Dr. Spinner's Ethics Writing Class

Comments on Steve Elwell and Malcolm Gladwell.

Steve's article is so good because it so structured well and involves two story lines. Steve's opening and his description of the pathological disorder are well placed in the story and really keep the reader engaged. Yet the most interesting aspect of Steve's article in dealing with confronting Stephen about his lying. Ironically, Steve retreats from the situation with a lie. Without saying it, Steve reveals how we all lie to people in little ways, to avoid confrontation or awkward situations. So, while our lies may not be as extravagant as Stephen's, normal people are liers too.

Gladwell brings up the frustratingly complicated issue of copyright laws. His main example is a Broadway play that was copied directly from a profile he did for the New Yorker. He also talks about several songs that were copied, modified or adapted from previous works. While the article was written well enough to capture the difficult topic, I really hate this issue. First, it is mind numbingly nit-picky. Gladwell gives an example of Andrew Lloyd Webber used three bits of an earlier composer. But the challenger had to piece together three desperate songs to vaguely get a comparison. Who cares? The article reminded me of the story about the boyscouts (or girlscouts) illegally using the"happy birthday" song. Or the guy on the Maxwell Coffee can who realized they used his picture. Usually these people just see a chance to make money (however pathetic their attempt). Gladwell had a right to accuse Bryony Lavery of stealing because she should have consulted with Gladwell and Dorothy Lewis. But I can't agree or sympathize with the other examples.