We prefer to think that the absence of inverted commas guarantees the originality of a thought, whereas it may be merely that the utterer has forgotten its source.

Clifton Fadiman (1904–1999), an American editor, critic, and radio personality, frequently wrote about reading, quotation, and the ways culture recycles ideas. This remark reflects his long-standing interest in how “originality” is claimed and perceived in literary and intellectual life—especially in an era when educated conversation and essay writing leaned heavily on remembered lines from books. Fadiman’s point is directed at a common social habit: treating an uncredited thought as self-generated simply because it is not marked as a quotation, even though memory and influence often operate invisibly. The observation fits his broader, gently skeptical stance toward pretensions of novelty and the unreliability of human recollection.

Fadiman is warning against confusing lack of attribution with genuine originality. “Inverted commas” (quotation marks) symbolize explicit borrowing; without them, listeners may assume a thought is new. But the speaker may simply have absorbed the idea and forgotten where it came from—an instance of unconscious plagiarism or “cryptomnesia.” The quote highlights how intellectual life is cumulative: ideas circulate, are rephrased, and reappear detached from their origins. It also critiques vanity and credulity—our desire to believe in spontaneous genius, and our readiness to reward it—while urging more humility about influence and more care about acknowledging sources.