Part of a series: Cassie Edwards 1: The First Post | Cassie Edwards 2: Savage Longings | Cassie Edwards Part 3: Running Fox | Cassie Edwards Part 4: Savage Moon | Cassie Edwards Part 5: Savage Beloved | Follow-up: Penguin (Part 1?) | Official Statement from Signet | AP Article Contains Response from Edwards | RWA Responds to Allegations | A centralized document for the Cassie Edwards situation | Updated Statement from Signet | The NY Times Art Section Story | Cassie Edwards: Remarkable Similarities to Laughing Boy
An article about the Cassie Edwards controversy is in today’s New York Times Arts section, (login may be required). Mostly a summary of the incident, it highlights the ethical points we’ve debated, and links to the masterfully huge PDF Candy constructed that lines up the passages we found. Yay Candy!
I also have word from Michelle Styles that an article appeared in the Telegraph under the headline Romantic novelists out of love over plagiarism.
~I wonder how Signet would react with you telling someone who buys books from them to “Bite Me�~
Gosh, I don’t know. I don’t write for Signet.
But I imagine Putnam and Berkley would be fine with it, since they don’t run my life. And as I’m free to say what I please to someone who insults me.
Now, that’s the end of our exchange. I’m done with you.
Nora, you rock!! Samantha instead of immediatly throwing out absurd accusations how about you post something that sounds reasonable about why no one should care about what CE did?
I would love a list also of authors who have supported this issue.
~Why is it when anyone disagrees with the SB or Nora on this blog they get attacked?
It’s ridiculous.~
Could it be that the disagreements come with insults and personal swipes?
Disagree with my opinion, that’s fine. Insult me personally or insult my integrity, I’m hitting back.
Now please point out to me where someone had disagreed with me in a reasonable manner and had me attack them.
I’ll apologize.
re: Reverse boycott:
I’ve only got a couple of names, because so many authors post with only their first names or noms, and I just don’t know the players well enough. So I’ve got Shiloh Walker, Carla Cassidy, JoAnn Ross, Maya Reynolds and Julie Leto. If anyone can add to the list I would appreciate it, although I’m not sure my budget will!
Tammy – I don’t see anyone being attacked here other than Nora. Being called a snob and a witch? WTF? For speaking her mind?
When did it become a crime to speak your mind in America?
JC
Dammit, I’m back to not being able to post!!!
Tammy,
Disagreeing is one thing—calling the SBs or Nora names is another entirely.
Have some of the commenters here been a bit too sarcastic in their condemnation of this instance of plagiarism? Hell, yes.
Nora Roberts has not. She’s been extremely professional throughout—up until the (extremely funny, IMO) “Bite me” response above.
And, after the constant attacks and name calling, and imputations of envy and jealousy (which, really, to quote Candy, “bitch, please!”) who in his/her right mind can blame Ms Roberts for it?
Yay, I could post!
Regarding the reverse boycott: Victoria Dahl, Kalen Hugues, Amelia Elias, Alison Kent, Seressia Glass… and I’ll come back when I remember more.
I’ve disagreed with Nora (more than once), and only received a reasonable response and cogent argument in rebuttal to my statement.
“This poor guy has labored in obscurity, writing about polecats,”
You mean polecats actually exist? I thought that was just an ugly name my mama called all my ex-boyfriends.
As for the CE defenders, I really don’t know what to say. I guess I can understand your pain. I’ve experienced having a fave author accused of plagiarism––I read a lot of non-fiction history, and it seems to be rampant in that genre. However, I was angry with the author, not the accuser. How could it be otherwise? They cheated, and I spent my hard-earned cash to buy their book. They’re the only ones I had any right to be angry with. The person who discovers the cheating (stealing) is blameless.
And the attacks on Nora Roberts are absurd. Clearly she can defend herself, but somehow I don’t see someone in her position being jealous or envious of CE. I understand about projection and displaced anger, but perhaps you might want to regroup and think about it a bit more.
Dear Nora Roberts,
I’m not much of a romance reader, but damn, girl…
The next time I’m in the mood for one I’m heading straight to your work.
