Conboy Replies

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

As the writer of "Black Mamba" I want to reply to the charge of plagiarism implied in your printing of passages from my story and Lawrence's "Sun."

"Black Mamba" was originally written as an exercise in a composition course, quite simply and openly as a stylistic experiment. The actual amount of Lawrence material in the story constituted perhaps one twentieth of the whole. I had done similar exercises with stories by Joyce and Katherine Anne Porter and Hemingway. The instructor was fully aware that I was doing experimental stories: there was no subterfuge involved. Certainly there was no intention of publishing it as it was first written.

I completely rewrote the story for a composition course I took this fall, cutting out much of the Lawrence. The instructor knew that "Black Mamba" had been first written in another course and that it was influenced by Lawrence. At the time I had not read "Sun" for over a year, but its role in "Black Mamba" seemed negligible enough to permit publication in a non-profit college magazine. However, before the story was submitted for the December, "Advocate" I again completely rewrote it in an attempt to eliminate whatever Lawrence material I remembered. Obviously I was not successful.

The concern now, though, is not with my intentions but with the story as stands. I should like to point out.

(1) That the excerpts in the CRIMSON represent virtually all the Lawrence material in the story, that even these are only partly Lawrence's, and that they all occur on one page of my story.

(2) That in their totality these excerpts represent about one thirtieth of my story and much lass of Lawrence's.

(3) That these are descriptive passages which occur in the less important parts of the story and that they are employed differently than in Lawrence.

While I feel that the CRIMSON is fully justified in complaining when it believes that Harvard readers are being abused, I think these things should have been mentioned. The article is misrepresentative in its over-simplification. For those who read the article I recommend the reading of both stories as a corrective.

I want to repeat that the story was originally written as an eclectic exercise: examination should reveal the slight influence of Joyce and Faulkner and other Lawrence writings. There was no intention to publish it as it was first written. There was never any intention of deception: the story lies quite outside my main body of writing. I certainly made a serious mistake in not checking the Lawrence story to make sure I had cut out these passages. And the CRIMSON has certainly exacted full payment for this mistake.

I also want to make it quite clear that the other members of the "Advocate" are in no way to blame for this. I thought that the Lawrence was no longer there and they had no possible way of knowing otherwise. William Conboy '52