different than if it had been posted in the original thread.

[dukealien]

Police Blotter (found poetry)


Complaint of reckless gold Honda SUV driver

If I were made of gold, I’d be reckless too.
Wouldn’t you?


Break-in reported at Oakland Street home

What’s to break at a street home?
Cardboard boxes, just lift the bottom and steal
whatever they’ve got.


Officers investigate fraud involving red Chevy SUV

Which way did that go?  The car defrauded someone,
or someone defrauded the car, maybe
with mislabeled motor oil?

[milo]

It absolutely cannot be plagiarism as it is missing the key component that would make it such. As to whether it is a found poem - I actually prefer the term ready-made in the spirit of Duchamp - but anyway - I would not call it that either, it is more like an edit. I have a few ready mades in this site as well as a few discussions of them.

[wasellajam]

original thread here

I could pretty much just say ditto to Bryn’s post.

I don’t think it’s plagiarism as rowens is cited, although usually I think of After… as a response poem where the original sparks a totally different poem.

This one struck me as crit of a comment. I like the poem rowen made from the experience more than the explanation.

I think this poem would have better suited being posted on the original thread as Hey, rowens, I think you have another poem in there, but I really wasn’t concerned. It’s possible that if it was published rowens might not be thrilled with that but maybe he’d laugh. I don’t think I’d care if someone did that to my comment, but it’s true that in rowen’s case there’s a fine line between poetry and offhand comment.

---

found poem thread

rowens’ response:

I didn't write a poem about any of this stuff. I told a story. If I was talking to someone out loud in a car, and they used what I said in their book, would that be plagiarism? And how can something be plagiarized if the person writing says that they took the words from elsewhere? You could as well say that using quotes with quotation marks and the person being quoted is plagiarism.

[rowens]

My [life/words/actions/thoughts/dreams/writings], if that is the word you want to use, has no copyright. You are free to reproduce, distribute, interpret, misinterpret, distort, garble, do what you like, even claim authorship, without my consent or the permission of anybody.

[matsunosuperfan]

rowens Wrote:  
I didn't write a poem about any of this stuff. I told a story. If I was talking to someone out loud in a car, and they used what I said in their book, would that be plagiarism? And how can something be plagiarized if the person writing says that they took the words from elsewhere? You could as well say that using quotes with quotation marks and the person being quoted is plagiarism.

...

My [life/words/actions/thoughts/dreams/writings], if that is the word you want to use, has no copyright. You are free to reproduce, distribute, interpret, misinterpret, distort, garble, do what you like, even claim authorship, without my consent or the permission of anybody.
--

yeah I won't pretend to know rowens well at all but from our limited interactions on this forum, this was the vibe I caught, so I didn't think he would mind. it didn't seem to me he was presenting those words as a poem. "readymade" is a better term, yee.

I wouldn't submit this for publication. I would need to change more before that felt appropriate. I also agree with busker that neither version is really a "poem" per SE; more like, I felt this paragraph had a lot of poetic energy and was curious what shapes and colors might emerge if I bounced some lazors off it.