Ya got anything involving a brooding Scotsman with rippling abs, a tense hunt for a a wild rampaging Haggis and some highland flinging of kilts (Preferably Munro Tartans, but I’m easy)?
Lemme know.
The Smart Bitches reply page eats my posts ALL THE TIME!!! I carefully type in the word verification stuff, then go to Preview, edit, and then hit Submit, and get a reply that I need to type in the WV stuff. I did it already before Preview—and the Preview page doesn’t HAVE a WV box. You hate me, don’t you? It’s all just a game of Whack-A-Mole to you. You don’t consider that I’ve nearly sweated my vibrissae off making profound and brilliant statements…that my poor little paws ache from typing…that I’ve ruined my vestigial eyes reading your posts…NOOO! It’s just whack the Mole and drive her back into her burrow, rejected, enraged, and with tears running down her snout.
Oh, it’s a server problem? Never mind….
Note: Nora Roberts lifted her “Bite me” comment from J.D. Robb. I believe she also swiped her husband.
As an aside, did anyone get an e-mail from Reuters?
My posts keep getting eaten 🙁
Becca: I nominate Marta Acosta for the ‘reverse boycott list’. Some of her comments this week have been absolute crack ups… I am definitely going to check out her books!
MaryJanice Davidson posted in support. I’m not too taken with her books but I’ll buy them for a friend who has been glomming vampire books recently.
Reverse boycott: JCWilder.
Said readers aren’t doing the image of romance novel fans any favors either.
There is the possibility that Samantha just dropped by to stir a little doodoo, and she and her BFs are now chortling gleefully over all the ire they managed to pique. Or am I being too cynical?
In any case, it seems CE had seven books reviewed at All About Romance, and each was given an F. Her work fared no better with Mrs. Giggles, who doled out scores ranging from 0 to 17 (out of 100). So the Bitches are hardly alone in their evaluation.
Universal panning by fairly astute reviewers seems to suggest one thing. Need I say what that is?
(A sidenote: I never did understand the logic in the phrase bite me. Shouldn’t it be something like, “Go bite yourself” or “May a rabid bat bite you”? I mean, damn, I sure don’t want somebody I dislike to bite me. I don’t even want somebody I like to bite me, ferdachrissakes. Just sayin’.)
Reverse boycott:
Jeaniene Frost
I’ve seen several non-romance readers say they love Nora and are now planning to read her books.
To the non-romance reading public, Nora is romance fiction. People who wouldn’t be caught dead reading a romance novel in public or private know who she is. That’s why the media contacted her for a statement.
Reverse boycott: Roslynn Holcomb
and offered her advice on crediting sources.
This continued talk of crediting sources is getting to me. A number of people on both sides of the argument seem to be implying that if Cassie Edwards had just credited her sources everything would be OK.
No. It isn’t that easy.
Following the same reasoning, I guess Janet Dailey could’ve just put in an Author’s Note thanking Nora for all her nice words, right?
(Yes, I realize the examples aren’t quite the same because in this new situation the borrowing is from non-competing sources. But the principle is still the same, I think.)
My point is that hardworking novelists do the research then weave it into their stories IN THEIR OWN WORDS. It isn’t easy and it takes time.
I am guessing CE took these shortcuts to help her write more books than she could have otherwise. Yes, and make more money by taking advantage of the work of others.
Sorry, crediting sources isn’t the answer. Doing the work is.
I’d like to comment on this growing controversy.
First thanks to the Smart Bitches team for this stellar detective work. You ladies are the best!
You should be proud that your blog is all over the net now on newspapers.
Secondly, there are different kinds of research.
Original research is time consuming and requires some money for reduplication and requests made to libraries or historical societies or even just to hire a pro to do the work. Manuscripts also require permission from the holding location (library/historical society etc).
Most research is secondary and the only way to solve the issue really is to *credit the source in a footnote, endnote or author commentary at the end of the book. Understandably readers want a novel and don’t want these distractions…therefore editors and pubs should allow the option for the author to write 1-2 paragraphs at the end of the work mentioning the sources used for the novel.
I write erotica historical fiction…and I do footnote because some details are fascinating and I want to share it with the readers. Although I’m not a published author, I did receive praise from one reviewer for adding footnotes and mentioning where I got my historical details.
“May a rabid bat bite you” sounds good.
May a rabid bat bite anyone who lowers the tone of the discourse here with personal attacks.
All hail Smart Bitches for getting the truth out!
And, yeah, crediting a stolen source just isn’t going to cut it.
Leave Cassie Alone!
Samantha, as we shall all remember her.
I was reading the string of F reviews on AAR and came across this in one of the reviews:
“For several paragraphs, Summer Hope admires a bald eagle that’s perched nobly nearby. Then the evil Frenchman also spends several paragraphs gazing at the same bald eagle. Will the bald eagle warn Summer Hope? Will it fly to Sun Hawk and tell him to save her? Will it have anything to do with the plot at all? No. The eagle does nothing. Things like this happen repeatedly – odd, awkward bits of introspection or description that turn out to be totally irrelevant and superfluous. Soon I was longing for something to happen. Anything. No matter how absurd.”
Hmm… I think someone should pull out their dusty copy of Sun Hawk. And read those reviews. They’re very funny.
Elena Greene said: My point is that hardworking novelists do the research then weave it into their stories IN THEIR OWN WORDS. It isn’t easy and it takes time.
Exactly and well said. If one is not copying another’s research, word for word, or even paraphrasing, there’s a nifty section in most books called “Acknowledgements.”
And do not the publishers have a responsibility to their readers (and in this litigious society, to their shareholders) to perform the simple due diligence that is offered for a price, like the TurnItIn programs, or, failing that, give it the old free Google try?
And finally, after spending much of the day reading tons of articles and posts all around the blogosphere on this subject, I have come up with the excuse that bugs me the most. It’s called the “I’m not perfect, either,” logic of the completely mindless. It usually goes like this: I’m against plagiarism—no, really
I am, but, gosh, you guys, I’m not perfect either, so it’s not really fair to trash Edwards for making a mistake.”
Hey, you know what? I really don’t like, no really, the guy(s) that killed his wife (girlfriend, finance, ex-whatever) when she was eight months preggers, but, hey, I’m not perfect either.
Once again: we ALL get blurry after hours of research, but the answer is stunningly simple, amazingly eloquent: close your research book, step away from your keyboard, take a walk and do the right thing the next time you sit down to write: USE YOUR OWN WORDS. There, was that so hard?
~I never did understand the logic in the phrase bite me. Shouldn’t it be something like, “Go bite yourself†or “May a rabid bat bite you� ~
My genteel southern grandma, far too proper to call someone an SOB, would sweetly drawl, “I hope your mama comes out from under the porch and bites you on the leg.â€
So maybe that’s where “bite me†originated from.
Though Talpianna’s reason made me LOL
Diane
Teddy, you win so hard. 😀
A friend of mine commented tonight (male)
“How many non fiction writers of wildlife or native american history are going to EVER pick up a romance novel in their life and read it? ”
Maybe more than he’d think but really, even if they do, what are the chances they’d pick up the ones that plagiarised their work?
Really Candy and Sarah have done the literary world a big favor.. puts authors on alert.
I only read a few of the side-by-side comparisons. Even I, under-educated and not near as articulate as you bitches, could see the blatant similarities.
This was not a witch-hunt. Those are for unsubstantiated accusal(you know, like the real witch hunts that got ladies burned at the stake).
Nora, you are terrific. I know you don’t need anyone to defend you, but I think Samantha’s comments were way out of line.
I was a very lucky bitch once and got to have lunch with Nora (at HER table). She was absolutely wonderful. Not that that has any bearing on this, I just like to mention it.
Sam
Shame. Check.
You’re all just jealous. Check.
I’m never reading
Nora Roberts
Author X again. Check.
You’re evil people who just have a hate on for poor Cassie. Check.
And you kick kittens. Check.
And you’re mean. Check.
DOUBLEPLUSUNGOOD, PEOPLE! DOUBLEPLUS!!! DOESN’T THAT MEAN ANYTHING TO YOU?! I’M WHINING HERE!
I think the coffee I was drinking hit the monitor via the nasal passage at Nora’s unreasoned comment. Comeback city! Way to go!
As for reasoned and thoughtful posts, I’ve read at least 6 of hers concerning the Cassie Edwards fiasco, so she gets to have at least one knee-jerk comment in resposnse to the hysterical finger pointing, and, dare I say, overwrought emotional accusations of Samantha. At least in my book.
People, people (by which I mean fangirls of Cassie) – why can’t you just settle your feathers and take a long hard sober look at the facts of the matter, instead of getting ruffled and throwing out the personal attacks on the poor lil whistle-blowing Bitches?
Gosh, I must just be confused about the whole thing. The fact that this insgnificant little blog (ahem) has made several notable newspages, as well as made the romance industry itself start issueing statements – well. It means nothing? Gimme a break.
If there’s smoke, surely there must be some fire? Or is the just the smouldering of fangirl fury?
Note to Samantha – WAKE UP!
God, Nora, that made me laugh so hard—especially because you are usually so diplomatic. But you know, the troll who reads anything but erotica, or anything that could be construed as erotica might get a bit too excited by the very suggestion of some girl-on-girl “bite me” action here at Ye Olde House o’ Bitches and keel over from an aneurism or something. Just saying…
(I thank God this is Smart Bitches and not Excruciatingly Polite Backbiters.com!)
Here’s a wearable statement on the situation: Savage Plagiarism
Thank you so much for bringing Cassie Edwards’ plagiarism to light. As a youth librarian in a small public library I’m constantly reminding students to put things into their own words and to cite their sources. Just because one CAN cut and paste doesn’t mean one SHOULD. How very disheartening to learn that someone who makes a living with words and should damn well know better has been playing fast and loose with others’ works.
Your research inspired me to run to the stacks on my break today and I’ve got two more notches to add to Cassie Edwards’ bedpost of shame. 15 minutes with RACING MOON (2003, ISBN 0451208412, Signet) and Google brought the following to light:
Pretty clear case of plagiarism #1, p. 100-101
“The stalks with the longest joints are selected and taken home,” Star Woman said, cutting and laying them aside on dry land. “They will be kept damp until splitting time. For splitting, a round stalk is notched across one end with a sharp knife, then twisted with a wringing motion of both hands. The strips are split and split again until each one is about half an inch wide. The smooth outside layer is then peeled with the teeth from the pithy white inner layer. These peeled splits are placed in the dew for two weeks to bleach out the natural green color.”
Apparent Source Material…Chitimacha Basketry!
http://www.chitimachacrafts.com/basketry.htm#_edn1
“Stalks with the longest joints are selected and taken home, where they are kept damp until splitting time. For splitting, a round stalk is notched across one end with a sharp knife, then twisted with a wringing motion of both hands. The strips are split and split again until each one is about half an inch wide. The smooth outside layer is then peeled with the teeth from the pithy, white inner layer. These peeled splits are placed in the dew for two weeks to bleach out the natural green color of the cane. ”
This article, btw, cites the original source as:
Interview with Ada V. Thomas. Carpenter, Gwen. “Two Hands Hold the Secret of Chitimacha Basketry.†Louisiana Life Nov./Dec. 1984. 92-93.
Pretty clear case of plagiarism #2, still RACING MOON p. 239-240
“A little boy named U’stapu was lying ina bunk close to the shore,” Changing Bird said, his eyes roving slowly from child to child. “His people had come to Louisiana land from the prairies and wanted to cross the river, but the wind was too high. As he lay there, U’stapu discovered a boy fanning himself with a fan of turkey feathers.”
He held his fan out before them. “A fan such as mine,” he said nodding.
Then he resumed fanning and talking. “This boy fanning himself with a fan of turkey feathers was the boy that makes the west wind,” he said. “Then U’stapu said to his people, ‘I can break the arm of the boy that makes the west wind so that the wind will stop.’ Al laughed at him, but he took up a shell, threw it at the boy who was making the wind, and broke his left arm.”
He smiled from child to child, then said, “Therefore, my children, when the west wind is high, this boy who controls the west wind is using his good arm, and if it is gentle, he is using his broken arm. Before the boy’s arm was broken, the west wind used to be very bad, because the west wind maker could change hands, but since then it has been much gentler. It is possible that this boy made the other winds, also.”
Apparent source material: “Indian Tribes of the Lower Mississippi Valley and Adjacent Coast of the Gulf of Mexico” by John R. Swanton aka Bulletin 43 of the Smithsonian Institution Bulletin of American Ethnology printed in 1911. http://tinyurl.com/ypghx8
The following story is told of the west wind:
A little boy named U’stapu was lying in a bunk close to the shore of a lake. His people had come there from the prairies in order to cross, but the wind was too high. As he lay there, U’stapu discovered a boy fanning with a fan of turkey feathers. This was the boy that makes the west wind. Then U’stapu said to his people: “I can break the arm of the boy that makes the west wind.” All laughed at him, but he took up a shell, threw it at the boy who was making the wind, and broke his left arm. Therefore, when the west wind was high, the Indians used to say this boy was using his good arm, and if it was gentle, they said he was using his broken arm. Before that time the west wind used to be very bad, because the wind maker could change hands, but since then it has been much gentler. It is possible that this boy made the other winds also.
Pretty clear case of plagiarism #3 p. 324-325 of STORM RIDER (2002, ISBN 0786252197, Thorndike Press) This was also published in paperback by Signet in 2002, ISBN-13: 9780451207555.
Their costumes consisted of deer skins, shirts, and leggings painted a bright yellow. Their faces were painted with yellow stripes. A dressed fox skin was spread out on each of their shoulders, the heads of which lay on their breasts. The tails hung down their backs, and the whole skin was fringed with colored porcupine quills and bells. Polished buttons were placed in the eyeholes.
The dancers each wore a headdress of fox teeth, bored and strung, and stretched across the middle of the head from ear to ear. A lock of their hair was tied in front, projecting out several inches. The rest was combed straight down behind, and decorated with four eagle feathers.
Their lances were wrapped with fox skins cut in strips, and the tails of that animal were sewn onto the handle every twelve inches or so.
Some of the warriors also would carry their bows and quivers at their sides during the performance.
Talking Rain saw several women go stand behind the drummers. They began singing along with the drumming, and whistling as the warriors lined up for their special dance in front of the fire.
They began at a swift pace, moving in a circle that resembled the coiling of a snake.
After winding up in this form, they all commenced jumping up and down, striking one foot after the other on the ground as they kept exact time with the music. Suddenly a flourish on the drums and a shout from the dancers concluded that round. Their places in a straight line were resumed and they stopped. A warrior stepped forward and pretended that he was counting coup with his lance, then spoke for a while of his exploits as a warrior.
This was followed by more dancing, which was again followed by another warrior speaking. All who wished to spoke, the drums denoting by taps the value and number of coups counted by each.
Apparent source material, p. 561 of the Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution no.46 1928-1929 published in 1933. Available on the web at http://tinyurl.com/ywq7p8
Their costume consists of a deer or antelope skin, shirt, and leggings painted a bright yellow, and their faces painted with yellow stripes, besides other forms. A dressed fox skin being slit in the middle, the head of the man is thrust through, the skin spread out on his shoulders, the head of which lies on his breast, and the tail hangs down his back, the whole skin being fringed round with colored garnishing of porcupine quills, bells, and polished buttons placed in the eyeholes of the animal in the skin.
A headdress of fox’s teeth, bored and strung, is stretched across the middle of the head from ear to ear, a lock of their hair is tied in front, which projects out several inches, and the rest combed straight down behind, to which at about the middle is attached four war eagle feathers. Their lances are wrapped with fox skins cut in strips, and the tails of that animal sewed on the handle every 12 inches or so. Some also carry their bows and quivers of arrows at their side during the performance.
After, having been warned of the meeting, and preparing in the above manner, they assemble at the sound of several drums and whistles at the spot appointed, being generally near the center of the camp. Here they form in line during the drumming and singing, which is kept up by five or six men and women who are invited for the purpose (this music) taking their stand to one side, the women as usual behind the drums, who sing, but take no part in the dance.
When ready they all start off at a swift pace and describe the movement of the coiling of a snake, and when wound up in this form, all commence jumping up and down, striking one foot immediately after the other on the ground, keeping exact time, and all singing with the music for the space of about a minute, when a general flourish on the drums and a shout or yell from the dancers concludes that round, and their places in line are resumed.
Some one of them now steps forward and counts his coups in the same manner as pointed out in the Brave Dance, which is succeeded by another movement in dancing, which is again followed by another speaking, and so on until all who wished have spoken, the drum denoting by taps the value and number of coups thus counted by each.
Off to write my letter to Signet,
Cindy
http://www.beyondutopia.net/writing-survival-guide/plagiarism/
http://www.ou.edu/provost/pronew/content/Nine-Things-Plagiarism.pdf
Here are two links explaining plagiarism. Samantha, if you’d like to pass them on, you may. The first time I learned about pagiarism was in middle school. That education continued through high school and college. For a person who claims on her website that she dreamt of being an English teacher and is a “prolific writer” (as you stated in your post) who has sold 10 million copies of her books, I would like to think plagiarism is something she would know about. After all, it would be unfair of me to reprint her work, change the characters names, and slap my own name on the cover, right?
Ignorance is a poor excuse for what appears to have occurred. I can respect someone who says “yes I did it, it was wrong, and I apologize to my readers and most especially to the writers from whom I borrowed words.” I can respect someone who continues her craft after she has been shamed and does it in her own word. What I can’t respect is someone who flat denies wrongdoing when the evidence is, frankly, quite startling and blatant.
I also respect an author who speaks out for what she believes in despite being called jealous, snobbish, and witchy. Petty name calling is unneccessary.
I am glad that Nora Roberts brought whatever added attention to this issue that she did, and that she has no compunction in speaking out about plagiarism. It’s kind of sad, though, that such a thing requires or is perceived to require any special level of courage. That there is fear of backlash in speaking out about an issue that affects every author is the thing that reflects badly on the Romance community, IMO, NOT anything Roberts said.
That said, I don’t think any author is a saint. When I saw one of my favorite authors hammer a reader on a popular Romance message board, it was a good reminder to me that people are people no matter what they do, and no author is inherently superior of inferior to any reader. Consequently, I don’t see Roberts as a savior or Edwards as a destroyer of Romance. One of the problems we seem to keep running up against is this tendency to focus on personality rather than what happened in a certain author’s books. And I see that happening on both sides of the Edwards/Roberts divide.
Not that I don’t think we can take the *position* of authors into account when discussing their words or actions, but IMO we’re still very much in the realm of persona, not of the person, who exists beyond and outside public comments and appearances.
One thing I periodically wonder, though, is whether you don’t see more moderate dissent in threads like this one because more moderate dissenters are afraid to post for fear that what happened to Samantha here will happen to them. NOT that I endorse what Samantha said or how she said it. I do, though, think I understand why it’s those more extreme voices that make it through, because IMO this place CAN feel intimidating, especially to someone who isn’t used to posting here or who doesn’t want to deal with even the possibility of being hammered.
I’ve made comments I thought were pretty neutral over the years and have gotten a veritable shit storm in response, and I consider myself somewhat reasonable and fairly self-confident when it comes to standing up for my beliefs. So I lurked for a good while before I started posting here. IMO this board feels very different from the inside than the outside, and while I don’t think that’s good or bad, sometimes I do wish more new voices felt comfortable being heard here, especially those of rational dissent. I’m not sure there’s a good way to have that happen, though, without altering the open and free nature of the discussion that does happen.
It sort of makes the point that Edwards’ readers didn’t pick up on this stuff because they didn’t have the intellectual chops.
I *really* disagree with this, especially as someone who has had an almost uncanny knack for identifying plagiarism in my university students. I don’t read fiction looking for lifted passages, nor do I think most readers do. As a Native American Studies scholar, I think I might very well have picked up on the tone shift in the Edwards books, but I don’t know at all if I would have a) known to Google the phrases and b) thought enough about it to even pursue some kind of checking. And obviously all the reviewers who gave Edwards’s books D’s and F’s didn’t check, either, and I wouldn’t characterize them as CE fans.
Also, I consider myself to be reasonably intelligent, and I have appallingly bad taste in lots of stuff, from food (yum Cheetos) to tv (every bad reality television show known to humankind) to movies (“Bio Dome” for god’s sake!). Anyway, I don’t think there’s a positive correlation between intelligence and taste, and if I were a Cassie Edwards fan I’d be scared, frankly, to wander into this thread.
rebyj,
I don’t know, I’m a scholar and while I read a lot of fiction relating to my field when I was younger, I do so less and less the more educated I am on the subject I study. Minor mistakes that could have been easily avoided by research bother me, but truth be told, I’ve discovered that even obscure inaccuracy in fiction within my field will completely take me out of the story.
So as a consequence I do avoid fiction within my field unless I’m reading it specificially for scholarly reasons, and in that case I’m reading it completely differently. If I’m picking up a popular movie or novel to use in teaching it usually has to have some obvious unique point of view that will help students understand the subject better.
Cassie Edwards books don’t scream that to me, and were I a Native American scholar she’d be the last thing I’d want to pick up for pleasure reading. Add to that that it is not sufficiently unique within the subject area, and it’s unlikely I’d have picked up one of her novels to keep up on what popular material I could use in a class.
This blog has already been established as one where there are all sorts of opinions about a subject. That being said, I have yet to see invective being hurled at people who avoid the words “shame”, “viscious” [sic] and “witch”. Of course, I have yet to see a well-reasoned argument in favour of copy/paste/publish as your own.
Blakely said: Ignorance is a poor excuse for what appears to have occurred. I can respect someone who says “yes I did it, it was wrong, and I apologize to my readers and most especially to the writers from whom I borrowed words.†I can respect someone who continues her craft after she has been shamed and does it in her own word. What I can’t respect is someone who flat denies wrongdoing when the evidence is, frankly, quite startling and blatant.
I just wanted to clarify my above post, because this seems like it might be directed at me (if it’s not, well, it’s probably good for me to clarify as well).
It might not have come across that way, but I agree with Blakely. I think it is important that Edwards admit wrongdoing. I mostly don’t think that Edwards should be dropped by her publisher or have her romance writing career come to an end over this. And honestly, from the glee (yes, I’ll say it: glee) that people do seem to derive from this topic, I think that some people wouldn’t mind seeing that happen. I’m not referring to any one person in specific here – really not, the person who first discovered the plagiarism is a close friend of mine and I completely support the idea of bringing it to light.
But maybe I grew up in a different school system than you, Blakely, because in the California public schools where I got my grammar-middle-high school education, only the honors classes got taught about plagiarism (and I took both honors and non-honors classes; I know). I think that people assumed that non-honors kids wouldn’t care enough to plagiarize. As a writing tutor at a very selective college, I am often put in a position to explain plagiarism to my freshman tutees. Some of them have never been taught when they need to cite passages and when they are too closely aping another work.
I hate to say it, because it doesn’t say a lot for our world, but there is the possibility that a person like Ms. Edwards might be honestly ignorant. And that isn’t a “good excuse,” in the sense that she still needs to apologize. But I think it is important to talk about, if it is the case, because it’s a symptom of a serious problem.
Maybe I’m letting my outside experiences slip into this, maybe my experiences in school and in tutoring aren’t applicable… I’m honestly not sure anymore. Maybe I just have had bad luck meeting the few people who honestly never learned, or maybe I’m a pushover and have been accepting lame excuses. I don’t know, I really don’t.
“This continued talk of crediting sources is getting to me. A number of people on both sides of the argument seem to be implying that if Cassie Edwards had just credited her sources everything would be OK.”
I don’t think it would be okay – but it would be a straw in the wind. In the Dan Brown case, and I think with Ian McEwan’s Atonement (certainly the copy I’ve got) the authors credited the source that they were later accused of plagiarising.
Which would suggest, to me, that at the time they felt they’d used the source material properly. Whether they had was then a matter of some debate.
If Ms Edwards had attributed the sources, and then said she hadn’t known it was wrong to quote word-for-word, I’d have still thought it was plagiarism, but I’d have considered the possibility that she genuinely didn’t realise what she was doing.